Family Policy Matters: How Policymaking Affects Families and What Professionals Can Do [4 ed.] 1032318333, 9781032318332

Citation preview

“This fourth edition of Family Policy Matters is another cutting-edge contribution to the field—accessible, positive and practical, and particularly necessary in light of the crises families have faced since 2014. For years now, whenever asked for expertise on how to take family policy research to policy, KB is the name that comes up first – and so it’s fantastic to have so much of her evidence, experience and guidance in one place. A must-have for anyone in the field who has ambitions to engage effectively with policymakers.” Dominic Richardson, Director of the Learning for Well-being Institute, and former Chief of Social and Economic Policy, UNICEF “This updated, edited volume is an essential read for advocates and scholars. Bogenschneider motivates why we should care and how we can build better public policy for families. The chapters are both pragmatic and aspirational, directly engaging with the role of values, politics, exclusion, and economics in policymaking. The book reveals the locations where family policy is born and debated and conveys a restlessness for action. The chapters integrate author experiences, research evidence, personal narratives, and examples of successes and shortfalls. This collection is a must read for changemakers.” Kimberly DuMont, Senior Vice President, William T. Grant Foundation “There is much more focus on what policies for families should be than on how policies are made. This thoughtful and readable book explores the policy process based on decades of experience studying and working with policymakers at varied levels. A fourth edition of this book was necessitated by numerous demographic, social, and economic changes, as well as increased partisanship. Dr. Bogenschneider makes a powerful, non-partisan and non-sectarian argument that public policies are important because they affect families both directly and indirectly though their intended goals and unintended consequences. She notes the many contradictory forces that complicate policy, particularly a conflict between American individualism and values supporting marriage and family. Even defining families is challenging, as structural versus functional definitions highlight conflicting goals. She endorses solid research; but her own research indicates the value of empirical research and theory that are leavened by interaction with policymakers.” Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Senior Scholar and Former President, Child Trends “Karen Bogenschneider outlines the influence of policies, laws, and programs on individual and family development, a necessary dialog that remains a road less traveled. The Theory of Paradox is one of the compelling gems of this work, positioning students, instructors, and readers to critically analyze an issue, law, program, or policy from multiple perspectives to unpack the intentional and unintentional consequences. When seasoned with civility, commitment, and compassion for others, persons who practice the paradox theory are more apt to reach a consensus on how best to address the issue.” Tammy L. Henderson, Ph.D. (she, her)

“Dr. Bogenschneider has done it again! The fourth edition provides an essential update for the field—providing a pragmatic and hopefully outlook on the role of science to inform public policies for families and children. It offers both new entrants and seasoned veteran’s valuable insights as they are considering the current state of family policy.” Max Crowley, Professor of HDFS & Public Policy, Director, Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative, Penn State University “New research described in this fourth edition brings to the fore the voices of legislators themselves, their hopes, fears, and frustrations—and their sometimes successful strategies in the family policy arena. It’s striking how little prior research has ignored the perspectives of the people who make family policy in the trenches. From her own recent research with policymakers, Bogenschneider offers ten best practices for building relationships that yield better public policy for families.” William J. Doherty, Ph.D., Professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota, former president of the National Council on Family Relations, ad cofounder of Braver Angels

Family Policy Matters This new edition captures the evolving, post-pandemic landscape of family policy—the transformational changes that have occurred within contemporary families and the social, economic, and racial/ethnic disparities that have grown across families. The book draws on policies from around the globe to make an evidence-based case for family policy and its contributions to families and society. Bogenschneider tackles a significant challenge of our times—the polarization of politics—including why it occurs and how professionals can bridge the divide. Beyond the basics, the book provides best practices for turning analysis into action by drawing on cutting-edge research and a point of view often overlooked in policy books— the voice of policymakers themselves. Imbued with hope yet fundamentally realistic, Bogenschneider applies a relationship-based and strikingly nonpartisan approach for those who want to make a positive difference for families, whether they engage local policymakers in towns, cities, and counties; state/national lawmakers; or decision-makers in businesses, nonprofits, and philanthropy. Accompanied by updated, web-based teaching materials and a family impact toolkit, this is core reading for undergraduate and/or graduate courses in family or social policy taught in human development and family studies, psychology, counseling, social work, sociology, public policy, political science, and education. It is also essential reading for professionals and policymakers interested in pursuing better public policy for families in all their diversity across the lifespan. Karen Bogenschneider is a Rothermel-Bascom Professor Emeritus of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is widely recognized in the United States and abroad for her expertise in evidence-based family policy—studying it, teaching it, and doing it.

Family Policy Matters How Policymaking Affects Families and What Professionals Can Do FOURTH EDITION

KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER

Designed cover image: Jeff Miller/University of Wisconsin–Madison Fourth edition published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Karen Bogenschneider The right of Karen Bogenschneider to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2002 Third edition published by Routledge 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Bogenschneider, Karen, author. Title: Family policy matters : how policymaking affects families and what professionals can do / Karen Bogenschneider. Description: Fourth edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | “First edition published by Routledge 2002”--Title page verso. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023027682 (print) | LCCN 2023027683 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032318332 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032318325 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003311577 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Family policy--United States. | United States--Social policy. Classification: LCC HQ536 .B615 2024 (print) | LCC HQ536 (ebook) | DDC 306.85/0973--dc23/eng/20230725 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023027682 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023027683 ISBN: 9781032318332 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032318325 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003311577 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577 Typeset in Times New Roman by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd. Access the Instructor and Student Resources: www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider

To My Family: For Instilling in my Heart Why Families Matter

ix

CONTENTS Foreword Preface Acknowledgments About the Author

xi xv xxi xxv

P art 1 WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT FAMILY POLICY

1

1 IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT FAMILY POLICY

3

2 WHY WE SHOULD FOCUS ON FAMILIES IN POLICYMAKING AND WHY WE DON’T

31

3 WHY DO WE NEED FAMILY POLICY? A GLOBAL RATIONALE

57

P art 2 THE BASICS OF FAMILY POLICY AND THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS

79

4 TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN, FAMILY POLICY NEEDS FRESH DEFINITIONS

81

5 WHAT ARE FAMILY POLICIES ANYWAY? WHO MAKES THEM AND WHO SHAPES THEM?

103

6 WHAT POLICYMAKERS AND THE POLICY PROCESS ARE REALLY LIKE

121

P art 3 WHAT FORCES INFLUENCE THE FORMATION OF FAMILY POLICY

143

7 HOW MUCH ARE FAMILIES CHANGING? HAVE FAMILY POLICIES KEPT PACE?

145

8 HOW INDIVIDUALISM IS WOVEN INTO OUR FAMILIES, OUR WORK AND PLAY, AND OUR POLITICS

165

xCONTENTS

9 HOW THE ECONOMY INFLUENCES FAMILIES AND HOW FAMILIES INFLUENCE THE ECONOMY 187 1 0

WHY POLARIZATION INFLUENCES FAMILY POLICY AND HOW TO BRIDGE THE DIVIDE: GUIDANCE FROM THE THEORY OF PARADOX 205

P art 4 HOW PROFESSIONALS CAN MAKE FAMILIES MATTER IN POLICYMAKING 241 1 1

A TOOLKIT FOR INFUSING THE FAMILY IMPACT LENS INTO POLICY, PROGRAMS, AND PRACTICE 243

1 2

WHAT INSIGHTS FROM THE PAST CAN GUIDE FAMILY POLICY IN THE FUTURE? 273

1 3

HOW TO ENGAGE POLICYMAKERS IN FAMILY POLICY: BEST PRACTICES FROM THEORY, RESEARCH, AND THE FAMILY IMPACT SEMINARS 295

1 4

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS: THE CRITICAL CHOICE OF ADVOCACY OR EDUCATION 331

1 5

GO FORTH WITH HOPE TO MAKE FAMILIES MATTER IN POLICYMAKING 361

References 377 Index 421

xi

FOREWORD BY WILLIAM J. DOHERTY, PHD

Professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota, former president of the National Council on Family Relations, and cofounder of Braver Angels. Sometimes a new edition of a classic text comes more from a publisher’s wish to make sure the book keeps being adopted for courses than from developments in the field that merit an update. The fourth edition of Family Policy Matters is another story completely. The world has changed dramatically since the 2014 edition, and the author and others in the field have done important new work that begs to be written about. How the world has changed hardly needs documentation. Here are four highlights: • A striking increase in political polarization since the 2016 presidential election. This polarization has exacerbated chronic divides between the political parties and spread toxicity from national politics to state and local politics. In contrast to the old dictum that “all politics is local,” it increasingly seems that “all local politics is national,” with state and local levels mirroring national divides between red and blue. Family Policy Matters breaks new ground by linking a half-century of contentious views about changes in family life to the larger picture of polarization and describes how family professionals can help to bridge this divide. • The collective shock of the COVID-19 pandemic, which thrust public health policy into the political divide, further polarized the nation, made previously apolitical school boards subject to attacks and takeovers, and divided extended families who took sides on health protective measures. • Further erosion of trust in social institutions, including all branches of government, the media, religion, universities, and health care. Growing distrust of academic and professional expertise has made the appeal to common sources of evidence less effective in resolving policy differences. We don’t have common facts in policy debates because we don’t trust the same sources of information. • Public changes in how we deal with sexuality have been mixed. On the one hand, we now have legalized same-sex marriage and a population more accepting of gay and lesbian people, while we have new bitter divides, politically and attitudinally, on people who identify as trans on the other.

This edition of Family Policy Matters speaks to this new environment with an admirable mix of theoretical insights, practical strategies, and realistic hope. I will mention a few themes that stood out to me. The American culture of individualism, which has become more potent in a culture of distrust, is a paradigm challenge for developing sound family policy. The end point for most policy proposals in the United States is the well-being of individuals, not families

xiiFOREWORD

(whose functioning, of course, is crucial to the well-being of individuals). In my view, individualism cuts across political lines. Conservatives have tended to place family well-being in the personal, moral sphere of life, not an object of public policy except that the government should reduce tax burdens on families. (The Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the few family subsidy policies popular on the political right.) Liberals, while favoring more activist government policies, tend to focus on services to individual family members, with less attention to the role and functioning of family units. I recall frustrating conversations with liberal health care policy experts who equated support for frail elders with professional services for individuals and could not imagine how family members could be supported by the government to care for their loved ones in the home. Although some leading conservatives and liberals have been shifting in recent years, increasing acceptance of individualism is a common response to a fractured society. An antidote to individualism is a relational approach, which is a cornerstone of Bogenschneider’s model of family policy development. A relational approach may seem obvious, but it’s not universally employed by family policy experts. Rather, it is tempting to see the role of family professionals sending research summaries to policymakers but staying safely in our ivory towers. When policymakers ignore our offerings, we fault them for being ignorant or self-serving, and we wait for another election to create more openness. Twentyfive years of experience has shown Bogenschneider that policymaking is fundamentally a relational activity, not just a knowledge transmission activity. Policymakers will not accept our research evidence outside of a relationship of trust. In my own experience with policymaking in Minnesota, strong personal relationships with a couple of key policymakers have been crucial for seeing good family policies come to fruition. A relational approach means understanding policymakers in their humanity and complexity. New research described in this fourth edition brings to the fore the voices of legislators themselves, their hopes, fears, and frustrations—and their sometimes successful strategies in the family policy arena. It’s striking how little prior research has ignored the perspectives of the people who make family policy in the trenches. From her own recent research with policymakers, Bogenschneider offers ten best practices for building relationships that yield better public policy for families. In my own work with Braver Angels, a nonprofit seeking to reduce polarization and bridge the partisan divide, I’ve seen the power of workshops where elected officials listen to one another answer this question: “What life experiences have influenced your values and beliefs about public policy and public service.” As a Member of Congress (who introduced himself as being “conservative as the day is long”) said after an exercise where he and his colleagues answered this life experience question, “You can’t fight someone in the same way when you know their heart.” Far from being an overly idealistic approach to developing family policy, Bogenschneider’s relational approach is fundamentally realistic when we realize that we have to appeal to both liberals and conservatives in a nation with divided government at most levels. A fundamental way to do this is by offering the best academic knowledge free of ideological content and partisan slant. I’ve participated in Bogenschneider’s Family Impact Seminars in Wisconsin where she brought together legislators and staff

FOREWORD 

xiii

from both sides of the aisle to hear the latest research related to the wellbeing of families. She told us to be as objective as possible and not propose or support specific policy solutions at this stage of the policymaking process. And we had to be able to boil down our points to a one-page fact sheet for those who did not hear our full presentation. This approach gives policymakers a common information base upon which to forge policies that might be acceptable to multiple stakeholders—and ultimately have a chance to be implemented and benefit families. And it furthers the development of trusting relationships with policymakers. In my own experience, it also creates the opportunity to steer policymakers away from incorrect, unsupported, or biased sources of information that have come their way. This edition of the book, Family Policy Matters, is grounded in challenging work that has yielded some modest victories but no major breakthroughs in family policy. Policy development can be enormously frustrating, as when two years of patient building towards an evidence-based, bipartisan consensus comes to naught when a legislative committee chair decides not to hear the bill because he was not invited to be a co-sponsor. (That happened to me!) Or when a national political figure or news outlet takes a sudden self-serving interest in a family policy area, branding it with a nefarious takeover of family life. So why is the book imbued with so much hope and enthusiasm? In the face of these barriers, Karen Bogenschneider believes in the possibility of lifeenhancing family policies and in the contributions family professionals can make to the development of these policies. I sense that for Karen, hope is an ethical stance. Family policy is made by human beings with all of our strengths and flaws. It’s a long game requiring a vision for a better world for families and a commitment for each of us to do our part.

xv

PREFACE

Why a fourth edition? The story of family policy has changed since the third edition in 2014. Families have changed, policies have changed, and politics has changed. What does this revision bring to the new story of family policy? Let me summarize the 180,000 words in this book in ten words: It is possible to build a better public policy for families. Is my claim that there are better ways of doing public policy than the illusion of an eternal optimist? I think of myself as a “wide-eyed” optimist who chooses optimism with both eyes wide open to its perils and pitfalls. I speak of optimism grounded in experience. For 25 years, I had one foot in the hallowed walls of the Ivory Tower and the other foot in the harried halls of state capitols. I have interviewed dozens of legislators over the years about how we could do better in bringing research to them through the long-standing Family Impact Seminars (a series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports for engaging policymakers around research evidence). I sat right across the desk from 125 legislators in our recent study and heard in their own words why they ran for office. I heard stories of incredible triumphs after working for years to pass a policy that they cared deeply about. I heard tales of tribulation when legislators immersed themselves in causes they believed in, but were unable to rally enough support from their colleagues. I also have heard the triumphs and tribulations of countless researchers who have navigated the research-policy divide. I have trained hundreds of policy-minded professionals in this country and abroad, including conveners of the Family Impact Seminars and members of professional societies, such as the American Psychological Association, the National Council on Family Relations, the National Science Foundation, and the Society for Research on Child Development. I have been traversing the family policy landscape for a quarter of a century. Making families matter in policymaking is not a narrow pursuit down a single path. Instead, the journey entails exploring several roads, many that may end up being dead ends or wrong turns. There is no guarantee of arriving at the promised land of evidence-based family policy. But sometimes we do reach our desired destination. I have witnessed with awe and amazement how policymakers have used research in ways that benefit the lives of countless children and families. When it happens, it is a beautiful thing to behold. I write this book for other travelers, who are considering a journey into family policymaking. It takes knowledge of research in several fields including families, policymaking, and political activism. Each field brings its own complexities and contradictions. This book is written to introduce you to the family policy landscape with an eye to relaying its vast possibilities, its rich rewards, and its discouraging detours. Interwoven throughout the book is the knowledge that can be acquired from cutting-edge research and the wisdom that can be gained from the stories of fellow travelers. And there is advice from a voice that surprisingly is often missing in policy books—that of

x v i  P R E FA C E

policymakers themselves. Policymakers’ insights are interspersed throughout the book, and most chapters begin with their own words from our recent study. Most importantly, the book is written to bring hope to readers that family policy is worth their time and effort. It is only through political hope that readers will be moved to take action, large and small, in the pursuit of new policy possibilities for families in all their diversity across the lifespan. In the preface, I map out the journey and what the traveler can learn from each stop along the way. Chapter 1 speaks to readers who want to make a difference in the world but are reluctant to journey into the policy arena. Real-life stories are told of the big changes that activists have made in civil rights, child and family poverty, independent living, smoking bans, and the rights of people with disabilities. These activists moved away from “political hobbyism” that happens in front of computer screens in one’s comfort zone. Instead, they engaged in “real political work” that happens in the policy arena. Take, for example, a high school student who initiated a lawsuit that along with others resulted in the landmark Supreme Court decision that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Three organizers created the Black Lives Matter movement, which has grown into a global network with more than 40 chapters. Chapter 2 examines why families are marginalized in policymaking considering both the dominant stakeholders and prominent societal forces. With some exceptions, majorities of policymakers, professionals, and the public endorse the importance of families to a strong and vital society. Despite this support, five political, demographic, economic, cultural, and educational forces make it difficult to turn lofty family rhetoric into real policies and programs. Americans are skeptical about how big a role government should play in family life. Rapid transformational changes have occurred within contemporary families at the same time that social, economic, and racial/ethnic inequalities have grown across families. Cultural tensions remain between individual rights and family responsibilities, and professionals are inadequately prepared to engage in evidence-based family policymaking. Chapter 3 provides an evidence-based case for why family policy should be a distinct subfield of social policy. Families effectively and efficiently raise responsible children who become caring, committed contributors in a strong democracy and competent workers in a sound economy. In addition, families are upheld as a normative ideal that benefits the policy process by fostering political consensus and the finding of common ground. The chapter provides examples of policies that are put in place to support the many contributions that families make to society in developed and developing nations, in small and large countries, in North and South America, and in Europe and Asia. In contrast to family policies around the globe, the government plays a smaller role in the United States because of the individualistic values that shape public policy, the perceived privacy of family functions, and the reliance of policy on consumer and labor markets. Chapter 4 proposes that positioning family policy as a field of its own depends on clear definitions—knowing what it is, what it is not, and what it can achieve. Fresh definitions

P R E FA C E 

xvii

are proposed that define family policy as an “ends” and a “means” of the policy process. The “ends” refer to what effects policies have on family outcomes for diverse families. The “means” refers to how and why these outcomes occur. Examples are given of how families can be used by government, business, or other organizations as a means to accomplish goals that serve institutional interests more than family interests. A broad range of policies are defined as indirect family policies because they are intended to directly affect individual well-being, but also have indirect effects on families. Embedded in these definitions of families and family policy are their potential to broaden political discourse by adopting a holistic, altruistic, lifespan perspective that extends from the cradle to the grave in the only social sphere that encompasses multiple generations. Chapter 5 covers how families do not operate within the confines of the “family bubble”, but are affected by the policy context in which they operate. Family policies are crafted in a bewildering array of places, ranging from multinational organizations to neighborhood associations. Family policies are made in assorted spaces, ranging from the street level where people work and play right up to the top-level suite where executives meet. The chapter chronicles recent family policy developments including international conventions, court decisions, executive orders, and laws passed at the federal, state, and local levels. The investments that philanthropic foundations make are small relative to what the government can provide, yet they have had an outsized impact on family policy in launching political agendas and creating policy change. Family policies have been patched together in a piecemeal pattern that responds to specific individual needs for particular families and are implemented in fragmented and siloed ways. Chapter 6 overviews the basics of what policymakers are like and how the policy process works in a democracy. The policy process is illustrated with the circuitous route of how home visitation became the law of the land. The chapter covers the process of how a bill becomes a law and describes the culture of lawmaking bodies that sets constraints on what policymakers can and cannot do. Despite initial negative stereotypes, professionals who work closely with policymakers report that they come to hold great respect for the dedication and skills of those who make public policy and for the policy process itself. Stories are also told of policymakers who acted with great political courage at their own peril. Chapter 7 reviews some of the most rapid changes in family structure in human history. Transformational changes have occurred within families including the remarkable rise in cohabitation, the stunning decline in marriage, the dramatic drop in the stability of children’s lives, and the looming gap between the demand and supply of family caregivers for older adults. Changes have also occurred across families with growing social, economic, and racial/ethnic inequalities. In some circumstances, family policies have adapted to these changing family circumstances, but the responses have been neither nimble nor efficient. Policies for low-income families benefit married families (more than single parents), working families (more than those with members not working), and low-income families (more than those living in deep poverty).

x v i i i  P R E FA C E

Chapter 8 describes how individualism can be detrimental to democracy if everyone is considered a self-made person with control over one’s own destiny and with nothing expected from or owed to others. An eye-opening analysis illustrates how individualism is woven into the way Americans think, behave, and live their lives. Individualism pervades public policy by disproportionately targeting individuals with less attention to their families and the roles family members play as educators, health care providers, personnel managers, and social workers. Individualism has also weakened the quantity and quality of research about complex, messy family systems. In an ironic twist, the counterbalance to unbridled individualism comes from families—the first institution to teach commitment to others, empathy, and morality. Chapter 9 explores how families influence the economy and how the economy influences families. Families effectively and efficiently generate the productive workers needed in today’s knowledge-based economies. In turn, the market economy can bring dignity to the disenfranchised by providing jobs that make it possible for workers to contribute to the economy, their community, and their families. Yet the economy works for all only when accompanied by policies that provide pathways for low-income workers into the marketplace and mainstream society. Without these supports, the market can infiltrate family life by interfering with family formation, replacing family functions, and imposing an economic pricing on the priceless value of family life. In the United States, family policies are designed to rely less on government and more on workplace earnings and tax breaks, which provide greater benefits to higher-income families. Chapter 10 focuses on one of the most significant challenges of our times—the polarization of our politics. This chapter introduces the Theory of Paradox that explains why polarization occurs and provides practical guidance on what steps can be taken to bridge the partisan divide. The theory is illustrated with three worldviews of the tidal wave of demographic changes that have occurred in family life over the last 50 years. One camp is concerned about the negative consequences of these family changes, particularly for children, and another camp focuses on the positive consequences of these family changes, particularly for women. A third camp claims families have changed too slowly with insufficient respect and support for family diversity. The Theory of Paradox acknowledges the validity and utility of opposing views that provide a more realistic understanding of family problems and more comprehensive and innovative policy responses. During an era of polarization, several pragmatic strategies are proposed for knowing when and how to engage people in politics even when you disagree. The next five chapters propose additional ways to turn this analysis into action. Chapter 11 describes how the family impact lens is used in this country and globally to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and targeting of policies and programs. A Family Impact Toolkit is provided that applies the family lens to what policies or programs are enacted and to how they are implemented. Family Impact Discussion Starters are targeted specifically to policymakers to help frame the way they think about issues and to guide them in preparing questions or testimony for hearings or committee meetings. Family

P R E FA C E 

xix

Impact Checklists provide principles and accompanying questions that can be used as a stand-alone tool or as the basis for a full analysis of the extent to which policies, programs, and practices advantage or disadvantage family well-being. Chapter 12 forms a foundation for family policy in the future by drawing on pioneering policies of the past. The chapter draws inspiration and insights from one of the strongest lobbies ever seen in Washington, DC that was formed in 1921 to support federal funding for child and maternity care, and from a motherhood movement in 1935 that shaped the foundation of U.S. public social programs to this day. Nowhere else in the world was the government’s response to the problems of working-class mothers and children shaped by the actions of women reformers as occurred at the dawn of the 20th century. Family policy was formally recognized as a field in the 1970s, with each decade bringing major defining questions and controversies. Six insights are drawn from these early experiences to construct a more enduring set of family policies for this century. Chapter 13 overviews the growing body of science and practice on how to build better public policy for families in all their diversity. When policymakers are asked, they report that youth and family issues are a place in policymaking where dialogue is less polarized and decisions are more informed by science. The newly revised Community Dissonance Theory explains why research is underutilized in policymaking and how to improve its use with a better understanding of the inhabitants, institutions, and culture of the policy community. Guided by this theory, the Family Impact Seminars have demonstrated instrumental, conceptual, relational, and institutional impacts on policy decisions and the policy process. Ten best practices are proposed that provide guidance for engaging policymakers around the family policy. Chapter 14 explores another dimension of building family policy by moving beyond what research to communicate to how to approach policymakers. Scholars disagree about whether to advocate for a preferred policy option or whether to educate policymakers by providing evidence on the potential consequences of a range of policy alternatives. The optimal approach may depend on a professional’s context. To dissect the complexities of context, seven guiding questions identify individual, institutional, and cultural considerations that professionals and professional societies can factor into their choices. Once a choice is made, it may well stick for all future efforts. Chapter 15 points to one of the greatest threats of our time—political pessimism. When political pessimism takes hold, engaging policymakers is seen as a waste of time and effort. In contrast, political hope propels people to engage on behalf of others, even when the outcomes are ambiguous, uncertain, and can take time to achieve. Political hope for the future of family policy can be guided by the thinking of researchers, theologians, naturalists, policymakers, and novelists. The successes of the Family Impact Seminars in bringing together researchers and policymakers seed political hope. Political hope is also seeded by the flourishing of evidence-based policy decisions by policymakers, the long-term thinking of theologians, and the observations of naturalists of the remarkable resilience of the animal species during dark times. And recent scientific studies of hope reveal its power in individual and collective success. Time will tell whether Lord

x x  P R E FA C E

of the Rings was right that successful policy engagement can be carried out by humble hobbits, who are not the strongest nor the smartest nor the most talented. Building better public policies for families will not happen from the comfort of our easy chair or the safety of our computer screen. It will take doing the hard work of learning the basic contours of the family policy landscape—what contributions families make to society, how policymakers think about polarization and research utilization in family policy and the ways citizens can engage. It will take knowing the stories of past travelers and learning from their trials and their triumphs. With this knowledge comes the political hope that citizens can act to make the lives of families a little better for this generation and the next. With that hope, let’s begin by embarking on the journey to learn the lay of the land in contemporary family policymaking!

xxi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book rests on the shoulders of giants. Many of these giants will never know the extent of their contributions to my thinking about families and about policy, but nonetheless, my gratitude is deep and sincere. The book began in my own life as a young girl growing up in a cheese factory in southwest Wisconsin in a loving, working-class family. All four of my grandparents were immigrants and I was the first in our extended family to go to college with the strong encouragement of my parents. My Mom had an eighth-grade education and worked alongside my Dad in the business. My Dad worked full-time in the cheese factory but often picked up second jobs to help give us kids more opportunities than he had. I saw all the sacrifices my parents were making, so I worked two jobs during the summers to pay for my own college education at a state school. These early experiences gave me a glimpse into some of the struggles that many families face. After college, I married a wonderful man who shared my personal commitment to providing a loving home for our two sons, Bret and Ross, and who supported my professional commitment to make family life better for families beyond our own. From these humble beginnings came a lifelong curiosity about families, both what happens inside families in all their diversity and how family life is shaped by the conditions outside families, none more important than public policy. Beginning with my early work as a cooperative extension educator in a rural county and later as a professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, my career has been focused on family policy— studying it, teaching it, and doing it. As in the policy world, it is the people and the relationships that matter the most. So many people helped along the way with this book, none more important than the excellent support of Dr. Megan McGlone in wrangling all the references with great competence and good cheer. I appreciate the insights and helpful feedback from those who reviewed chapters—Prof. Elaine Anderson; Prof. Lawrence Berger; Prof. Nadine Marks; Rev. Larry Pinnow; George Piskor, MASc, SM, LLM; Rev. Jonathan Strandjord, and Danielle Zandbergen, PhD. I am deeply grateful for those who provided encouragement during the long days of writing—Mina Bogenschneider, Neil Bogenschneider, Nadine Marks, Marta Pankiv, Rev. Jeanette Strandjord, and Sandra Ware. I also want to bestow special appreciation upon my editor, Lucy Kennedy, who was a constant source of excellent guidance and encouragement. I extend appreciation to the 225 state policymakers who made the time from their busy schedules to participate in our recent study. The study was made possible by the yeoman’s efforts of Elizabeth Day, who was involved in all aspects of data collection and analysis, and Emily Parrott, who managed the data set. Appreciation is also extended to others involved in collecting and analyzing the data, including Heidi Normandin, Lindsay Fuzzell, Meghan Loeser, Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Rob Asen, Whitney Gent, and Bret Bogenschneider. Carrying off a study of this magnitude also takes the support of many staff in legislative and university offices; their behind-the-scenes contributions were essential to the study and are greatly appreciated.

xxiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No single group of people has provided me with more innovative ideas and unwavering support than the former board of directors when I headed the Family Impact Institute. They all served without reimbursement because of their commitment to the cause of evidence-based family policymaking. Their passion is inspiring. Their rewards are vicarious. Hats off to the board members who served over the years: Richard Barrows, Maria Cancian, Tom Corbett, Diane Cushman, Governor Tony Earl, Mary Fairchild, Rep. Curtis Gielow, Jane Grinde, Bill Kraus, Ambassador/Governor Madeleine Kunin, Bob Lang, Mark Lederer, Ruth Massinga, Marygold Melli, Kristin Anderson Moore, Douglas Nelson, Theodora Ooms, Robert Pietrykowski, William Schambra, Denise Skinner, Tim Smeeding, Laurence Steinberg, and Rep. Rebecca Young. My engagement in policymaking described in this book grew out of the advice and guidance of policymakers themselves, who have patiently tried to teach me what the policy world is really like and how to think like a policymaker. Those who make and execute public policies often are maligned and ridiculed. My close work with policymakers has instilled in me a great respect for the contributions they make and their dedication to the public good. I owe a special debt of gratitude to several current and former legislators who served as Seminar and study advisors: Rep. Joan Ballweg, Rep. Peter Bock, Sen. Alice Clausing, Rep. Ed Clere, Sen. Alberta Darling, Rep. Curt Gielow, Rep. Tamara Grigsby, Rep. Stan Gruszynski, Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, Sen. David Helbach, Rep. Gordon Hintz, Sen. Joanne Huelsman, Rep. Jean Hundertmark, Sen. Luke Kenley, Sen. Julie Lassa, Rep. Amy Loudenbeck, Sen. Mark Miller, Rep. David Murphy, Congresswomen Gwendolyn Moore, Sen. Luther Olsen, Sen. Mary Panzer, Rep. Sandy Pasch, Sen. Judy Robson, Sen. Carol Roessler, Rep. Melissa Sargent, Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber, Rep. Donna Seidel, Rep. Gary Sherman, Rep. Pat Strachota, Rep. Susan Vergeront, Rep. Daniel Vrakas, Rep. Joan Wade, Rep. Mandy Wright, and Rep. Rebecca Young. I appreciate the many philanthropists who have encouraged our efforts, pushed our thinking, and provided the financial resources that policy work requires. I will be forever indebted to an Extension colleague, who believed enough in evidence-based family policy to establish a $1/2 million endowment to continue the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars. I hold deep gratitude for this generous gift from Phyllis M. Northway and her husband, Don, given with the gracious support of their niece Eileen Teska. There are so many other donors to thank. The Family Impact Institute, which expanded the Family Impact Seminars to other states has received support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation (Vice President Gail Christopher, Senior Program Officer Jon-Paul Bianchi, and program officers Winnie Hernandez-Gallegos, Alice Warner-Mehlhorn, and Valorie Johnson), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (program officers Kathy Reich, Lisa Deal, and Mary Larner), the William T. Grant Foundation (Vice President Vivian Tseng, President Adam Gamoran, former President Bob Granger, and Senior Vice President Kim Dumont), and the Annie E. Casey Foundation (program officers Michael Laracy, Robert Geen, and Don Crary). Private contributions also have been made by Tom Corbett, Elizabeth C. Davies, Linda Davis, Bobette Heller, and Phyllis M. Northway.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xxiii

I have benefited from excellent staff over the years including Stephanie Eddy, Deb Hewko, Olivia Little, Jessica Mills, Heidi Normandin, Emily Parrott, Jennifer Seubert, and Meg Wall-Wild. One benefit of working at a university is the excellent IT support, especially that provided by Lily Sieling, John Hilgers, Justin Vorel, and Drew Kyser. I also benefited from the opportunity to work with bright, enthusiastic, and hard-working colleagues and students, who pitch in often out of the goodness of their hearts: Nicole Anunson, Karla Balling, Mary Ellen Bell, Libby Bestul, Bethany Brewster, Ross Collin, Mary Beth Collins, Lynn Entine, Lauren Fahey, William Michael Fleming, Bettina Friese, Leah Gjertson, Danielle Greenberg, Ashley Grendziak, Elizabeth Gross, Beverly Hartberg, Mark Japinga, Carol Johnson, Yae Bin Kim, Woon Kyung Lee, Lauren Lewis, Kirsten Linney, Kari Morgan, Jonathan Olson, Lisa Pugh, Elizabeth Ragsdale, Bonnie Rieder, Jennifer Reiner, Aimee Ray, Hilary Shager, Rebecca Shlafer, Beth Swedeen, Amy Taub, Darci Trine, Nicole Wolfe, and Olivia Zabel. Finally, I feel blessed by the support of my family—my husband, children, daughter-inlaw, parents, and grandparents. I want to express my gratitude to them for the greatest contribution of all—instilling in my heart the meaning of family matters, and why it is a worthy pursuit to make all families matter in policymaking. This book builds on my research and outreach. The writing draws from many of my previous publications that are reprinted with permission. Several permissions are acknowledged in specific chapters with others noted here. Copyright @ 2020, American Psychological Association. Bogenschneider, K., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2020). Empirical evidence from state legislators: How, when, and who uses research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000232 Copyright @ 2019, American Psychological Association. Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Parrott, E. (2019). Revisiting theory on research use: Turning to policymakers for fresh insights. American Psychologist, 74(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000460

xxv

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Karen Bogenschneider

Karen Bogenschneider is a Rothermel-Bascom Professor Emeritus of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Dr. Bogenschneider founded and directed for almost 25 years the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars—a series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports that engage state policymakers around rigorous, nonpartisan research. For 15 years, she directed the Family Impact Institute which provides training and technical assistance to about two dozen states that have convened over 250 Family Impact Seminars. Bogenschneider and Thomas Corbett recently released the second edition of Evidence-Based Policymaking: Envisioning a New Era of Theory, Research, and Practice. She has given invited addresses on family policy at the United Nations in Geneva and New York, and in Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, the Netherlands, Qatar, and Taiwan. She also has conducted national trainings on engaging policymakers for professional societies, including the American Psychological Association, the National Council on Family Relations, the National Science Foundation, and the Society for Research on Child Development. She is a Fellow of the National Council on Family Relations and received the Engagement Award from the Board of Human Sciences of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. She was named the winner of the 2021 Wiley Prize for her research, and she was honored by the Wisconsin State Legislature for her service to the state. She recently served on a National Academy of Science Round Table on the communication and application of social and behavioral science research.

Part 1 WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT FAMILY POLICY

1

3

CHAPTER 1 IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT FAMILY POLICY

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

You never know whether a student in this course might have the next great idea that could change the world. (Personal communication from an anonymous student in a family policy course, August 1, 2012)

• Why on earth should I care about family policy? • Is policy an effective way to make a difference for families? • Can political activism really build better public policy? Is it worth my time to get involved? • How can I engage in political activism?

Many students enroll in college because they want to make a difference. Some students want to learn how to improve opportunities for the youngest among us. Some want to acquire ways of caring for the oldest among us. Others yearn to learn how to bring the disenfranchised from the edges of society into the mainstream. In a democracy, public policy has the power to contribute to big changes like these. Yet politics is often seen as a corrupt, influence-driven process that is less intelligent and more polarized than it should be (Brooks, 2019; Smith, 1991). But it doesn’t have to be that way. There are better ways of doing public policy. Becoming better at doing public policy for families begins with learning the basics— what kinds of support families need, how policymaking can respond, and the ways citizens can make it happen. It is easy to skip this basic step under the illusion that one knows about public policy. After all, we live in an era of a 24-hour news cycle with podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, and X at our fingertips (Boorstin, 1985). As long ago as the Middle Ages, thinkers like Nicholas of Cusa recognized the importance of knowledge: The dumbest people in the world are those who think they know. Their certainty about what is true not only pits them against each other, it also prevents them from learning anything new. This is truly dangerous knowledge. For they do not know what they do not know, and their unlearned ignorance keeps them in the dark about most things that matter. (Taylor, 2001, p. 32) DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-2

4

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

The purpose of this book on family policy is to shed light on what you need to know. Becoming enlightened about family policy is not a narrow pursuit down a single path. Instead, the family policy landscape entails exploring several roads to become familiar with the lay of the land. Doing family policy is not an easy journey. To reach the desired destination, the explorer needs to embark with knowledge of several fields, including families, policymaking, and political activism. Each field brings its own complexities and contradictions. Families are complex. They come in many configurations and perform a myriad of functions. Curiously, many of these family functions are private matters. Yet despite their private nature, they serve several public purposes. Policymaking is complex. Policy decisions are made by a mix of people who hold different worldviews and often disagree. One prominent disagreement is over the proper role of government in creating the conditions in which families operate. Political activism is complex. Activists can be young or old. The path to change can be short or long. What’s more, the path is not always straightforward with no guarantee of arriving at the desired destination of evidence-based family policy. What does one need to know about the complexities of families, policymaking, and political activism? A snapshot is provided below that draws upon research and practice. Knowledge comes from science about how civic and political participation is shaped by the characteristics of citizens and their circumstances. Wisdom comes from the stories of those who have gone before about whether to get involved, how to engage in political activism, and what role to play.

What You Need to Know About Families “The United States is a land of contradictions” (Zahn et al., 2003, p. 1797). Families are no exception. Families can bring joy, hope, and satisfaction to our lives along with sorrow, despair, and disappointment (Ooms, 2019). Families can be not only the source of greatest support for children but also the source of greatest harm. Studies show that the most humane and economical way to raise the next generation is through effective parenting (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). When parenting is ineffective, it is the most consistent way to produce youth who become involved in the justice system (Moffitt, 1993). Despite these contradictions, “Family is a powerful and critically important aspect of almost all our lives, which we cannot ignore or trivialize” (Ooms, 2019, p. 20). Contradictions also arise when debating and developing family policy. Prominent among them is whether families are a private matter or a public affair. The dominant culture in the United States places a great value on families. Yet at the same time, the individual is held to be primary. Whether diagnosed through the lens of economics, psychology, sociology, or theology, there is agreement that a primary focus on individuals can be detrimental (see Chapter 8). Excessive preoccupation with self is responsible, in part,

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

5

“for the deterioration of our public life and the disintegration of our personal lives” (Peterson, 1985, p. 3). One source of optimism for me, however, is that students who enter my classroom are concerned not only about themselves but also about their personal relationships (Kunin, 2012). Interpersonal relationships are one way that individuals learn to overcome selfabsorption and value others. It is relationships that are at the heart of the “unselfing” of America (Peterson, 1985). The first place where people form relationships and learn to relate to others is in families—an institution based on love and commitment for one another (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Families provide a moral voice that resists the pull toward self-interest, greed, and the quest for power (Etzioni, 1992). It is in families that we learn the value and joy of commitment to others, even when it imposes a personal cost. At first, we learn in baby steps by demonstrating a commitment to those we know and love. Over time, we expand our horizons to be able to act unselfishly toward those we do not know (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). As aptly put by Edmund Burke: To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind. (Burke, 1968, pp. 1909–1914, paras. 75–99)

Forming relationships in families is primarily a private matter. However, in the Facebook era, the hurt and humiliation of broken relationships extend beyond the private realm when a personal relationship is publicly dropped or access is denied to the online family network (Odasso & Geoffrion, 2023). Families also are a public matter when relationships sour and counseling is provided by a government-funded agency. When relationships end through divorce, only a court can issue the official decree. Records of marriage, divorce, birth, and death are issued through publicly funded agencies. When family members experience neglect or abuse, it is government that conducts investigations, imposes restraining orders, and provides safe, out-ofhome care. Families also are public matters when external societal circumstances or environmental forces impinge on the internal dynamics of family life. For example, if you experience discrimination in school or the workplace, laws are in place to protect you from the loss of advancement, wages, or reputation. When natural disasters occur like an oil spill or hurricane, families receive government assistance with food, clothing, and shelter until they can get back on their feet. Public policies also can help families pick up the pieces during economic downturns such as a pandemic or the closing of a manufacturing plant. In many ways, families are inherently private, yet they also are a public good. When families are strong, they are the most effective and efficient way known for helping a society reach its larger social and economic goals (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010;

6

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Families rear the next generation, financially support their members, and care for those who cannot always care for themselves—the elderly, frail, ill, and those with disabilities. Families are the cornerstone for raising children who become competent workers in a sound economy and caring, committed citizens in a strong democracy (see Chapter 3).

What You Need to Know About Policymaking Policymaking is also plagued by complexities and contradictions. Historically, politics derives from the Greek word polis (city), which represents everything that people do as they assume responsibility for the way society develops. So, politics has come to mean working together with others toward a common purpose. Yet some people see politics as an opportunity, and others see it as an obstacle. For some, politics is expected to be a tug and pull of ideas with decisions reached through deliberation and negotiation among policymakers elected to represent constituents with varying interests and diverse views (Weiss, 1999). Others see politics as dirtied and hold serious misgivings about getting involved in a process perceived as being corrupt, influence-peddling, and power-driven. This book acknowledges that politics is sometimes “dirtied” but cautions that we should not abandon it, given its vast potential to address our nation’s social and economic challenges (Peterson, 1985). The importance of public policy was adroitly explained by Mike Laracy, former Director of Policy Reform and Advocacy at the Annie E. Casey Foundation. He cited the famous bank robber, Willie Sutton. When Willie was asked why he robbed banks, his infamous reply was “because that’s where the money is.” To solve some of the thorniest problems facing society necessitates going where the money is—government. Laracy used this example: All the money the Annie E. Casey and Rockefeller Foundations give away in one year would fund the largest school district in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schools, for only two months (Laracy, 2013). For a society to reach social and economic goals ranging from health care to welfare and from education to immigration, largescale policies are needed that require a massive infusion of financial resources that only government can provide. To make sweeping national reforms in civil rights or voting rights takes the power and reach of policy enacted at the federal level. Public policy also has the potential to support families that are widely recognized as a basic building block of society. Public policy creates the conditions for families to perform their functions by helping its members secure quality child care, find a job, and care for members with disabilities (Bogenschneider et al., 2012). Examples abound of how policy shapes the external environment in which families operate and, in so doing, supports and strengthens internal family functioning (see Table 1.1). For example, without policy, 25 million families would not have received the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which averaged $3,099 for a family with children in 2020. The EITC lifted an estimated 5.6 million people, including nearly 3 million children, out of poverty in 2018 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2023). Furthermore, without policy, there would be no Head Start, which has promoted good health and school

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

Table 1.1  How the Absence of Family Policies Would Affect Families Without family policy: • About 25 million families would not have received the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which in 2020 averaged $3,099 for a family with children. EITC lifted an estimated 5.6 million people, including nearly 3 million children, out of poverty in 2018 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2023). • We would not have Head Start, which has promoted good health and school readiness for more than 30 million children since 1965 (Office of Early Childhood Development, 2020). • There would be no State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which covered 6.9 million children across the country in 2021 (Medicaid.gov, n.d.). • About 41.5 million people would not have received nutritional support from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2021 (KIDS COUNT, 2022). SNAP is the single most important tax and transfer program for reducing deep poverty with the largest benefits for Blacks and Hispanics, single parents, and young and poorly educated parents (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019). In 2019, SNAP lifted an estimated 3.2 million people out of poverty, with 66% being families with children (Food Research and Action Center, 2020). • Over 6.9 million senior citizens would not have received Medicaid long-term care assistance in Fiscal Year 2019, an array of medical and support activities ranging from eating and bathing to medication management (Musumeci et al., 2019). • In 2017, 28.2 million families would not have received the Child Care Tax Credit (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019). In 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act expanded the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,600 per child under age 6 and $3,000 per child up to age 17. About 39 million households (81% of families with children) received advance payments in July 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2023). • In FY 2023, 6.2 million women, infants, and children would not have received nutritious foods, nutrition education, and referrals to health and other social services through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2023).

readiness for more than 40 million children since 1965 (Office of Early Childhood Development, 2020). Beyond the enactment of public policy, the lives of countless citizens are affected by the way that laws are interpreted and applied. For example, in some instances, laws are applied as intended. For example, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. By 2020, 293,000 same-sex couples had married (Moreau, 2020). In other instances, however, the intent of the law is not fully realized. On May 16, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that “separate but equal” schooling is unconstitutional. The law was enforced as intended for about 15 years, with school integration peaking in 1988 and regressing since that time. Despite this uneven record, researchers and activists alike agree that integrating schools has had lasting impacts on equality of opportunity (Abare, 2019).

7

8

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

What You Need to Know About Political Activism Political activism reveals an inherent contradiction in a democratic society. In free societies that are built on the rights of individuals, it is easy to ignore the responsibilities that come with these rights. Perhaps legendary activists John Lewis put it best: We must accept one central truth and responsibility as participants in a democracy: Freedom is not a state: it is an act. It is not some endangered garden perched high on a distant plateau where we can finally sit down and rest. Freedom is the continuous action we all must take, and each generation must do its part to create an even more fair, more just society. (Lewis & Jones, p. 8)

When a skunk is spotted in the garden, citizens may decide to engage in politics (Henig, 2017). Citizens engage in political activism in contradictory ways. Some activists take a passionate approach using only the evidence that supports their position; they attempt to persuade policymakers to their point of view, which they are convinced is the only “right” course of action. In contrast, other activists do not lobby for a particular policy position and instead provide policymakers with research evidence on a range of policy options. The decision is entrusted to policymakers elected to make these decisions based on the belief that the democratic process produces better policies more often than a dictate from a king or a decision of any single individual (see Chapter 14). Political activism, by its very nature, requires individuals to work together with others in pursuit of the common good. As aptly put by Robert Reich, “If there is no common good, there is no society” (Reich, 2018, p. 18). The activism that has grown into successful movements has coalesced activists of varying socioeconomic classes, ethnicities, races, and regions around a common goal. Activists are drawn to issues like civil rights, gay rights, or voting rights because they often are a symbolic struggle over a larger principle, such as racism, equality, or justice (Kinder, 1998). Activists are driven more by this noble goal than by their own struggles or personal gain. For example, Black college students who participated in the civil rights movement in the South in the 1960s were motivated more by anger over society’s treatment of Black Americans, in general, than by any personal discontent they felt about their own lives (Kinder, 1998). Today, virtually all the protests (95%) following the death of George Floyd occurred in majority-White counties of the United States (Buchanan et al., 2020). As eloquently expressed by John Lewis, one of the protestors who faced a wall of Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on March 7, 1965: I had made peace with the understanding that if I died on that bridge, I would have offered my life in contribution to an effort that was larger than myself … I could think of no greater gift I could give to humanity. (Lewis & Jones, 2012, p. 170)

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

9

The march across that bridge, known as Bloody Sunday, was widely considered a turning point in the civil rights movement. Congressman John Lewis provides his first-hand insights into why the civil rights movement achieved successes that other movements have not: The Civil Rights Movement was more than a struggle over legal rights, it was a spiritual movement led by ministers who wanted to confront the erroneous belief that some of us are more valuable or important than others, and demonstrate the truth of human equality. These believers did not debate or fight about this. They did not threaten or mock. They did not malign or degrade their opponents. They simply took action based on the transcendence of unity in an attempt to bear witness to the truth. (Lewis & Jones, 2012, p. 91)

The stories below that tell the power of political activism are not anomalies. Some activists made changes at the local level, and others made changes at the very highest levels of government. Almost every instance where democracy emerged began as a local awakening, from Gandhi’s campaign against British rule to the Solidarity movement in Poland to the antiapartheid movement in South Africa (Obama, 2006).

How and When Citizen Engagement Has Influenced Family Policy Citizens have engaged in civic and political activism in diverse ways. Some get involved in protests. Some run for public office. Some participate in AmeriCorps or Teach for America. Some engage when they encounter an instance of something that they know is not right, whereas others engage for a lifetime in a cause larger than themselves (Hirshorn & Settersten, 2013). Civic and political participation is shaped by the characteristics of citizens and their circumstances. Research studies have revealed great diversity in participation with some citizens who never get involved and others who begin participation early on and stay involved throughout their lives. Others “opt-in” and “opt-out” depending on their personal lives and the opportunities that arise (Hirshorn & Settersten, 2013). Despite all this diversity, studies have identified some common characteristics that comprise citizens’ “ready point” for participation. For example, citizens may be ready to respond when a personally meaningful opportunity arises when they have the time and skills to engage (Hirshorn & Settersten, 2013; Kinder, 1998; Parrott, 2017). Citizens engage when they believe that they can be politically effective and that the government and decision-makers will respond to their bids (Kinder, 1998). The most demanding form of participation, such as confrontational or violent protests, emerges when citizens are intensely dissatisfied with authorities or institutions believed to be illegitimate, unethical, or unfair (Kinder, 1998). As summarized in Table 1.2, stories abound of how each of these characteristics has prompted political action on behalf of families.

10

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Table 1.2  When and How Citizens Engage in Political Activism Citizens Engage When an Opportunity Arises at an Opportune Moment • Barbara Johns at age 16 organized a two-week strike that became part of a movement to racially integrate schools in Virginia and across the country. • Fifty members of the Teaching Assistants’ Association at the University of WisconsinMadison protested the ending of collective bargaining rights for public employees; in response, rallies were held in every state in the nation. Citizens Engage When Societal Issues Have Personal Meaning • College student Ira Sharenow worked with other activists to ban smoking in public places that eventually led to a statewide ban. • At age 14, Ed Roberts was paralyzed by polio, which motivated activism so intense and sustained that he eventually became known as the “Father of the Independent Living Movement.” Citizens Engage When They Have the Skills to Respond • Luke Herrine, while a law student, wrote up a legal memo about the scope of Presidential executive power to forgive student loan debt. • Political psychologist Jon Krosnick studied the impact of a candidate’s name appearing first on the ballot. • Following a university-sponsored Family Impact Seminar on reducing family poverty, Oregon became the first state to allocate a greater percentage of Earned Income Tax Credit to families with children under three years of age. Citizens Engage When They Believe They Can Be Politically Effective • Lina Hidalgo became the first Latina to be elected as a county judge in Harris County, Texas, with responsibility for a $4.3 billion budget. • Gabriella Cázares-Kelly was elected county recorder with jurisdiction over election integrity; she is the first Native American to hold public office in Pima County, Arizona. Citizens Engage When Intensely Dissatisfied With Institutions and Authorities • Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi created the Black Lives Matter movement that has grown into a global network with more than 40 chapters. • Joshua Wong has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy for democratic rights for the people of Hong Kong. • In 1990, 100 disability organizations joined forces to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Citizens Engage When an Opportunity Arises at an Opportune Time

Citizen participation occurs at a particular moment in time. Thus, participation depends on an opportunity coming to citizens’ attention when they have the personal time and capacity to respond (Hirshorn & Settersten, 2013). The following two examples arose suddenly and, though unanticipated, provided a call to action.

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

11

The first story describes the death of five high school students in an old school bus. In response, a 16-year-old high school student organized a two-week strike that became an integral part of a movement to racially integrate schools in Virginia and across the country (Lohmann, 2013). The second story describes the protests that erupted in Wisconsin and eventually across the country when a newly elected governor proposed ending the state’s long-standing tradition of collective bargaining. A Story of Political Activism on Civil Rights

Barbara Johns was 1 of 400 students in a high school for Black students in Virginia’s Prince Edward County that was built to hold only 180 students. The school had no cafeteria, no gym, and not enough classrooms. To make do, tarpaper shacks were constructed with leaky roofs that required students to use umbrellas to keep their schoolwork dry. Students used second-hand textbooks and shared a single microscope. In 1951, an old school bus stalled on the train tracks, killing five students. Johns led the two-week strike that demanded a new school facility equipped with better textbooks and up-to-date equipment. The students contacted the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which agreed to represent them in court. Eventually, this lawsuit and four others resulted in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that racially segregated schools were unconstitutional in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling (Lohmann, 2013). According to Justin G. Reid, associate director of the museum that now commemorates the historic schoolhouse, “We want people to understand that young people weren’t just bystanders in the civil rights movement, they were pioneers” (as cited in Lohmann, 2013, para. 28). A Story of Political Activism on Collective Bargaining

This second story also begins with an unexpected event. Wisconsin’s newly elected Republican Governor Scott Walker proposed in his budget repair bill the ending of collective bargaining rights for public employees, including schoolteachers. The governor’s proposal reversed nearly a century of reformist labor policies in the state dating back to 1911 when Wisconsin enacted the nation’s first workers’ compensation program and the first workable income tax. The governor’s proposal came as a surprise to many and defeating it was widely considered a daunting task: It was, by the estimate of most pundits and politicos, even those who sympathized with the workers and their unions, a hopeless struggle destined to fail so ingloriously that talk of mounting even the most rudimentary challenge was commonly dismissed as a fool’s mission. But someone forgot to tell the students. (Nichols, 2012, p. 4)

Only one day after the release of the governor’s proposal, 50 members of the Teaching Assistants’ Association at the University of Wisconsin–Madison—the oldest union of

12

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

graduate employees in the world—gathered in protest. Two days later, more than 1,000 students assembled. Together, they raised their collective fists and marched down the legendary State Street that connects the university to the Wisconsin State Capitol. They didn’t quit. They kept marching. And soon they were joined by members of other publicsector unions, then by private-sector unions, and eventually by retirees, farmers, smallbusiness owners, and high school students. The numbers multiplied each day, reaching 100,000 protesters one week after the first student rally. The rallies and marches spread to communities across Wisconsin and to Florida, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and other states where collective bargaining was threatened. Two weeks later, the Wisconsin protesters were joined by supportive rallies in every state capitol in the nation and in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC. The students showed up again and again with energy, passion, and purpose. A protest sign captured why so many got involved: “Screw us, we multiply!” Political observers saw the protests as the renewal of a long history of political activism. The protests erupted almost spontaneously but built on “an ancient faith that mass movement can forge … a new and better politics” (Nichols, 2012, p. 46). Whether these protests forged better politics depends on your perspective. The law that undercut public employee unions eventually passed to the dissatisfaction of those who supported public unions and to the satisfaction of many rural residents of the state who resented the government providing generous, taxfunded benefits to union members. Governor Walker survived his recall election, but two Republicans lost their seats to their Democratic challengers. The bitter divisions among Wisconsin voters and policymakers continue to this day (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). Citizens Engage When Societal Issues Have Personal Meaning

Activism is pursued when a societal issue arises that has personal meaning and is perceived as bringing purpose to one’s life (Hirshorn & Settersten, 2013). Initially, the meaning may derive from experiences in one’s own life but oftentimes grows into advocating for the lives of others. In one story below, activism for a successful ban on indoor smoking was initiated by a person who became physically ill from cigarette smoke. Another example tells the story of a mother who was personally offended when her work raising the next generation of citizens was discounted in official census records. A third story recounts the life of Ed Roberts, who fought a life-threatening battle with polio at age 14. He faced a number of struggles throughout his life to gain admission to the University of California, Berkeley, and to receive services from the state Department of Rehabilitation. His experiences dealing with his own disability led to a lifetime of intensive activism for anyone with a disability that culminated in him becoming known as the “Father of the Independent Living Movement.” Another story illustrates how Michelle Obama’s passion drove not only what she did but also how she did it. A Story of Political Activism on Smoking Bans

A student attending the University of Wisconsin–Madison initiated a significant policy change in the state. Cigarette smoke caused Ira Sharenow to become physically ill. At a

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

13

point in time when most restaurants allowed customers to smoke, it was difficult for him to enjoy the pleasure of eating out with friends. Instead of just griping about something that he knew was not right, he took the next step of advocating for change. He worked with a number of activists and lobbying organizations to establish a smoking ban in city restaurants and at the University of Wisconsin–Madison campus. Ira’s activism can be likened to planting a seed that eventually grew to a statewide ban on smoking in all public places. The far-reaching impact of this grassroots activism is captured in the words spoken to Ira by the president of a local medical association: “The passage of your legislation to restrict smoking in the workplace will probably save more lives than I will in my whole career as a physician” (as cited in Adams, 1995, p. 21). A Story of Political Activism on the Census Definition of Unpaid Work

This story demonstrates how the personal meaning of an issue can motivate activism even if you are busy raising three young children and living in a remote region of the country. Carol Lee, a 46-year-old unemployed mother in rural Canada, became an activist when a census taker came to her door and asked the standard set of questions about “number of hours worked in the past week.” Carol knew that the question meant working for pay and that she would have to answer “zero.” She bristled as she mentally calculated the number of hours that she spent each week on childrearing. She became increasingly angry as she thought about the long-term payoff of her unpaid labor for the benefit of her children and ultimately for the good of society. Instead of shrugging it off, she channeled her anger into making change for others like her who labored for the good of society without drawing a paycheck. She wrote to the minister in charge of the census and complained. She explained that it was not right to ask only about paid work because it was woefully incomplete. She informed him that she would refuse to participate in the census until it was corrected and would encourage others to follow suit. Her refusal subjected her to potential penalties of a $500 fine or three months in jail. To make a long story short, this single act of protest by a concerned citizen was the impetus for a movement to make unpaid work count. She lobbied the Canadian government to collect national data on the labor of caregivers, largely women. Four years later, the government decided to include on the census form three new questions regarding unpaid work: time spent on care or assistance to the elderly; care of children, either their own or others; and home maintenance and other housework (Crittenden, 2001). A Story of Political Activism for the Rights of People to Lead Independent Lives

At age 14, Ed Roberts fought a life-threatening battle with polio that left him paralyzed from the neck down, except for two fingers and some toes. For the rest of his life,

14

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

he required a ventilator to breathe. This early experience led to a lifetime of intense and sustained activism that culminated in him being heralded as the “Father of the Independent Living Movement.” Roberts said his first real advocacy fight was in high school. He had completed classes in-person and by phone but was refused a diploma. The principal pointed out that he had failed to complete the requirements for driver training and physical education, and asked Ed why he would want a “cheap” diploma. Ed and his mother appealed to the school board and the diploma was awarded. He also faced a fight to enroll in the University of California, Berkeley, where he was turned down because the dorm floors could not support the 800-pound iron lung that he slept in at night. It took a lawsuit, but in 1963, he became the student with the most severe disabilities to ever be admitted to the university; he went on to earn a bachelor’s and master’s degree (Roberts, 1977). While at Berkeley, he organized a self-help group for students with disabilities, which later became a model for many universities across the nation (Dawson, 2015). He faced other fights for his rights, such as when the California Department of Rehabilitation refused his request for assistance because it was unlikely he would ever get a job (Roberts, 1977). That evening Roberts had a dream: “I dreamt that someday I would be the head of the Department of Rehabilitation, and the policies would be changed so that people with the most severe disabilities would be served first.” That dream came true in 1975 when Governor Jerry Brown appointed him head of California’s Department of Rehabilitation. Roberts was the first person with a disability to lead the agency with a staff of 2,500 employees and a $140 million budget (Elliott, 1995). In 1983, Roberts helped found the World Institute on Disability, a think tank to advocate for independent living. In 1984, he received a MacArthur Foundation “Genius Award,” which made it possible for him to pursue his advocacy without having to worry about money. This financial support also allowed him to advocate internationally for independent living in Australia, France, Japan, and Russia (Elliott, 1995). For Ed Roberts, advocacy was a lifelong journey. His persistent advocacy was driven by his deep-seated commitment to his cause: “There are very few people even with the most severe disabilities who can’t take control of their own lives, but the problem is that people around us don’t expect us to” (Carter-Long, 2013). Later in his life, Roberts (1977) remarked that he and some of his closest allies were getting older: “We can’t avoid it, can we? … As we get older, we realize that disability is just a part of life.” A Story of Political Activism for Reducing Childhood Obesity

Former First Lady Michele Obama was inspired to activism by her passion for children. She believed that all children are “born loving and open-minded” (2022, p. 294). She was also influenced by a lesson that she learned from her mother: “All children are great children” (2022, p. 188). In response, Michelle Obama launched her initiative to reduce childhood obesity, Let’s Move, that encouraged children to be more physically active and promoted healthier foods at school and at home.

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

15

Obama’s passion for children influenced not only what she did but also how she did it. Knowing that children are always watching, she made a commitment to showing children “what it looks like to live with love and operate with decency” (2022, p. 277). She expressed this philosophy at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in the now-familiar words: “When they go low, we go high.” Going high is more than lofty rhetoric. Going high also means doing the hard work and fighting for the causes we believe in with hope. Citizens Engage When They Have the Skills to Respond

One potent predictor of political participation is skill. Activists possess generic civic skills often learned in volunteer organizations, such as the ability to speak and write well, to organize others, and to engage in complex and abstract reasoning (Kinder, 1998). Sometimes activists acquir a specific professional skill in their training that can advance an issue at an opportune inflection point. The first story describes how a law student conducted a legal analysis that revealed an innovative way to waive student debt. The second story illustrates how researchers uncovered an issue that activists for election integrity could target—how the design of a ballot can influence election results. The third story recounts another way that professionals can get involved in public policy. Instead of lobbying for a specific policy outcome, professionals can provide policymakers with scientific evidence on a range of policy options to help inform their decision. A Story of Political Activism on Student Loan Debt

Student loan debt has long been a concern for activists. In 2021, student loan debt reached $1.8 trillion. Many students struggle to repay their loans, especially the 40% who never graduated from college. For many, these debts have become a lifetime burden with a quarter of all students and half of Black borrowers defaulting on their loans 12 years out (Ezra Klein Show, 2021). One policy option under consideration has been government forgiveness of student loans. Before activism can ensue, a first step is to settle the question of whether or not it is possible for government to cancel some or all of students’ school debt. An enterprising law student at Yale University, Luke Herrine, researched the question of where in the power structure authority lies. Then he made the extremely smart move of writing up his analysis in a legal memo. He argued that the executive branch has total power to waive or renegotiate the terms of any debts to the federal government (up to $1 million per individual). Due to a change in the Obama era, most student loans were shifted to the federal government, including those initially issued by private or semi-private agencies. Because virtually all student loans are under $1 million, Herrine proposed that the President has the power to forgive most student loan debt in the country with a stroke of his pen (Ezra Klein Show, 2021). In studies, cancelling student debt would have a two to three times greater benefit for those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution than those in the top half (Ezra Klein Show, 2021). Racial disparities in student debt also exist. For example, a greater majority of Black students rely on loans to finance their education and often have less wealth to help manage their debt.

16

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

In August of 2022, President Joe Biden enacted a student loan forgiveness program that cancelled up to $20,000 of student debt for up to 40 million low- to middle-income borrowers. The program intended to deliver debt relief before student loan payments resumed in January 2023 after a three-year pause during the pandemic. In October of 2022, a federal appeals court put a temporary hold on the program, while the Court considered challenges over presidential authority from six Republican-led states, a Republican attorney general, and several conservative groups (Fossum & Lobosco, 2022). Eventually, in June of 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President did not have the authority to cancel student loan debt. The Biden administration is currently considering other alternatives (Liptak, 2023). A Story of Political Activism on Election Integrity

Research studies have isolated one pragmatic factor that can influence election results even in tight races—the design of the ballot. Political psychologist Jon Krosnick finds that whether a candidate’s name appears first on the ballot can result in a 2% to 3% difference in election results. This margin is large enough to flip the results in battleground states. For example, in an analysis that Krosnick conducted of the 2016 presidential election, the candidate listed first won almost all of the states with a narrow margin. If precincts had rotated the names, the results might have been different (Weir, 2019). Based on Krosnick’s data, about 90% of candidates benefit when their name is listed first on the ballot. Over the years, activists have filed lawsuits in several states in an attempt to create fairer ballots. Currently, activists have been successful in only seven states that now require the rotation of candidate names on the ballot from precinct to precinct (Weir, 2019). A Story of Political Activism on Child and Family Poverty

Political activism can take the form of a dispassionate educational approach without passionately advocating for a preferred policy option. Research is provided in a nonpartisan way on a range of policy options with the ultimate decision left to policymakers. One example of this approach is the Family Impact Seminar model—a series of presentations, briefing reports, and discussion sessions that communicate rigorous, nonpartisan research to state policymakers on timely topics they identify (see Chapter 13). For example, in 2015, state policymakers in Oregon were confronted with data that 18% of families in the state with a child under 18 years of age were living in poverty. In response, policymakers asked for a Family Impact Seminar on what policies could alleviate child and family poverty. Accordingly, faculty and Extension Specialists at Oregon State University planned and convened a Family Impact Seminar on twogenerational approaches for reducing poverty. Two national experts, Economist Greg Duncan, and Psychologist Cybele Raver, presented the latest scientific evidence on what programs and policies could improve child outcomes and lift families out of poverty. The solution-oriented research was presented and discussed with legislators and also with the relevant committees in the legislature.

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

17

Following the seminar, Oregon became the first state in the nation to allocate a greater percentage of the Earned Income Tax Credit to families with children under three years of age; in 2017, the tax credit was claimed by 265,000 low-income parents with an average refund of $2,130 (State of Oregon News Room, 2018). Citizens Engage When They Believe They Can Be Politically Effective

Political activism flows from beliefs that one can be politically effective. Political efficacy encompasses both internal and external dimensions. Citizens who engage in political activism hold an image of themselves as being effective and an image of government and decision-makers as being responsive to their actions (Kinder, 1998). The examples that follow are the stories of two pioneering women. They both saw the potential of working at the grassroots level where decisions often are made about how much money to spend and whether it should be spent on hospitals, roads, libraries, jails, and so forth. What’s more, it is local jurisdictions that decide how much money is spent on elections, such as whether drop boxes are provided, and what rules guide mail-in ballots. These two women observed the influence of elected officials, which gave them the personal courage and confidence it takes to run for political office. The Story of a Latino Woman Elected as a County Judge

Lina Hidalgo decided to run for Commissioners Court Judge in Harris County, Texas. County judge is not a position that is in the limelight and the seat typically changes only when the incumbent dies or is convicted of a crime. Yet this obscure position controls the budget for the whole county, which has a population the size of Colorado, and is larger than 28 states (Klein, 2022). The $4.3 billion budget funds the hospitals, roads, bridges, libraries, jails, and electoral system. The county judge’s responsibilities include adopting the budget, setting tax rates, overseeing expenditures, and monitoring election integrity (Lina Hidalgo: Harris County Judge, n.d.). Hidalgo was only 27 years old at the time that she decided to run for county judge. She grew up in Peru before her family moved to the United States because her parents wanted a better life for their children. Hidalgo knew that no other woman and no other Latina had ever been elected as county judge. One of the first steps in Hidalgo’s political activism was summoning up the personal courage to throw her hat in the ring. The Story of a Native American Woman Elected County Recorder

The advocacy of Gabriella Cázares-Kelly began when she volunteered to help students at her community college get registered to vote. She was stunned at the obstacles that students faced when they tried to register. To address these barriers, she started calling an office that she had not previously heard of—the County Recorder’s Office. She quickly learned that this office had the authority to determine whether voting registration forms would be put in tribal postal offices. She became aware that this office determined whether the staff who verified ballots were able to speak Spanish. When she heard that the county recorder was planning to retire, she started worrying about who might run and decided to enter the race herself (Klein, 2022).

18

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

In 2020, Cázares-Kelly was elected. This position would not bring fame and fortune, but it would bring responsibility for election integrity for a jurisdiction of 600,000 registered voters in a swing state. She was the first Native American to hold elected office in Pima County, Arizona. Her advice for those interested in getting involved in politics is just showing up whenever and wherever the issues you care about are discussed (Klein, 2022). Libraries have governing boards. Cities have council meetings. Political parties have conventions. Legislatures have committee hearings. Citizens Engage When Intensely Dissatisfied With Institutions and Authorities

The drivers of more confrontational politics differ from other forms of civic and political engagement. The most potent motivator for boycotts, sit-ins, and even violent protests appears to be criticism of political institutions. More confrontational protests such as rent strikes, factory takeovers, and conflicts with police were driven by beliefs that political institutions and authorities were illegitimate, unfair, or unethical (Kinder, 1998). As examples, a majority of protestors reported that watching videos of police brutality had made them more supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement (Buchanan et al., 2020). In Hong Kong, violent protests erupted on behalf of the democratic rights of all citizens. Similarly, sit-ins were organized to protest the exclusion of people with disabilities from the workplace and society. A Story of the Rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement

The Black Lives Matter movement began in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was accused in the murder of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, who was returning from a trip to a convenience store. This verdict motivated three Black organizers—Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi—to create a Black-centered political movement has grown into a global network with more than 40 chapters in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Black Lives Matter, n.d.). The Black Lives Matter movement strives to bring attention to the contributions of Black people to society, to intervene when violence is inflicted upon them, and to support the development of new Black leaders to confront racism and White supremacy in all its forms. Black Lives Matter has been around since 2013, but the videotaped death of George Floyd catalyzed widespread public support and protests. On June 6 of 2020, half a million people participated in protests that took place in nearly 550 places across the country. An estimated 6% to 10% of the U.S. population have participated in protests over the death of George Floyd, many that sprung up organically, in 40% of counties across the country. According to experts on crowd counting, the depth and breadth of the Black Lives Matter protests may have made it the largest movement in U.S. history (Buchanan et al., 2020).

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

19

A Story of a Young Man Advocating for Democratic Rights for the Hong Kong People

One young man, who has advocated for democratic rights in Hong Kong, has achieved international notoriety. At the age of 18, Joshua Wong appeared on the cover of Time Magazine’s international edition and was named one of Time Magazine’s most influential teens (Barber, 2014). By age 21, he and two fellow protestors had been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for their leadership of the pro-democracy Umbrella movement (Lai, 2018). Joshua Wong’s acts of civil disobedience began when he was in high school and grew over time to more confrontational tactics. Initially, he and a couple of fellow students distributed leaflets opposing the 2011 introduction of mandatory civics education curriculum, which included controversial components such as praising the Communist Party. In 2012, Wong’s tactics mushroomed to organizing a rally attended by 100,000 people and a 10-day sit-in at the headquarters of the Beijing-backed national government. The opposition of Wong and his allies achieved its goal when the government dropped the new curriculum (Stack, 2019). In 2014, Wong’s public prominence placed him in a leadership role in a movement that demanded recognition of the freedom of Hong Kong citizens to vote without interference from Beijing. In 1997, Hong Kong had been guaranteed relative autonomy for half a century when Britain handed its former colony back to China under an arrangement known as “one country, two systems.” The public protests in 2014 became known as The Umbrella Movement because umbrellas were used by protestors to shield their identity and protect themselves from pepper spray. In 2019, protests erupted again when the (Beijing-backed) Hong Kong government introduced a bill that citizens could be extradited to the Chinese mainland for prosecution in its obscure system of courts and jails. Thousands of protestors took to the streets, constituting the biggest protests in Hong Kong history. Police used pepper spray and rubber bullets, and protestors responded by vandalizing businesses, setting fires, and beating up police and suspected government sympathizers. The Hong Kong government eventually withdrew the bill, but it was too late to calm the streets (Stack, 2019). In 2019, Wong continued his advocacy through grassroots politics by entering the race for a district council position. The government banned him from running for a position in the district council, even though he received the highest number of votes of any candidate in the primary election (Ho et al., 2020). Perhaps as a consequence of his growing notoriety, Wong has been convicted and jailed in China on three separate occasions. His parents have moved to Australia. More recently, Wong’s advocacy has shifted from the local level to building international support for his people by writing op-eds in foreign newspapers and speaking abroad in countries such as Germany, Taiwan, and the United States (Stack, 2019). For example,

20

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

he testified in Congress to pass the 2019 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (Stack, 2019) and publicly backed the Black Lives Matter movement (Hong Kong’s Joshua Wong, 2021). A Story of Political Activism on Behalf of the Rights of People With Disabilities

In the early years, the advocacy movement on behalf of people with disabilities focused on raising money, often for a cure for a specific disability such as epilepsy or polio. Then the movement shifted from focusing on one organization and one disability at a time to advocating for cross-cutting issues that affected anyone with a disability, such as not being able to get on buses, cross the street, or use restrooms. One landmark event occurred in the late 1960s when students at the University of California at Berkeley demanded that the campus provide ramps and elevators to make classrooms accessible (New York Times, 1977). Another monumental moment was the April 5, 1977 protests in several regional offices of the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The protest in San Francisco continued for 26 days, becoming the longest nonviolent occupation of a government building in the nation’s history (Shoot, 2017). The protestors included children and teenagers along with their parents from varied socioeconomic backgrounds but were composed primarily of people with disabilities who were deaf, blind, paraplegic, and so forth. The Salvation Army provided cots and blankets, and several groups including the local branch of the Black Panthers provided food. The protest pushed for the implementation of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act that mandated the mainstreaming of people with disabilities. Even though mainstreaming was officially on the books, it had never been seriously implemented in the face of opposition from education, employment, and other federal agencies. It had taken President Ford’s administration 2½ years to draw up regulations, but they remained unsigned. By 1977, activists for the rights of those with disabilities had wearied “of asking nicely for their civil rights” (Shoot, 2017). They took confrontational actions that brought daily media coverage to pressure the HEW Secretary to sign and implement specific regulations. The pressure worked and the regulations were signed into law on April 28, 1977. Within months, ramps appeared to access public buildings, restroom stalls were widened, sidewalk curbs were cut to allow smoother access to streets, and so on (Shoot, 2017). Advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities included both bottom-up and topdown strategies. As with civil rights and gay rights, political activism incorporated data and stories to help the public overcome fears and stereotypes. As explained by Ed Roberts, a polio victim who became head of California’s State Department of Rehabilitation in the 1970s: “We were considered vegetables a few years ago, but now the vegetables are rising” (New York Times, 1977). Ed was fond of referring to himself as an artichoke—“a little prickly on the outside but with a big heart” on the inside (Roberts, 1977). One wheel-chair-bound person explained the difference these changing

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

21

stereotypes made when she began to see parents pushing their children to greet her, rather than pulling them away (Kunin, 2012). Allies made everything easier. Coalitions arose at the city, county, and state levels, first formed disability by disability. Then strong leaders emerged who saw the power of working together with other like-minded organizations, such as influential groups advocating for independent living for senior citizens. This took learning new skills about what it meant to compromise and develop a common agenda. The movement also received inspiration and support in advancing its agenda from national champions like Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman George Miller. Eventually, a cross-disability consortium was formed of 100 diverse organizations that together succeeded in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 (Kunin, 2012; New York Times, 1977). In sum, activism does not always have immediate success or a tangible impact (Shoot, 2017). Activism is not easy. It is not certain. The call to activism should not be viewed through rose-colored glasses. Instead, activism requires a mindset about all it takes to make change in the policy world. Table 1.3 provides advice from activists who have changed in the world regarding whether to get involved, when, what it takes, and why it is so important. Table 1.3  The Mindset It Takes to Make Change in the Policy World (Advice From Those Who Have) Types of Advice

Advice From Political Activists

Whether to get involved

Believe there can be light and hope in politics and that we can have politics that can unite and not divide (Hunter Cantrell, 2019, cited in Williams, 2019).

When to get involved

Claim your deepest desire and don’t pigeonhole yourself as a victim of too little money, time, or preparation (Henri Nouwen, 1992). Avoid overestimating what qualities you need to serve; nothing is more important than a heart full of grace and love (Martin Luther King, Jr., cited in Hellstrom, n.d.). “Going high” shows children how to live with love and operate with decency (Michelle Obama, 2022). Whatever you do won’t be enough. Try anyway (Barack Obama, 2020).

Why policy activism is so important

Stay the course! You may think of the next great idea that can change the world (anonymous student in a family policy course). Look for the light inside you. Join with others who have the light and together you can build a blazing bonfire that can change the world (John Lewis, cited in Lewis & Jones, 2012). “It liberated me when I realized that I could liberate others” (Ed Roberts, cited in Center for Independent Living – Berkeley, 2018).

Note. The advice in this chart is paraphrased with the activists’ own words given in the text.

22

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Whether to Get Involved in Political Activism Activism should be engaged in with one’s eyes wide open to its unpredictability and perils. Activism does not always change the hearts and minds of those in power or, at least, not right away. Activism often is not a “one-and-done” deal. Some of the greatest policymakers of all time like Robert M. La Follette who fought robber barons and political stooges “warned against thinking that one election victory or one policy battle success would be transformational” (Nichols, 2011). President Obama reminded the 2009 Notre Dame graduates that the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 was an important victory that dismantled the doctrine of “separate but equal.” Yet it took so many more victories, both large and small, on the long and rocky road to civil rights that continue to this day: There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There were six members of this commission … They worked for two years and at times President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted [Hesburgh] how on earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake, They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history. (Obama, May 17)

Another long struggle was the century-long activism around gay rights, which was once a divisive issue but now has gained bipartisan political support (History. com Editors, 2017). Over the years, laws forbidding homosexual activity have been struck down. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people can serve openly in the U.S. military. Since the last edition of this book, it is now legal for same-sex couples to marry and adopt children in all 50 states. Federal landmark legislation to provide protection for same-sex marriage is now supported by 70% of Americans, and recently received bipartisan support in the U.S. House and Senate (Karni, 2022). The struggle is not over with ongoing activism around gay rights in employment and housing (History.com Editors, 2017), and growing controversies over transgender issues. Whether to engage in political activism is a personal decision. One way to make that decision is to learn from those who have gone before. How did others who were in your shoes weigh the odds? What guidance does research offer about which questions to ask as you make a decision that could be momentous in your own life or those you advocate for? These questions are framed around the characteristics of citizens and their circumstances that are associated with civic and political engagement (Hirshorn &

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

23

Table 1.4  Should You Engage in Political Activism? Questions to Ask Yourself • Is the opportunity arising at an opportune time? • Can I provide the passion that comes with an issue that is personally meaningful? • Do I have the skills that it takes to be effective? • Will my political activism be effective?

Settersten, 2013; Kinder, 1998). Table 1.4 lists the questions you can ask yourself about whether to engage in political activism. Is the Opportunity Arising at an Opportune Time?

Opportunities for activism seldom emerge at convenient times. Yet there are periods in life when it is more feasible to make the time and space to get involved. Our stories of activism arose at different ages and stages of life. One common time was during high school or college when students were busy but perhaps had more flexibility in their schedules than when facing employment demands or family pressures. For example, Barbara Johns was a high school student in a segregated school when she organized rallies that drew public attention to racial inequities in education. Joshua Wong’s political activism began in high school when his government proposed mandating a curriculum that he feared would brainwash the thinking of young minds. For graduate students in Wisconsin, their outrage over the ending of collective bargaining for public employees was almost like a gravitational force that pulled them and their allies to protest at the state Capitol for weeks on end. A middle-aged woman, who was an unemployed mother, found herself busy with all the demands of raising three children and juggling each of their schedules. Perhaps it was because she was so busy doing unpaid work that her anger (some would say righteous anger) propelled her to get involved. The story of Ed Roberts illustrates what can be accomplished if, early on, you zero in with a laser-like focus on one issue that continues throughout your life. He participated in small victories like organizing self-help groups on university campuses. He moved on to serve as director for rehabilitation policy in one of the largest states in the nation. Then in the later years of his life, he progressed to promoting his philosophy of independent living around the world. For those who might wonder about the optimal age to engage, the first woman President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, offered this advice: “The young people are running faster, but the old people know the shortcuts” (Mika Brezinski interview, May 23, 2022; Know Your Value Staff, 2022). When an opportunity arises, it is easy to turn away because the timing does not seem quite right. If you feel called to serve, spiritual writer Henri Nouwen urged resisting the common

24

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

excuses for “stepping back” rather than “leaning in.” He gave this advice to a young man in his office who expressed doubt about having enough time and money to follow his dream. If you really want it, you can do it. You don’t have to be the victim of time and money …. You should claim your deepest desire and do what you really want to do …. You have nothing to lose. You are young, full of energy, well trained …. Everything is possible for you …. Why let the world squeeze you in? … Why become a victim? You are free to do what you want. (1992, p. 15) Can I Provide the Passion That Comes With an Issue That Is Personally Meaningful?

Consider whether the issues you care about are being fully deliberated and fairly decided by those seated at the policy table. Mainstream political organizations may not prioritize the most vulnerable groups (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). Activists who work directly in civic groups or political activity tend to be older, well-educated, and financially well-off (Carr & Utz, 2020; Smith, 2013). So, vulnerable populations, children, young people, and those with less income and education may need spokespeople because the absence of their voices impoverishes political debate. Take, for example, Hunter Cantrell, who brought the voice of youth to state politics when he was elected to the Minnesota State Legislature in 2019 at 23 years old. He made the decision to run just days after nearly dying from treatments for cancer. His ten-day stay in the hospital came with a $100,000 price tag that he could afford because he was young enough to be covered by his mother’s health insurance. So, his motivation extended beyond himself to ensuring that health care was affordable for all. Running for elected office was a path dismissed by many as being unattainable or futile. Yet he was hopeful that he could flip a Republican seat and that, if elected, he would be able to make a difference despite the divided government in his state. People are feeling a sense of disarray and disorder and they want to return politics to the people and return to civility. I believe there can still be a light and hope in politics and that we can have a politics that can unite and not divide. (Williams, 2019)

This chapter tells the story of a Black high school student Barbara Johns, who had personal experience reading outdated textbooks in make-shift tarpaper classrooms. A stalled school bus that killed some of her classmates was the tipping point. Sadly, it took the death of two Black men to establish and mobilize the Black Lives Matter movement to advocate against racism and violence in all its forms. In Wisconsin, it took a student who became physically ill from cigarette smoke to initiate a ban that eventually benefitted the health of many others. It was the personal struggles of Ed Roberts to work and to live independently that motivated his advocacy. In his inspiring words, “It liberated me when I realized that I could liberate others” (Center for Independent Living – Berkeley, 2018).

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

25

Do I Have the Skills That It Takes to Be Effective?

The skills obtained through study and advanced training may be exactly what is needed to move an issue forward. For example, a law student drilled down on his training in legal analysis to identify where in the system the power lies to cancel student debt. A researcher used his scientific skills to identify a factor that can swing the results of an election and that may be a prime target for reform—which candidate appears first on a ballot. Some forms of activism call for a specific skill set. The educational approach used by programs, such as the Family Impact Seminars, requires professionals with a willingness to explore a broad range of alternative policy responses. The educator must have the capacity to set aside personal views and to facilitate an even-handed discussion of views that may differ from one’s own. Surely, skills can be important, but the pioneers who have journeyed down the road of advocacy warn about overestimating their value. For example, in one of his last sermons, the renowned civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., was emphatic that the qualities needed to be of service to others beyond your own group are ordinary, not extraordinary. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve …. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant. (The Martin Luther King, Jr., cited in Hellstrom, n.d..)

Congressman John Lewis spent a lifetime advocating for civil rights that earned him the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom. Looking back, he was fully aware of what he could not bring to his cause but focused instead on what he could bring. When I arrived in Nashville, people thought I was backward, country, and shy. My resources were few, but my ability to commune with the spirit and allow myself to be guided by it propelled me to the center of change. I did not have the kind of material and intellectual resources that King had. Instead, mine was a kind of inner preparation … [that] allowed me to participate in a movement for good. I say this to let you know that preparation can take many different forms. Not everyone is left a family legacy as rich as Martin Luther King Jr.’s, or has the same gifts and privileges, but there is a power that can raise you up even from the lowliest of places and guide you to the forefront of change if you truly want to create a better world. (Lewis & Jones, 2012, p. 81) Will My Political Activism Be Effective?

Political efficacy takes both an image of oneself as having the wherewithal to be effective and an image of government and decision-makers as being responsive to the bids of its citizens. This chapter includes stories of two women, one Latina and one Native

26

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

American, who believed that they could be elected despite the steep odds faced by someone of their gender and race. They also believed that voters would respond to their sincerity and passion to work in their constituent’s best interests. Some of our nation’s most effective policymakers recognize that activists need to overcome cynicism and doubt about whether they can be effective. When Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States, he faced long odds. He was young with less political experience than many of his rivals. He had lost hard-fought races before. No African American had ever been elected President of the United States. So, when he addressed the graduating Class of 2010 at Notre Dame University, he spoke with personal experience about the importance of beating back the despair that can stymie action. At times like these, when the future seems unsettled and uncertain, it can be easy to lose heart. When you turn on the television or read newspapers or blogs, the voices of cynicism and pessimism always seem to be the loudest. Don’t believe them. (Obama, 2010, p. 4)

Even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama still faced doubts. He struggled to know what he could possibly do about the war in Afghanistan that he had inherited. He found himself fighting back despair that, “Whatever you do won’t be enough.” Yet he seemed to hear the voices of courageous people fighting for a better life say to him, “Try anyway!” (Obama, 2020, p. 446). This same advice has come from other sectors. During a low moment in her career, a university professor confided in an undergraduate student her reservations about teaching a course on family policy given all she knew about the difficulties of turning promising ideas into public policy. In despair, she questioned whether it was even ethical to hold out to students the prospects of studying public policy as a way of preparing for meaningful participation in policymaking. This student advised her to trust in the good judgment of students and not be afraid to challenge them with the truth of how difficult and disappointing policy work can be. “Stay the course because you never know which of these students might have the next great idea that could change the world” (personal communication from an anonymous student, August 1, 2012).

How to Engage in Political Activism Activism takes many shapes and forms. Some issues are glamorous and others are mundane. The media spotlight often shines on high-profile state or national causes. For example, the 1977 sit-in by people with disabilities grabbed media attention for almost a month. Protests over democratic rights in Hong Kong captured the attention of the press from around the world. Some advocates choose to get involved in prominent causes, like gay rights or civil rights, knowing full well that these will be long struggles with several battles along the way. Even a ruling by the highest court in the land may not be the final word or the end of the struggle.

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

27

Other causes are smaller in scale but still consequential, such as registering voters in local precincts or setting up polling places. The names of these volunteers may not be well-known and their successes may get “zero” media attention. Yet their influence may be massive in an electoral system in which there are 50 state elections and thousands of county elections. Turnout in these elections is often less than 20%, so even small actions can have an outsized effect. According to Ben Wikler, chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party: “That means people who actually engage have a superpower. You, as a single dedicated volunteer, might be able to call and knock on the doors of enough voters to win a local election” (as cited in Klein, 2022).

What Roles Can Political Activists Play What commitment are you currently making to political activism? Onethird of Americans report spending two hours a day or more on politics, according to political scientist Hersh (2020, p. 3): Of these people, four out of five say that not one minute of that time is spent on any kind of real political work. It’s all TV news and podcasts and radio shows and social media and cheering and booing and complaining to friends and family.

Hersh calls these kinds of actions “political hobbyism” and distinguishes them from “real political work.” Political hobbyism is pursuing knowledge about public affairs through political news and social media in “service of outrage” (Klein, 2022). Political hobbyism is dominated by whining to friends, clicking on likes, and re-posting messages (Obama, 2022). Real political work is moving into the policy arena with others to pursue defined goals in the “service of change.” Social media enthusiasts were optimistic that platforms like Facebook and X might make it easier to access a wider spectrum of stories and perspectives; instead, social media has made it easy to become enmeshed in algorithms that create a cocoon of the people and views we agree with and that insulate us from ideas we disagree with (Brooks, 2019; Reich, 2018). Social media enthusiasts also thought online platforms would make it easier to express political views. Yet studies show conversations about political issues are more apt to take place offline than online. In fact, Americans are three times more likely to discuss politics or public affairs in person, by phone, or through letters than through online channels (Smith, 2013). To amass power to achieve a policy goal oftentimes involves joining with others (Eaton et al., 2021). It is in partnership with many voices that we are better able to discern the common good and advance our common cause. The movement to lobby for the rights of people with disabilities had inspirational national champions, but much of the work was done in partnership with coalitions formed at the local, county, and state levels. Similarly, the movement for civil rights was not the project of any single person but the product of many people joining together in partnership. As aptly put by President Barack

28

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Obama in his 2015 speech at the 50th anniversary of the civil right march from Selma to Montgomery: The single-most powerful word in our democracy is the word, “We.” “We The People.” “We Shall Overcome.” “Yes We Can.” That word is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone.

Activists may need to look within and without. This “both/and” approach was recommended by Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights leader who received the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Lifetime Achievement Award: I ask you to reach down inside yourself, and find the truth your life is compelling you to see. That is your road to true peace, and it is the beginning of the evolution of humankind. Because every change in the world starts within. It begins with one individual who envisions his or her micro-universe the way it can be, and settles for nothing less. And as one individual moves toward the light, that light ignites more individual flames and eventually the revolutionary inner work becomes a transformative outer work that builds into a bonfire of light, the kind of light that can change the world. (Lewis & Jones, 2012, p. 145)

This glimmer of hope was also expressed by a young Black poet, Amanda Gorman, at the inauguration of the 46th president of the United States: “There is always light if only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it” (Yasharoff, 2021).

Summary This chapter is full of ideas—ideas about families, ideas about policymaking, and ideas about political activism. But the ideas presented here are only ink on a page. You are about to embark on a journey to learn more about the research and practice of family policy in this country and abroad. In these pages, you will learn what policy can accomplish, how it is made, and what role research evidence can play in its making. • The first place where people form relationships and learn to relate to others is in families. It is in families that we learn the value and joy of commitment to others. • To solve some of the thorniest problems facing society takes the power and reach of public policy. • Studies have identified some common characteristics that comprise the “ready point” for citizen participation. Citizens may be ready to respond if a personally meaningful opportunity arises when they have the time and skills to engage. Citizens engage when they believe that they can be politically effective and that government and decision-makers will respond to their bids. The most demanding form of participation, such as confrontational or violent protests, emerges when citizens are intensely dissatisfied with authorities or institutions believed to be illegitimate, unethical, or unfair.

W A N T T O M A K E A D I F F E R E N C E ? C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

29

• Political hobbyism is spending time on political news and social media for the purpose of expressing outrage. Real political activism requires moving into the policy arena to work with others for the purpose of pursuing change. • Allies make activism easier. Working with allies requires being willing to compromise to develop a common agenda. It is in partnership with many voices that we are better able to discern the common good and advance our common cause.

The words in this book can become more than ink on a page. Only you can reflect on these ideas. Only you can polish and refine them. Only you can breathe life into them and make them come alive in the real world. Only you can seize the moment and set yourself on a path toward a life that makes a difference. In the words of anti-apartheid activist Allan Aubrey Boesak (2015, p. 89): When I go up there … the Big Judge [in heaven] will say to me, “Where are your wounds?” And if I say, “I haven’t any,” he will say, “Was there nothing to fight for?”

2

31

CHAPTER 2 WHY WE SHOULD FOCUS ON FAMILIES IN POLICYMAKING AND WHY WE DON’T

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

I think 75 percent of … my colleagues … are parents and probably 75 percent, maybe higher, are currently married. Obviously, most of them have a family … If it’s something I don’t see, feel, touch, or hear, you’re going to have … [to] drill down on making me feel it, see it, touch it, and hear it … It’s easier to do with youth and family because we’ve all been there … Someone brought us into this Earth and most of us have siblings aunts and uncles … It is hard to find other areas … common to so many people. (Republican legislator)

• Is family still important to society or is it an outdated institution? • Why is it that families are marginalized in policymaking? • Do policymakers, professionals, and the public value families in policy and program decisions? • What are the prominent forces that make it so difficult to turn lofty family rhetoric into real policies and programs?

Two paradoxical themes run through the story of family policy—optimism and pessimism. The story is optimistic in that family policy has made significant strides forward in the past 50 years. Yet at the same time, the story is pessimistic because the family policy is not as recognized or respected as fields such as economic or education policy. Family policy remains underdeveloped as a subfield of social policy, despite growing government expenditures on families during lean and prosperous times (Moffitt, 2015). In the past 50 years, spending on low-income families has increased so much that it now is at its highest levels in U.S. history (Haveman et al., 2015). The social insurance programs established by the 1935 Social Security Act flipped rates of poverty for the elderly; elderly poverty was once far above rates for the nonelderly, but now are substantially below them (McGarry, 2013). Since 1993, government tax and income transfer policies have been increasingly effective in reducing poverty among children for all family types and racial/ethnic groups (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2019). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Rescue Plan provided a record $48.7 billion of funding for children, families, and communities to support child care, DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-3

32

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

family violence prevention, Head Start, preventive child welfare interventions, and so forth (American Rescue Plan, n.d.). Spending on child care alone was the largest in U.S. history; the first round of COVID-19 relief funding allocated $13.5 billion for child care with an additional $39 billion in the third round (Wilson, 2022). The temporary expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit in 2021 was unprecedented in lifting 3.7 million children out of poverty from minority and low- to moderate-income families (Hamilton et al., 2022). Yet the government’s expanded focus on families seems to have largely gone unnoticed in research, policy, and practice (Ooms, 2019). Family policy has not merited sufficient attention from those who produce research studies in universities, think tanks, and evaluation firms (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010; Bogenschneider & MacDermid Wadsworth, 2019; Cowan & Cowan, 2019b). Family policy has no formal entity in the labyrinthian corridors of executive and legislative power that elevates its interest (Hengstebeck, 2021). Family policy has not become a household term among those who consume research findings, such as policymakers, journalists, and the public (Ooms, 2019). Policymakers would not think of passing a law or enacting a rule without considering its economic impact; yet family considerations are much less often raised or consciously factored into policy decisions (Bogenschneider et al., 2012). Taken together, “When we discuss the problems confronting the country, we don’t talk about family enough. It feels too judgmental. Too uncomfortable. Maybe even too religious” (Brooks, 2020). To explore America’s sidelining of family policy, this chapter begins by thinking about the very idea of family. Are families still a thing or are they an outdated institution in modern society? Are families as important to society today as they once were? Then the chapter digs down into the evidence on the extent to which families are marginalized in policymaking, and what forces make it difficult to turn lofty family rhetoric into real policies and programs.

Are Families Still as Important to Society as They Once Were? From an anthropological perspective, family in one of its many forms has been part of every known human society (Eastman, 1996). Perhaps family transcends societies across the ages because it is central to human survival. With human offspring, the prospects that the young will survive and develop depend on close and caring associations with older members of the species (Bronfenbrenner & Weiss, 1983). In the United States, the family has proven to be a “spunky little institution” that over the last couple of centuries has withstood a tidal wave of tumultuous change (Hochschild, 2003). Families have survived world wars and domestic revolutions. Families have adapted to a tsunami of change that ranges from colonization to industrialization, from Black oppression to the Great Depression, and from immigration to globalization. Family forms have changed, but their symbolic importance remains. Perhaps the best indicator of the future of family is the hopes and dreams of young people, who are on

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

33

the threshold of making decisions about their own lives. In longitudinal surveys of U.S. high school seniors conducted annually since 1976, the importance of “having a good marriage and family life” has remained relatively constant for young women (at 80%) and young men (at 70%; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Even though marriage rates are on the decline, most young people still see marriage in their future. This hope of young people that they will someday marry has remained unchanged for the past several decades (Sassler & Lichter, 2020; Smock & Schwartz, 2020). Perhaps the major question to be answered is not why fewer people are marrying, but why so many people still are marrying, planning to marry, or hoping to marry. Marriage remains an institution that is widely believed to be good for the bearing and rearing of children, and beneficial for the larger society (Smock & Schwartz, 2020). Marriage provides an intimate partnership with a person who cares about you and puts your welfare above all others (Sawhill, 2014, p. 130). And in a culture where relationships easily can be revoked at any time, marriage is a public commitment of love and fidelity made in front of family and friends (and sometimes one’s God) that is expected to last a lifetime (Dionne, 2004). This public commitment is enshrined in law and thereby bestows an element of “enforceable trust” (Cherlin, 2020b). Perhaps family remains relevant throughout the ages because it is comprised of relationships that can be trusted to provide mutual love and kindness (Bogenschneider, 2015). Of course, whether public policies should be designed to favor families rests on the answer to this next question. Why is it that families have been and continue to be so important to society?

Why Do Families Continue to Be Important to Society? Perhaps families continue to be important because society needs them to achieve its goals. In the poetic words of Wendell Berry (1972): “A couple who make a good marriage, and raise healthy, morally competent children, are serving the world’s future more directly and surely than any political leader, though they never utter a public word.” These sentiments are confirmed by a growing body of research that strong families are effective and efficient in helping society reach its larger social and economic goals. An extensive body of research on the contributions made by parents is consistent in its conclusion that they instill in children the qualities needed to succeed in work and life: It is obvious that parents are huge contributors to the knowledge, skills and character of their children. We can argue about the size of the parenting effect, compared to genetics, economics, culture, schooling, and so on. There is no question, however, that the quality of parenting is one of the most—perhaps the most important contributor to a good, fair, responsible society. (Reeves & Howard, 2013)

34

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Research in multiple disciplines has converged around the premise of family as a foundational force for building a productive workforce and a caring, committed citizenry. Social psychologists have examined the miracle of human cooperation, which occurs in every successful nation on earth; across countries and cultures, the moral building blocks of cooperation are learned in groups, such as families. In individualistic societies like the United States, families serve a crucial role in reining rampant self-interest and binding people together in trusting relationships (Haidt, 2013). Moreover, in market economies, money and material possessions are a sign of worth. In contrast, families teach their members that worthiness comes from actions difficult to ascribe a monetary value to, such as commitment to one another or contributions to the common good. Further, it is in families that we learn empathy for those who face misfortunes. In a 2009 speech to Congress, former President Obama spoke about how one U.S. Senator came to develop empathy that he referred to as “large-heartedness”: Ted Kennedy’s passion [for health care] was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

Oftentimes, when government policy is lacking, it is families that provide care for those who cannot always care for themselves—the aged, frail, ill, and those with disabilities. When one’s own parent, sibling, or child experiences hardships, it is easier to understand what it is like when others hit hard times. This experience can be the first step in seeing the need for public policy to support struggling families (Wear, 2014). Families contribute to good, fair, and responsible societies in many ways, as expressed in Table. 2.1. Given all that families contribute to society in ancient and new ways, how can it be that families often are an afterthought in the normal routines of policymaking (Ooms, 2019)? Table 2.1  How Families Contribute to a Good, Fair, and Responsible Society Families serve to counter: • The self-interest of individualistic cultures • The materialistic pressures of market economies • The meager government assistance of societies with small social safety nets

Does the Lack of Stakeholder Support Marginalize Families in Policymaking? The marginalization of families in policymaking is undeniably the unfortunate culmination of several converging forces. This chapter considers two main sets of contributing factors summarized in Table 2.2. First, the chapter considers three dominant

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

35

Table 2.2  What Dominant Stakeholders and Prominent Forces Contribute to Family Marginalization in Policymaking Source

Substantial Contribution to Family Marginalization Yes

No

Dominant Stakeholders Policymaker support of families

X

Professional support of families

X

Public support of families

X

Prominent Forces Political Skepticism About the Role of Government in Family Life

X

Rapid Demographic Changes That Have Occurred Within Contemporary Families

X

Social, Economic, and Racial/Ethnic Inequalities Across Contemporary Families

X

Cultural Tensions Between Individual Rights and Family Responsibilities

X

Inadequate Preparation of Professionals to Engage in Evidence-Based Family Policymaking

X

stakeholders—policymakers, professionals, and the public—and the extent to which they contribute to family marginalization in policymaking. I describe in general terms the views of each of these major stakeholders, recognizing that individual variation does exist within these populations. Second, the chapter focuses on five prominent forces that impede the prioritization of families on the policy agenda—political skepticism about the role of government in family life, rapid demographic changes that have occurred within contemporary families, social and economic inequalities that have grown across contemporary families, cultural tensions between individual rights and family responsibilities, and inadequate preparation of professionals to engage in evidence-based family policymaking. Does the Marginalization of Families in Policymaking Stem From Policymakers Who Are Inattentive or Uninterested?

Not usually. Policymakers are often the first culprit to be blamed for the marginalization of families in policymaking. The rhetoric, research, and written record suggest otherwise. Granted, policymakers may impede progress on some of the most divisive issues of our times such as abortion, immigration, and sex education. Yet, in general, families are a widely shared value premise that makes them less polarizing than other contemporary issues. The Congressional Record provides written evidence that families

36

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

are a population that can rise above partisanship. Except for two weeks, policymakers mentioned family-oriented words every week that Congress was in session for over a decade. Importantly, these mentions of families cut across gender and political party, and did not pigeonhole politicians as politically conservative or liberal, as Republican or Democrat (Strach, 2007). The language and symbol of family appeal to common values that policymakers describe as having the potential to be a unifying force across peoples and communities (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). Let’s look at the history of “family” rhetoric by U.S. presidents and presidential candidates beginning in the 1970s. Jimmy Carter was the first U.S. president to make strengthening families a major goal of his administration without limiting the focus to any ethnic or economic group (Steiner, 1981). In his words, “If we want less government, we must have stronger families, for government steps in by necessity when families have failed” (as cited in Strach, 2007, p. 7). President Bill Clinton declared in his 1994 State of the Union address that the country’s problems are rooted in the breakdown of our families and communities (Winkler, 1994). Republicans agreed. In the 1994 Republican Contract with America, four of the 10 proposals dealt specifically with families. Less than two years later, the Democrats made “Families First” their campaign slogan (Wisensale, 2001a). In the 1996 presidential campaign, presidential hopefuls Bob Dole and Bill Clinton battled to be the bearer of the family banner (Rosenberg & Limber, 1996). In the 2000 elections, presidential candidate Al Gore called for a family lobby as powerful as the gun lobby (Belkin, 2000). In 2001, during the first six months of his term, President George W. Bush vowed to unveil a family-friendly agenda to give parents more time with their children and with each other (Fournier, 2001). In the 2008 Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama focused on the role that family members play in the lives of their children. For example, he spoke these words in a Father’s Day speech in 2008: “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important” (as cited in Graham, 2008). In a campaign rally in North Carolina a couple of days prior to the election, candidate Obama eulogized his recently deceased grandmother, describing the role that she played and that other parents and grandparents play in the lives of their children and grandchildren (as cited in Hoppock, 2008): She was somebody who was a very humble person and a very plainspoken person. She’s one of those quiet heroes that we have all across America who—they’re not famous, their names aren’t in the newspapers, but each and every day they work hard. They look after their families. They sacrifice for their children and their grandchildren. They aren’t seeking the limelight. All they try to do is do the right thing. And in this crowd there are a lot of quiet heroes like that. Mothers and fathers and grandparents who have worked hard and sacrificed all their lives and the satisfaction that they get is seeing that their children and maybe their grandchildren and their great grandchildren live a better life than they did. That’s what America’s about.

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

37

Presidential candidate John McCain cited the importance of family functions as a qualification for vice president of the United States. When McCain introduced his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, he mentioned several of her credentials for the position, with only the family qualifications excerpted below (as cited in CQ Transcripts Wire, 2008): Friends, I’ve spent the last few months looking for a running mate …. And it’s with great pride and gratitude that I tell you I have found the right partner … someone who grew up in a decent, hardworking, middle-class family …. They taught their children to care about others, to work hard and to stand up with courage for the things you believe …. And I’m sure they taught them skills that will surely come in handy over the next two months. The person I’m about to introduce to you … knows what it’s like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries; a standout high school point guard; a concerned citizen who became a member of the PTA, then a city council member, and then a mayor, and now a governor …. And I am especially proud to say in the week we celebrate the anniversary of women’s suffrage, a devoted wife and a mother of five.

The 2008 presidential campaign was a microcosm of some of the changes that have occurred in contemporary family life. For example, presidential candidate Barack Obama was raised in a nontraditional family with parenting provided by a single mother, a stepfather, and later his grandparents. Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden became a single parent of two young sons when his first wife was killed in a tragic automobile accident; he later became part of a blended family when he remarried and had a child with his second wife. Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a mother of five including a pregnant teenager and an infant with Down Syndrome (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). In the 2012 campaign, families again were front and center. Both candidates agreed about the importance of supporting families but disagreed about the definition of family. Barack Obama became the first sitting president to support gay marriage: I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage. At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. (Klein, 2012)

In stark contrast to President Obama, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney opposed gay marriage. Romney expressed his views in an address to the National

38

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), at their annual convention on July 11, 2012: I’m hopeful that together we can set a new direction in federal policy, starting where many of our problems do—with the family … Here at the NAACP, you understand the deep and lasting difference the family makes. Your former executive director, Dr. Benjamin Hooks, had it exactly right. The family, he said, “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community. That great truth must not be overlooked.” Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal. As president, I will promote strong families—and I will defend traditional marriage. (Georgetown/On Faith, 2012)

In the Republican primary, Romney’s strongest opponent was Rick Santorum who wrote the book, It Takes a Family. He argued that Republicans should move beyond definitions and make families a central focus of their campaigns by emphasizing how wellfunctioning families serve the larger economic goals of society: We need to focus on marriage, not the definition of marriage, but reclaiming marriage as a public good. Marriage and family is central. Every family in America is a little business … in fact, the word economy comes from the Greek word “oikos,’ which means home. Every home is a little economy. And when those little economies struggle and suffer … then America fails. (as cited in Wear, 2014)

In the 2016 presidential race between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton, family was one of the words used most in campaign speeches (Badger & Cain, 2018). Democrat Hillary Clinton called for a “family-centered economics” (Wear, 2014) that mirrored the comments of Republican Rick Santorum in the previous election. Thus, over the last 60 years, several Presidents and Presidential candidates have positioned family policies as important national issues in their political campaigns. Similar sentiments have been expressed at the state level by high-profile politicians in both major parties. For example, Democrat Madeleine Kunin, the only woman in the United States to be elected Governor three times, wrote about families in her 2012 book that outlined the new feminist agenda. Drawing on her experience as Governor of Vermont and ambassador to Switzerland, Kunin called for policymakers and the public to “strengthen the institution that all Americans—of every political persuasion—value most—the family” (p. 257). An almost identical argument was made by Marco Rubio, the Republican Senator from Florida, in his 2012 speech at the Republican National Convention: “We are special because we’ve been united, not by a common race or ethnicity. We’re bound together by common values—that family is the most important institution in society” (as cited in Politico Staff, 2012). Over the years, the family issues have changed. The emphasis has shifted. Yet the need to support families has been widely endorsed by policymakers from both sides of the aisle.

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

39

As one state legislator explained in a recent study: “Everybody understands the value of family and youth where they may not with tourism or taxes or [environmental] issues” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1150). Thus, family marginalization in policymaking cannot be laid solely at the feet of policymakers because of their lack of attention to or interest in families. Families appear to have long captured the imagination of policymakers, irrespective of their ideology or political affiliation. Yet one state legislator cautioned that because youth and families are seen as a “common interest,” does not mean there will be acceptance of a “common answer” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1150). Policymakers agree about the importance of supporting families but may disagree about how best to provide that support. Can the Marginalization of Families in Policymaking Be Blamed on Lack of Attention and Support From Professionals?

Probably not. Family has evolved as a focal point of research across several disciplines. At the turn of the last century, the study of families was largely situated in the discipline of home economics. However, its potential contribution to diverse disciplines became apparent and several specialized journals and practice areas emerged, such as family demographics, family economics, family health, family law, family medicine, family psychology, family sociology, family therapy, and so forth (Bredehoft, 2009). Family science has evolved as a profession. In the 1980s, the National Council on Family Relations began credentialing Family Life Educators. Beginning in 1997 and to this day, “family law and public policy” is included in the framework as one of the practice areas considered fundamental to certification as a family life educator (Bogenschneider, 2015; Darling et al., 2019; Reinke & Walcheski, 2015). Family programs to support and strengthen families have evolved since they first appeared in the United States 60 years ago. Head Start was a forerunner of the ecological approach that underlies most of today’s family support programs. The support of professionals for strengthening families has continued and matured through good times and bad. Family support has proven to be critical during challenging times, illustrated here with the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic. Human Service Professionals Supported Families During the Great Recession

Human service professionals coalesced around families in 2009 in the midst of the Great Recession, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The National Human Services Assembly brought together 50 national thought leaders from 36 provider organizations that focused on children, youth, families, and communities. Traditionally, these organizations have operated quite independently. Yet they all responded to the call to develop support for vulnerable youth and families during a

40

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

deepening recession that forced many people into poverty for the first time. Demand for services was increasing at the same time that government and philanthropic resources were decreasing. These grim circumstances enabled organizations to rise above the natural human tendency to double down on artificial differences that served their own self-interests. The organizations reached a consensus on one common flaw fundamental to the way they all did business—how they thought about and framed their work: “The client is not the child. The client is not the adult. The client is the family” (National Human Services Assembly, 2009, p. 2). Despite their diversity, these organizations were singular in their conclusion that family strengthening was more than a goal or outcome to be achieved: “It’s a lens through which we must look at everything we do” (National Human Services Assembly, 2009, p. 4). Antithetical to this whole family approach were categorical programs and funding streams that focused on one problem or one clientele at a time rather than strengthening their families. Human Service Professionals Supported a Whole-Family Approach During the Pandemic

Human service professionals also coalesced around a whole family approach in their response to a public health crisis—the pandemic. One concern that arose in the human service sector was how the pandemic was affecting young people’s social development by depriving them of interpersonal interactions and relationships with friends, playmates, care providers, teachers, and so on. Human service providers commended parents for how heroically they were rising to the challenge. Yet they were quick to warn that it can be tricky to attribute youth development only to what happens “inside the family bubble,” without realizing the vital role played by conditions outside the family. All too easily, what matters to child and youth development can be reduced to good parenting that depends primarily on the values and personal choices of individual parents. This line of thinking masks how the growth and development of children are also shaped by societal institutions such as early childhood education and care centers, schools, and community organizations that provide education, mentoring, sports, and the arts (Frameworks UK, 2020). The pandemic provided fresh eyes about how children and youth grow up in an environment of relationships. For young people to survive and thrive depends on a whole a family approach that extends beyond blaming parents to considering the larger society in which parents operate. The whole family approach connects what happens inside families to the conditions outside the family that are created and supported by policies and programs (Frameworks UK, 2020). Professionals Bring the Family Voice to Policies, Programs, and Practices

Over the last half-century, professionals have published various family-centered reports, which bring the voice of families to several settings across a variety of topics. A sampling of 38 reports published between 2000 and 2023 can be found in Table 2.3.

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

41

Table 2.3  Selected National Reports Recommending Family-Centered Policy, Programs, and Practice Published Between 2000 and 2023 Year

Author

Title of Report

2000

National Council on Family Relations

Public Policy Through a Family Lens: Sustaining Families in the 21st Century

2001

Family Support America

From Many Voices: Consensus: What America Needs for Strong Families and Communities

2001

Resource Center on Couples and Marriage Policy and Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Strengthening Couples and Marriage in Low-Income Communities

2002

Institute for Responsive Education, Parent Leadership Exchange Project

Supporting Parents as Leaders: Stories of Dedication, Determination, and Inspiration

2002

Institute of Medicine

Health Insurance is a Family Matter

2002

NeighborWorks Reinvestment Corporation

Mixed Income Housing’s Greatest Challenge: Strengthening America’s Neighborhoods While Reaching Our Lowest-Income Families

2003

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Trends in the Well-Being of America’s Children and Youth (published annually from 1995 to 2003)

2004

Family Strengthening Policy Center

Parental Involvement in Education

2004

National Association of Counties

Human Services and Education Platform and Resolutions

2004

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Indicators of Child, Family, and Community Connections

2005

National League of Cities’ Institute for Youth, Education, and Families

Strengthening America’s Families: An Agenda for Municipal Leaders

2006

Committee for Economic Development

The Economic Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Programs: What Makes the Difference?

2007

Family Strengthening Policy Center

Family Strengthening Writ Large: On Becoming a Nation that Promotes Strong and Successful Youth

2007

Family Strengthening Policy Center

Home Visiting: Strengthening Families by Promoting Parenting Success

2008

Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare

CW360°: A Comprehensive Look at a Prevalent Child Welfare Issue. Children of Incarcerated Parents

2008

Institute of Medicine

Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce (continued)

42

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Table 2.3  continued Year

Author

Title of Report

2009

Child Trends

The Strengths of Poor Families

2009

National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds

Evidence Based Practice in Strengthening Families and Preventing Child Maltreatment

2009

National Human Services Assembly

Through a New Lens: Toward a Fundamental Reframing of “the Client”

2009

U.S. Department of Education

Race to the Top Fund

2010

National Association of Social Workers

NASW Standards for Social Work Practice with Family Caregivers of Older Adults

2011

Harvard Family Research Project

Bringing Families to the Table: Recommendations and Next Steps from the National Policy Forum for Family, School, and Community Engagement

2012

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics

America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being (published annually since 1997)

2012

National Institute on Aging/World Health Organization

Global Health and Aging

2012

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau

Preventing Child Maltreatment and Promoting Well-Being: A Network for Action

2012

White House Council for Community Solutions

Final Report: Community Solutions for Opportunity Youth

2013

MDRC

The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children, Ages 3–8

2015

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Every Kids Needs a Family: Giving Children in the Child Welfare System the Best Chance for Success

2015

Center for American Progress

Valuing all our Families: Progressive Policies that Strengthen Family Commitments and Reduce Family Disparities

2017

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Strategic Evidence Building for TwoGeneration Approaches

2017

Ascend, The Aspen Institute

Making Tomorrow Better Together: A Guide to Outcomes for 2GEN Policymakers

2018

Ascend, The Aspen Institute

States Leading the Way: Practical Solutions that Lift up Children and Families

2018

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Is the Last Mile the Longest: Economic Gains from Gender Equality in Nordic Countries (continued)

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

43

Table 2.3  continued Year

Author

Title of Report

2019

Institute of Human Development and Social Change

Approaches to Protect Children’s Access to Health and Human Services in an Era of Harsh Immigration Policy

2021

Ascend, The Aspen Institute

State of the Field: Two-Generation Approaches to Family Well-Being

2022

The Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage (RAISE) Act Family Caregiving Council

2022 National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers

2023

AARP Public Policy Institute

Valuing the Invaluable 2023 Update: Strengthening Supports for Family Caregiving

For example, the critical role of families has been recognized by professionals in various settings that spanned communities, municipalities, cities, counties, the White House, and international organizations. The reports were published by federal and state agencies, institutes, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, philanthropic foundations, think tanks, university centers, and so forth. The reports recognized and reinforced the role of families across a range of issues including child and family services, child maltreatment, early childhood education and care, family caregiving, health care, health insurance, housing, inequality, K-12 education, marriage and couple education, parenting education, school and community engagement, youth development, and so on. The purposes of the reports ranged from advocacy to education, from program approaches to best practices, from demographic data to political platforms. Family reports issued between 1988 and 1999 can be found online at www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider This widespread endorsement of families, however, does not mean that there is “one” family voice. Professional organizations have viewed families through different lenses that emphasize different aspects of family functioning, such as economic support, children’s rights, or women’s rights. This was apparent in a recent analysis of how United Nations organizations view family policy in their mandates, missions, and institutional contexts. The long-standing International Labour Organization (ILO) views the value of families through an economic lens that promotes decent work for men and women through the establishment of labor standards and fair work practices. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has a child-centric focus that prioritizes children’s rights and the central role of families in children’s well-being; as illustration, two signature issues have been breastfeeding and child care. UN Women is a feminist organization that has a women’s equity focus that draws attention to such issues as domestic violence and reproductive rights (Razavi, 2020; Van Lancker & Nieuwenhuis, 2020).

44

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

In sum, professionals have broadly endorsed families as a legitimate priority across a wide swath of policy issues. Professionals have placed families at the center of research, policy, and practice. Is the Marginalization of Families in Policymaking Due to Lack of Support From the Public?

The answer is a resounding “no.” When asked about the importance of family life, the views of the public were similar in 14 of 17 of the world’s advanced economies (Pew Research Center, November 18, 2021). Families were endorsed as a predominant source of meaning in people’s lives. Among the 19,000 adults who were polled, families topped the list of what makes life meaningful. In the United States, half or more adults say that families make their lives fulfilling. They described the meaning of relationships with parents, siblings, children and grandchildren, and the quality of the time they spend together; some respondents also discussed how their family ties inspired them to take actions that would leave a better world for their children (Pew Research Center, November 18, 2021). No partisan differences emerged with both Democrats and Republicans reporting that they derive meaning from their families (Pew Research Center, November 22, 2021). The meaning of family internationally and in the United States has persisted despite the transformational changes occurring in family life—more cohabitation, a delay in marriage, more children born to unmarried parents, and the legalization of same-sex marriage. In 21 industrialized countries, public opinion across the time span of 1998 to 2008 has become more approving of varying forms of family life (Treas et al., 2014). When Americans were asked, the largest share (45%) said this growing variety of family arrangements did not matter to them; in fact, this view grew even larger in 2019 than in 2010. Responses were similar among Democrats and Republicans, and did not differ significantly by gender or education (Pew Research Center, 2020). When specifically asked about the legalization of same-sex marriage—about six in 10 adults reported that it was very good (35%) or somewhat good (25%) (Pew Research Center, December 17, 2019b). What’s more, there is a fair amount of consensus about the functions families serve. For example, more- and less-educated parents did not differ in their values and preferences about preparing children for success in school and in life. In low-income families, however, the financial strain and chaos of family life may make it harder for parents to fulfill their intentions (Kearney & Haskins, 2020). Summary of Stakeholder Valuing of Families

With some exceptions, the majority of policymakers, professionals, and the public endorse the importance of families to a strong and vital society. So why then is it so hard to turn family rhetoric into reality?

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

45

What Prominent Forces Marginalize Families in Policymaking The explanations for why family policy has been marginalized in policymaking are many and multi-faceted. Five forces have been substantial barriers to turning family rhetoric into reality. These prominent forces are political, demographic, economic, cultural, and educational. Families have not become an everyday term that is on the lips of policymakers, professionals, and the public because of political skepticism about the role of government in family life; rapid demographic changes that have occurred within contemporary families; social, economic, and racial/ethnic inequalities that have grown across contemporary families; cultural tensions between individual rights and family responsibilities; and inadequate preparation of professionals to engage in evidence-based family policymaking. Political Skepticism About the Role of Government in Family Life

One prominent question that has plagued our country since its early history is not whether support is needed, but whether support should be provided by the government (Trzcinski, 1995). From the earliest years of our nation, two of the founding fathers who later became presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, had heated disagreements about the size and role of government in a democracy. This tension continues to this day as expressed by a former president in a speech to Congress: One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate …. Our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. (Obama, September 9, 2009)

The field of family policy is no exception to this ongoing debate over the role of government. Lingering questions remain about whether families are a proper target for public policy or whether they are primarily a private matter. For decades, parents have received private support in village greens and on park benches; during barn raisings and church meetings; and at gatherings in the general store, post office, or neighborhood cheese factory. In these settings, which were once commonplace in America, parents were able to talk with each other, observe other parents interacting with and disciplining their children, and, in so doing, learn about community norms and standards for childrearing.

46

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Few of these customs remain, yet the needs they met and the purposes they served continue (Hochschild, 2003). The ways families were supported in the past may not be as available to contemporary families given the unprecedented transformations in family life. One could argue that the ecology of family life has changed so rapidly that it has crowded out these important informal customs that used to provide private family-tofamily support. The new forms of support that are needed from both private and public sources have not been able to keep pace. Despite substantial growth of government spending on families in the last half-century (Haveman et al., 2015; Moffitt, 2015), Americans still do not agree about the appropriate role of the government. In 2020, nearly six of ten adults (59%) thought that government should do more to solve societal problems whether it be supporting the nation’s economy or family life; in contrast, four in 10 adults (39%) thought that the government is doing things that should be left to individuals or business (Pew Research Center, 2020). In studies, one “very big split” between parties was whether the government was seen as causing problems or resolving them (Bogenschneider et al., 2021). A Democrat contended that when the government makes policies available, it makes opportunities available. Family policies can make it possible for struggling youth and families to “jump off that train, whether it’s making sure there’s money for daycare, for kids so they can go to school, or so on.” A Republican disagreed, questioning whether the policy could do anything at all for children in difficult family circumstances, unless “a parent is willing to really change some things, there’s not much you can do to impact that child’s life … Maybe they’ll be able to pull out of the cycle, but the odds are so slim.” He speculated whether government policy has unintended consequences and does more harm than good. He told the story of a mom and dad who decided not to marry, so they could qualify for childcare funds: If you … took the whole honest household’s income … they wouldn’t qualify. But if mom and dad don’t get married, and mom is either working or going to school fulltime, and you file the taxes separately, then she can qualify for all of these benefits. Then what are we doing? We’re now contributing to a lack of stability for the family long-term. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1151).

Yet despite these stark disagreements, there appears to be bipartisan agreement among Democrats and Republicans that government should play a major role on some issues. For example, the role of government in strengthening the economy is widely supported by an almost identical share of Democrats (77%) and Republicans (79%). Yet partisan agreement breaks down on how well the government performs this function. Only half of the public believe that the government is doing a good job of the economy (54%) with less agreement about the job that the government is doing on family matters, such as poverty (36%) and immigration (34%; Pew Research Center, 2020). The pandemic may have been a tipping point that exposed several vulnerabilities that families face (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). When COVID-19 sent unemployment

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

47

rates to record highs, cracks were revealed in the assistance provided to families by the U.S. employment-centered welfare system. During the pandemic, “a wide array of new and increased supports were enacted with astonishing swiftness and public support” (Gornick, Maldonado, & Sheely, 2022a). Americans witnessed strong declines in poverty and food insecurity when government income supports were expanded (e.g., stimulus checks; the establishment of a monthly, nonrefundable child tax credit; and extended unemployment benefits). Moreover, when these provisions expired, poverty and food insecurity increased (Parolin & Lee, 2022; Sawhill, 2022). Time will tell whether the success of these programs may have “shifted the ground” in favor of less resistance and perhaps more demand for a larger role of government in family policies (Gornick et al., 2022b). As a society, we are operating with an undercurrent of uncertainty about the size and role of government at a time when the public’s trust in government is at historic lows (Pew Research Center, 2017a). Still, more than eight in ten Americans (84%) believe that it is possible for Americans to regain trust in their government. The bigger question of what role government should play in family policy is a critical question, one that can be informed by science, but not answered by science. Instead, it is a question of values, priorities, and political judgments made by policymakers elected to make those decisions. Rapid Demographic Changes That Have Occurred Within Contemporary Families

There is no dispute that families are changing. Remarkably, many of these changes have taken place in the span of a single human lifetime. According to demographers, some of these changes are so unprecedented and such a departure from convention that they are considered transformational (Cherlin, 2020b). The question is whether family policies have been able to keep pace with the changes. Have policymakers been able to design public policies that support contemporary families in all their diversity? These transformational changes are described in detail in Chapter 7 and briefly summarized here. Family forms have changed. Remarkable increases have occurred in cohabitation regardless of education and among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics (Cherlin, 2020b). For those without college degrees, demographers report remarkable declines in marriage and increases in cohabitation, divorce, re-partnering, and nonmarital childbearing (Smeeding, 2016). The lives of children have changed. Children are experiencing more instability in family life, especially among those living in less educated and more disadvantaged families (Smock & Schwartz, 2020). For children, this means that they are less likely to be living in stable relationships with their biological parents and more likely to be living in complicated arrangements where they are being parented by romantic partners, stepparents, and grandparents.

48

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

The lives of older adults have changed. Americans are living longer and require more caregiving. Family members have traditionally provided the lion’s share of care for older adults with impairments (Carr & Utz, 2020). At the same time that demand is increasing, the supply of family caregivers is shrinking. Many older adults have had fewer children, some who live far away or hold demanding and inflexible jobs. Some family policies have kept pace with the complexity of contemporary family life. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, provides benefits to all household members who prepare and eat food together at least half the time (Moffitt, 2015). Other family policies have not adapted as nimbly to changes in family life, such as parents having children with more than one partner. For example, in Texas, fathers who have three children with one mother will pay about 30% of their net income for child support; however, fathers with three children from three different partners will pay roughly 50% of their income (Edin et al., 2019). What’s more, child support laws require noncustodial parents to provide resources for their children living in another household. Yet in other ways, noncustodial parents are treated like nonparents. Even under arrangements where custody is equally or near equally shared, noncustodial parents do not have equal access to some of our nation’s most effective anti-poverty policies, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC can be claimed by only one parent with no provisions that allow splitting benefits across parents who share custody (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Policymakers could learn about ways to support diverse families by observing the assistance provided in nontraditional families by people who “show up for you no matter what” (Brooks, 2020). Policymakers could build on new approaches such as twogeneration programs and new findings from neuroscience about ways to improve the quality of caregiving (Magnuson & Schindler, 2019). In sum, in the last half-century, spending on family policy has continued to grow at a time when families are experiencing transformational change (Haveman et al., 2015). Some family policies have adapted to changing family circumstances, whereas others have been neither nimble nor efficient in doing so. The result has been piecemeal legislation that responds only to the needs of a specific family member or a particular type of family, often the more conventional married family. Policymakers have patched together family policies, sometimes with no apparent rhyme or reason, and without a comprehensive vision for strengthening and supporting families in all their diversity across the lifespan (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018; Butterfield et al., 2010). Social, Economic, and Racial/Ethnic Inequalities That Have Grown Across Contemporary Families

Fifty years ago, the job of policymakers seemed easier. They lived in a world where a rising tide raised all boats (Wilson, 1997). When the economy was strong, the incomes of almost all families tended to rise. If policymakers could keep the economy strong, it

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

49

also would keep most family incomes strong. Since the 1970s, families have experienced growing economic inequality, whether indexed by income, wealth and so forth (Pew Research Center, 2020). This growing divide between the rich and the poor means that the American Dream no longer works for everyone. Working hard and playing by the rules no longer guarantees that you will get ahead (Obama, 2013; Reeves, 2017). In response, parent’s confidence that the lives of their children and their families would be better in the future are at or near the lowest levels ever recorded (Galston, 2014). Inequality in America is more than simply differences in income. Inequality can be viewed from many angles including education, family formation, occupation, zip code, and race/ethnicity (Obama, 2013; Reeves, 2017). To cite one example, racially and ethnically diverse families have lower incomes and less wealth. Discrimination has been institutionalized in certain laws and practices that perpetuate racial and ethnic inequalities. Racial and ethnic inequality appears to be at a watershed moment. During the pandemic, more deaths occurred among people of color. The deaths of several Black people at the hands of police and vigilantes led to nationwide protests mobilized by the Black Lives Matter movement. These events and others have inspired the desire to do better on racial equity as people and as a nation (van Eeden-Moorefield & Shih, 2022). The epicenter of doing better on racial equity in all its manifestations is families with children. Essentially, whether children have an equal chance to succeed in life depends, to a large extent, on the families they grow up in. The economic resources and opportunities provided to children come, in large part, from families (Bergerberger & Carlson, 2020). Moreover, racial socialization and prejudice originate in families and are perpetuated across families (Allen & Henderson, 2022). Family policy is positioned to be a driver for addressing inequality given that families and government are the primary sources of investment in children (Jackson & Schneider, 2022; Nieuwenhuis, 2020). Moreover, family policy has the potential to address inequality in all its forms, such as racism; classism; residential and geographic segregation; and discrimination in terms of disability, ethnicity, family heritage, gender identity, sexual orientation; and so forth. These inequalities have played out amidst long-standing cultural tensions in the United States between individual rights and responsibilities, as discussed next. Cultural Tensions Between Individual Rights and Family Responsibilities

Unlike other countries, the founding documents of the United States guaranteed equality of opportunity for every individual and made no mention of family. Since the inception of the United States, our public policies have had an individualistic tilt that our founding fathers might not have anticipated or intended. Individualism is the belief that everyone is considered a self-made person with control over one’s own destiny and with little expected from or owed to others. Since the 18th and 19th centuries, nearly every family

50

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

historian has written about how this culture of individualism has come in to conflict with family allegiances and solidarity (Browning & Rodriguez, 2002). Moreover, in the United States, these individualistic instincts occur amidst other coercive economic and societal forces that separate rather than unite people. Taken together, this makes it more challenging to enact policies that strengthen and support families. The reach of individualism into American life is so pervasive and potent that an entire chapter is devoted to it (see Chapter 8). Individualism shapes the ways that Americans live their lives, such as whether they play alone, eat alone, or pray alone. Individualism has influenced the steady decline of American participation in unions, work associations, and religious organizations. Courts have come to see families more like private contractual arrangements and less as a social institution based on members’ love and commitment to each other. Public policies are often targeted to the needs of individuals with less attention to the needs of the families in which they reside. Public policy has long struggled with this tension between the individual and the family. To this day, this tension exists in several policies, which is illustrated here by a current controversy among tax scholars. Kornhauser (1993) has argued that society has transitioned away from the traditional family and that tax policy should as well: “Once the family was the major determinant of social and economic status …. Today the family still plays an important role … but the individual is not nearly as dependent on the family for social and economic achievement” (p. 79). To reflect the decline of the traditional family in the United States, some tax scholars have proposed “new individualism” as a modern foundation for the design of tax policy (Alstott, 2013). They contend that tax policy should be based on autonomous individuals and they question whether tax practices such as the joint filing of returns are outdated by privileging a family form that is declining. Yet other tax scholars take a longer-term perspective that looks across time, across human societies, and across U.S. history. They acknowledge that family forms have changed, but contend that many of their functions remain. That is, nontraditional family forms still carry out many traditional family functions that are vital to society, such as economic support, childrearing, and caregiving. Accordingly, they propose that tax scholars should ask, not whether tax policies are hurting individuals, but whether they are hurting the families that support these individuals and, in particular, low-income families. They ask whether tax policy should be designed to favor families and children. Take, for instance, tax policies that reduce the overall tax burden on families such as the Child Tax Credit and the EITC (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2016). This potent force of individualism on people and on policies may be surprising to many, especially those for whom an individualistic culture is all that they have ever known. The influence of individualism is pervasive, even though it is hard to perceive. Here’s how I think of it. Describing individualism is as difficult for Americans to do as it would be for fish to describe the water in which they swim. Widely acclaimed

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

51

novelist, David Foster Wallace (2005), opened a commencement address with this apocryphal story: There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” …. The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.

This story reminds us of the important reality of how individualism shapes family life and family policy in U.S. society. Yet ironically it is families that are a bulwark against the powerful influences of individualism on the economy, social policy, and our way of life. It is families that teach their members how to counterbalance individualism with commitment to others, empathy, and morality. Inadequate Preparation of Professionals to Engage in Evidence-Based Family Policymaking

Taken together, rampant rhetorical attention is being paid to the family concept by policymakers and the public. Yet it is one thing for policymakers and the public to intuitively endorse the importance of families to a strong and vital society, and it is quite another for them to consciously and systematically place families at the center of policy and practice. Are professionals adequately trained with the prerequisite knowledge and skills to guide policymakers and professionals in centering families in policy and practice decisions? Recently, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike have pointed out components of professional training that may be missing or not covered in enough depth, which may explain, in part, the marginalization of families in policy and practice (Kourgiantakis et al., 2021). Vivian Tseng (2020), President of the Foundation for Child Development, and Theodora Ooms, family policy pioneer, wrote recently of four deficits in professional training in regard to research generation, research synthesis, research dissemination, and program implementation. Training on Conducting Relevant Research Is Inadequate

Professionals are often trained in the latest research methods and statistical analysis, so they are well-prepared to conduct high-quality studies or to assess the rigor of existing studies. Conducting rigorous research is necessary, but it is not sufficient (Maynard, 2006; Tseng, 2020). Researchers also need to be prepared to conduct relevant research that investigates how to solve real-world problems. A Democratic lawmaker raised concerns about the relevance of the research agendas of university professors: I think a lot of legislators think that professors are insulated from the real world and they just do this research that really doesn’t have much value to anybody. We’re paying for them to sit around and study the snail darter, and they have no idea how that could translate into anything good for society.

52

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Training on Synthesizing Research Across Studies Is Inadequate

In addition to being trained to conduct rigorous and relevant research, it also is important for professionals to learn how to synthesize research findings across existing studies (Maynard, 2006; Tseng, 2020). For busy policymakers, it can be extraordinarily helpful to have access to a review of literature conducted by someone familiar with the field who can indicate which findings have been consistently confirmed and which are cutting-edge findings that are promising but need replication. A Republican lawmaker described how valuable it was to him when he was able to locate a meta-analysis. Yeah, the [meta-analysis] was great. I mean that was very helpful because after I read all the individual studies, I was still torn. What do I do? But then when I found this one who had done his research of all those studies, it was very helpful.

Training on Effective Communication of Research Is Inadequate

In a recent study, state policymakers contended that research has become less important in the last couple of decades, and offered reasons for the decline (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020). A Republican complained that his biggest frustrations in using research were “when you can’t find it” and when you did find it, “there’s not a summary of it.” A Democrat complained that researchers have become increasingly “insular”: What is the point of doing this research if it’s not to help the public that’s funding the university and created this university? And it cannot be that the point of academia is just to talk to other academics about the cool, neat stuff that we’re learning.

If research is to regain its importance, professionals need training in the skill set that will enable them to communicate research effectively to policymakers, intermediaries, program staff, the media, and all those through whom evidence is filtered on its way from those who produce it to those who consume it (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). Translating good research requires more than writing a catchy email message or delivering a slick report to the desk of a policymaker. One critical skill often missing from training is how to build trusting relationships with policymakers, so they feel comfortable requesting the research and analysis they need to inform their decisions. Also missing is an understanding of policymakers’ information needs and work environment, so research can be translated in the accessible, nonpartisan, and timely manner that they prefer. Training on Program Implementation Is Inadequate

Tseng challenges researchers and professionals to “be willing to expand their roles beyond evidence building to be active partners in evidence use” (Tseng, 2020). Training for professionals on program implementation is essential. As examples, in residential treatment centers for youth, family support has proven to be important to recovery. Yet 88% of staff had not heard of the principles of family-centered treatment or, if they had, reported needing training to effectively implement them (Brown et al., 2010).

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

53

Robust evidence exists in the fields of treating substance use and problem gambling that involving families improves treatment entry, treatment retention, and treatment outcomes. Yet new social workers reported feeling intimidated when asked to work with families, which they (falsely) interpreted as providing family therapy (Kourgiantakis et al., 2021). In addition, the training on methods for reducing family inequality has been found to be inadequate (Nalani et al., 2021). For research to trickle down to community settings, it can take as long as 17 years, according to the American Medical Informatics Association. As examples, in prevention programs for preschoolers to third graders, less than 10% of children experience the evidence-based features identified by social science (Reynolds et al., 2019). Similarly, child welfare agencies across the United States spent $33 billion in 2018 to promote the welfare of children and youth who are victims, or at risk of being victims, of maltreatment; few states, however, were able to report how much of their budget was spent on evidence-based or promising implementation practices (Rosinsky et al., 2021). One reason that U.S. public policy may be languishing is because, “Invention is easily overrated, and implementation is often underrated” (Thompson, 2022). Many more resources go into developing evidence-based programs than are spent on figuring out why they work and whether they will work in alternative locations with diverse populations carried out by different professionals. The program may work when carried out by the original designers and a team of motivated graduate students in a program location excited about being the first implementation site. Yet it may not work when carried out in the messy conditions of the real world (Dubner, 2020). Professionals need to be trained in the science of implementation—delivering evidencebased programs with fidelity, targeting the population the program is designed to serve, and keeping a careful eye on all the moving parts in the organizational context in which the program operates. Equally important for many interventions may be mobilizing the strengths and resources of family members themselves (Walsh, 2016a). As emphasized by Ooms (2019, p. 27): “Do family members feel understood, expected, involved, and even empowered? Are the services different family members received being effectively coordinated with one another?” In sum, the current state of affairs is not the way that it has to be. This analysis of “what is” is not destiny. Better prepared and motivated professionals could help ensure families are more routinely considered in research generation, research synthesis, research dissemination, and program implementation.

Summary Families are an iconic image. The public elevates families as a cultural ideal. Policymakers champion them as a powerful political symbol, and professionals position them at the center of research, policy, and practice. A growing body of research confirms that strong

54

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

families are effective and efficient in helping society achieve its larger social and economic goals. Why is it that this lofty family rhetoric does not always turn into policies and programs that strengthen and support family well-being? Why do so many evidence-based family policies and practices never see the light of day? • Historically Americans have disagreed about how big a role government should play in the lives of families. Time will tell whether the success of pandemic policies for families may have “shifted the ground” in favor of less resistance and more demand for a larger role in government. • Recent social and economic shifts have split families into the haves and the have-nots, raising lingering questions about whether equal opportunities exist for all families regardless of disability, gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, and so forth. This presents policymakers with crucial decisions about which families deserve support, how to provide it, and at what cost. • In the United States, the individualistic belief that everyone is a self-made person, with little owed to or expected from others, makes it more challenging to enact policies that strengthen and support families. Yet paradoxically it is families that teach their members how to counterbalance individualism with commitment to others, empathy, and morality. • Family policies have not been nimble nor efficient in keeping pace with the rapid demographic changes that have occurred within and across families in the course of only one generation. Family policies have been patched together, sometimes with no apparent rhyme or reason, and without a comprehensive vision for strengthening and supporting families in all their diversity across the lifespan. • Progress has been slowed because of the dearth of professional preparation in the science of advancing evidence-based family policymaking. Training is needed from family researchers who conduct and synthesize relevant and rigorous research, from professionals who communicate it in the accessible and nonpartisan style that policymakers prefer, and from program staff who implement programs in partnership with families.

These conclusions are cautious in the recognition that families are only part of a large and complex political landscape. What’s more, family factors do not affect every issue and family approaches will not always be the most effective. Also, could focusing too exclusively on families be too much of a good thing? Could drilling down on families interfere with hard-fought individual freedoms, such as women’s career opportunities, equal wages, and reproductive rights? These conclusions are pessimistic in that mainstreaming family consideration in policies and programs has been slower than it should be. At the same time, our conclusions are optimistic. Taken together, we think of the status of family policy like a “broken smile.” Some of the teeth are missing, yet it is still unmistakably a smile (Richardson, 2021). If the smile of family policy was not broken, it would be transformative. It would transform our conception of the American Dream. For many, the American Dream, no matter how distant or far away, is a spouse, 2½ kids, and material possessions—one’s

W H Y W E S H O U L D F O C U S O N FA M I L I E S I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G 

55

own house, one’s own yard, and one’s own car in the garage. No matter how alluring materialism can be, “our possessions do not make us human” (Wear, 2014). If all our lofty family rhetoric became reality, it would shift the fixation on possessions to a prioritization of the people who make up the American Dream—a spouse, a partner, the children, the relatives, the friends—who make life worth living. This chapter incorporates content from a previous publication that is reprinted with permission. Copyright @ 2019, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2019). Fast-forward to the next frontier of family policy. [Co-editor introduction to special issue on family policy.] Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12322

3

57

CHAPTER 3 WHY DO WE NEED FAMILY POLICY? A GLOBAL RATIONALE

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

I don’t have a problem championing [youth and family issues] because they’re the core of where I think all other problems start. And if you’re going to improve youth and family situations, hopefully you’re going to have less dysfunction that creates all the other issues whether that be drugs, homelessness, joblessness, domestic issues and all those things if you can improve that environment. The key is how do you improve it?…. How are you going to approach it philosophically and economically? (Republican legislator)

• What contributions do families make for the benefit of their members and the good of society? • What family policies do nations around the globe put in place to support the contributions that families make to society? • How strongly are families valued in societies around the world? • Why does the United States invest less in family policies than other advanced nations?

Why do we need a family policy anyway? Why do universities offer courses on family policy in their curriculum? Why do some professors (like me) spend their careers studying it, teaching it, and doing it? Is family policy a legitimate subfield that brings added value to social policy? To be taken seriously as a focus of inquiry and a subfield of social policy, family policy requires its own identity, a common language, and a clear articulation of its contributions to families and to society. This chapter makes the case for family policy. This rationale may be helpful when you are asked to explain to family and friends why you are reading a book on family policy and what you are learning. Sometimes the best way to understand a new idea is to contrast what it is with what it is not. So, selected family policies from the United States are described and contrasted with family policies from around the world.

Families and Family Policy Around the World A coherent set of family policies was not enacted in most countries until the 1980s. Since that time, family policy has grown in multiple manifestations at several levels of government (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). Let’s begin with the ways families DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-4

58

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

and family policy are configured differently around the world before we turn to the similarities. Then an evidence-based rationale for family policy is proposed that is supported with real-world policy examples from small and large countries, from developed and developing nations, from North and South America, and from Europe and Asia. Differences in Family Configurations and Family Policies Around the World

Families vary in the way they are configured around the world. For example, polygamy is an accepted family form in China, in the Muslim world, and in many parts of Africa. In Europe, there is a tradition of maintaining both a bourgeois marriage and a mistress who is compensated with allowances or gifts. In the United States, there have been highly publicized cases of men who share a public life with their wife and children, and a private life in an intense homosexual relationship (Hochschild, 2003). Countries differ as to how families are structured, but none endorse promiscuity (Lewis, 1996). All share a commitment to their members so strong that they perform a number of invaluable functions without any thought of personal gain. Family policy sits at the intersection of families and government. As such, governments address the needs of their nation’s families through an eclectic mix of policies that are filtered through the prevailing socioeconomic, demographic, and political contexts (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). One cultural context that family policy must negotiate is the inherent tensions between family responsibilities and individual rights. Italians, for example, are so committed to marriage that few partners live together before marrying and few children are born outside marriage. Nordic countries, like Sweden, are highly individualistic with little more value placed on marriage than cohabitation. It is only in the United States that families operate in a cultural context that tries to do both— place a high value on marital commitment combined with a strong personal commitment to individual self-expression (Cherlin, 2009). Family policy in the United States also must negotiate ongoing controversies about whether family policy is primarily a private matter or a public concern. When it is deemed a public concern, questions remain about whether responsibility should be shouldered by the government, the market economy, civil society, or some combination thereof. Similarities in the Value of Family Policy to Families and to Society

Nation-states design family policies using different policy levers to address multiple goals (Maestri et al., 2016). So, the specifics of family policies vary from nation to nation, yet they serve many of the same purposes around the globe. Professionals sometimes are blind to the purposes for which policymakers deploy family policy. When professionals think about family policy, they typically are more interested in the private value of the functions that families provide for their members. Their prime interest is whether a public policy helps families better fulfill their private functions such as socializing children or providing caregiving for their members, especially the frail, ill, or those with disabilities. Professionals often are interested in what effects policies or

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

59

programs have on family members and whether families themselves are strengthened or empowered (Kalambokidis & Bipes, 2008). Policymakers, however, view family policy through a different lens than professionals do. Policymakers typically are more interested in the public value of the functions families perform for the larger society. The job of a policymaker is to respond to the unrelenting demand to fairly and efficiently allocate public resources in ways that improve the economic and social health of society. Thus, for policymakers, one of the main purposes of family policy is to benefit the larger society. Regardless of the nationstate, the focus of policymakers may be similar in that they are expected to track and advance the economic and social progress of society. Accordingly, their prime interest is what contributions families make to society, how effectively and efficiently they do so, and how costly it is if they fail (Kalambokidis & Bipes, 2008).

An Evidence-Based Rationale for Family Policy Given the interests of policymakers in the larger society, I draw on contemporary research to propose an evidence-based rationale for the public value of family policy, which depends on the private contributions that families make to their members. For family policy to achieve a more serious standing as a subfield of social policy, it must make contributions that are distinct from those of other subfields. The family contributions that are articulated here cannot be made or made as effectively and efficiently by other policy subfields, such as corrections, education, health care, housing, poverty, and so forth. I review here evidence that families are uniquely positioned to achieve policy ends that are essential to society. I also review evidence that family policy is more than an end in itself (Wong, 2010). Families also are a means for effectively achieving other policy goals and, importantly, a means for efficiently achieving them. Finally, I propose that families are an iconic symbol that serves to benefit the policy process itself. Five contributions of family policy are overviewed here. First, families are a fundamental foundation for generating the productive workers a sound economy demands. Second, families contribute to the raising of the caring, committed citizens a strong democracy requires. Third, families are a means for effectively achieving the family and nonfamily goals of policies and programs. Fourth, families are an efficient means for achieving policy and program goals. Finally, families are a normative ideal that can benefit the policy process by helping foster political consensus and the finding of common ground (see Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010; Bogenschneider et al., 2021). As summarized in Table 3.1, each of these contributions is illustrated with international family policies that have been enacted to strengthen and support these five main contributions. The policies described in this chapter mirror the academic literature as it includes more examples from Western countries and particularly the United States; paradoxically, social spending is higher in European countries, but rigorous evaluations of social spending

60

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Table 3.1  How Families Support Society and How Society Supports Families 1. Families are a fundamental foundation for generating productive workers. • In 37 of 38 advanced nations, one year of universal, free preschool education is provided. • In Finland, the child care allowance can be used by parents who choose to care for their small children at home. • In Australia, child care funding is available to grandparents for the care they provide to their grandchildren or for costs they occur in caregiving. • In 2021, Canada invested in not-for-profit child care centers to bring parent fees down to an average of $10 per day. • In Chili, free access to nursery school is guaranteed, regardless of disability or socioeconomic status. • In Sweden, parents can pay no more for child care than 3% of family income for their first child, with declining amounts for additional children. 2. Families contribute to the raising of caring, committed citizens. • In 37 of 38 advanced nations, paid maternity leave is provided for an average of 17.3 weeks. • In Italy, maternity leave is compulsory; mothers typically take two months of leave before birth and three months after birth at 80% pay. • In Sweden, parents are eligible for full-time leave from work until their child is 18 months old. 3. Families are an effective means for achieving policy and program goals. • In Italy, family approaches have been shown to be more effective than individual approaches for preventing youth substance use and treating addiction. • In the United States, the most cost-effective approaches for reducing crime are programs that target families rather than individuals. 4. Families are an efficient means for achieving policy and program goals. • For each $1 invested in high-quality, early childhood programs in the United States, a state’s economy receives a $2 to $3 return on investment. • The dollar value of informal unpaid caregiving in the United States ranged from an estimated $221 billion to $642 billion in 2012. 5. Families are a normative ideal that benefits policymaking by fostering political consensus and the finding of common ground. • In the United States, over a 10-year period, family-oriented words appeared almost every single week Congress was in session; the mentions of family did not vary by gender or political party.

are more prevalent in the United States. Given that the primary purpose of this chapter is developing a rationale for family policy, the international examples included here are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. (1) Families Are a Fundamental Foundation for Generating Productive Workers

If policymakers better appreciated families as a powerful and unique engine of a dynamic economy, they would be more receptive to public policies that reward

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

61

families for their private contribution toward the public good of generating productive workers. Family policy could help policymakers perceive families, not as mere units of consumption, but rather as the contributor most responsible for the development of human capital (Longman, 2004). In times of global economic transformations, every nation’s competitiveness depends on its human capital, which is driven by the education and social skills of its labor force (Reynolds & Temple, 2005). For labor to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy takes both cognitive (hard) and noncognitive (soft) skills. Many of these skills are shaped, to a large extent, by socialization that occurs early in family life and in preschool programs (Heckman, 2006). For example, in a 30-year longitudinal study in the United States, Sroufe et al. (2005) were able to predict which children would drop out of school with 77% accuracy using only one variable—quality of care up to age 42 months. Well before these children started school, researchers were able to predict the probability of becoming a high school dropout 11 to 14 years later. The odds of dropping out of school were even greater when parents were neglectful or disengaged (Sroufe et al., 2005). Family Policy as a Contributor to Economic Growth

These studies, and others like them, provide a scientific rationale for focusing on families in policymaking. In the initial stages of its development in the 1980s, family policy generally was seen as a “burden,” but then a shift began to occur in the early 1990s (Jenson, 2020). One prominent example is the debate that ensued around child care. When the European Union considered recommendations for child care, the standard arguments had been that child care was necessary to promote children’s development. Gradually these arguments became less important, and arguments that child care was a contributor to a nation’s economic development became more important. In the final recommendations, the main justification for European involvement in child care appeared to be largely economic growth—the need for women to participate in the labor force to meet the increasing costs of supporting older adults in aging societies (Bleijenbergh et al., 2006). In the decades that followed, this economic emphasis broadened to include family policies that reduced child poverty. Policies made it easier for parents to work by providing affordable care for their children. Policies that improved the well-being of families came to be recognized as a way to benefit development, goals as expressed by the Secretary General of the United Nations: At the international level …. the very contribution of families to the achievement of development goals continues to be largely overlooked, while there seems to be a consensus on the fact that, so far, the stability and cohesiveness of communities and societies largely rest on the strength of the family. In effect, the very achievement of development goals depends on how well families are empowered to contribute to the achievement of those goals. (General Assembly Economic & Social Council, 2010)

62

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

By 2018, the economic value of families had become so well-accepted that the Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development contended that family-friendly policies were “a key driver of economic growth” (Jenson, 2020, p. 54). Family Policies That Address Economic Development

Today in European countries and many high-income countries, “family policies that enable employment and foster human capital are front and center” (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018; Van Lancker & Nieuwenhuis, 2020, p. 687). Many countries around the world have invested in preschool education. Take, for example, the 38 nations that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental organization of developed countries that are democracies with market economics. Of these nations, 37 provide one year of universal, free preschool education with the only exception being the United States. The enrollment of four-year-olds in early childhood education averaged 80% in OECD countries compared to 58% in the United States. Moreover, wide variation occurs across U.S. states with seven that fund no programs at all for three- or fouryear-olds (Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming; Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). Great variability in child care policy also exists across nations. Child care, like other family policies, is shaped by values such as individual responsibility and whether the child care is a responsibility that should be shared with the government, the market economy, or civil society (Maestri et al., 2016). Even in the developed OECD nations, family policies vary in how much choice parents have in the use of benefits, who can receive benefits, and what role the government plays. In Finland, for example, the child care allowance can be used by parents who choose to care for their small children at home (Maestri et al., 2016). In Australia, child care funding is available to grandparents for the care they provide to their grandchildren or for the costs they incur for their child care or health care (Services Australia, 2023). For the first time in 2021, Canada made a substantial public investment in not-for-profit child care centers to bring parent fees down to an average of $10 per day (Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2022). Another OECD country, Chile, appears to have designed its early childhood education with an eye to the future workforce. During the 1990s, Chile became one of the world’s fastest-growing economies with its high productivity earning it the United Nation’s designation as a high-development country. Poverty rates decreased dramatically from 33% in 1990 to 17% in 2007 (Morales, 2007). In 2009, the Chile Grows With You program was enacted during the presidency of Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s first female president. All children two to six years old were guaranteed free access to nursery school regardless of disability or socioeconomic status. Children too young for nursery school received free access to daycare centers if mothers or caregivers could not afford to leave work to provide child care. Two additional laws made it possible for parents to rely on public schools for child care, one enacted in 2013 that established kindergarten and another in 2015 that made it easier for children to attend a school of their choice that was closer to their home. Poverty continues to be a problem in Chile, but since the

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

63

implementation of the reforms, over 60% of the lowest-income families have gained access to free child care programs and services (Daskaloudi, 2020). In contrast to the impetus in Chile, the original driving force for child care in Sweden was an urgent labor shortage. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, there were not enough Swedish men to meet the demand for workers. The Swedish government was faced with the choice of importing millions of workers from Finland, southern Europe, and the Middle East or making it easier for Swedish women to enter the labor force. Women were offered generous maternity benefits, the opportunity to work 80% time, and access to quality child care at an affordable price. Generous child care benefits continue in Sweden to this day. Swedish law designates a maximum monthly amount that parents can pay for child care, which is limited by the family’s gross income. Currently, parents can pay a maximum of 3% of the family income and no more than about $133 dollars per month for the first child, 2% of the family income or no more than $89 per month for the second child, 1% of the family income for the third child or $44 per month, and no charge for the fourth child (Sweden: Parenthood and employment, n.d.). This is a substantially lower cost for child care than is customary in the United States. In 2021, the average cost of child care in the United States was $883 per month, which is 10% of a married-couple’s average annual income and 35% of a single parent’s income (Child Care Aware of America, 2021). Swedish family policies have contributed, in part, to the highest rates of women’s labor force participation in Europe (Sweden: Parenthood and employment, n.d.). Of all the family policies that nations have invested in, the one most strongly associated with promoting children’s well-being and reducing child poverty is preschool education with its lifelong impacts, particularly for immigrant children and children from disadvantaged families (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). In studies, high-quality child care benefits children’s development as well as the nation’s economic growth (Maestri & Vaalavuo, 2016). A recent analysis examined the economic impact of the generous family policies that Sweden and the other Nordic countries are known for. Over the last 50 years, the Nordic family-friendly policies are estimated to have boosted annual per capita GDP, on average, by 10% to 20% (OECD, 2018a). So, science and the response to it from nations around the world provide support for this component of a rationale for family policy. Families make an essential contribution to society by preparing a competent workforce that drives economic growth in knowledgebased economies. (2) Families Contribute to the Raising of Caring, Committed Citizens

Longitudinal studies provide converging evidence that families help a society develop a caring and committed citizenry. The qualities of future citizens depend on the qualities of family socialization (Carrà, 2013). The origins of all social bonds begin early in family life with secure attachment relationships—the bonds that infants develop with caregivers who are sensitively responsive and reliably available. For example, in longitudinal

64

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

studies in the United States, children who were securely attached to their mothers were more empathetic, more self-reliant, and less hostile with their peers (Sroufe, 1988). A mother’s attachment relationship with a child during infancy predicted qualities of her offspring at ages 15 and 16 that most societies would value in their citizens— involvement, leadership, self-confidence, and social competence in problem-solving situations (Englund et al., 2000). Parenting competence is also incredibly consistent from one generation to the next. Positive parenting at age 2 in the first generation predicted positive parenting at age 2 in the second generation (Conger & Conger, 2002; Sroufe et al., 2005). Quite remarkably, The quality of caregiving at age 3½ was found to predict the quality of romantic relationships over two decades later at ages 23 and 26. How can it be that these early relationships in family life shape later development? The answer to this question still remains a mystery in many respects. Yet, a consistent body of research finds that infants are emboldened when parents provide a secure base for exploration. Preschoolers’ curiosity is enhanced when it is emotionally supported, and accomplishments at every age are encouraged when they are applauded by significant others. When caregivers are accessible and responsive, children appear to internalize early experiences through mental representations that are evident in family drawings, projective tests, and storytelling. For instance, when asked to draw their families, third graders with secure attachment histories depicted well-proportioned family members who had positive dispositions, were appropriately placed, and were connected to each other. Those with avoidant attachment histories drew stiff people with rigid postures and distance between them. Those with resistant histories drew small selves that appeared vulnerable (Sroufe et al., 2005). These mental representations serve like interpretive filters through which children come to expect others to behave, either as people that one can trust or as people likely to be unjust. Corresponding with these representations, they develop decision rules for interacting with others (Thompson, 2008) that trigger adaptive or maladaptive processes. These processes have been likened to a “tuning of the central nervous system” and are considered the “carriers” of early experience (Sroufe et al., 2005, p. 230). These early experiences are crucial but they can be shaped by later experiences, so they are best thought of as probabilistic predictors of life outcomes. Family Policies to Support the Development of Caring and Committed Citizens

In keeping with this evidence that competent parents raise caring and committed citizens, countries have enacted a number of policies to help parents and children get off to a good start. Science does not have a clear handle on what leads to secure attachment; however, studies of early maternal employment suggest that long work hours are one condition associated with negative consequences for infants (Ruhm, 2011). To help parents balance the competing responsibilities of work and family life during the early years, most Countries have enacted policies that provide paid maternity, paternity, and parental leave.

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

65

The United States is one of only six countries in the world and the only rich country without paid family leave (Miller, 2021). Of the 38 OECD countries, 37 provide paid maternity leave which averages 17.3 weeks. Payment varies from a low of providing 27% of wages during leave in Ireland to providing 100% in 13 other countries. Fathers also receive paid leave in 17 of 38 OECD countries for an average of 2.1 weeks. Currently, in 28 of 38 OECD countries, maternity and paternity leave merge into parental leave that often extends from infancy through the first three years of life (Paid Family Leave, 2022). One OECD country, Italy, published new parental leave rules in 2022. Maternity leave is compulsory in Italy with mothers typically taking two months of leave before birth and three months after birth at 80% pay (Italy Parental Leave, 2022). Paternity leave is guaranteed for 10 days at 100% of pay. Each parent is also entitled to six months of parental leave at 30% of pay, which can be taken until the child reaches 12 years of age (Italy - Maternity and Paternity, n.d.; Scaffidi & Stroppa, 2022). Parents are also granted five hours of paid leave each year for each child, so parents can participate in their child’s development in various ways such as meeting with teachers (De Luca & Partners, 2022). In Sweden, another OECD country, parents are eligible for full-time leave from work until their child is 18 months old. In addition, employees have the right to parental leave of 480 days per child. Most parents take this leave before the child is four years old, but 96 days may be saved until the child turns 8. Through age 12, parents also are eligible for 120 days of temporary paid leave if their child or their child’s caregiver is sick. For most paid parental leave, parents receive benefits that total about 80% of their income. Parents also have the right to part-time unpaid leave, and can choose to reduce their work a couple of hours each day up until their child is 12 years old (Votinius, 2020). From a family perspective, family leave benefits children and their families. Systematic reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that paid maternity leave improves child outcomes and mother’s labor force participation (Nandi et al., 2018). In recent analyses, paid maternal leave was shown to affect an infant’s brain functioning at three months of age. Compared to infants of mothers with unpaid leave, the infants born to mothers with paid leave were over seven times more likely to have mature brain functioning (Brito et al., 2022). The Economic Impact of Paid Family Leave Policies

So paid leave makes sense for mothers and their babies, but does it make economic sense? The evidence is incomplete but suggestive. An analysis of highly competitive countries examined whether paid maternity leave harmed global competitiveness. Each year the World Economic Forum ranks countries according to their productivity and prosperity. In the 10 years between 2005 and 2014, 16 countries consistently appeared in the top 20. With the exception of the United States, each one of these countries provided, on average, 26 weeks of paid maternity leave. For the world’s most productive and prosperous economies, paid family leave did not appear to hamper competitiveness (Heymann & Sprague, 2016).

66

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

The experience of our northern neighbor, Canada, provides a comparable example. Between 2008 and 2011, Canadian mothers and fathers took, on average, 32 weeks of paid parental leave; despite the generosity of this family policy, the Canadian economy managed the global recession better than did the U.S. economy (Heymann & Sprague, 2016). One study in Norway examined another economic impact—whether paid family leave and other family-friendly policies affected the wage gap between men and women. Between 1979 and 1996, Norway expanded several family policies (e.g., paid parental leave, tax and cash benefits for children, subsidized child care, flexible and part-time work hours). This expansion resulted in a major drop in the gender wage gap for mothers, which the authors reported was “close to sensational” in such a short time (Petersen et al., 2014, p. 1459). These generous family leave policies are not without critics. One target of this criticism is the high tax rates that are imposed to support these family policies. In a 2019 analysis that compared the tax rates of the Nordic countries with those in the United States, Denmark’s tax-to-GDP ratio was 46.3%, Sweden’s was 42.8%, and Norway’s was 39.9%; in the United States, the ratio was 24.5% (Asen, 2021). (3) Families Are an Effective Means for Achieving Policy and Program Goals

Families are not only the end goals of policies and programs, but they also are a means for more effectively achieving policy goals. Some of these policy goals fall under our definition of family policy and some do not. First, the discussion examines family contributions to the effectiveness of family policies and programs, followed by family contributions to the effectiveness of nonfamily policies and programs. Family Contributions to the Effectiveness of Family Policies and Programs

In one study of 20 advanced nations, family policies that provided high levels of support for paid family leave and public child care were a means for affecting other family outcomes typically valued by policymakers and the public—lower rates of child poverty and reductions in child mortality (Engster & Olofsdotter Stensöta, 2011). Similarly, family policies and programs have proven effective in promoting youth prosocial behaviors such as academic achievement, economic success, and social competence as well as in preventing and treating risky youth behaviors such as aggression, association with deviant peers, delinquency, early sexual debut, gang involvement, and substance use (Donati, 2012). In this country and abroad, family-centered approaches have proven effective in preventing youth substance use and in treating addiction (Kourgiantakis et al., 2021). To prevent youth substance use, Italian researchers adapted Botvin’s LifeSkills training program by incorporating dialogue to improve relationships between parents and their children, and between teachers and students. The evaluation revealed that substance use could be prevented without much discussion about drugs. Instead, it was more important

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

67

Figure 3.1  Family Approaches to Preventing Youth Substance Use Are More Effective than Youth-Only Approaches. Based on data from Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., & Whiteside, H. O. (2003). Family-based interventions for substance abuse prevention. Substance Use and Misuse, 38, 1759–1789.

for pre-adolescents to develop the capacity to dialogue with and listen to parents which, in turn, helped them better resist group peer pressure (Bramanti, 2013). In the United States, many tested programs designed to prevent youth substance use focus on the individual and most of these “youth-only” approaches have small effects (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003). One study of the effectiveness of several programs for preventing youth substance use compared their effect sizes, a statistical test that shows how large (or small) differences are between groups. Programs that change family dynamics proved more effective than approaches that focus only on individual youth (see Figure 3.1). The average effect size for universal, “youth-only” approaches was +.10, ranging from –.05 for school-based affective education to +.28 for life or social skills training. In contrast, the average effect size for family-focused interventions was +.96, ranging from +.31 for parenting skills training to +1.62 for in-home family support. Thus, family-focused approaches were, on average, over nine times more effective than “youth-only” approaches for preventing youth substance use. Family Contributions to the Effectiveness of Nonfamily Policies and Programs

Families also can be a means for effectively reaching policy goals that fall outside the parameters of family policy. In the last five decades, family implementation science has made significant progress in documenting the value of family-centered programs and practices for a range of nonfamily policy goals including alleviating poverty and income inequality, helping former inmates transition back into the community, and improving gender equality. Robust research has confirmed that

68

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

parent involvement is one of the chief components of effectiveness in a range of fields including education, employment, health care, welfare, and so forth (Donati, 2012). A recent analysis examined the effectiveness of family-focused interventions in achieving six of the United Nation’s sustainability goals—reductions in poverty and violence, and improvements in education, employment, gender equality, and health. In an extensive review of the effectiveness of multiple programs and policies in each of these domains, family policies were consistently linked to improved outcomes and most of the family-focused interventions yielded positive evaluations (Richardson, 2018). The pathways through which families affect nonfamily policy outcomes are varied. As illustration, one example is provided here of the importance of family approaches in correction policy. Policymakers in the Washington State Legislature were faced with the thorny decision of whether they should build a costly new prison or whether costeffective programs could keep crime down at a lower cost (Aos, 2007). In response to a request from the legislature, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy conducted a meta-analysis of 571 rigorous evaluations of adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention programs. This analysis determined each program’s effect on recidivism compared to a no treatment or treatment-as-usual condition. The benefit-cost analysis found that some programs would save the state thousands of dollars, while others would cost the state more money than they saved (Goodvin & Lee, 2017). Using this analysis, the state decided not to build a costly prison and to invest instead in the programs that studies had shown were most cost beneficial. But how did family considerations enter into the policy decision about whether to build a new prison? When these programs were viewed through a family impact lens, the programs that were most effective for reducing future crime and for producing benefits that substantially outweighed their costs were family approaches. The single most costbeneficial prevention program and the five most cost-beneficial rehabilitation programs used a family-oriented, rather than an individually oriented approach (Anderson & Bogenschneider, 2007). So, the decision about building a prison is not a family policy per se, but families were a means whereby policymakers could increase the likelihood of effectively achieving nonfamily policy goals. (4) Families Are an Efficient Means for Achieving Policy and Program Goals

Policymakers are interested in, not only whether policies reach their goals, but also how efficiently they do so (Kalambokidis & Bipes, 2008). Yet most evaluations of family policy and programs have been reported in terms of their effectiveness rather than their efficiency with little attention to cost data (Richardson, 2018). This is a curious state of affairs, given that if families carried out some of the provisions of a policy or program, it likely would be cost-effective; by and large, family members freely invest their time and resources with no expectation of being reimbursed for their services. In the policy world, the modus operandi is an economic calculus of what benefits will accrue to society for any investments made. Policymakers may be more interested

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

69

in supporting family policy if the value of the services provided by families can be converted into dollars and cents. Studies of a policy’s return on investment are few, and many are dated. Some have taken a panoramic view of the totality of the value of parents’ contributions to childrearing, and others have taken a more microscopic view of the value of a particular policy or program. From a panoramic view, Folbre (2008) used a replacement cost approach to estimate the value of the unpaid time U.S. parents devote to the rearing of children under the age of 12. She estimated the annual value of parental time, using the average hourly wage for child care workers in 2000 of $7.43 per hour. Her lower-bound estimate of the value of parents’ unpaid time was $14,338 per child per year under age 12 in twoparent, two-child families, and $11,077 in single-parent, two-child families. When expenditures of both time and money are included, a parent’s investment amounts to approximately $23,253 per year per child in two-parent, two-child families, and about $17,125 per year for each child in single-parent, two-child families. Government cannot afford to, nor would they want to, fully replace the investment that parents make in their children. Taking a more microscopic view, the efficiency of specific family policies and programs has been conducted at all stages of the life cycle, from early childhood to adolescence to the later years of life. Selected examples of each are given here to illustrate their cost-effectiveness. The Value of Family Policy Investments in Early Childhood

Investments in early childhood programs have shown sizeable economic impacts, especially when compared to other policy alternatives. Nobel Prize Laureate James Heckman (2006) compared a number of diverse policy options and concluded that investing in disadvantaged young children is a “rare” public initiative that “promotes productivity in the economy and society at large” (p. 1902). Importantly, these investments have higher rates of returns than alternative approaches, such as reduced class size, job training, and prisoner rehabilitation. Economist Tim Bartik (2006) estimated the value of universal preschool participation using metrics designed to capture the attention of national and state policymakers. Considered from a national perspective, universal preschool participation will add over three million jobs to the U.S. economy, almost $300 billion to annual earnings, over $200 billion to annual government tax revenues, and almost $1 trillion to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next several decades. Considered from a state perspective, for each $1 invested in high-quality early childhood programs, a state’s economy will receive a $2 to $3 return on investment in increased jobs or earnings for state residents. These benefits come mainly from the effects on child participants, who are more likely to be educated, trained, and employed as adults. In addition, when affordable, stable, and high-quality child care is available, parents improve their productivity by putting in more work hours, missing fewer work days, experiencing less stress, or pursuing additional education (Bartik, 2006).

70

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Figure 3.2  40-Year Follow-Up Findings From the High Scope/Perry Preschool Study. Based on results reported in Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). The High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 40: Summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Researchers also have examined the cost-effectiveness of specific early childhood education programs. One flagship example is the Perry Preschool Program, which included a daily, high-quality preschool program for low-income 3- and 4-year-olds, frequent home visits to mothers, and monthly small group meetings. At age 40, this program increased the percentage of participants who had graduated from high school, owned their own home, were employed, and had a median annual income of more than $20,000 (Schweinhart et al., 2005). At the same time, participants were less apt to be in trouble with the law (see Figure 3.2). For every public dollar invested in the program, $12.90 was returned to society. Most of this return came from crime savings (88%), but also from increased taxes from higher earnings and government savings in education and welfare programs (HighScope, n.d.). The Value of Family Policy Investments in Adolescence

Investments in the adolescent period of the life cycle have also proven to be cost-effective. The specific cost savings of investing in family programs were quantified in the previously mentioned meta-analysis of 571 adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention programs by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Aos, 2007). The savings were translated into summary statistics that policymakers could easily grasp. The researchers calculated a net benefit or net loss by comparing the benefits to crime reduction to the perparticipant costs to taxpayers and victims. The largest decrease in crime was found in Olds’ Nurse-Family Partnership, a prevention program where nurses visit low-income, unmarried, pregnant mothers in their home

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

71

Table 3.2  19-Year Follow-Up Outcomes for Girls in Olds’ Nurse-Family Partnership Program Program

Component

Olds’ Nurse- Home visits were made by nurses to lowFamily income, unmarried, pregnant mothers. Partnership

Outcome At age 19, girls whose mothers had received nurse home visits had nearly one-third fewer children, one-third fewer arrests, one-fifth fewer convictions, and 60% less use of Medicaid

Mothers were visited a mean of 9 times during pregnancy and 23 times between birth and their child’s second birthday. Visits occurred monthly and lasted about 90 minutes. Goals were to improve pregnancy outcomes, children’s health and development, and families’ economic self-sufficiency (e.g., decision-making on education, employment, and subsequent children). Nurses linked families with fathers, family members, and friends. Note. Based on data from Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, Jr., C. R., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 9–15.

prenatally and during the first two years of their child’s life (see Table 3.2). The children of these mothers were followed for two decades. At age 19, girls in the Elmira program had fewer children, fewer arrests, fewer convictions, and less Medicaid use (Eckenrode et al., 2010). The researchers’ estimates of the net benefits of the crime-prevention aspects of the program were $14,283 for the mother and $12,822 for the child. In the meta-analysis, the five most cost-beneficial rehabilitation programs were all family approaches (Aos, 2007). Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, a 6- to 9-month program in which youth with histories of serious, chronic involvement in the justice system are placed with carefully selected, trained, and supported foster parents. The $6,945 per participant cost was offset by benefits to taxpayers and crime victims of $84,743, yielding a net participant benefit of $77,798. The Adolescent Diversion Project, an alternative to typical court processing for lower-risk offenders, focuses on the youth’s family, school, and workplace; the net benefit reached $40,623 per participant. Family Integrated Transitions, an intensive program that builds on three therapeutic models to help youth transition from a residential setting back into their home and community, has a net benefit of $40,545 per person. Functional Family Therapy (on probation) is a shortterm, goal-oriented intervention that provides assessment, training, supervision, and oneon-one time among the therapist(s), youth, and his/her family that produced net benefits

72

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

valued at $31,821. Multisystemic Therapy develops a treatment plan to address factors that contribute to antisocial behavior in youth and their social network (e.g., family, peer, school, and neighborhood); the per person net benefit was $18,213 (Anderson & Bogenschneider, 2007; Aos et al., 2006). The Value of Family Policy Investments in Later Life

Families also make substantial investments in the care of aging members. The aging of the population is considered to be both “a triumph and a challenge” for families (Oliva-Moreno et al., 2017). Families now encompass more generations, though they are smaller. In 2020, almost half of all children have four living grandparents (Seltzer, 2019). This means that more children will know their grandparents and, for the first time in history, the majority of middle-aged and older adults will have living parents (World Health Organization, 2012). With smaller families comes larger responsibilities for caring for older family members with impairments. So, the demand for caregivers is expanding at the same time that the supply of family caregivers is shrinking. In 2010, there were 7.1 potential caregivers for every person over 80 years of age; by 2030, the number of potential caregivers is expected to drop to 4.1 (Reinhard et al., 2019). Family caregiving is an expanding element of long-term care that has been characterized as the “sleeping giant” of family policy (Ooms, 2019, p. 33). Globally, countries respond in different ways when the elderly can no longer live independently. Japan is the oldest society in the world with 29.1% of its population over 65 years of age (Nippon.com, 2022). In Japan, the cultural norm has long been that older people will live with the eldest son and be taken care of by their daughter-in-law. This expectation is becoming less prevalent, but the majority of caregivers still are family members. A married woman in her 50s still faces the greatest likelihood of needing to care for both her elderly parents and her husband’s elderly parents. Many people, often women, have to quit their job to provide care for older family members. In 2002, a Long-Term Care Insurance law was put in place to diversify and improve the long-term care system, but according to observers, more attention needs to be given to family caregiving (Hayashi, 2016). In Turkey, long-term care is understood largely as the responsibility of the family. The obligation of relatives to care for dependent family members is specified in law in both the Penal and the Civil Codes (World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2021). In 2016, residential care was available to only .4% of the population. In the European Union, there are laws that require families to care or provide for elderly relatives in only three member states—Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania (Daly, 2020). In most other European countries, the current trend is for nation-states to shift the responsibility of long-term care to families (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). In many countries, policymakers are faced with how governments can provide “formal” support for “informal” family caregiving because of its enormous cost savings, even though it never shows up in a federal or state budget ledger. It is difficult to calculate the economic value of informal caregiving because there is no limit on the time that caregivers provide; also, it is hard to estimate the quality of the care provided by

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

73

someone with emotional ties to the care recipient, typically family, close relatives, friends, or neighbors. Yet researchers have attempted to estimate the value of family caregiving, which has been termed “valuing the invaluable” (Reinhard et al., 2019, p. 1). In 2017, the total economic value of unpaid care provided by family caregivers in the United States was estimated to be $470 billion. This is three times as much as Medicaid spends on long-term care services (Reinhard et al., 2019). International comparisons of the economic value of long-term care are difficult to make because each country has its own formal system of long-term care, its own family traditions, and its own culture. One study used the same estimation method to model the total value of unpaid informal caregiving for selective diseases across several countries. In Canada, it was estimated to be $12.7 billion in 2007 and in Spain ranged from $19 billion to $58 billion in 2008. Using this same method, the value of informal unpaid caregiving in the United States ranged from $221 billion to $642 billion in 2012 (OlivaMoreno et al., 2017). The estimates and the time frames vary, but it is clear that informal unpaid caregiving has an extraordinary economic value. The evidence is not conclusive that family policy is an efficient public investment in every instance. Yet the evidence is suggestive that families are an efficient means of supporting family members early in life, in adolescence, and later in life in ways that make substantial contributions to society. (5) Families Are a Normative Ideal That Benefits Policymaking by Fostering Political Consensus and the Finding of Common Ground

Anthropologists report that family in one of its many forms has been part of every known human society (Eastman, 1996). Yet in policymaking circles, families are more than a structure that performs many functions of value to society. Families also play a symbolic role in policymaking (Donati, 2011). Among policymakers, the symbol and language of family appear to know no boundaries. Selected international examples are given of families being upheld as a normative ideal. For instance, the value of family in India is expressed in the words of Superna Kalle, who was named the most influential South Asian women in media and entertainment: The role of family in India is obviously the most meaningful relationship people have. Family is everything … We all have these values that family is paramount. (TheSanjayPuri, 2011)

The valuing of family in Islamic society is expressed in the words of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Syed Ali Khamenei: Family is a fundamental unit, the foundation of the Islamic community, the center of growth and transcendence of humans and a source of support for the health, blossoming, power and spiritual transcendence of the country and the Islamic Republic. (“Ayatollah Khamenei Announces,” 2016)

74

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

British Prime Minister David Cameron linked the well-being of families to the wellbeing of society: So if we want to have any hope of mending a broken society, family and parenting is where we’ve got to start … We’ve got to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work, the way people bring up their children …. This has got to be right at the top of our priority list. (British Prime Minister David Cameron, August 15, 2011)

Taking a global view, the valuing of families appears to be a near universal political symbol that cuts across differences in political ideology and nation-states (Butterfield et al., 2010). Around the world, families appear to be seen as a basic building block of society that should be relied upon, nurtured, and protected. The question that remains is whether the sentiment around families is so strongly held that it can provide political momentum for developing policies and programs that can strengthen and support families across the lifespan. Even if family holds somewhat different meanings in different countries, is there enough shared meaning to form a nucleus for attaining and maintaining political consensus? The available evidence that speaks to this question comes from the United States. In studies of U.S. lawmaking, the “business of Congress” appeared to be conducted in the “Language of family” (Strach, 2007, p. 25). One study examined the Congressional record over a 10-year period; with only two exceptions, family-oriented words appeared every single week Congress was in session. In an examination of the Congressional record over a 10-month period, there were 271,430 entries of which 87,016 used family-oriented words. In an average week, family words and images were invoked 218 times, making their way into one-third of all speeches, statements, tributes, and so forth. Importantly, the mention of family did not vary by gender or political party (Strach, 2007). These mentions of families in political debate were more than just rhetoric, according to a recent study of policymakers themselves. Youth and family policies were found to be a cluster of policies where partisan polarization was less prevalent and scientific evidence played a more substantive role. Youth and family issues appeared to rise above politics because policymakers across the board perceived youth and families as populations deserving of support. And support for youth and families cut across gender, political party, race, and ethnicity. More study is needed to see if these same benefits to policymaking emerge in nation-states around the world.

Why the United States Invests Less in Family Policy Than Other Advanced Nations The United States has no coherent package of family policies. Compared to almost every other advanced nation, the United States spends less on children and families and its policies are more limited in coverage and more narrowly focused. In the United States,

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

75

family policy is uneven, with some states being more generous in their support for children and families and some more meager in their support (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018; Filgueira & Rossel, 2020). The many reasons for more meager U.S. family policies are discussed in some depth throughout this book and will be briefly summarized here. Family policies are embedded in the overarching contexts of each country’s cultural ideals, values, and assumptions (Strach, 2007). In general terms, the Nordic and Northern European countries (e.g., Finland, Norway, and Sweden) have put in place family policies that provide strong support for the educational achievement of children, the employment of mothers, and gender equity with less emphasis on marriage. The Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States) conceptualize families more as a private matter with a greater tendency to leave family functions to the resources of its members. The Southern European countries (e.g., Italy and Spain) strongly endorse marriage and see family policy as secondary to the intergenerational obligations that family members have to support each other. Germany is distinct in its conservative tendencies to support a traditional bourgeois family with policies aimed at married couples with a caregiving mother who is not employed outside the home (Klein & Nauck, 2005). In the United States, among the primary drivers of family policy are the widely shared values of individual and private responsibility with less valuing of a commitment to shared public responsibilities (see Chapter 8). Children are perceived primarily to be a private responsibility with parents having the right to raise their offspring as they see fit. Government tends to intervene only when things go wrong, so policies are often targeted to vulnerable populations rather than being made universally available (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). In other countries, family policies embody a diverse set of values as exemplified in the design of their curriculums for early childhood education. For instance, Sweden values democracy. Australia values belonging, whereas Germany values diversity and New Zealand values ecology (Vandenbroeck, 2020). The United States prefers to rely less on government and more on consumer and labor markets (see Chapter 9; Gornick et al., 2022a). In a recent analysis of the income of single mothers in 12 rich countries, mothers’ earnings make up about three-quarters of disposable income in the United States, and less than half in the United Kingdom and Ireland (Harkness, 2022). A large part of the U.S. public expenditures on children and families comes in the form of tax breaks, rather than direct cash or universal programs (Filgueira & Rossell, 2020). Compared to the United Kingdom and the European Union, the United States is the only country where tax breaks comprise the chief component of the child benefit package (Aerts et al., 2022). Typically, tax benefits receive far less attention in discussions of international family policies, which can give a distorted view of the public support nations like the United States provide to families (Folbre, 2008). For example, Sweden offers a family allowance for each child, but virtually no tax breaks for child rearing. In contrast, the United States provides no family allowance, but it offers tax exemptions and credits. To some extent, the U.S. Earned Income Tax Credit operates much like a family allowance (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2016).

76

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

However, providing support through the tax code has one consequence that deserves mention—some families are treated far more generously than others. Higher-income families, who pay more taxes, reap far more benefits than lower-income families. Contrary to common perceptions, lower-income families in the United States do not “enjoy a free ride”; they seldom pay very much in income taxes, but more than twothirds of U.S. households pay more in payroll than income taxes (Folbre, 2008, p. 159). The family policies that are on the books in the United States may be out of step with public opinion about what policies should exist (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). A resounding 82% of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans alike, believe that it is “extremely” important for children to spend time with their parents, and a whopping two-thirds support paid family leave (Mayer et al., 2021). A surprising 80% of Americans believe that all children should have the opportunity to attend high-quality early education (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). The question that remains is whether the support of the American public for family policies will bubble up to influence the decisions of policymakers. Will child and family advocacy groups come together to advance the views of the American public about families and family policy (Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018)? Will professionals step up to communicate the science of family policy to policymakers?

Communicating the Value of Family Policy to Policymakers Those in the business of translating research for policymaker consumption have argued that we need to build on cognitive research and theory to configure and communicate the science around families and family policy in ways that are consistent with dominant frames of thinking (FrameWorks Institute, 2002; Pineau et al., 2018). Dodge (2008) has done this successfully in the framing of youth violence, as has Shonkoff and his associates in the framing of early childhood policy (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2007). In the case of family policy, science can be framed in ways that help policymakers and the public see family issues not as the private problems of particular families, but as priorities for public policy. I have attempted to apply these framing principles to the rationale for family policy outlined in this chapter. Granted, the messaging that follows will require reflection and refinement with vetting by family policy professionals and testing with focus groups of policymakers and the public (see also Figure 3.3). Yet perhaps it is a place to start to articulate to policymakers the need for and value of family policy. Families are the cornerstone for raising responsible children who become caring, committed contributors in a strong democracy and competent workers in a sound economy. Families financially support their members, and care for those who cannot always care for themselves—the elderly, frail, ill, impaired, and those with disabilities. Yet families can be harmed by stressful conditions—the inability to find a job, afford health insurance, secure quality child care, and send their kids to good schools. Public policies are needed to help families effectively and efficiently cope with stressful

W H Y D O W E N E E D FA M I LY P O L I C Y ? A G L O B A L R AT I O N A L E 

77

Figure 3.3  Families Are a Cornerstone. Design by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

conditions. Keeping the family foundation strong today pays off tomorrow. “For there to be ‘no child left behind,’ we will have to do a better job of leaving no family behind” (Sroufe et al., 2005, p 288).

Summary Family policies have been enacted around the world in developed and developing societies, for purposes of prevention and intervention, for young and old alike. Interwoven through this chapter are examples of family policy from small and large countries, from developed and developing nations, from North and South America, and from Europe and Asia. • Policymakers are typically more interested in the public value of the functions families perform for the larger society. The job of a policymaker is to fairly and efficiently allocate public resources in ways that improve the economic and social health of society. • An evidence-based rationale is provided to elevate the standing of family policy as a serious subfield of social policy by articulating its contributions to families and

78

W H Y Y O U S H O U L D C A R E A B O U T FA M I LY P O L I C Y

to society. Families are a fundamental foundation for raising responsible children who become caring, committed contributors in a strong democracy and competent workers in a sound economy. Yet families are more than the end goals of policies and programs that provide important contributions to society; they also are a means for more effectively and efficiently achieving the family and nonfamily goals of policies and programs. What’s more, families are a normative ideal that benefits the policy process by fostering political consensus and the finding of common ground. • In contrast to family policies across the globe, the government plays a smaller role in family policy in the United States because of the individualistic values that shape public policy, the perceived privacy of family functions, and the reliance on consumer and labor markets to support families. • Families are upheld as a normative ideal in many countries around the world. When families are widely embraced by policymakers and the public; they can provide the impetus for reaching consensus on even the most polarizing and divisive issues. In the United States, youth and family policies appear to be a place where policymaking functions better, and policies are more research-based.

Investing in families is good for people and good for prosperity. If families are supported, our elders will be cared for in ways that are humane and cost-effective. If parenting is supported, our children are more likely to grow up to be productive workers and responsible citizens. If caregivers are supported in ways that make it more possible to balance the responsibilities of work and family, companies will be able to tap into their talent and become more economically prosperous and globally competitive (Kunin, 2012). Now more than ever, the pursuit of policies to support a strong democracy and a sound economy begins at home. This chapter incorporates content from a previous publication that is reprinted with permission. Copyright @ 2010, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. (2010). Family policy: Becoming a field of inquiry and subfield of social policy. [Invited family policy decade review]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00730.x

Part 2 THE BASICS OF FAMILY POLICY AND THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS

4

81

CHAPTER 4 TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN, FAMILY POLICY NEEDS FRESH DEFINITIONS

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

I would betcha that if you look at the last couple years … at each bill that passed … you’re talking about 400 or 500 pieces of legislation and if you could categorize them as something in your definition of family and youth, you’d probably see … 95% unanimous or better, that’s my guess. Now, if you start expanding that into other areas … you could get into social issues. So, then it becomes much different, and then you’re going to see it going down party lines … But if you’re talking about issues like violence and child sex trafficking and these sorts of things, you’re going to see unanimous votes across the board … [but not] if you get into same-sex marriage and abortion. (Republican legislator)

• Does family policy focus only on those policies that directly affect outcomes for families? What about policies that indirectly affect family outcomes? • Can families be used as a lens for examining how families affect and are affected by policies and programs? • In what ways can families and family policy be leveraged as a de facto means for government, business, and other organizations to accomplish goals that serve their institutional interests over family interests? • What is a family, anyway? Do we need a single definition that everyone agrees on? • Is defining family a theoretical exercise, or does it matter in the real world?

Settling on a definition of family policy is not a simple task. Defining family policy has proven so elusive that it has been likened to “swimming in molasses or nailing jello to a tree.” When I am asked, I offer a definition that many families can identify with— whether to leave the toilet seat up or down. Granted, this “up-or-down” decision is humorous, but the lack of clear definitions is no laughing matter.

Why Definitions of Family Policy Are Important Families are a consequential component of policymaking, even though they are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and have no legal standing in liberal democracies. Scholars have been unable to agree on how to define family, let alone DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-6

82

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

family policy. However, they do agree that reaching a consensus on defining family policy is an essential first task in moving the field forward (Aldous, Dumon, & Johnson, 1980; Berger & Carlson, 2020; Moen & Jull, 1995; Monroe, 1995; Wisensale, 2001b). Definitions are important because positioning family policy as a field of its own depends on knowing what it is, what it is not, and what it can achieve (Schattschneider, 1960). Knowing What Family Policy Is Not

Without knowing what is excluded, family policy invites impostors who co-opt families to promote unrelated policies (Skocpol, 1997). Families are an iconic image that is “evocative of everything” and can be “used to justify anything” (Badger & Cain Miller, 2018). For example, nation-states can use families to achieve goals that promote national economic interests over family interests. Private contractors can vie for government funds to deliver family services in innovative ways that prioritize turning a profit. Politicians can strategically frame almost any issue as being good for families, whether it’s regulation or deregulation, tax hikes or tax cuts (Belkin, 2000). To gain popular support, “Politicians have learned that whatever the policy is, wrapping it in the language of family and children—both Democrats and Republicans, regardless of policy—is really effective” (Badger & Cain Miller, 2018). Without precise definitions, the popular family brand can be used as a “Trojan horse” for narrow individualistic agendas that have little to do with families (Blankenhorn, 1988b, p. 6; Ooms, 1990). Knowing What Family Policy Can Achieve

To clarify what family policy can achieve, I draw on several comparisons to economic policy, a field that is widely seen as a legitimate focus of public policy and a distinct field of scientific inquiry. The value of anchoring policy on families can be illustrated by the story of contemporary poverty research that dates back to 1963. In that year, Robert Lampman wrote a seminal chapter in the Council of Economic Advisor’s Report of the President arguing that an improving economy would not lift all families out of want. Soon thereafter, a measure of poverty was developed by Mollie Orshansky at the Social Security Administration, and public policy was directed to a new societal challenge by President Johnson’s declaration of the War on Poverty. By the late 1960s, one litmus test for policy proposals was, “What does it do for the poor?” Granted, concern for the poor can be traced back to the emergence of civilization itself, and poverty research was being practiced as early as the late 19th century. Yet, sophisticated policy attention did not pick up until a distinct field of inquiry developed. Today, our understanding of poverty is immeasurably more advanced and nuanced than it was 60 years ago, and this understanding is reflected in our antipoverty policies (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). To similarly elevate families in policymaking, the nature of discourse must shift beyond the rhetoric of proclaiming the importance of families to prioritizing what the field can accomplish and why it is worthy of intellectual inquiry and political action.

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

83

Knowing Why Defining Family Policy Is So Hard

Why has setting parameters around the definition of family policy proven so difficult? There are many reasons, four that are discussed here. First, some argue that defining a field as broad and amorphous as the family policy is a futile endeavor (Steiner, 1981). Ooms (1990) disputes that argument by drawing comparisons to the field of economics. Budgetary policy and fiscal analysis are similarly broad, but still are encompassed under the umbrella of economic policy. Second, others attribute the lack of clear definitions to the short and contentious history of family policy in the United States in comparison to other countries. In Sweden, family policy was first introduced as early as the 19th century with the passage of the 1891 maternity law. Family policy was first introduced in the major European countries following World War II in the form of family and child cash allowances (Daly, 2020; UNICEF & ILO, 2019). In the United States, policymaking always has had a family tilt, but family policy did not emerge as a distinct field of intellectual interest and inquiry until the 1970s (Ooms, 1984). During the 1980s, its development was stymied in the aftermath of the politically contentious White House Conference on Families. Issues like abortion and same-sex marriage were so divisive that politicians shied away from even using the word family, and family policy was pushed off the federal policy agenda for almost a decade (Ooms, 1984). The unresolved struggles over definitions may reflect, in part, the normal birth pangs experienced by any emerging field. Third, families are an iconic political image that makes it tempting to exploit families for nonfamily purposes. The popularity of families has been co-opted for a vast variety of purposes across a wide gamut of unrelated policies and agendas. Families and family policy can be leveraged as a de facto means for government, business, or other institutions to achieve goals that serve institutional interests more than family interests. Fourth, the lack of clarity is not because there are too few definitions of family policy, but because there are too many. Several of these same-old definitions of family policy have been debated for years. To overcome their previous shortcomings and inconsistencies, I propose some fresh new definitions that more clearly capture a critical distinction—the ways that families serve as an ends and a means of the policymaking process.

Same-Old Definitions of Family Policy In the United States, debate continues over whether family policy is a distinct field and what the contours would be if it were to be considered a legitimate subfield of social policy. No consensus has been reached on how broad the scope of family policy should be, which sources it derives from, who it targets, and what content should be included. Each of these points of contention is captured in the following definitions: • In regard to scope, family policy has been defined broadly. Take, as examples, definitions that “all policy is family policy” (Butterfield et al., 2010, p. 5), or that family

84

•

•

•

•

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

policy is “everything that government does to and for the family” (Kamerman & Kahn, 1978, p. 3). Defining family policy so broadly would include all defense policies, economic edicts, pollution controls, or trade regulations. Others have narrowed the scope from all policy to all social policy, contending that most social policy “is, in essence, explicitly or implicitly, family policy” (Berger & Carlson, 2020, p. 481). This definition would include as family policy most policies that focus on such social issues as criminal justice, health care, housing, racism, or substance abuse, regardless of whether any provision in the policy refers to or affects families at all. Critics contend that concepts this elastic would potentially encompass everything and consequently lose any integrity (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). A definition so limitless brings little clarity. The intent of these all-encompassing definitions is admirable—to bring families to the forefront of political debate and discourse (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Yet such overly broad definitions have the unintended consequence of nullifying any necessity of a subfield of family policy with an identity of its own. Regarding scope, some definitions take the opposite approach of reigning in what family policy encompasses by imposing narrow restrictions. Moen and Schorr (1987) defined family policy as a “widely agreed-on set of objectives for families, toward the realization of which the state (and other major social institutions) deliberately shapes programs and policies” (p. 795). Skeptics question whether requiring “widely agreed-on” and “deliberate” actions (Trzcinski, 1995) are too prescriptive. Under this definition, the striking down of Roe v. Wade would not be considered family policy because it is not “widely agreed-on” among the public and policymakers. Under this definition, a corporate decision to relocate an executive, who is a married father of four, would not be considered family policy because it was not “deliberately” intended to affect the employee’s family. A definition that is unduly limiting also ends up being virtually meaningless. Regarding the source, some definitions limit the “do-er” of family policy to actions taken by governmental bodies (Aldous & Dumon, 1990). Limiting family policy to governmental actions disregard the large number of family policies that emanate from employers, for-profit businesses, nonprofit organizations, private schools, and a number of other nongovernmental associations such as advocacy groups; churches, synagogues, and other places of worship; civic organizations; unions; voluntary membership federations (e.g., charitable societies, ethnic associations, farmer and worker groups, female auxiliaries, fraternal brotherhoods, recreational groups, youth clubs); and so forth. Regarding the policy target, many scholars confine family policy to only those families with children (Aldous et al., 1980; Berger & Carlson, 2020; Daly, 2020; Hochschild, 2003). This definition is so narrow that it excludes the care and economic support that families provide to their partners and to other family members across the lifespan from the cradle to the grave. The neglect of older adults in family policy makes it appear that they have no families (Dykstra & Djundeva, 2020). Defining family policy as only for the young or only for the old provides a fragmented view of families that ignores the intergenerational exchanges that are an integral part of family life (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). Regarding content, some definitions limit family policy to economic issues (Seaberg, 1990). Yet family policy moves beyond economics to address other important functions that families perform for the benefit of their members and the good of society, such as childbearing, childrearing, and caregiving.

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

85

Fresh Definitions of Family Policy as “Ends” and “Means” of the Policymaking Process If family policy is to be a useful idea, it requires fresh definitions that mean something. This claim is as relevant today as when it was first stated 45 years ago by Kamerman and Kahn (1978). To provide clarity to the stale debate over the meaning of family policy, definitions are needed that overcome the limitations detailed earlier of a scope that is too broad or narrow, a source that is unnecessarily constraining, a target too exclusionary, and a content unreflective of the many functions families perform. I argue that this confusion can be clarified by conceptualizing family policy as both the “ends” and the “means” of the policymaking process. The “ends” of the policymaking process refers to what effects policies and programs have on family outcomes for diverse families across the lifespan. The “means” of the policymaking process are how and why these outcomes occur. This two-pronged definition provides a fresh lens for viewing families. A family impact lens examines how families affect and are affected by policies and programs. It also may reveal whether government, business, and other organizations are using families and family policy as a de facto means for accomplishing agendas that may serve the interests of the institution over the interests of families (George Piskor, personal communication, February 13, 2023). Family Policy as the “Ends” of the Policymaking Process

First, let’s consider families as the “ends” of the policymaking process. Simply stated, policy can directly affect families, indirectly affect them, or have no effects at all. Any definition that is going to be useful needs to recognize each of these ends or outcomes. I propose here a revision of definitions of family policy that updates our own earlier writing (Bogenschneider, 2014; Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010) and that of other family scholars. The earliest writing on definitions dates back to Kamerman and Kahn (1978), who made a distinction between explicit policies, which are designed to achieve specific goals regarding families, and implicit policies, which are not specifically or primarily intended to affect families but have indirect consequences on them. Here I update these definitions with those proposed recently by family policy pioneer, Theodora Ooms (2019). As proposed by Ooms (2019), I define Family Policy as any policy that directly affects family outcomes such as the various functions and responsibilities that families perform for the well-being of their members and society (e.g., economic support, caregiving, childrearing). Indirect Family Policy is any policy that directly addresses individual needs and well-being, but also indirectly affects family outcomes. Without acknowledging these indirect effects, we run the risk of missing the broad reach and relevance of many public policies for families (Daly, 2020). Family Policy as a “Means” of the Policymaking Process

Policies that have no effects on family outcomes, or appear at first glance to have no effects, are often omitted in the discussion of family policy. Yet it is necessary to consider all effects if the family policy is to become a distinct subfield of social

86

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

policy. To make these distinctions, an additional definition is needed that uses the family concept as a “means” for emphasizing family considerations and for identifying family impacts in the policymaking process. Earlier scholars have called for a family perspective in policymaking (Kamerman & Kahn, 1978), which I have termed the Family Impact Lens. A family perspective can be likened to a singular point of view, whereas a family impact lens is a multi-faceted frame for viewing and interpreting the world. Just as it has become routine to consider economic impacts, I propose the family impact lens as a way of thinking that prioritizes families as worthy of public discourse, research, partnership, and political action (Bogenschneider et al., 2012). This lens lifts up a family frame for emphasizing how families are affected by policies and programs, and whether involving families in policy enactment and implementation would result in more effective and efficient policies and programs. This lens also examines when families and family policy are being used as a de facto means for accomplishing goals that benefit the best interests of institutions more than the best interests of families. The family impact lens proposed here is an “emphasis frame” that brings added value over the more familiar “communication frame.” A communication frame focuses on what a speaker says, whereas an emphasis frame focuses on how a person thinks (Gormley, 2012). The family impact lens emphasizes a way of thinking and a frame for viewing and interpreting the world.

Definitions in the Family Policy Landscape Next, I expand on each of these definitions of family policy in more detail. For additional clarification, I also offer these definitions in the context of several related definitions such as policy, public policy, politics, social policy, and family law. Abbreviated descriptions are found in Table 4.1. Policy

Each of these definitions builds on a broad definition of policy as a plan or course of action carried out through a law, rule, code, or other mechanism in the public or private sectors. Public Policy

The process used to develop policies in the public sector deserves its own definition. Public policy is an “identifiable course of action hammered out in the political arena to maximize the satisfaction of relevant interest groups in society and to improve the general welfare” (Flinchbaugh, 1985, p. 1). Politics

Policy is formed through politics, which derives from the Greek word, polis or city. Politics is everything people do when they live in a community and work through

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

87

Table 4.1  Definitions of Family Policy and Related Terms Policy

A plan or course of action carried out through a law, rule, code, or other mechanism in the public or private sectors.

Public Policy

The process used to develop policies in the public sector deserves its own definition. Public policy is an “identifiable course of action hammered out in the political arena to maximize the satisfaction of relevant interest groups in society and to improve the general welfare” (Flinchbaugh, 1985, p. 1).

Politics

Everything people do when they live in community and work through disagreements toward a common purpose for the way society develops.

Social Policy

In scholarly circles, social policy attempts to improve the quality of life for individuals in domains such as crime, education, health, housing, and welfare. In policy circles, “social issues” are those that policymakers find are the most contentious and partisan.

Family Law

Family policy is defined as what is enacted, whereas family law is defined as how what is enacted is interpreted and applied, and whether it is consistent with the Constitution and previous legal decisions.

Family Policy

Any policy that directly affects family outcomes, such as the various responsibilities and functions that families perform for the well-being of their members and society, including (a) family formation, (b) partner relationships, (c) economic support, (d) childrearing, and (e) caregiving.

Indirect Family Policy

Policies that directly address individual needs and well-being, but also indirectly affect family outcomes.

Family Impact Lens

A way of thinking and a frame for viewing the world that moves beyond what policy or program is enacted or established to how or why it impacts family functioning.

disagreements toward a common purpose for the way society develops (Peterson, 1985). Politics is collective decision-making on problems where people disagree and everyone cannot have everything they want. If everyone agrees, then there is no need for politics and political decisions. Politics is the process whereby groups of people deal with disagreements (Lupia, 2000). Sometimes these disagreements are blamed on individual policymakers, who are scorned because they are thought to be ambitious, corrupt, and power-hungry. In actuality, however, disagreements are a universal property of the way collective decisions are made in a democracy (Lupia, 2000). Social Policy

Social policy, as defined in scholarly circles, is policies that directly attempt to improve the quality of life for individuals. Social policy spans a spectrum of issues including crime, education, health, housing, and welfare (Maton, 2017).

88

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Interestingly, we found in a recent study that the term, “social issue,” embodies a different meaning for policymakers. In the political culture, the term “social issues” was reserved for those issues that were the most contentious, which were contrasted with issues that were less contentious, such as those dealing with youth and families. As explained by a Republican, social issues were the ones that split along party lines, such as abortion, samesex marriage, sex education, and some education policies. Policymakers defined “youth and family issues” as being less contentious using examples such as adoption, child lead poisoning, children with disabilities, domestic violence, family leave, foster care, home schooling, juvenile justice, school safety, sex trafficking, student loans, and so forth. Family Law

This book focuses primarily on family policy, which is defined as what policies are enacted. In contrast, family law is defined as how what is enacted is interpreted and applied, and whether it is consistent with the Constitution and previous legal decisions. Issues such as spending on public education, for example, are approached differently in policymaking bodies than in judicial settings. When policymakers enact laws on financing elementary and secondary education, they weigh competing claims on what is the most effective expenditure of public resources. When courts issue rulings, they consider whether expenditures for education are required by or are consistent with the constitution, the federal or state law, and judicial precedence (Gormley, 2012). Family Policy

In many countries, family policy has long been recognized as a field of public policy (Kamerman & Kahn, 1978). In the United States and in virtually every other country, family policy is viewed, not as a single policy, but as a cluster of policies directed toward an array of diverse family forms (Kamerman & Kahn, 1978). So, the term family policy is actually a convenient shorthand for a field that is more accurately thought of as families policies. Family policy is any policy that directly affects family outcomes such as the various functions and responsibilities that families perform for the well-being of their members and society (Ooms, 2019). Family policy directly focuses on family business (Blankenhorn, 1990; Bogenschneider et al., 2012; Ooms, 1990, 2019; Zimmerman, 1995), which was aptly described by former Vice President Hubert Humphrey (1977) as how policy “treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life—the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Family policy encompasses the five main functions and responsibilities of families: (a) family formation, (b) partner relationships, (c) economic support, (d) childrearing, and (e) caregiving (see descriptions in Table 4.2). Families also provide members with love and transmit cultural and religious values, but these intimate functions matter to policy only when they interfere with the five main functions (Ooms, 1990). This definition of family policy includes policies around abandoned infants, abortion, adoption, domestic violence, early care and education, family caregiving, juvenile crime,

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

89

Table 4.2  The Main Functions Families Provide for Their Members and Society Family policy is any policy that directly affects family outcomes such as the various functions and responsibilities that families perform for the well-being of their members and society. Family policy encompasses five main functions of families: • Family Formation and Membership: Families bring new individuals into the world and provide individuals with personal and family identity, helping define who they are and where they come from, and assuring continuity across generations. The government regulates this function through policies affecting childbirth, marriage, divorce, adoption, foster care, inheritance, etc. • Partner Relationships: Families are a fundamental influence on individuals’ abilities to form and maintain committed, stable partner relationships. Families can serve to strengthen and nurture healthy communication, cooperation, intimacy, and conflict management skills in their members. Government can support these efforts through policies regarding marriage, relationship education, benefit eligibility, tax incentives, etc. • Economic Support: Families provide economic support to meet their dependents’ basic needs for shelter, food, clothing, and so forth. The government sometimes supplements this family function through income, food, housing, and related supplements; job training; and various subsidies in the tax code. • Childrearing: Families raise and nurture the next generation to be productive members of society. Families are responsible for ensuring children’s health, safety, education, and general well-being, and for teaching them values and appropriate social behavior. The government shares these responsibilities with families, sets minimal standards for parental behavior, and intervenes when these standards are not met. • Caregiving: Families provide protective family care across the life cycle. Although not required to do so by law, families still provide most of the care and concern for the elderly, frail, ill, and those with disabilities. The government supplements or supplants families who need help or are unwilling or unable to provide this care. Note. Reprinted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012a). The family impact handbook: How to view policy and program through the family impact lens (p. 35). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

K-12 education, marriage, parent education, welfare reform, and so on. Also, tax provisions that create a child care tax credit or an Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families would be classified as family policy. However, this definition would exclude a health care policy that primarily targets individuals and a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, some of whom happen to live in families. This definition would also exclude long-term care policies that target residential or institutional settings with no consideration of the care that families arrange for or provide to aged or ailing family members. Indirect Family Policy

A broad range of policies not only directly address individual needs and well-being, but also indirectly affect family outcomes. Many policies that focus directly on health care, housing, poverty, substance abuse, unemployment, and so on could also affect family outcomes and would be defined as Indirect Family Policy (Ooms, 2019). Basically,

90

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

these policies can have unintended or inadvertent effects on family outcomes related to family formation, partner relationships, economic support, childrearing, or caregiving. One example is corrections policy, which sets rules, codes, or other mechanisms to guide decisions about whether an individual should be put behind bars. The state incarcerates individuals, not families. Yet incarceration has a profound effect on the family of an incarcerated individual. Another example is the Social Security Trust Fund, which is based on an individual’s own earnings, and is seldom viewed through a family lens. In fact, ongoing concerns about the solvency of Social Security have led to proposals to create privatized accounts that would maximize an individual’s opportunity to build up personal retirement savings. But when privatization was viewed through a family lens, it became apparent that it would affect family outcomes by jeopardizing the protections that Social Security currently provides for children and lower-earning spouses (Reno et al., 2005). The Family Impact Lens

The family impact lens is a frame for thinking about and viewing the role of families in policymaking. This framework emphasizes a broad spectrum of ways to think about families using different sets of eyeglasses that range from a wide-angle view of family support to a narrow focus on a particular policy or program (Bogenschneider et al., 2012). The family impact lens moves beyond what policy or program is enacted or established to how or why it impacts family functioning (Bogenschneider et al., 2012; Dunst et al., 2007). As shown in Table 4.3, the family impact lens can be used to examine: • how family outcomes are affected by the issue, • if families contribute to an issue, • whether involving families in the response would result in the design of more effective and efficient policies, • in what ways families are involved in policy administration, and • who benefits from achieving the policy goals.

Further, the family impact lens can examine whether the implementation of policies and programs strengthen family functioning through “practices that treat families with dignity and respect; information sharing so families can make informed decisions; family choice regarding their involvement in and provision of services; and parent/professional collaborations and partnerships” (Dunst et al., 2007, p. 370). The family impact lens also can examine the purpose of policies and programs to determine if they are in the best interests of families or the sponsoring institution. The family impact lens provides a set of criteria that can be used to identify family implications for several purposes in policy design, enactment, and implementation. As depicted in Table 4.4, these purposes include (1) to assess how families affect and are affected by policies and programs, (2) to identify family contributions to the administration of family policy, and (3) to examine whether families and family policy are being used as a de facto means for achieving nonfamily policy goals.

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

91

Table 4.3  The Contributions of the Family Impact Lens to Policy Enactment and Implementation When policies or programs are designed, enacted, or established, the family impact lens considers • How families are affected by the issue • In what ways, if any, families contribute to the issue • Whether involving families in the response would result in the design of more effective and efficient policies • In what ways families are involved in the administration of the policy • Who benefits from achieving the policy goals When policies or programs are implemented, the family impact lens considers • Family dignity that stems from practices that treat families with respect • Family decision-making based on accessible and available information • Family choice regarding available services and the extent of involvement • Family involvement in parent/professional collaborations and in decision-making about family goals Note. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012b). The family impact rationale: An evidence base for the family impact lens (p. 3). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

Table 4.4  Applying the Family Impact Lens to Identify Family Contributions for Various Policy Purposes The family impact lens can be used to identify family contributions for several purposes in policy design, enactment, and implementation. The lens of family impact provides a set of criteria, three of which are highlighted here: a. how families affect and are affected by policies and programs (e.g., incarceration policy, interventions for juvenile offenders), b. when families act as administrators of public policy by determining program eligibility (e.g., survivor benefits, immigration status) and applying for government benefits (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit), or c. whether families and family policy are being used as a de facto means for achieving goals that benefit institutional interests more than family interests (e.g., workplace policies that provide child care for sick children could be a disguised attempt to improve employee productivity; private contractor claims of efficient delivery of family services could mask underlying profit motives). Note. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012b). The family impact rationale: An evidence base for the family impact lens (p. 9). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

92

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

The Family Impact Lens Can Assess How Families Affect and Are Affected by Policies and Programs

First, the family impact lens provides several criteria, checklists, and procedures for assessing whether and how policies and programs affect family outcomes. One contemporary example is the dramatic increase in incarceration rates in the United States over the past half-century. Corrections policy is not a family policy per se, but it would benefit by looking at it through a family impact lens. Political discourse on incarceration has focused primarily on incarcerated individuals with little acknowledgment of whether and how incarceration affects their families (K. Bogenschneider, 2015). Viewing incarceration through a family impact lens revealed that incarceration affects about 2.6 million children outside the prison walls, who are the progeny of parents inside the prison walls (Harris & Kearney, 2014; Poehlmann-Tynan & Turney, 2021). When a parent is incarcerated, the family impact lens revealed ripple effects on parenting practices, partner relationships, and family earnings. Other family impacts included how far prisons and jails are located from families, how easy or hard it is to locate visitation policies on the website, how much time is allowed for visits, whether children are subjected to screening and frisking, and what the conditions are surrounding the visit (e.g., availability of books and toys, privacy of contact; K. Bogenschneider, 2015; Shlafer et al., 2015; Mihalec-Adkins & Shlafer, 2022). The family impact lens also can be used to assess whether family approaches would be more effective than nonfamily approaches in achieving the goals of a policy or program. As an illustration, a family-focused approach proved more effective in interventions for male youth with histories of serious and chronic offenses. Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center compared two programs for youth 12- to 17-years-old. Treatment Foster Care was a family approach that placed chronic male offenders in the homes of trained and supported foster parents. The other program was group care that placed offenders in secure or community-based facilities (Chamberlain et al., 1992). In the program evaluations, Treatment Foster Care was more effective in reducing infractions and serious crimes among chronic juvenile offenders than group care. One year later, the youth in Treatment Foster Care spent, on average, fewer than half as many days in detention and about a third less time in state training schools than did youth in group care. Youth in Treatment Foster Care ran away less frequently and spent nearly twice as much time living with their parents or relatives―a primary goal of both programs (Chamberlain & Reid, 1991). The Family Impact Lens Can Identify Family Contributions to the Administration of Family Policy

The family impact lens can identify how families are not only affected by family policy but are also administrators of it. Families are involved in the administration of family policy in many ways such as determining program eligibility or distributing benefits to members. Regarding eligibility, it is family status that determines who can be a beneficiary of a policy such as a survivor benefits from the military or Social Security.

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

93

Also, students’ eligibility for financial aid is determined by the economic status of their parents, regardless of whether parents plan to contribute to their child’s education or how much they plan to provide (Strach, 2006, 2007); in fact, students are not eligible for Lifetime Learning Credits to cover education expenses if parents claim them as dependents on their tax returns (IRS, n.d.). Family status became an important criterion for immigration policy ever since the U.S. Congress passed its first numerical restrictions in 1924. Prior to that time, immigration had been based on a “first-come, first-served” basis. After that time, the primary qualification for eligibility became an applicant’s family relationships to citizens and legal residents, which were even more important than employment verification or refugee status (Strach, 2006). Family connections, particularly in more traditional families, permeate every category of immigration law. For example, for an individual that qualifies for an employment visa, admission is also extended to their spouse and children if certain conditions are met (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 2021). Because reunification is thought to speed up adaptation to the new country, family ties are a “fast track” to citizenship. Family connections were estimated to account for 68% of new green-card holders (Van Hook & Glick, 2020), and spouses are required to wait only three years after obtaining a green card to apply for citizenship rather than the usual five years (Glick, 2010). The family impact lens can also reveal family responsibilities for administering many family policies and programs. Typically, administrators are envisioned as bureaucrats in state and federal agencies, but families are “shadow bureaucrats” when they care for aging relatives, save for children’s education, or apply for child tax credits (Strach, 2007). Families are the primary administrators of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), one of the United States’ most effective policies for encouraging work and lifting people out of poverty. Families are responsible for claiming this credit on their tax returns and, given its complexity, 59% hire tax preparers to help them file the forms. Low-income families pay an average preparation fee of $400, which is about 13% to 22% of the average refund (Weinstein, Jr. & Patten, 2016). This substantial cost to families explains, in part, the miniscule cost to the government of administering the EITC compared to other public programs. The Family Impact Lens Can Examine Whether Families and Family Policy Are Being Used as a De Facto Means for Achieving Nonfamily Goals

Families and family policy can be a de facto means for government, business, and other institutions to achieve economic, political, and social goals. For example, many countries around the world have leveraged families as a vehicle for achieving national goals, such as increasing fertility, expanding female labor force participation, or improving female wage equality (Hook & Li, 2020; Kamerman & Kahn, 1978). In the United States, one example is some of the work/family policies enacted by employers. On the surface, providing child care for sick children appears to be a “family-friendly” policy. But it is also a de facto means for developing a “work-friendly” policy that promotes employee productivity by increasing the time that parents can spend on the job (Moen, 2010).

94

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Examples of using families to leverage support for nonfamily goals come from Asia as well. For example, in 1999, Japan passed the Basic Law for a Gender-Equal Society that included a number of provisions such as encouraging fathers to become more involved in child care and household chores. This bill was a response to Japan experiencing one of the lowest birth rates and highest aging rates in the world, which was threatening the viability of the nation’s health insurance and pension programs. Some provisions of the law made it more possible for women to bear children, which led to speculations that the government’s primary intent was less about promoting gender equality and more about increasing the fertility rate to shore up the solvency of Japan’s social welfare system (Porter & Sano, 2009). Since the Act was enacted in 1999, its plans for promoting gender equality have been revised five times. Some progress has been made, but Japan continues to drop in the gender equality ratings of the World Economic Forum with a slight improvement in 2021 (Elstrom et al., 2022). Family policies can be a de facto means for private contractors to deliver family services in innovative ways that turn a profit. Increasingly, governmental bodies have partnered with or contracted with private entities to deliver social services, such as foster care, “welfare-to-work” programs, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment services (Stuart, 2019). The family impact lens can be used to assess the consequences when for-profit providers vie for public dollars to deliver family services. As one example, a recent national analysis of foster care agencies throughout the United States revealed a direct and immediate effect of privatization on the lives of children. Compared to foster children in non-privatized agencies, those in privatized care were less apt to be adopted and faced an increased risk of abuse and neglect (Eatough, 2017). Looking through the lens of family impact also revealed the reasons for racial inequality in welfare services. For example, Black youth have been found to be more likely to run away from foster care. In one study, these racialized outcomes may reflect, in part, the availability of placement slots for foster youth. In locations with a larger supply of congregate care slots, more foster youth were placed in congregate care than in familybased care. Congregate care tends to be provided by private agencies that depend on their beds being filled to ensure fiscal stability. When young people are placed in congregate care, they are more apt to run away. Black youth may run away more often, in part, because they live in locations with a more concentrated supply of congregate care (Wulczyn, 2021).

What Contributions Can Family Policy Make to Policymaking? Family policy and the family impact lens have the potential to make contributions to policymaking that are distinct from those of social policy and other fields of public policy. Three distinct contributions are mentioned here. First, family policy shifts the focus of policymaking from individual rights to the relationship between two or more persons tied together by blood, legal bonds, or the joint performance of family functions. This focus on family relationships makes sense because it reflects the way the real world

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

95

works. Most Americans live their lives, not in isolation from others, but in relationships. Thus, in family policy, the family relationship becomes an end in itself, which is more than the sum of the rights of individual family members (Carrà, 2017). Second, family policy enlarges our organizing frame by adopting a lifespan perspective that extends from the cradle to the grave. Families are the only social sphere that encompasses multiple generations. Accordingly, family policy acknowledges the intergenerational sharing that occurs in a myriad of forms across the lifespan (Donati, 2012). Third, the family policy has the potential to broaden political discourse because it embodies an essential quality found in a few other frameworks—a commitment to others even when such actions entail a personal cost. The family frame can counter individualistic, narrow, or parochial agendas by moving away from a concentration on overly specific problems or single solutions and toward a more holistic, multidimensional way of thinking. For example, policies are often promoted by lobbyists or special interests, who ask, “What does the policy or program do for me or my personal agenda?” Basically, who will win and who will lose in a narrow, self-serving sense? From its roots, the objective of family policy has not been to play one family member against another, but rather to maximize individual contributions for the good of the whole family unit and for society (Kamerman, 1977). Yet public policy often overlooks or finds it difficult to build on these distinct contributions of family policy. Policies traditionally focus on the individual rights of women or men, which is incomplete without thought of the roles most of these women and men play as spouses, parents, and partners (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). Complicating matters further, women’s policies and children’s policies are often incorrectly characterized as family policy, even though an individual is targeted instead of a family relationship or family unit (Donati, 2012). The family concept also is misused in policy debate when it represents only some of the relationships in families. For example, the commonly used term single-parent family masks the involvement of cohabitating and noncustodial parents in the lives of their children. Family can be a code word for mother and child, with little or no attention to the father or grandparent (Donati, 2012). For instance, abortion is frequently framed around mother’s but not father’s rights, even when the father was a spouse or partner in a committed relationship (Gupta, 2022). Even when family relationships are targeted, policies often are written using the individualistic language of children, young people, or old people rather than family terms like sons/daughters, parents, or grandparents (Donati, 2012). The Contributions of Family Policy to an Individualistic Society

Lifting up families as a way of thinking can bring many benefits to policymaking, especially in an individualistic nation like the United States (see Chapter 8). In a nation built on the premise that every person is endowed with certain inalienable rights, families serve as a ready reminder that these rights come with responsibilities. In a society that often is focused on getting more, the family frame shifts the focus to giving more. In a culture that uses money and material possessions as a sign of worth, worthiness in

96

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

families comes from actions difficult to monetize, such as commitment and self-sacrifice by each for the other or for the collective good. In a country with a proliferation of political action committees for every cause, a family frame has the potential to counter the self-centered agendas of lobbyists or special-interest groups. It is in families that individuals are socialized with the moral grounding to overcome the threats of selfcenteredness, self-interest, greed, and the quest for power (Etzioni, 1992). In truth, family policy does not always live up to its full potential to bring a holistic, altruistic, lifespan perspective to policymaking. But just because it cannot be perfectly attained does not mean that we should stop trying.

What Is a Family Anyway? Definitions Abound for Diverse Families Central to family policy is the definition of family. Human beings have long shared the experience of “being from and within a family” (Allen & Henderson, 2022, p. 365). But beginning in the final third of the 20th century, families have undergone a major transformation (Furstenberg, 2020). As marriage has become less accessible to some couples and more available to others, several new family forms have emerged— cohabitation, same-sex unions, single-parent families, stepfamilies, and so forth. Amidst all this diversity in definitions of family is one point of agreement—all definitions of families include, at a minimum, a relationship between two people. One person does not have make a family (Trost, 1993). Defining family is not a matter that can be settled by science or by the courts. “Science works by experiments” (Lewis, 1952, p. 32). Researchers can design an experiment that can compare how different families behave. Researchers can examine what families do, but not what families are. Science cannot design a study to answer the question of what is the optimal definition of a family. Neither have the courts developed a single, sacrosanct definition of family; instead, they have made decisions on a case-by-case basis. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Stanley v. Illinois (1972) that the court should not be constrained by rigid presumptions about families, such as whether unmarried fathers can be suitable parents, but should make a determination based on the facts of the case (Stanley v. Illinois, n.d.). Yet this does not mean that policymakers or courts do not base decisions on a particular view of family, typically a traditional one formed around marriage (Bogenschneider et al., 1993).

Does the Field Require a Single, Universal Definition of Family? In the 1980s as the field was evolving, efforts to define families proved “pointless and unnecessary” according to family policy pioneer Theodora Ooms (2019, p. 20). I reached a similar conclusion based on my experience working with legislators in a couple of dozen

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

97

states for over a quarter of a century. I seldom received requests from policymakers to define family. The lack of a single definition of family did not appear to be a barrier to achieving progress in family policy, just as the lack of a single definition of economics did not hinder progress in economic policy (Coleman, 1993). Thinking of the economy, for example, brings to mind a variety of economic structures (Ooms, 1984, 1990), such as the producer-based farmer’s market, the locally-owned coffee shop, a franchised fast-food restaurant, and the multinational bank. The word economy encompasses a range of financial functions, such as producing goods or services to earn income, using income to purchase goods for consumption, and distributing wealth through buying and selling. Like the economy, families encompass a myriad of structures (e.g., cohabiting families, foster families, married families, stepfamilies) and engage in multiple functions (e.g., bearing or raising children, providing economic support). Given this diversity in family structures and functions, trying to identify one single definition of family is like trying to cheat death: It does not work, and you end up feeling foolish for having tried (Doherty & Baird, 1983). But just because there can be no single definition does not mean there should not be any definition. In the words of a wise African woman: “If everyone is family, no one is family” (Zeituni Onyango as cited in Obama, 2004, p. 337). Would a Structural or Functional Definition Be Best?

Building on the thinking of pioneers in the field, I suggest that either a structural or functional definition can be written to reinforce the intent of a specific program or policy (Eshleman, 1991; Moen & Schorr, 1987). As summarized in Table 4.5, existing definitions can be categorized in several ways, two of the more prominent ones that are covered here. Structural definitions specify family membership according to Table 4.5  Two Basic Types of Family Definitions The definition of family will vary depending upon what a policy or program is trying to accomplish. Existing definitions of family can be categorized in several ways, two that are most prominent: • structural definitions specify family membership according to certain characteristics such as a blood relationship, legal ties, or residence; and • functional definitions specify functions that family members perform, such as sharing economic resources and caring for the young, elderly, ill, impaired, or members with disabilities. Rather than seeking a single universal definition, either a structural or functional definition can be written to reinforce the intent of a specific policy or program. Structural definitions seem more appropriate for some policy goals and functional definitions for others. Note. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012b). The family impact rationale: An evidence base for the family impact lens (p. 10). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

98

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

certain characteristics such as a blood relationship, legal ties, or residence. In contrast, functional definitions specify core functions that family members perform, such as sharing economic resources and caring for the young, elderly, ill, impaired, and those with disabilities (see Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010; Moen & Schorr, 1987). One does not have to look far to find a real-world example of a structural definition of family. The U.S. Census Bureau (2020) defines family in structural terms—“a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together.” A real-world example of a functional definition emerged on the debate stage preceding the 2017 French Presidential election. Emmanuel Macron was put in the position of having to defend the nontraditional family that he lived in. He had married a woman 24 years older than him with three children. Macron had no children of his own, but was close to his stepchildren. Macron’s response to criticism from his political opponents was framed around the functions of families: I heard the National Front’s message this morning. Mr. Le Pen told me, “You don’t have the right to talk about the future, because you don’t have children.” Mr. Le Pen, I have children and grandchildren of the heart. It’s a family that you have to build, it’s a family you have to conquer, a family that doesn’t owe you anything. (cited in Collins, 2017) Is It Necessary to Choose Between a Structural and Functional Definition?

For policy purposes, it might not be necessary to choose between a structural or a functional definition. Instead, the choice would depend on what a specific program or policy was trying to achieve. Perhaps a couple of examples can help clarify. If the issue was the payment of child support, a structural definition would require financial support only from those people related to the child by blood, marriage, or adoption, whereas a functional definition would require financial support from any committed caregiver. If the issue cared for the elderly, a structural definition would provide benefits only to those who have legal responsibility for the elderly dependent; in contrast, a functional definition would offer benefits to any close companion who provided care to keep the older person in their own home and out of a more costly institution. When considered in the context of specific legislation, structural definitions seem more appropriate for some goals and functional definitions for others. Each type of definition has strengths and limitations. Both structural and functional definitions of families share one strength—both are based on a relationship between at least two people. Both have limitations as well. For example, structural definitions exclude family forms such as common law marriages (in states where they are not legally recognized), foster families (where children do not live with their biological parents in the same residence), an exclusive romantic relationship where the partners each live in their own home (i.e., living apart together), or cohabiting couples (who are not related by birth, marriage, or adoption but nevertheless carry out many family-like

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

99

functions such as childbearing and childrearing over a significant period of time; Carr & Utz, 2020). Also, structural definitions would exclude relationships that span households, such as siblings and step siblings that live in different households, which is increasingly common given the growing complexity of contemporary families. Children also are increasingly likely to spend time in multiple family structures, given the number of families that break up and the number of individuals who have children with multiple partners (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Functional definitions appear on the surface to be more inclusive because they encompass diverse living arrangements that fulfill family functions regardless of structure or residence, such as long-term foster families, cohabitating couples, and a lifelong friend providing end-of-life care. Yet some living arrangements commonly considered to be families do not fulfill the specified family functions. For example, functional definitions would exclude a noncustodial parent who fails to pay child support. Also excluded is a legally sanctioned marriage where the couple no longer care for each other, but stay together for economic reasons or for the sake of the children (Doherty & Baird, 1983). Thus, structural definitions seem more appropriate in some situations and functional definitions in others. It depends on purpose and context that may legitimately vary over time, across jurisdictions, among racial and ethnic groups, and in different political and historical circumstances (Ooms, 2019). This lack of a single preferred definition of family may seem unsettling or unsatisfying to some. To others, it may even appear opportunistic or cowardly. Yet precedence exists. No legal definition of family appears in the U.S. Constitution, and no uniform definition of family exists in federal law (Ooms, 1998) or state statutes (Bogenschneider et al., 1993). Because it is not a matter that can be resolved by science, defining family is ultimately a question of values, assumptions, and priorities—the type of decisions that policymakers are elected to make. Going forward, a protracted debate over definitions of family may be unnecessary and may impede progress toward more useful and pragmatic policy goals.

Is Defining Family More Than a Theoretical Exercise? The absence of a universal definition does not mean that family definitions are unimportant. Definitions serve several policy purposes, three that are mentioned here. First, they often determine who benefits from a program and who does not. For example, immigration law defines family membership as relationships based on blood, marriage, or adoption (Strach, 2007). In tax law, benefits accrue to family members who are defined as financial dependents (Strach, 2007). Laws around child custody favor parents who were once married (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Second, definitions are important when disputes arise among family members who have different interests and agendas (Berger & Carlson,

100

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

2020). Finally, definitions often have societal significance by conveying what is normative and socially sanctioned and, by implication, what is frowned on as improper or unacceptable. As families have become more complex, definitions of family take on an elevated meaning, but more so in some countries than others. In the Netherlands, for example, cohabitation is legally protected; registered cohabiters have the same rights to an inheritance or pension as married couples (Carr & Utz, 2020). In the United States, however, marriage is more clearly defined and regulated than cohabitation. When couples break up, divorce laws provide protections to formerly married partners and their children that may not be available to members of cohabiting families (Cherlin, 2020b); for example, when cohabiting couples break up and only one parent is the biological or adoptive parent, it may be harder for the nonbiological, nonresident parent to gain visitation rights. For grandparents, family definitions may limit their legal rights to access health or welfare services even when they are providing primary care to a grandchild; in addition, school policies and the privacy procedures of health care organizations may preclude providing information about the child to grandparents that would be made available to parents. What is abundantly clear is that today’s more complicated families may need more complex definitions and policy responses than did the simpler families of the past (Berger & Carlson, 2020).

Summary For family policy to advance as a field, it will depend on knowing what it is, what it is not, and what it can achieve. For family policy to have an identity of its own requires precise parameters that limit its scope so some policies are excluded. At the same time, its scope must be expanded so other policies are included.

• Family policy is the policies that directly address the five main functions that families perform for the well-being of their members and society: (a) family formation, (b) partner relationships, (c) economic support, (d) childrearing, and (e) caregiving. • Indirect family policy is a broad range of policies that directly address individual needs and well-being, but also indirectly affect family functions. • The family impact lens is a way of thinking and a frame for viewing the world to assess how families affect and are affected by policies and programs, to identify family contributions to the administration of family policy, and to examine whether families and family policy are being used as a de facto means for achieving nonfamily goals. • Families are one of few frameworks that embody a commitment to others, even when such actions entail a personal cost. The family frame can counter individualistic, narrow, or parochial agendas by moving away from a concentration on overly specific problems or single solutions and toward a more holistic, altruistic, multidimensional way of thinking. This family-centered view can broaden political discourse by adopting a lifespan perspective that extends from the cradle to the grave in the only social sphere that encompasses multiple generations.

TO BECOME A FIELD OF ITS OWN

101

• There is no single, one-size-fits-all definition of a family. No legal definition of family appears in the U.S. Constitution, and no uniform definition exists in federal law or state statutes. Instead, family is defined according to what a specific program or policy is trying to achieve. Structural definitions are more appropriate for achieving some goals and functional definitions for others. At a minimum, all definitions of family include a relationship between two people.

Without precise definitions, family policy invites imposters who co-opt the iconic image of families to promot unrelated policies. The popular family brand can be used as a “Trojan horse” for narrow individualistic agendas that have little to do with the holistic, altruistic, lifespan agenda of family policy.

5

103

CHAPTER 5 WHAT ARE FAMILY POLICIES ANYWAY? WHO MAKES THEM AND WHO SHAPES THEM?

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Families do not operate within the confines of the “family bubble.” Even though families are inherently private, they are inevitably affected by the public context in which they operate. This comprehensive view of families as embedded in the larger society draws on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory of Human Development and Minuchin’s Structural Family System Theory. This chapter covers how family policies are crafted in a bewildering array of places, ranging from multinational organizations to neighborhood associations. Family policies are made in assorted spaces, ranging from the street level where people work and play, right up to the top-level suite where executives meet. The chapter chronicles recent family policy developments, including international conventions, court decisions, executive orders, and laws passed at the federal, state, and local levels. The investments that philanthropic foundations make are small relative to what the government provides, yet they have had an outsized impact on family policy by launching political agendas and creating policy change. Family policies have been patched together in a piecemeal pattern that responds to the specific needs of particular families and are implemented in fragmented and siloed ways. [The issue is] whether or not it’s the role of government to be caring and concerned. (Democratic legislator) Sometimes it takes a long time for important things to happen. Sometimes we can solve problems for children and families by not changing the law, by working on connections within departments or building bridges between different agencies for them. And I think that’s really important and wildly successful when we can solve problems that aren’t changing statutes. (Democratic legislator)

• Are families primarily a private matter? Do families exist in their own little bubble? • How do the public and private sectors support family functioning? • Are families a legitimate target for public policy? What new developments at the international, federal, state, and local levels support families? • How does private philanthropy shape family policy? DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-7

104

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

In policy circles, myth is treated as fact (Ferguson, 2015). One important role for anyone who works on public policy is myth-busting. For those in the family policy arena, the myth of the “family bubble” may be one of the most important to burst. Family functioning depends not only on what happens inside the confines of the “family bubble,” but also on forces outside the boundaries of the bubble (Pineau et al., 2018). Think about it for a moment. Many stressors that contemporary families face are not possible for them to handle entirely on their own, whether it’s the inability to find a job, afford health insurance, secure quality child care, or send their kids to good schools. Even though families are inherently private, they are inevitably affected by the public context in which they operate. Policy is one of many moving parts in the public context. This chapter begins with a discussion of how the functions that families perform are supported by societal institutions in both the public and private sectors. Then, the chapter turns to a specific consideration of who provides family policy at which levels and with what specific supports. Finally, the chapter turns to one major force that has shaped and continues to shape the development of family policy—private philanthropy.

How Do Family Policies Support Families? Families perform many different functions for the benefit of their members and the good of society. Yet families do not operate in isolation but are embedded in larger cultural, economic, and societal contexts. For the most part, families perform their functions in alliance with other institutions in the public and private sectors. This comprehensive view of family as embedded in a larger society draws on ecological family systems theory. This theory is an amalgam of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) concentric nested circles representing the human ecology and Minuchin’s (1974) structural family systems theory. Taken together, these two theories encompass both external and internal influences on family functioning. Internally, family functioning is theorized to influence individual development, and externally, the community and broader policy contexts are theorized to influence family functioning. Ecological family systems theory is visualized in Figure 5.1. On the right of the diagram, the policy oval includes several laws at the local, state, and federal levels that support family functioning. Also displayed are several factors that contribute to the effective functioning of the individual, family, and community. For example, family functioning is determined by the extent of economic, social, and emotional support; the stability and commitment of family members to each other; and the quality of relationships between family members; all of these are shaped by culture, racial/ethnic, and religious values, beliefs, traditions, and behaviors. Minuchin’s (1974) structural family systems theory focuses on the internal organizational processes (e.g., boundaries, power, transactional patterns) of families. These processes that maintain the functioning of family systems serve several ends. Internally, these processes promote the psychosocial development of individual family members.

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

105

Figure 5.1  Influences on Family Functioning: Ecological Family Systems Theory. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecology of Human Development, 1979 and Minuchin’s Structural Family Systems Theory, 1974; adapted from “Policymaking Through an Ecological and Family Impact Lens” (p. 2), by M. Alberts, K. Cadigan, and S. Benning. In Evidence-Informed Policymaking: Improving Accountability and Outcomes for Children, Youth and Families, 2010, Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Family Impact Seminars. Copyright 2010 by the Children, Youth and Family Consortium. Adapted with permission.

Externally, they help members adapt to changes in their cultural, economic, social, and community contexts. The more contexts change, the more crucial families become. To expand on the meaning of ecological family systems theory, we delve deeper into the functions that families perform. Table 5.1 identifies 11 functions of families, such as providing economic support, promoting physical and mental health, transmitting social and religious values, educating their members, and so forth. The table also details how each function is supported by societal institutions, providers, services, and systems, both public and private. For example, families are the first and foremost educators of their children. However, the education that a family provides is supported and supplemented by child care programs, elementary and secondary schools, higher education institutions, job training programs, libraries, preschools, and vocational education. The first six functions listed in the table are those that have the most direct significance for federal and state government policy. However, at the local level, and especially at the service delivery level, public and private providers also support a number of other

106

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Table 5.1  Family Functions Shared with Social Institutions Family Functions

Institutions, Providers, Services, and Systems (Public and Private)

Family formation and membership: adoption, birth, death, divorce, marriage

Formation and dissolution systems: adoption services, divorce lawyers, family courts, family planning and obstetric clinics, hospice services, marriage and divorce counseling, marriage laws, premarital preparation, prenatal care, teen pregnancy programs, mortuaries

Economic support: providing clothing, food, shelter, and other necessities, through income, employment, and other assets

Economic systems: banks, income maintenance and housing programs, insurance, pensions, social insurance, transportation systems, unions, and the workplace

Education: teaching knowledge, competencies, socialization, and life skills

Educational systems: child care, elementary and secondary schools, higher education, job training programs, libraries, preschool, vocational education

Physical and mental health: promoting good physical and mental health, caring for the sick

Health care services and mental health systems: clinics, counseling, health care, professional services, hospitals, public and private services, and therapy

Protection of vulnerable family members: providing for the emotional and physical well-being and safety of the ill, frail, and troubled family members of all ages

Health and social service systems: charitable organizations, elder day care, home-based health and social services, mental health agencies, nursing homes, respite care, social service agencies

Social responsibility: setting, Legal system: courts, juvenile homes, laws, teaching, and enforcing appropriate prisons, probation systems behavior, norms, and rules Affection and caring: providing affection, affirmation, intimacy, and mutual care

Support systems: extended family, marriage and family life education, neighborhood and community organizations, peer support groups

Identity: fostering community, ethnic, family, and national identity

Mediating systems: ethnic, community, and religious groups and programs at the local, state, and national levels

Cultural socialization: transmitting social and religious values and traditions

Media, educational, peer, religious, and recreational systems: electronic media, libraries, organizations (e.g., community-based, faith-based, and social), places of worship, radio, recreational clubs, schools, television

Religion: fostering family spirituality and worship

Religious systems: faith-based groups and organizations, places of worship, religious media

Recreation: facilitating diversion, entertainment, and leisure

Recreation systems: entertainment industry, libraries, organized sports, recreational facilities

Note. Adapted from A Strategy for Strengthening Families: Using Family Criteria in Policymaking and Evaluation (p. 39–40), by T. Ooms and S. Preister, 1988, Madison, WI: Family Impact Institute. Copyright 1988 by the Family Impact Institute. Adapted with permission.

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

107

functions that families perform for their members, such as the provision of affection, identity development, cultural socialization, religious training, and recreational opportunities. All these supports provided by public and private institutions debunk the myth of a self-contained “family bubble.”

Where Do Family Policies Come From? What do the United Nations, the U.S. Senate, the doctor’s office, the local grocery store, and the United Way all have in common? “They all craft policies for families,” according to Nieuwenhuis and Van Lancker (2020, p. 3). Family policies are crafted in a bewildering array of places, ranging from multinational organizations to neighborhood associations. Family policies are made in the halls of Congress and in city hall. They are made by nonprofit boards and landlords. Family policies are crafted in different organizational spaces, ranging from the street level where people work and play, right up to the top-level suite where executives meet. Family policies are made in countless places and spaces. When working to make a change in family policy, the first step is to identify the source of the policy and the level at which it originates. As shown in Table 5.2, knowing the source and level can help indicate where intervention is needed. For example, if change requires a new law, begin by determining if it falls under the purview of the federal, state, or local governments. If the change falls under the purview of states and if regulation is the issue, then the appropriate place to intervene is at the executive branch in the respective state. As important as the policy that is enacted is the way that it is implemented by an agency or organization. A policy will not achieve its goals if the implementation or management tactics are not carried out in family-friendly ways that achieve the ends of policymakers intended (Eggers & O’Leary, 2009). Yet implementation is not a Table 5.2  Sources of Policy (Levels and Points of Intervention) Sources of Policy identify the levels at which policies originate and, the points of intervention indicate where change can be made Law

Federal, state, and local statutes and ordinances

Court rulings

Interpretation and application of laws

Regulations

Requirements that are promulgated in the executive branch (at federal, state, and local levels) to implement laws

Budget

Allocations of money to different programs

Administrative and professional practices

Memoranda and decisions with no statutory or regulatory basis that are carried out through professional practice, bureaucratic procedures, and tradition

Note. Adapted from Taking Families Seriously: Family Impact Analysis as an Essential Policy Tool (p. 22), by T. Ooms, 1995, Madison, WI: Family Impact Institute. Copyright 1995 by the Family Impact Institute. Adapted with permission.

108

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Table 5.3  Implementation Dimensions Implementation dimensions are the multiple program components that shape the ways that policies are carried out and, hence, the ways programs directly and indirectly affect families Governance

The administrative structure, the entity’s decision-makers, and the formal and informal operational policies and procedures

Mission and goals

Statement of philosophy, goals, and objectives

Financing

Nature and type of funding (e.g., open-ended entitlement, matching grants)

Administration

Contract, procurement, and personnel systems; accountability and supervisory structure

Staffing

Qualifications and training of staff; job descriptions; and staff development plans

Service models

Assumptions, targets, and models of service delivery

Data collection

Planning, monitoring, and accountability; the nature of the data collected, the ways data are used to guide program operation, and their integration and coordination with other information sources

Program evaluation

Family members included or excluded from the sample, recruitment strategies, family-oriented measures, utilization of family benchmarks

Note. Adapted from Taking Families Seriously: Family Impact Analysis as an Essential Policy Tool (p. 22), by T. Ooms, 1995, Madison, WI: Family Impact Institute. Copyright 1995 by the Family Impact Institute. Adapted with permission.

unitary, “one and done” concept. Implementation has multiple dimensions ranging from administration to financing to staffing, as depicted in Table 5.3.

What Recent Developments Have Occurred in Family Policy? The places and spaces where family policies are made do not remain static. A sampling of recent developments is chronicled next including international conventions, court decisions, and executive orders. In addition, selected public policies are reviewed at the federal, state, and local levels. International Conventions

Family policy is shaped by international treaties adopted by the United States. Four Hague Conventions deal specifically with family law. For example, Congress passed legislation in 2014 that allowed the United States to complete the ratification process of the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance in 2016. Before the United States could join the 50 other countries that have ratified this treaty (HCCH, 2023), all 50 states were required to adopt

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

109

the Convention’s designated procedures for registering, recognizing, enforcing, and modifying child support and maintenance orders (Elrod & Spector, 2015). Previously, the United States signed the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which is now ratified by 108 countries (HCCH, 2022b). The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is in effect in 101 countries, including the United States (World Population Review, 2023). The United States has signed, but not ratified, the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children; this convention has been ratified in 58 countries (HCCH, 2022a). Court Decisions

The courts have played an active role in family issues. Decisions that affect how families are structured and function are made in municipal courts, circuit courts, and the Court of Appeals, with the most far-reaching decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. Take, for instance, the 2022 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that overturned the Constitutional right to an abortion. Or take the 2014 ruling that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed the right of same-sex couples to marry. In 2012, the Court influenced family access to health care in its decision to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. That same year, the Court struck down mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. Executive Orders

Every president has used executive orders. Executive orders are directives issued by the President, without the need for approval from Congress. One of the most well-known executive orders is the Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln. This presidential order proclaimed that all persons held as slaves shall be set free. It did not end slavery, but it provided moral authority to the claim that the Civil War was being fought over freedom (National Archives, n.d.). President Donald Trump issued 472 executive orders during his presidency. Several dealt with immigration policy, such as prioritizing the removal of undocumented immigrants who have committed misdemeanors, such as traffic violations, or being present when someone else is detained. Also, the Trump administration issued rules for the determination of the meaning of “public charge” in the application for a green card. Trump redefined “public charge” from “someone who is primarily dependent on the government for their subsistence” to “someone who uses one or more public benefits,” such as food stamps, housing assistance, or Medicaid services (Yoshikawa et al., 2019, p. 9). During his first 364 days as president, Biden took 296 executive actions on immigration that addressed barriers to entry, access to immigration benefits, and the arrest, detention, and removal of unauthorized immigrants (Migration Policy Institute, 2022; Yoshikawa et al., 2019).

110

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

The beginning of President Biden’s term was punctuated by a flurry of high-profile executive orders, such as rejoining the Paris Climate Accords and halting the Keystone XL oil pipeline (Klein, 2021). In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the right to abortion, President Biden issued two executive orders on protecting and securing access to reproductive and health care services. Executive orders have the advantage of being quickly enacted, but they can also be quickly erased under a new administration. Federal Laws

Spending on low-income families has increased so much in the last 50 years that it is now at its highest levels in U.S. history. Over the years, Congress enacted laws on a number of issues that affect families, such as adoption, Alzheimer’s, breast feeding, child abuse, child care, child pornography, child support, domestic violence, education and training, family caregiving, family and medical leave, financial aid for educational costs, food assistance, foster care, health care, home visiting, human trafficking, hunger, incarceration, long-term care, mental health, parent education, parent reunification with children, psychotropic medication use, tax credits, tax rates, welfare reform, and so forth. Table 5.4 provides a window into the breadth of federal laws that directly or indirectly affect families. For illustrative purposes, the table includes only selected laws passed between 2010 and 2021, and only the family provisions of these laws are described. (A summary of selected laws passed from 1990 to 2010 can be found online at www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider). Public spending on families grew in the laws passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID relief bills included three rounds of stimulus checks, expanded funding for child care and schools, increased food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), lowered costs and improved access to health care, increased federal funding for Medicaid, expansion of the Child Tax Credit, and so forth. The spending on child care was the largest in U.S. history, and the effect of the temporary expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit lifted an unprecedented 3.7 million children out of poverty (Hamilton et al., 2022). Federal spending on families primarily focuses on income security, nutrition, and tax credits; spending on health care is shared with state and local governments. The federal government’s largest expenditures for children are in tax credits and health programs. Federal expenditures for adults occur primarily through Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Most of these adults are seniors or those with disabilities, although Medicaid also provides benefits to parents and pregnant women. Spending for adults is projected to grow in the coming years, in part because increases in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are built into existing law and grow automatically with inflation or by other means. In contrast, spending for children seldom has built-in increases, so any additional dollars require enacting new programs or tax provisions (Hahn et al., 2021). Federal spending on adults and children is uneven. The federal government spends almost $6 on each older adult compared to $1 for each child. However, when state and local spending are included, the ratio drops to $2 of government spending on older adults compared to $1 spent on children (Hahn et al., 2021).

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

111

Table 5.4  Selected Family Policies Enacted by the U.S. Congress Between 2010 and 2021 Year Federal Family Policy

Description

2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Authorized supplying concentrated liquid infant formula to program participants beyond the specified maximum amount; provided bonuses to state agencies managing the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) that achieve the highest rates of breastfed infants or the greatest increase in these rates; and provided grants to administer the child and adult care food program in child care settings (H.R. 2997—111th Congress: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010).

2010 Patient Protection Expanded Medicaid to people under age 65 earning 133% of and Affordable the poverty level; maintained the Children’s Health Insurance Care Act Program (CHIP); created a federal home-visiting program for at-risk children and families; extended dependent coverage to age 26; and established a national voluntary long-term care insurance program. Required employers to provide reasonable break time for employees to express breast milk for one year following the birth of a child and to provide accommodations other than a bathroom for doing so. Banned the exclusion of coverage for preexisting conditions in children, banned lifetime coverage caps, limited annual caps, and prohibited the cancellation of coverage by insurers (except due to fraud). Required insurance plans to cover certain preventative care activities without cost-sharing (immunizations). Required Medicaid to cover the costs of tobacco cessation in pregnant enrollees (American Medical Association, 2010). 2010 Health Care Increased and stabilized Pell Grant awards, provided money and Education for community colleges and similar institutions to develop Reconciliation Act career training programs for workers eligible for trade adjustment assistance, and capped loan repayment based on students’ discretionary income (H.R. 4872—Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, 2010), etc. 2010 Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act

Required the development of a comprehensive support program for family caregivers that included training on care needed, ongoing technical support, counseling, and accommodations while accompanying the veteran for VA medical care; the primary personal care provider would also have access to VA medical care, mental health services, respite care, and a monthly stipend. Authorized care to a newborn for up to seven days for a woman veteran receiving VA maternity care (S. 1963—111th Congress: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act, 2010). (continued)

112

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Table 5.4  continued Year Federal Family Policy

Description

2010 Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act

Improved nutrition standards for school food and extended the Afterschool Meal program to all 50 states; allowed WIC agencies to certify children for up to one year; provided $40 million for research into the causes and consequences of hunger and for the development of demonstration projects to end childhood hunger; and targeted housing or family preservation services to households experiencing hunger or food insecurity (S. 3307, 2009–2010).

2010 Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act

Extended the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit; expanded the dependent care credit and increased the adoption tax credit; reduced the marriage penalty; and created the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a partially refundable tax credit worth up to $2,500 per student per year to help families pay for college (Internal Revenue Services, 2013; Senate Committee on Finance, 2010).

2010 CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) Reauthorization Act

Strongly encouraged state collaborations between Child Protective Services (CPS) and domestic violence service entities; expanded the CPS target population to include infants affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; encouraged state and local CPS agencies to practice differential response; encouraged families to participate in case planning and placement; and authorized services to children exposed to domestic violence (Marsh, 2011).

2010 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act

Expanded the newborns and infants’ hearing loss program to include diagnostic services; authorized funding to develop comprehensive state hearing screening systems dedicated to evaluation, diagnosis, medical and educational intervention, family support, etc. (Bureau of Family Health, PA Department of Health, 2011; S. 3199—111th Congress: Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act, 2010).

2010 National Alzheimer’s Project Act

Created an integrated national effort to conquer Alzheimer’s, make recommendations to improve health outcomes, and reduce the financial impact on families living with the disease and on federally funded programs that are affected by it (e.g., Medicare; S. 3036—111th Congress: National Alzheimer’s Project Act, 2010).

2011 Continuing Appropriations Act

Increased allowable grants to high state courts to evaluate and enhance foster care and adoption procedures to help ensure the safety, permanence, and well-being of children and to provide training for legal professionals in child welfare cases (H.R. 3081—111th Congress: Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011). (continued)

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

113

Table 5.4  continued Year Federal Family Policy

Description

2011 Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act

Required states to amend their child welfare plans to: include protocols for psychotropic medication use; to address emotional trauma caused by maltreatment and being removed from the home; to report on all money spent on adoption; to make educational stability a priority in foster placement; and to assist foster youth 16 and older with obtaining a credit report. Earmarked $30 million for the Court Improvement Program (H. R. 2883, 2011–2012).

2012 Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act

Extended VA healthcare benefits to veterans and military families exposed to toxic water at Camp Lejeune between January 1, 1957, and December 31, 1987 (H.R. 1627—112th Congress: Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act, 2011).

2012 Child Protection Act

Imposed a fine and/or prison term for transporting, receiving, distributing, selling, or possessing pornographic images of a child under the age of 12; prohibited harassment or intimidation of a minor victim or witness if it will affect their willingness to testify or participate in a federal criminal case or investigation; increased the penalty for sex trafficking of children and other child abuse crimes; and appropriated funds for training and staffing of national child exploitation prevention strategies and task forces (H.R. 6063—112th Congress: Child Protection Act, 2012).

2012 North Korean Refugee Adoption Act

Reunified North Korean children living outside the country without parental care with a parent who has fled North Korea to avoid persecution (H.R. 1464—112th Congress: North Korean Refugee Adoption Act, 2011).

2012 Protect Our Kids

Created the bipartisan Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities that was charged with developing a comprehensive national strategy for reducing and preventing child abuse and neglect fatalities (H.R. 6655—112th Congress: Protect Our Kids Act, 2012).

2014 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act

Required all states to adopt the Uniform Family Support Act that implements the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Elrod & Spector, 2015).

2014 The Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction and Return Act

Required more aggressive involvement of the State Department in assisting parents of abducted children (Elrod & Spector, 2015).

(continued)

114

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Table 5.4  continued Year Federal Family Policy

Description

2015 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act

Broadened the definition of child abuse to include human trafficking and the production of child pornography; provided treatment programs for victims and training programs for law enforcement, first responders, health care and child welfare officials, juvenile justice personnel, prosecutors, and judicial personnel (S. 179, 2015–2016).

2017 Recognize, Assist, Directed the Department of Health and Human Services to Include, Support, develop strategies that recognize and support the diverse needs of family caregivers (Congressional Record, 2017). and Engage Family Caregivers (CARE) Act 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act

Reduced the marginal tax rate for all but the lowest income filers; repealed the individual standard deduction and nearly doubled the standard deduction for married families who file jointly; increased the child tax credit and the portion that is refundable (Berger & Carlson, 2020).

2018 Family Services Prevention First Act

Authorized Title IV-E child welfare funds to be used for the first time for child abuse prevention services (e.g., in-home parenting education; mental health services; and substance abuse treatment); removed time limits for family reunification after foster care placements (Berger & Carlson, 2020).

2018 First Step Act

Required prisoners to be housed within 500 miles of their families, reunited prisoners with their families sooner with “good time” credits, required greater use of home confinement, funded rehabilitation programs, allowed families to apply for compassionate release, prohibited solitary confinement of juveniles; and banned the use of restraints on pregnant prisoners (Congressional Research Service, 2019).

2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act

Issued stimulus checks for individuals; provided funding to states, schools, and higher education for pandemic-related education expenses; provided nutrition funding through emergency food assistance, the school breakfast and lunch program, and SNAP; provided support for several federal healthrelated agencies including the Indian Health Service (GAO, 2022; Moss, Wexler et al., 2020; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).

2020 Families First Coronavirus Response Act

Provided unemployment insurance benefits, food and nutrition assistance, and paid sick leave and Family and Medical Leave on an emergency basis for COVID-related reasons (a school or child care provider being closed). Waived work requirements for the SNAP program. For increased funding, Medicaid recipients were required to be continuously enrolled until the end of the public health emergency (Moss, Dawson et al., 2020). (continued)

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

115

Table 5.4  continued Year Federal Family Policy

Description

2021 American Rescue Plan

Expanded the Child Care Tax Credit, continued stimulus checks and support for education costs of states, schools, and higher education; provided funding to support child care, family violence prevention, Head Start, preventive child welfare interventions, and access to ACA health coverage (“American Rescue Plan,” n.d.; McDermott et al., 2021).

State Laws

Policies such as marriage and child welfare are historically relegated to the states under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Anderson, 1995). Thus, many family policies, such as child welfare, marriage, divorce, and property distribution, are decided on a state-by-state basis, and increasingly so. In the 1990s, landmark devolution legislation transferred federal authority to the states on a range of other issues, including children’s health insurance, family preservation, K-12 education, and welfare reform (Tubbesing, 1998). As Congress has become more polarized, states are often the first governmental bodies to respond to societal problems (Moncrief & Squire, 2021). For example, several states have stepped up to the plate to provide health, nutrition, and welfare assistance to immigrants during the five-year waiting period on their eligibility. As of 2015, 14 states provided emergency cash assistance to Legal Permanent Residents. In 2017, Legal Permanent Residents also received state-funded health insurance from seven states, and state-funded food assistance from five states. As of 2018, 12 states allowed undocumented individuals to obtain driver’s licenses (Yoshikawa et al., 2019). State and local spending on children is primarily targeted at education; for every dollar spent on education, the federal government contributes only six cents. State and local governments also spend significant amounts on health care (Hahn et al., 2021) and contribute over half of the funding for the child welfare system (Rosinsky et al., 2021). In some respects, the latitude of states has been constrained by federal laws and by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgates uniform laws for adoption by the states, which has significantly influenced the uniformity of family law. For example, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act have been adopted in every state (Elrod & Spector, 2012). Yet states still have considerable latitude in enacting family policies, which affects their availability and generosity. Substantial variation exists in state spending on child care, food stamps, Medicaid, health care, home visiting, paid family leave, pre-K programs, and

116

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

welfare. For example, seven states have no state-funded and subsidized early childhood education programs for three- or four-year-olds (Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming; Abbott & D’Ambruoso, 2018). States have built their laws around federal policies that have been enacted, but they have also acted where the federal government has not: • To date, 26 states have followed the federal lead and enacted the state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). EITC has been shown to be effective in promoting work and lifting families out of poverty (Berger & Carlson, 2020). • Paid family leave does not exist at the federal level, so several states and districts have enacted their own (i.e., California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, DC; Berger & Carlson, 2020). • Statewide initiatives have been enacted to provide women with easy access to a contraceptive of their choice in Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington. Seven states and the District of Columbia have acted to make longacting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) more available (i.e., Delaware, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, DC); for example, policies require insurance companies or Medicaid to provide postpartum access to LARCs and health-care providers to offer more information and access (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Local Laws

Local policies may take the form of a law or ordinance. For example, zoning ordinances made by county and local governments can determine where families can live and whether they can have a business or office in their home. City or county funding of local health departments determines, in part, the availability of contraception, immunizations, and home visits. Villages, cities, and counties often hire their own law enforcement officials and set their own policies, such as neighborhood policing, underage drinking, and minor access to alcohol, cannabis, and cigarettes. Local employers can decide if employees can take time off from work when a child is sick or to attend a school event. Negotiations between the local school board and the teacher’s union set the parameters for policies about family engagement, such as the number of required parent-teacher conferences. And the list goes on. Local communities also have a number of charitable organizations and nonprofits that make family policy. “No nation rivals the United States with respect to the extent of the resources and responsibilities we assign to nonprofit organizations” (Macedo et al., 2005, p. 19). An estimated 313,000 nonprofit organizations in the United States are making decisions about food banks, homeless shelters, end-of-life care, and countless other supports that affect family life (X4Impact, 2022). Service clubs and youth organizations, like 4-H and the Scouts, provide educational and recreational opportunities for youth. Religious organizations teach values and morality through their worship services and through educational programs offered to new parents, engaged couples, young people, and so forth.

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

117

The Family Policy Landscape in the United States Despite this panoramic landscape where family policies are enacted and implemented, no big summits are held to bring these entities together to ensure a more coordinated and consistent impact on families. Each entity may not even be aware of what the others are doing. What happens instead is that family policies are passed in a piecemeal pattern that responds to the specific needs for particular families and are implemented in fragmented and siloed ways. A comprehensive vision for the design and implementation of policies in the public and private sectors would provide stronger and more consistent support for families. Families benefit when laws, executive orders, and international conventions support family members’ roles as parents, partners, and caregivers. Families benefit when schools actively seek parent involvement, employers recognize that workers are also family members, and agencies and organizations are family-centered in their philosophy and operation. International conventions, executive orders, and laws at the federal, state, and local levels are influenced by many cultural, economic, and social forces. One important force that has shaped policy in several domains is private philanthropy.

How Does Private Philanthropy Shape Family Policy? Private philanthropists such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have shaped family policy in profound ways. The investments that philanthropic foundations have made are small relative to what the government can provide, yet they have had an outsized impact on family policy. Perhaps the nature of their impact can be captured in the story of a program officer I interviewed about how his career path evolved to working for a major philanthropic foundation (Jon-Paul Bianchi, personal communication, October 31, 2022). Jon-Paul Bianchi began his career in the traditional way. He enrolled in graduate school and earned degrees in an area that he cared deeply about—Human Development and Family Studies. After graduation, he was hired by the Colorado Children’s Campaign, a statewide non-partisan advocacy and research organization. His job was to work closely with children’s commissions, the state legislature, the Governor’s office, and executive agencies in authoring legislation around child care and pre-kindergarten programs. Philanthropy was not a career that was on Jon-Paul’s radar. But it came to his attention when he was approached by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation about a job in which his primary responsibility would be funding “good causes” for children and families. Always a quick study, Jon-Paul immediately saw what he could bring to the foundation. He had a strong background in children and families. He had a deep understanding of how children’s proximal development was shaped by the distal factors that surround them in the circle of human ecology. And he would bring his professional experience working to shape some of those distal factors through policies and programs.

118

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Professionally, he saw the benefits of moving from the local to the national level. He would gain access to more policy levers and higher levels of change. He was intrigued by the contributions that he might be able to make in a grantmaking space. Foundations can transform the narrative around an issue. Foundations can shift the mindset of local, state, and national policymakers around forces that influence children and families, such as the tax base, the workplace, and so on. Moreover, foundations are “Risk Capital Investors,” who have the leeway to take risks on funding promising ideas with somewhat less worry about making a bet that fails. These prospects were so intriguing that Jon-Paul decided to take the leap to a career in philanthropy. Jon-Paul has not been disappointed. Take, for example, how the Kellogg Foundation recently contributed to a big and enduring policy change. New Mexico recently became the first state in the nation to tap a Land Grant Fund to establish permanent funding for child care. In November 2022, New Mexico citizens voted overwhelming (70%) to amend the state constitution to increase child care funding by $125 million annually, with an additional $100 million for public education of at-risk students. Kellogg was instrumental in the decade-long effort to pass the ballot measure, even though their tax status as a 501(c)(3) organization restricted them from lobbying. Instead, Kellogg funded efforts to develop a narrative that would build a case for public funding of child care with bipartisan appeal, supported the legwork of developing the legislation, and placed bets on the right people with the right relationships to advance the cause. Other foundations have experienced similar success in advancing family policy using a number of approaches. In 1938, the Carnegie Corporation funded an analysis by luminary sociologist Gunnar Myrdal on Black-White relations. The resulting report, An American Dilemma, provided impetus for the civil rights movement (MacDonald, 1996). In 1964, the Great Society was sparked, in part, by Ford Foundation funding of several key elements of its agenda, such as Head Start (Walker, 2018). In 1990, the Annie E. Casey Foundation began collecting data on children, knowing that the absence of good data can be a roadblock to advancing family policy. Today, their Kids Count data provide a profile for each state that tracks children’s well-being across four domains— economics, education, health, and families/communities. Also, Kids Count routinely reports on racial and ethnic disparities and ranks states on overall child well-being. A number of public and private policy initiatives across the country have been driven by this foundation’s data collection and analysis (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2022). Foundations have also jumpstarted a number of issues on the political agenda. For example, in the 2000s, the Foundation for Child Development elevated PreK3rd to national consciousness by promoting stronger connections among education standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development in the early years. In 2008, the William T. Grant Foundation responded to a gap in the social science literature in understanding the use of research in policymaking. Over the years, they have invested $25 million in 65 different studies of when, how, and under what conditions research is used in policy and practice (Tseng, 2021). In 2020, Pew Charitable Trusts and the William T. Grant Foundation joined with other foundations to launch the Transforming Evidence Funders Network (TEFN). TEFN is supporting relationshipbased approaches in the production and use of research evidence. Their goal is to

W H AT A R E FA M I LY P O L I C I E S A N Y W AY ? 

119

catalyze “a stronger evidence ecosystem where research is routinely useful to and used in policy and practice to improve society” (Tseng et al. 2022, p. 9). TEFN is engaging funders in this country and abroad across sectors such as education, environment, foreign policy, healthcare, international development, and sustainability. Foundations have been successful in launching political agendas and creating policy change for families on a myriad of issues. They have spearheaded the collection of better data and propelled issues that had previously been overlooked to the forefront of public conversation and government investment. Also, they have generated new ways of thinking about family policy and brought about systemic change in the study and use of research evidence.

Summary Ecological family systems theory explains how family functioning influences individual development and how the community and broader policy contexts influence family functioning. Family functioning depends not only on what happens inside the confines of the “family bubble,” but also on forces outside the boundaries of the bubble. This chapter disputes the myth of the “family bubble” by chronicling the many ways that the public and private sectors create the conditions for families to effectively and efficiently perform their functions. • Family policies are crafted in a bewildering array of places, ranging from multinational organizations to neighborhood associations. • Family policies are crafted in different organizational spaces, ranging from the street level where people work and play, right up to the top-level suite where executives meet. • Family policies are shaped by international conventions, court decisions, executive orders, and laws that are passed at the federal, state, and local levels. • The federal government’s largest expenditures for children are in tax credits and health care programs. State and local spending on children is primarily targeted at education, health care, and welfare. • Whether a policy achieves the goals that policymakers intend depends on the implementation or management tactics used to carry it out. • The investments of private philanthropy are small relative to what the government can provide, yet they have had an outsized impact on family policy by launching political agendas and creating policy change.

Families have become a legitimate target of U.S. family policy but in a piecemeal pattern. Decision-makers in several sectors have patched together family policies that respond to the specific needs for particular families and are implemented in fragmented and siloed ways. Families would benefit from comprehensive policies that provide stronger and more consistent support. For instance, laws, executive orders, and international conventions could be more intentional in supporting family members’ roles as parents, partners, and caregivers. Schools could proactively seek out ways to involve parents, and employers could recognize and respect that workers are also family members. Agencies and organizations could position families front and center in their philosophy and operation. These actions matter because families perform their functions in alliance with an array of institutions in the public and private sectors.

6

121

CHAPTER 6 WHAT POLICYMAKERS AND THE POLICY PROCESS ARE REALLY LIKE

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Everybody thinks that legislators are liars and cheats but the fact of the matter is, regardless of what party it is, 90 plus percent of the people here are some of the nicest, finest people you could ever meet. They all have similar-type goals of trying to improve the lives of ordinary people and they’re very honest and trustworthy. (Democratic legislator) You get into your respective corners, and there’s got to be a willingness to meet in the middle… And to gradually… accept new information and a different idea. And that word, compromise, which some people hate but there’s just got to be a willingness to say “OK, I don’t agree with you on this, but I can accept that.” (Democratic legislator)

• What does it mean to be a citizen in a democracy founded on the principles of government of the people, by the people, and for the people? • Are negative stereotypes of policymakers closer to fact or fiction? • What processes do policymaking institutions use for making laws? • How does the culture of lawmaking bodies shape what can and cannot be done?

She had been very successful in the corporate world. She was manager of work life in a corporation named one of the country’s best companies to work for by Fortune Magazine for two years running and by Working Mother Research Institute for a decade. She took pride in her hand in making the company a great place to work for 10,000 employees nationwide. Because of the policies that she helped put in place, employees did not have to choose between meeting obligations to their jobs and commitments to their families. With such tangible success for so many people over so many years, why did Diane Cushman decide to leave the corporate world to work in public policy? In her own words: I decided that I wanted my reach to be as broad and deep as possible. And that’s why I moved to the [public] policy arena. Because when you can influence policy, for the greater good, it can affect hundreds or thousands of people. So the rewards are that you see a piece of legislation move forward that really does make people’s lives better …. Policy is a great platform for having a very wide-reaching impact … what’s amazing is the payoff. (D. Cushman, personal communication, November 19, 2009) DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-8

122

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Unlike Diane Cushman, many citizens in a democracy do not recognize the power they have to make a difference (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006). Power lies in the hands of citizens. It is citizens who throw their hats into the ring for election to public office. It is citizens who lobby policymakers for causes they believe in. It falls to citizens to stay plugged into whether policymakers truly represent the will of the people. It is citizens who express their will in the votes they make and the actions they take. In the oft-cited words of Justice Louis Brandeis, “The only title superior to that of president in a democracy is the title of citizen” (as cited in National Conference of State Legislatures, n.d.). Yet many citizens in the United States today are frustrated with government. Only two in ten say they can trust the government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time (Pew Research Center, 2022). Policymaking is seen as less intelligent and more polarized than it should be (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012), and trust in lawmakers is near historic lows (Pew Research Center, 2022). Now more than ever is a critical time for the ordinary citizen to engage. Without citizen engagement, a democracy cannot respond to the people’s needs, and it does not work as well as it could or should. This chapter is an introduction to what government is like in a democracy. To make a democracy work, citizens must understand the basics about what government does and how its institutions are structured. I examine whether the negative stereotypes of policymakers are closer to fact or fiction, what processes policymaking institutions use to make laws, and how the strange and foreign culture of policymaking really works. Granted, countless monographs and fact sheets have been written on the process through which a bill becomes a law (Levin, 1952/2005; Lindblom, 1968; Ross & Staines, 1972). Given that the policymaking process has remained relatively constant over time (Mayhew, 2011), I will not replicate these treatises here. Instead, I will provide a basic overview, punctuated with real-life stories and experiences, to demystify the policy process and to provide a foundation for the chapters that follow about getting involved in policymaking. The real-life stories and experiences come from: • 212 interviews of state legislators and 13 key informants in our recent study with extraordinarily high response rates (response rates were 60% in Round 1, 84% in Round 2, and 100% in Round 3; Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019); • a qualitative study we conducted of 14 researchers who were exceptionally skilled policy communicators (response rate = 78%; Friese & Bogenschneider, 2009); and • countless interviews of policymakers and researchers over the years.

For those who study or teach about policymaking, this introduction to the generic processes found in most policy contexts may suffice. However, for those who decide to run for political office or work as an advocate, educator, or lobbyist, it will be necessary to master the inner workings of the particular level of policymaking you will engage.

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

123

The Fundamentals of a Democratic System of Government For those who live in a democracy, it’s easy to take for granted that democratic norms and institutions are a “precious achievement” (Pinker, 2018, p. 343). One of our country’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, is said to be the most famous product of the Enlightenment Era. This human invention enhances the welfare of citizens by encouraging cooperative behaviors and discouraging actions that are selfish and self-serving (Pinker, 2018). Granted, democratic institutions do not always work perfectly. Yet there is a huge difference between a process where decisions are a back-and-forth deliberative process and a system where a single individual exerts a disproportionate influence on the outcome (Stone, 2012). Those people who know policymaking best, lawmakers themselves, appreciated the way government operates when it is based on democratic principles. According to a state legislator: That really is the beauty of the legislative process … So many eyes, and so many different positions have looked at your language, and [it’s] gone through so many iterations that, by that time, if you are successful at getting through the entire process, which is committee in the Senate, committee in the House … conference committee … then most likely, you’ve got a pretty well-vetted bill. (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019, p. 136)

The Fundamentals of What Government Does and How It Is Structured When the Constitution was written, the Founders created a Republic rather than a direct democracy. Instead of having citizens vote directly on every important issue, citizens elected representatives to make policy decisions on their behalf. The Founders also established a tripartite structure of government so that each branch could keep the power of the other in check (Leonhardt, 2022). The federal government of the United States and each of the 50 states is divided into three branches—the executive, judicial, and legislative. The executive branch of government is tasked with implementation and the enforcement of the laws of the land, which is carried out by the president (governor), vice president (lieutenant governor), cabinet members, and agency heads. The judicial branch, headed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is charged with resolving disputes regarding what laws mean, how they are applied, and whether they violate the constitution. The legislative branch of government is responsible for the making of laws, which is carried out at the national level by a two-chamber Congress (i.e., the Senate and House of Representatives), and at the state level (with the exception of Nebraska) by two-chamber legislatures (i.e., a Senate and House of Representatives, sometimes called a House of

124

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Delegates or Assembly; USA.gov, n.d.). This chapter deals primarily with the legislative branch of government and its inhabitants at the national and state levels. The federal and state constitutions establish the specific powers granted to Congress and state legislatures. The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) grants Congress a number of key powers such as imposing and collecting taxes, regulating commerce and immigration, establishing post offices, promoting the progress of science and useful arts, constituting courts lower than the Supreme Court, declaring war, and raising and supporting armies (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006). The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution delegates to the states authority for policies around marriage, divorce, and child welfare (Anderson, 1995). States typically have jurisdiction to enact environmental regulations; fund education, criminal justice, health care, public safety, and social services; levy sales, income, and property taxes; regulate gun, property, and voting rights; provide oversight that laws are being properly implemented; and approve cabinet and agency appointments (Guither et al., 1991; Moncrief & Squire, 2021; Wisconsin Council on Children & Families, n.d.). In fact, states have wide authority for almost anything other than national defense (Moncrief & Squire, 2021). Even though these governmental bodies may seem distant from your everyday life, it is unlikely that you can get through a day without being touched by a state or federal law. For example, if you are attending college at a public institution, your tuition is most likely being subsidized by government tax dollars. If you are employed, there are laws on the books that govern the safety of your workplace and your right to fair hiring practices. Whether or not jobs are available may depend on actions policymakers take to stimulate the economy. If you vacation at state or national parks, it is public policies that have set aside these lands for public use. The food you eat and the car you drive must meet federal safety regulations (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006). These and many other acts of daily life are governed by laws passed by policymakers and implemented by policy administrators across a number of diverse settings. Understanding government begins with knowing the meaning of some of the basic terms (see Table 4.1). Policy is defined as a plan or course of action carried out through a law, rule, code, or other mechanism in the public or private sector. Public Policy is an “identifiable course of action hammered out in the political arena to maximize the satisfaction of relevant interest groups in society and to improve the general welfare” (Flinchbaugh, 1985, p. 1). The main policy actors are defined in Table 6.1. Policymakers are those who make policies or laws at several levels in Congress and in state houses; in counties, cities, and villages; and in schools, workplaces, and communities. For example, policymakers include legislators, county board members, county executives, village and town chairpersons, city council members, school board members, and so forth. Policymakers are elected to represent and reflect the views of their constituents in public decisionmaking and to weigh constituent views alongside the good of the entire state and nation, popular opinion, and one’s personal convictions and principles. Policymakers who follow only popular opinion call into question whether they have any strength of conviction,

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

125

Table 6.1  Who Are the Main Policy Actors? Policymaker

Those who make policies or laws at several levels in Congress and in state houses; in counties, cities, and villages; and in schools, workplaces, and communities. Policymakers are elected to represent and reflect the views of their constituents in public decision-making and to weigh constituent views alongside the good of the entire state and nation, popular opinion, and one’s personal convictions and principles.

Policy Administrator

Those who develop the practices and procedures for implementing policies and programs. Policy administrators include county personnel, state agency staff, and directors of nonprofit organizations. The success of policies in achieving their goals depends, to a large extent, on the skills, efficiency, and commitment of administrators who implement them.

just as policymakers who adhere only to personal convictions call into question whether they are sufficiently representing the public interest (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006). Policy administrators develop the practices and procedures that underlie policy and program implementation. Policy administrators include county personnel, state agency staff, and directors of nonprofit organizations. If truth were told, the success of policies in achieving their end goals depends, to a large extent, on the administrators who carry them out—how skilled, efficient, and committed they are (Eggers & O’Leary, 2009). Policy roles are less distinct than implied here, given that policymakers often enact laws about program implementation, and policy administrators often steer policies and programs in directions of their own choosing (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). In this chapter, I expand on these basic definitions by describing in some detail what policymakers and policymaking institutions are really like.

What Policymakers Are Like To understand how lawmaking institutions work in a democracy, you first need to understand its inhabitants. Those who make policy are often maligned and ridiculed, which one policymaker attributed to watching too many movies about corrupt politics and crooked politicians. Yet my experience working at close quarters with policymakers over the last three decades might shock you and shake some of your prior assumptions. For the most part, I find their efforts to be of the highest quality and their dedication to the public good to be unquestioned. In support of my view, I draw upon two sources of evidence: real-life stories of policymakers and real-life experiences of those who work closely with them. (For a more extensive discussion of policymakers, see Chapter 3 in Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021.)

126

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Real-Life Stories of Policymakers

Stories abound of policymakers who have shown great political courage often at their own peril. I intentionally draw on examples from the 1700s and 1800s to focus more on the courageousness of the act and less on the politics surrounding it (which have long since faded from public consciousness). I could tell stories of more recent political courage among policymakers such as President Volodymyr Zelensky, Presidential Candidate John McCain, Representative John Lewis, Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. However, it is likely that reflections on what constitutes courage will be muddled with the politics of the moment. One compelling story dates back to the 1770 Boston Massacre when British soldiers fired on an unruly mob. At the time, John Adams was an established lawyer well-known for leading protests against the British for their blatant disregard of colonists’ grievances. When Adams was asked to provide legal representation for the British soldiers, he accepted immediately despite the political risk to his own candidacy for the General Court in the upcoming election. He wrote later in his autobiography that it was one of the “most exhausting and fatiguing cases I ever tried, hazarding a popularity very hardly earned, and incurring popular suspicions and prejudices which are not yet worn out” (as cited in Kennedy, 2006, p. 216). John Adams later became the second President of the United States. In 1860, during one of the most divisive times in the nation’s history, Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee was the only Southern Senator who argued against secession from the Union. On a trip home to his native Tennessee, he was pulled from a railroad car in Lynchburg, Virginia, by an angry mob that decided to hang him. At the last moment, they removed the rope from his neck, concluding that the pleasure of lynching him should go to his constituents in Tennessee. Without fear for his own life, he continued to stump the state arguing against secession. His position was based, not on popular opinion but on principle: “I am a citizen of the South and of the state of Tennessee …. [But] I am also a citizen of the United States” (as cited in Kennedy, 1956/2006, p. 209). A third story features Theodore Roosevelt, who became the 26th President of the United States in 1901. In 1886, Roosevelt was approached by his friend Henry Cabot Lodge about his willingness to serve as the Civil Service Commissioner in the Harrison administration for an annual compensation of $3,500. Lodge doubted that Roosevelt would want the post. Financially, the pittance of a salary would only worsen Roosevelt’s financial difficulties, and the demands of running a large bureaucracy would interfere with his book contracts. Politically, working on an issue as unpopular as civil service reform was a position that ambitious men typically turned down. “Roosevelt accepted at once” (Morris, 2010, p. 398). At the center of each of these stories is a policymaker with an unbending commitment to a purpose larger than self. But are today’s policymakers similarly motivated by this sense of purpose and commitment? Policymakers in our study reported running for office based on a desire to make a positive change in society and, in the words of one legislator, the self-confidence that you can “change the world if you just can get people to agree with you.” In our study, legislators described being driven by a commitment to a people or a

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

127

cause larger than themselves. One lawmaker described how passing a bill for a cause he believed required moving beyond his own self-interests and reaching across the aisle: It doesn’t matter if your name is at the top or at the bottom as long as the results are there. It can be all big “I”s and little “You”s. It has to do with it being a “We” thing. Ultimately it’s about the group of individuals that we’re trying to assist to have a better quality of life.

Legislators described being interested in industries such as tourism and transportation, populations such as families and farmers, and issues such as domestic abuse and opioid use. One legislator was “always trying to be the messenger for … the voiceless.” Another expressed a deep commitment to children, explaining that her job as a mother is to care about her own child, but her “job as a representative is to care about your child.” Another legislator described a deeply held commitment to working on behalf of public education: In our life, there will be a kid from a family that is either poor or undereducated or abusive or whatever. Somehow or another, they rise above that and go off to achieve greatness to leave behind a life that was not ideal. And it’s because they received a good public education. And, to me that’s the American dream story, more so than owning a house with a picket fence. And that’s kind of what drives you and keeps you going.

Overall, legislators consistently reported that their colleagues were well-meaning people who ran for office for the “right reasons.” Of course, these reports could be self-serving, so we checked with key informants in our study who were not serving in elected office but who worked closely with elected officials. These policy insiders described lawmakers as “honorable,” “amazing,” “public interested,” and “dedicated good people who are doing the best they can.” Real-Life Experiences of Those Who Work Closely With Policymakers

This section reviews the experience of folks who have worked with policymakers from the vantage points of government, trade organizations, and academic settings. (See also Chapter 3 in Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021.) Mary Fairchild, a longstanding senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures, long worked with state policymakers across the country. She was always surprised that the media and the people she met at family reunions and social gatherings were so “cynical” about policymakers, which flies in the face of her experience that legislators are “top quality” and “ethical.” She explained that there is a “huge premium on honesty” in the policy process. Policymakers might be able to achieve some short-term goals by being “Machiavellian” in their approach, but these are not the sort of public officials that continue to make contributions to the policy process over the long run. In her words: I don’t want to pretend like it’s just this wonderful, beautiful group of people that get along. I mean, there is supposed to be controversy. But … I think we can be really proud of our elected officials as human beings and they represent all the different aspects of society pretty realistically … I’m always disappointed when most of the attention focuses on the scandal, the negative.

128

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Fairchild’s observations are similar to those of the researchers in our study, who were exceptional policy communicators. When researchers first began working in the policy arena, they relayed how easy it was to form negative stereotypes about policymakers and how wrong these initial impressions were. The longer they worked with policymakers, the easier it was to put a human face on them, and the more their stereotypes broke down. One researcher explained how his first impressions proved to be unsubstantiated: I see them in more complex ways now. I have more of an appreciation of the contributions some of these folks make. They don’t make a lot of money. They get a lot of grief. They get called at home. [They] have a few areas in which they want to make a difference, on which they have to work year after year, before they make a difference.

Stereotypes are dispelled for many reasons but two deserve mention here—an understanding of how incredibly hard it is to make public policy and a recognition of the mix of skills that it takes to do it well. With more experience, researchers came to understand that the difficulty of making policy should never be underestimated. The man on the street does not understand the inherent complexities of the public’s demand for a rapid response to perplexing problems. Taking an idea, often untested, and turning it into policy requires complex trade-offs such as who to target and at what cost. Despite the best of intentions, the specter of unanticipated consequences is always present. According to a researcher with decades of policy experience: When you get in there and you try to do X, or Y, or Z, not only are you bombarded by competing visions of what the truth is, but the complexity associated with doing anything … is enormous. And so you do X, you get it instituted, you make the change, and then you find out that this generation’s solution to a problem is the next generation’s scandal …. Sometimes it doesn’t even take a generation. It’ll take a year or two. And people look back and say, “What idiot did that?” Because we can’t always anticipate all the blowback and the unintended consequences …. This is not about having a vision of truth and going out and applying it. This is about slogging through thorny issues that have enormously complex trade-offs associated with them.

Over time, researchers also came to appreciate the many skills it takes to succeed in policymaking. One researcher, who has worked with policymakers for almost 30 years, said that he was impressed by policymakers’ level of knowledge and how they could zero in on the really important questions. Researchers were also impressed with policymakers’ ability to listen to information “even if it goes against their personal ideology.” One researcher, who spent the early part of his career safely ensconced in the ivory tower, said his stereotypes changed as he became aware of the skill set that policymakers possess: I came to appreciate the best part of a politician and public official … the pragmatics, the way they have to make alliances, the way they have to be swayed by public opinion, have to take the pulse of their constituents … They remember people’s names, they are gracious, they thank people, they build relationships.

As one example from his in-depth study, Fenno (1978) described a Congressman who was the third generation of his family to live and hold office in the district. The Congressman

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

129

felt a deep sense of identification with his constituents. His connections to his constituents were obvious in almost every conversation that he had, drawing on an encyclopedic memory of names, faces, and family events including births, marriages, illnesses, and deaths. Following a Rotary Club speech, he was able to name all 40 people present, explain what they did for a living, and recite assorted information about each of them. One researcher elaborated by comparing the skills of policymakers to those of researchers, concluding that the job of a policymaker is harder because policymakers have to make decisions: “A researcher can say ‘on the one hand and on the other hand,’ [but] a policymaker has to decide.” One researcher explained that research is simple compared to trying to change huge, complex systems and institutions: If I botch my research study, it’s going to be buried in a journal. I won’t have shaped the nature of the field with my mistake. If you’re a policymaker dealing, for example, with welfare reform and family support, nobody knows yet how this will play out. You can do a lot of damage.

One fellow at a nonpartisan policy research firm compared the challenges that policymakers face to the ones that she encounters: “Policymakers have constituents that they have to answer to, have constraints around them—what they focus on and what their option set is. As a researcher, I don’t face those constraints.” Chief among these challenges are the budgetary and political realities that “academics can largely ignore.” The people who work closely with policymakers came to hold great respect not only for those who make policy but also for the policy process itself. Researchers, who eventually became skilled at navigating the research-policy divide, readily admitted that their initial negative stereotypes of policymakers were dead wrong. These wrong-headed impressions are not without consequence because they can sabotage any efforts at engaging policymakers. The good news is that these stereotypes were not immutable but proved malleable. Researchers’ impressions changed with more exposure to policymakers and more familiarity with the policymaking institution in which they operate.

What the Policymaking Institution Is Like The core technology of policymaking institutions is to make laws. But policymaking is more than the laws that are enacted under the Capitol dome. This section covers the enormity of lawmaking and the process by which it occurs. The framework of rules and procedures that govern lawmaking exists to ensure that the process is consistent, fair, orderly, and transparent (Melvin, n.d.). The Enormity of Policymaking Inside the Capitol

In Congress, over 10,000 bills are introduced every two years that have to be vetted and agreed upon by 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006). At the state level, the Montana legislature

130

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

meets for only 90 days every two years. With no limit on the number of bills that can be introduced, typically over 2,000 bill requests must be acted on by the 150 members of the Montana Senate and House. Of all these bills, only a small number ever became law. The job of a policymaker boils down to sorting through the boatload of ideas that are floated in the political arena. Policymakers seldom sit down and think up ideas themselves. Instead, they find themselves in the position of evaluating the ideas that come to them from every direction from lobbyists and special interests, from constituents and colleagues, from issue experts and party leaders, all who are very willing to tell them what needs to be done and how it can best be accomplished. Policymakers sort through these ideas and screen them to decide which are meritorious. Decisions on the merit of an idea, however, are seldom static. Ideas are kicked around. Trial balloons are sent up. Consequently, policymakers are forced to continually reassess when to compromise their initial position and when to hold firm. The Enormity of Lawmaking Outside the Capitol

Introducing, debating, and voting on bills occurs primarily at the Capitol. But policymakers’ work doesn’t stop there. The volume of work that occurs outside the Capitol may be one of the biggest misperceptions of the job of a policymaker, according to Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers: Most of my work happens outside of this office and outside of this building. That I think is something most people don’t understand because essentially the media talks about what happens between [the Governor and the leadership in the Legislature]. That’s not where most of my work happens. It happens when I go out and visit businesses and farms and other places. I don’t think that’s something people think about. I do most of my work outside of this building. This building is a bubble. To make wise decisions we have to listen to people. (Fandlund, 2023)

Policymakers are in constant demand from constituents in their home districts to participate in parades, attend public gatherings, and hold listening sessions. Policymakers must be open to hearing about any cause—abortion, aging, animal rights, child abuse, charter schools, climate change, dairy farming, election integrity, endangered species, health care, hunting, public schools, religious freedom, taxes, welfare rights, and the list goes on and on. Policymakers are in constant demand to attend meetings of all manner of affiliation, such as the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Hospital Association, chambers of commerce, Farm Bureau, Freedom from Religion Foundation, League of Women Voters, Masonic Lodge, National Rifle Association, parent-teacher organizations, and Rotary Club. Policymakers feel an obligation to respond, given that the requests often come from the very people who voted them into office in the last election and who can return them to office in the next one. The demands on policymakers’ time have been described as “enormous and ceaseless”: “Politicians are constantly bombarded with requests or demands to do things, stop doing

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

131

things, increase funding, decrease funding, pass legislation, repeal other legislation, and so on” (Levin, 2003, p. 11). An Indiana legislator described it as “full throttle, pedal to the metal.” A Wisconsin legislator described it as a “marathon,” particularly during the end of session when they can deal with 150 bills a day. One Wisconsin senator recounted one day when he testified on seven different bills in three different committees. And when he was back home in his district, there was hardly an evening that did not require attending five different meetings in five different locations. In my mind, the enormity of the demands on policymakers’ time must feel like “being eaten by ducks”—being persistently pecked at by those trying to get (even a small) piece of their attention.

The Process by Which Lawmaking Occurs The policymaking process itself is often represented by a boring series of boxes with arrows that guide you through a linear process that extends from A to B (see an example in Figure 6.1). However, the process is seldom this straightforward, according to one 25-year veteran of the legislature whose office was laden with plaques and trophies of every conceivable shape and size. She explained how policymaking can’t really be captured in a flow chart because policies do not progress neatly from Point A to Point B. Even after a bill becomes a law, it is hard to pinpoint just why it happened as it did. A newcomer to the legislature, just completing her second term, explained that policymaking cannot be explained in mathematical terms. In her words, “One plus one

Figure 6.1  The Process of How a Bill Becomes a Law.

132

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

don’t always equal two” because of behind-the-scene influences, like dark money and political pressure, that are hard to factor into the equation. A 10-year veteran of the legislative process from a well-known political family spoke of the policy process, not as a flow chart or a mathematical equation, but more like an “art form” where every decision requires some sort of compromise. Even though the exact process varies with each bill and every lawmaking institution, there are some common elements that most bills pass through (Guither et al., 1991; MedImmune Advocacy, 2012). This process ensures that before a law is enacted, ample opportunity is provided for it to be publicized, scrutinized, and analyzed. Bill Draft

The whole process starts when a member of Congress or a state legislature drafts an idea into a bill. The bill is then introduced in either chamber of a lawmaking body. Committee Hearings

Most bills are assigned to one of many standing committees that deal with specialized topics such as aging, children and families, and education. According to a key informant in our study, “The strength of the legislative process is in the committee structure.” Most of the work in a legislative body is performed in committees. Most lawmakers serve on a committee that is always chaired by a member of the majority party. It is in committees that the expertise and experience on issues usually lie and “where the research is done, if it’s done” (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 418). “It is before these committees that bills are tested and refined, amended or replaced, and often live or die” (Melvin, n.d.). Committees have the prerogative to decide if a hearing will be held to allow experts, advocates, and those affected by the bill to testify for and against the bill or any of its provisions. Bills can die in committee. If they are reported out, they are scheduled for debate on the floor of the House or Senate. Floor Debate in the First Chamber

The bill is first considered in the chamber in which it originated. Rules in the legislative body govern whether and how difficult it is to make amendments. The difficulty of amending a bill also depends on the polarization of the legislative body that is driven, in part, by the actions of party leaders (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). If approved, the bill is advanced to the second chamber. Floor Debate in the Second Chamber

The whole process must be repeated in the second chamber following the same procedure. If amendments are made in the second chamber, the bill must be returned to the original chamber for reconsideration. If the differences between the Senate and House versions were significant, they might be sent to a Conference Committee made up

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

133

of members from each house to resolve conflicts (Melvin, n.d.). Identical bills must be passed by both houses before they can be forwarded to the executive branch. Executive Approval

After agreement has been reached on the bill by both chambers, it moves to the executive branch for consideration. The president or governor can sign the law or veto it (in all states except North Carolina). A veto can be overridden by a super-majority (usually twothirds) in both legislative chambers (Guither et al., 1991). Some states grant governors the power of a line-item veto on certain types of legislation such as the budget bill. Without vetoing the whole bill, the Governor can cross out certain provisions of laws, eliminate words, or even drop a number in budget allocations. Budget bills are more complex than other bills, and the federal budget process (reviewed here) is more complex than state or local budget processes. Typically, the budget begins with a proposal by the president that details the economic outlook for the nation and the administration’s funding priorities. Typically, this budget is based on funding requests from federal agencies that are compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. Hearings are held in the House and the Senate and the budget committees report out a budget resolution, which is basically a financial plan that designates the amounts to be spent in major budget areas. This plan is not law but sets a framework for the House and Senate to consider bills on revenue and spending. In keeping with these budgetary parameters, the authorization committees prepare legislation that defines what programs will be included and recommends how much money will be allocated to them. The final funding decisions, however, are made by the appropriations committees. Thus, it is quite possible that programs can be authorized but never funded. Congress has 12 specific authorization committees such as the ones on labor, health, human services, and education. Appropriation committees then authorize the funds that will be spent. If the spending and revenue levels in the budget require changes in existing law, committees are instructed to develop the legislation (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, n.d.). This whole process does not operate in a vacuum. Instead, it plays out amidst the parameters of the culture of a policy body. This culture is obvious to insiders but often surprising to outsiders.

How the Culture of Policymaking Really Works Like most institutions, lawmaking bodies operate within a culture of their own—a history, operating procedures, and rules that set powerful constraints on what can be done and how it is done (Weiss, 1999). The parameters of the policy culture are obvious to insiders but often surprising to outsiders. Four observations of the policy culture are presented in Table 6.2, with the readers referred to a more in-depth discussion that includes ten observations (see chapter 4 of Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021).

134

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Table 6.2  Parameters of the Policy Culture: Obvious to Insiders, Surprising to Outsiders 1. Policymaking is a more rational process than it appears. 2. Taking politics out of policymaking is not possible, nor should it be. 3. Policymaking functions on personal relationships. 4. A full-time opposition guarantees gripping dynamics.

Observation 1: Policymaking Is a More Rational Process Than It Appears

Policymaking is often conceptualized using the classical definition of decision-making as a systematic, step-by-step progression toward a preferred policy outcome. The textbook definition of decision-making is defining a problem, clarifying goals and objectives, listing alternative ways of achieving them, investigating the consequences of each alternative, comparing potential consequences, and choosing the option with the purported outcomes that most closely match one’s goals and objectives. In the real world, however, it is hard to find examples where major policy decisions neatly follow this linear progression (Nutley et al., 2007). Yet, just because it is difficult to map out the erratic ebb and flow of the policy process, it clearly would be a mistake to conclude that policymaking is not rational (Lindblom, 1968). In practice, policymaking is a rational process. However, its rationality is clouded because the policy process typically proceeds in a nonlinear fashion that is guided by its own premises and signals amidst competing political interests. In a pluralistic society, there are a number of disparate interest groups, each with different goals, values, and desired ends. Policy ends that are ideal for one group may be an anathema for another. This is not unexpected in a democratic political system that encourages the pursuit of (sometimes) competing ends by such stakeholders as citizens, interest groups, political parties, and policymakers themselves. Typically, differences are resolved through a back-and-forth process of negotiation and compromise. The result is not likely to be the proposal advanced by any single group but rather a resolution that may suit some stakeholders more than others, advantage one interest group at the expense of another, and maximize some political ends while minimizing others. In a roundabout manner, if all the participants and the many points of consensus are taken into account, policymaking is a rational process but not necessarily in a straightforward way that conforms to the premises of the classic decision-making model used by scientists. Policymakers weigh evidence on the issue with the views and values of their constituents, which is all filtered through a political system designed to reconcile the inevitable differences through civilized debate in a public setting. Put simply, the policy process is guided by “a political rationality rather than a scientific rationality” (Weiss, 1978, p. 61). Those who work closely with policymakers come to understand the rationality of a political process for making policy decisions. According to Mary Fairchild of the National Conference of State Legislatures: The legislative institution is … a place where we can have civilized debate, and we want to bring in different views and have those discussions and again, in some kind of civilized way, and that is really how public policy is made, by the voicing of all these

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

135

divergent views in the public body …. It’s always been quite surprising to me, frankly, that people are so cynical about the process. Observation 2: Taking the Politics Out of Policymaking Is Not Possible, Nor Should It Be

If policymakers could teach researchers one thing about the policy culture, it would be this: Policymaking is (gasp) political. As aptly put by Henig (2017, p. 1): “Politics … is traditionally seen as the skunk in the garden. Politics is about power and muscle and self-interest and group interest. Politics promotes policies because they suit those with advantage.” It is easy to hold one’s nose at a process so heavily influenced by the dictates of politics. But compared to the politics in business or academia, it seems easier to endure in a policymaking body where it is “upfront and explicit” (Linsky, 2011, p. 21). Researchers who have waded across the research/policy divide initially were surprised at the extent to which lawmaking is charged by the “alchemy of political influence” (Rabb & Winstead, 2003, p. 22). In her early contacts, one researcher said she was pretty ignorant about the politics of policymaking. Yet with continuing experience, she came to realize that political deliberation even in a contested environment is not bad or wrong, it is just the way policy gets done in a democracy. This democratic deliberation should not be mischaracterized as an abandonment of one’s principles, ideals, or commitment to the common good. At the end of the day, it is not possible to take the politics out of policymaking, nor should it be. Policymaking is a system in which policymakers who hold divergent political views debate issues and come to decisions through negotiation and compromise (Weiss, 1999). According to the policymakers in our study, compromise was not disdained but was explained in pragmatic terms as the way that work gets done. From a decision-making standpoint, compromise is essential because “There are just way more good reasons to spend money than there is money.” From a procedural standpoint, legislators were matter-of-fact in explaining that “to get anything done here, there has to be compromise.” Legislators likened compromise to not getting “the whole loaf of bread” but being content with getting “three quarters of a loaf.” From a policymaker standpoint, “Compromise is not hard. Not being effective in getting things done is hard. I’d rather find some compromise and get something done—move the ball down the field—versus do nothing.” One legislator explained that if you can’t come to compromise, “you just have to defeat them … and that’s the worst of politics.” Yet the benefits of compromise do not come without costs. Not every constituent or campaign donor will agree on the compromise, a realization a Republican came to appreciate from being a parent: I have six kids at home … None of them ever get everything they want, so why should anybody here? It’s easy. The politics at home is the same as the politics here. Somebody’s always upset … Nothing’s ever fair. You just have to be the arbitrator of that and just put an end point on it and say, “Okay, this is the best I’m going to get for everybody.” Otherwise it would just endlessly go on. (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019, p. 136)

136

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

Another senator was shocked to find that his sharpest critics are (ironically) those constituents and interest groups that share his views but believe he compromised too much or made too many concessions. Policymakers are quick to point out the critical distinction of being willing to compromise on an issue but not on one’s principles. As explained by John F. Kennedy (2006, p. 18): We can compromise our political positions but not ourselves. We can resolve the clash of interests without conceding our ideas. And even the necessity for the right kind of compromise does not eliminate the need for those idealists and reformers who keep our compromises moving ahead.

The policy process is often criticized for taking too long. Yet, it is important to grasp that policymaking is a rule-governed process for fine-tuning ideas and making better laws. It takes time for all the voices and views to be heard. It takes time to forge compromise and consensus. It takes time to settle differences “peacefully and constructively” (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006, p. 4). One Wisconsin Republican described the time-intensive process he uses to bring all the parties together to build the consensus to move an issue forward: One day I can have all the ag[riculture] partners around the table. The next day I have all the environmental groups around the table and tell them exactly where the ag guys are. The next week, the ag guys come back. I tell them exactly where the environmental folks are. “So, you’re here … If you guys want something done that benefits you, you’ve got to come here” … Otherwise, nobody’s going to get anything … No bill is perfect. (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019, p. 135)

The slow pace inherent in this deliberative process is said to be one of democracy’s greatest strengths (The Center on Congress at Indiana University, 2006). Another strength of the democratic process is its fluidity reflected in that old government saying: “That’s final … unless it isn’t” (Levin, 2005, p. 16). One of the “great things” about the legislature, according to a key informant in our study, is that “you never lose forever. Even the most hotly contested issues have a way of coming back …. If there’s a basis for moving forward, the legislature will often find a way.” Observation 3: Policymaking Functions on Personal Relationships

One of the most consistent findings in the last decade of research on policymaking is this: Policymaking runs on relationships. Our recent study confirmed that relationships are the primary driver of policymaking, which is not really too surprising given the deliberative and negotiated nature of the policy process. As put by a Republican legislator, “Relationships are the biggest thing.” He explained that being effective depended on one’s ability to build trusting relationships: I can write policy … but if I don’t show people back home that I know what I’m talking about or that I feel what they feel, no policy’s going to matter. Or if I don’t show

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

137

legislators here that I value their input or opinion on a piece of legislation, it’s not going to matter because they’re not going to vote for it or … show any support for it. So, policy is the easy stuff.

In our study, legislators described the serious commitment they make to developing collaborative relationships. In one of my interviews, a legislator pulled a cheat sheet out of his desk drawer—colored photos of the 18 freshman legislators in the last session and the 25 in the current session. During the interview, he also held up a checklist that he had developed with contact information for every member of the Assembly. He had recently introduced a bill and had diligently recorded when he made contact with every member and how each had responded. For policymakers to be influential depends on their relationships. Policymakers derive power from relationships and the “informal authority” that comes from them (Linsky, 2011). In the policy culture, a Democrat explained that coming up with a good idea is not nearly enough to be an effective policymaker. Policymakers are not able to pass legislation on their own. They need to develop relationships to erect the “infrastructure” that is necessary to move an idea forward, no matter how good the idea is. To secure support for a bill they introduce depends, in large part, on whether colleagues know and trust them. Relationships are also crucial in a process as fast-paced and frenetic as policymaking. Legislators explained that it is literally impossible for policymakers to read and study each bill that comes before them. So they turn to a readily available source they know and trust—their colleagues. When legislators are first elected, they are mentored that one way to become influential is to specialize and develop expertise on an issue. By developing a reputation as the “go-to” person on an issue, their colleagues will trust them to provide advice on what positions to take and how to vote. You’re going to trust your colleagues. You’re going to listen to their view on it … because there’s too many [bills]—the volume is too great. You’re pulled in too many directions … So that’s why those relationships with your colleagues are most important. (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019, p. 137)

A full understanding of policymaking goes well beyond ideology and the substance of issues. Relationships influence how issues progress through the policymaking process. Even polarization in a lawmaking body has been shown to be a relationship-based process. Party leaders can influence the extent of dysfunctional polarization by limiting the opportunities for policymakers to build relationships with colleagues across the aisle (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). Observation 4: A Full-Time Opposition Guarantees Gripping Dynamics

Few other institutions require its inhabitants to regularly run for office and work alongside a full-time opposition struggling to beat or unseat them. Indispensable to a well-functioning democracy is a lawmaking body made up of members elected by the

138

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

people to conduct business for the people. To represent all the people, these bodies often have a large number of members, each with an equal mandate to be there but with no reason to cooperate with or respond to the bids of each other (Loewenberg, 2007). Each seat is a prize that the opposition would like to claim in the next electoral cycle. To this end, the opposition takes upon itself the task of watching members closely and meticulously pointing out any mistakes or misjudgments (Levin, 2005). Because each side believes that their approach is surely right and that of the opposition is certainly wrong, these criticisms sometimes can be inaccurate, misleading, or downright unscrupulous. Imagine how the nature of a work environment would change in the face of an opposition whose full-time job it was “to make you look bad” (Levin, 2003, p. 15). One state legislator described the theatrical dynamics set up by these conflicting demands: It’s hard to be in the building and working together, and out of the building trying to figure out how to get rid of the person that you just worked with. There are few other comparable jobs where that is the case.

Despite this oppositional environment, legislators realize that you could still do good work on issues you care about by collaborating with members of the opposing party.

The Story of How an Idea Becomes Law in the Policy Culture This is the story of how the idea of improving home visitation became the law of the land. Perhaps this real-world example can best illustrate how messy the legislative process can be and how it is shaped by the dynamics of the policy culture. Former President Obama and the U.S. Congress instituted a multi-billion-dollar federal program to expand evidence-based home visiting programs for improving pregnancy outcomes, reducing child abuse, and building family economic self-sufficiency (see a description of Olds’ Nurse-Family Partnership Program in Chapter 3). This story is recounted here because it describes the enactment of a family policy that was driven, in part, by a debate over scientific evidence (see an in-depth description in Haskins et al., 2009). The story began over a hundred years ago with the advent of home-visiting programs. The story evolved slowly (as many stories do) until the 1960s, when more sophisticated evaluation methods became available. Home visiting programs were subjected to the gold standard of evaluation—randomized controlled trials. When families are randomly assigned to either a treatment or control condition, it is reasonable to conclude that any differences that emerge are actually caused by the program. One home visiting program, Olds’ Nurse-Family Partnership, was carefully tested using randomized controlled trials in three different sites. Compared to a control condition, the mothers who received nurse home visits during pregnancy and the first two years of their child’s life had verifiable improvements in parenting quality, fewer subsequent children, less involvement in the

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

139

criminal justice system, lower use of welfare benefits, etc. (Eckenrode et al., 2010). The children of nurse-visited mothers also benefitted; at age 19, their daughters had fewer children themselves, reduced odds of being involved in the criminal justice system, and lower use of Medicaid benefits (Eckenrode et al., 2010). Olds expanded the Nurse-Family Partnership to 25 states with careful attention to maintaining the elements that made the program effective. The success of Olds’ home visiting program did not go unnoticed by the Obama administration. President Obama included funds for a “Nurse Home Visitation” program in the blueprint for the 2010 budget. The budget included the word “nurse,” which is a feature of Olds’ Nurse-Family Partnership but no other home-visiting program. The budget language limited the funding to states that would provide home visits by nurses to “first-time, low-income pregnant mothers” (Haskins et al., 2009, p. 2). The language also mentioned that any federally funded program needed to have evidence of long-term benefits with a return on investment of $3 to $6 for every dollar invested, which also was a “perfect fit” with the Olds’ program. This specific language proved extraordinarily controversial because it left out several other prominent home visiting programs, including some that had been evaluated with randomized controlled trials. Home visiting programs such as Parents as Teachers, Healthy Families America, the Parent-Child Home Program, and the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) varied on several dimensions, such as the age of the child, the risk status of the family, and the developmental and health outcomes that were targeted. For example, in a randomized controlled trial, the HIPPY program, which targets low-income parents with children of ages 3 to 5, improved children’s reading scores, classroom behavior, and social mobility (Reeves & Howard, 2013). To broaden the budget language, a lobbying campaign was launched by several programs with backing from several influential advocacy groups such as the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Children’s Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of America, and others. Likewise, lobbying ensued by supporters of the Olds’ program, spearheaded by the well-respected Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. Researchers lined up on both sides of the lobbying campaign. I remember being in Washington, DC at a conference of child development researchers at the time, and the talk of the conference was which side of the campaign you were on. What was unusual was that advocacy groups and researchers that usually spoke with one voice ended up on opposing sides of the home visiting debate. The lobbying to broaden the President’s language appeared to be making headway. First, in its budget resolution, Congress approved broader language that omitted a mention of “nurse” home visiting and expanded the target population beyond first-time pregnant mothers (Haskins et al., 2009). Later, the final administration budget also dropped the language on “nurses.” Next, Representative Jim McDermott of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee released draft language and held a hearing on a bill that

140

T H E B A S I C S O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y A N D T H E P O L I C Y M A K I N G P R O C E S S

embodied a compromise between the opposing positions. Funding priority was given to programs with evidence of positive impacts on child and parenting outcomes, such as child abuse and neglect, maternal health, and child development. Many home-visiting programs other than nurse visiting would meet these guidelines. The draft bill also stipulated that less funding would be made available to programs that did not “adhere to a model of home visiting with the strongest evidence of effectiveness” (Haskins et al., 2009, p. 5). Another critical player was President Obama’s closest advisor on budget policy, Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. In a blog post, Orszag explained that he and the president were interested in prioritizing program evaluation in federal funding. Programs with effective evaluations would be expanded and those without evidence of effectiveness would be eliminated. For home visiting, he endorsed the two-pronged approach of providing more funding for home visiting programs with stronger evaluation evidence. At the end of the day, a compromise bill was enacted and $1.5 billion was made available to states for maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs. The law requires that states allocate at least 75% of the federal funding to evidencebased program models. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services identified eight models that met the criteria as an evidence-based model. However, the lobbying didn’t end there. The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy issued ratings of the level of confidence that each of the eight programs could produce important life outcomes (Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2011). As with any law, it was subject to the checks and balances established by the Founders. The regulations would be written by the Department of Health and Human Services. Any disagreements with the regulations would be settled in the courts. Any disagreements with the court interpretation could, in turn, be rectified by congressional action. To this day, home-visiting programs can receive federal funding only if they use an approved evidence-based program. Also, they must meet other statutory requirements for program selection and implementation (Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness, n.d.). Summary of Institutional and Cultural Influences on Public Policy

This story illustrates the circuitous route through which an idea becomes a law. The development of home visiting legislation is a clear illustration of the rough-and-tumble world of policymaking that seldom abides by the classic, linear definition of decisionmaking. Yet woven throughout the story is a political rationality that emerges as diverse stakeholders debate different opinions. The final product was not the ideal policy sought by any single group, but a compromise response that was better than no response at all. This story illustrates how policymaking is a relational, negotiated process. Policymaking is more than a single policy player coming up with a good idea. Even a player as prominent and powerful as the President of the United States must work with other stakeholders including his budget policy advisor, committee chairs, and countless

W H AT P O L I C Y M A K E R S A N D T H E P O L I C Y P R O C E S S A R E R E A L LY L I K E 

141

advocates and researchers. Turning an idea into law was shaped at multiple points by those who developed the program, those who were affected by it, those who advocated for it, those who voted on it, and those who developed the regulations for administering its provisions. This story illustrates the checks and balances that operate between the executive and the legislative branches of government and, if challenges arise, how both are subject to the interpretations of the judicial branch.

Summary When one understands policymakers and the policy process, it is easier to develop a deep appreciation for how democratic norms and institutions are among the world’s greatest human inventions. Indeed, it is no small feat to come to an agreement on processes and procedures that encourage cooperative behaviors and discourage actions that are selfish and self-serving. • The elements of how a bill becomes a law are relatively standard—bill draft, committee hearings, floor debate in both houses, and executive approval. Yet the erratic ebb and flow of the political process makes it difficult to reduce policymaking to a set of textbook procedures that can be committed to memory, repeated chapter and verse, and executed by rote. • The exact process varies from bill to bill, and it is shaped by the culture of lawmaking bodies that set constraints on what can and cannot be done. The parameters of the policy culture are obvious to insiders but often surprising to outsiders. • Policymaking is rationale. The policy process is guided by a “political” rationality where consensus is reached at many points by multiple players before a concrete decision is made. • Politics is not necessarily bad but often is a “necessary good” in a democratic system that resolves competing interests through negotiation and compromise. • Those who work closely with policymakers appreciate how crowded the lives of policymakers are. They respect the fortitude and courage it takes to work in an environment where political opponents are ever present and poised to point out any mistakes in judgment. • Policymaking is more than coming up with a good idea or writing a piece of legislation. Effectiveness depends on building the relationships it takes to move a policy idea through the deliberative, negotiated policy process.

Distrust and disgust with the institution of government and its inhabitants are alarming because power in a democracy rests with the people. Democracy depends on citizens who run for political office, who lobby for causes they believe in, who keep informed on issues, and who hold public officials’ feet to the fire. Democracy depends on citizens who believe they can be politically effective and who are confident that the government will respond to their actions.

Part 3 WHAT FORCES INFLUENCE THE FORMATION OF FAMILY POLICY

7

145

CHAPTER 7 HOW MUCH ARE FAMILIES CHANGING? HAVE FAMILY POLICIES KEPT PACE?

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

My family has been a great example. We have a split household. My wife and I are both on our second relationships. So she has hers. I have mine. We have ours. We deal with child support issues. We deal with custody issues. We deal with all of the regular stuff of everyday kids and schools. Whatever you have at home, you bring to the Capitol. Some legislators criticize me sometimes for it …. But most of the time, it’s good public policy when it comes from home. (Republican legislator) I think [legislators] lack knowledge because … we think every child has a similar background to what we had when we were children. I often use the analogy of the first time your parents ever let you go to a friend’s house and spend the night, and you see that their family just has different ways of doing things …. Some [families] don’t have the capabilities of caring for their children … We now have grandparents who have custody because their own children have addiction issues or their parents are in jail. (Democratic legislator)

• What demographic changes have occurred within contemporary families? • In what ways have social, economic, racial, and ethnic inequalities grown across families? • How nimble have family policies been in responding to the increasing complexity of family life? • Are there innovative ways that family policy could be more nimble and efficient in supporting contemporary families in all their diversity?

Today we are witnessing “the most rapid changes in family structure in human history” (Brooks, 2020). Contemporary families have adapted to cultural, economic, and social forces that have transformed family structure and functioning in unprecedented ways. Yet many family policies were enacted during a time when families were less complex and complicated than they are today (Trask, 2022). Take Social Security, for instance, which was designed during the Depression era when the typical family structure was a breadwinning husband and full-time homemaker in one marriage for a lifetime (Couch et al., 2017). Today’s families are less uniform and stable, and much more diverse and DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-10

146

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

complex. Social science has discovered much about the dynamic patterns, relationships, and circumstances of contemporary family life (Anderson, 2019). But how nimble have family policies been in adapting to these transformational shifts in contemporary families and in reflecting our growing scientific knowledge about families? To give a sense of the significance of family policy, Berger and Carlson (2020) recently estimated the number of family households in the United States using data from the 2018 Current Population Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau: There were 127.6 million households in the United States in 2018, of which 83.1 million were classified as family households (members related by birth, marriage, or adoption). Of these, 34.5 million (or 41%) included their “own” children younger than 18, and these family households included 68.0 million children (or about 2.0 children per family). (p. 480)

These Census numbers do not convey the incredible amount of diversity among families. This chapter begins by delving down into a sampling of various forms of families to illustrate what family diversity means to those who live it on a daily basis. The meaning of family diversity is also considered more comprehensively by looking within and across contemporary families. Transformational changes that have occurred within families are overviewed, followed by the social, economic, and racial/ethnic inequalities that have grown across families. Finally, the chapter turns to how family policy has kept pace with these changes and in what ways policies could better support families in all their diversity across the lifespan.

Changing Family Forms and Functions Contemporary families come in many configurations that have adapted to the realities of today’s society. Recently, controversies rise and fall around some of these family forms, such as immigrant families and same-sex marriage. Intergenerational ties have come under scrutiny, such as whether grandparents have the right to gain custody of grandchildren and serve as the head of the household. Families have adapted in both form and function to changing social norms, such as cohabitation, and evolving economic forces, such as globalization. Family life has been affected by the disabilities of children and by the stigma and discrimination surrounding race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so forth. Selected examples of the diversity of family forms follow. Immigrant Families

Historically, families that have emigrated to the United States have been a contentious issue. In the early 1990s, the United States experienced large increases in undocumented immigration. Much of this influx stemmed from an epidemic of violence in Central America. The United Nations identified Honduras as the most violent country in the world, with El Salvador and Guatemala rated as the fourth and fifth most violent (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Immigration dominated the news in 2017 when children

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

147

were separated from their families at the Mexican border. A “zero tolerance” order issued by the U.S. Attorney General resulted in an estimated 3,913 children being separated from parents who entered the United States without authorization (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 2021). No concrete definition exists for immigrant families, whether they have relocated temporarily or permanently, repetitively or on a single occasion. Immigrants are sometimes interchangeably referred to as migrants, new settlers, or emigrants, though they do differ from refugees. Refugees are forced from their countries because of security threats, whereas immigrants choose to relocate to a foreign country (Guo, 2022). One-quarter of U.S. children are estimated to live in an immigrant family along with a parent or other children who were not born in the United States. Most of these children (91%) are U.S. citizens, but 40% of their parents are not (Berger & Carlson, 2020). In the United States today, there is no path to citizenship for the undocumented, including “Dreamers,” who came to the United States as children and are at risk of deportation. Citizenship status matters for families in several respects. Undocumented parents often work in low-wage jobs with unacceptable work conditions that they tolerate for fear of being fired or deported. Undocumented youth often spend half of their lives separated from their biological parents. They face an array of negative health and developmental outcomes and have restricted access to quality child care, preschool, health care, and higher education (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). In addition, the contributions that families make to the health and development of their members have been undermined by recent changes to immigration and resettlement policies. Increasingly, these policies and the rhetoric surrounding them have shifted toward individual self-sufficiency and away from provisions that address family support and family networks (Roseliu et al., 2020). Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex families have been the subject of vigorous debate over the last 25 years. Whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry has now been settled by law. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that the right for same-sex couples to marry is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Legalizing marriage among same-sex couples gave them access to the same rights and benefits that different-sex couples enjoy, such as health insurance for their spouse and children and joint adoption rights (Patterson et al., 2021). Overall, marriage provides access to more than 1,000 federal rights and obligations by providing legal status as a spouse or parent for a range of public and private policies, such as insurance coverage, Social Security benefits, and tax filing (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2020). The 2015 court decision was a monumental change that made a difference in the everyday lives of families. Since its passage, 300,000 same-sex couples have been legally wed (Moreau, 2020), doubling the number of same-sex marriages (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2020).

148

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Grandparent-Led Families and Multi-Generational Families

The share of Americans living in a multi-generational family was 18% in 2021, more than double the 7% in 1971. Increases have occurred in both three-generation households (with two or more adult generations) and skip-generation households (typically grandparents and their grandchildren). Multi-generational households are more common among immigrants, racial/ethnic minorities, the unemployed, and those with disabilities. Among the most frequent reasons for living in a multi-generational family is the need for financial support or to provide or receive help with caregiving (Pew Research Center, 2022). In 2020, about 3.3% of children lived in a grandparent-led family (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Nearly 30% of children are expected to live with a grandparent at some point during their childhood (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Parents and grandparents can enter into voluntary arrangements regarding custody of a child when there is no disagreement. However, when there is a dispute, the courts define how the family will be structured. In family law courts, there is an automatic preference for parents being granted custody, which has been called a “natural right,” “superior right,” “prima facie right,” or “presumption” (Atkinson, 2011). For grandparents to gain custody became extremely difficult in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Troxel v. Granville decision in 2000. This case ruled that parents have a constitutional right to raise a child as they deem fit, as long as they are adequately caring for the child. Thus, the rights of biological and adoptive parents to control their child’s upbringing are highly guarded constitutional rights, whereas grandparents do not have a constitutional right even to visit grandchildren (Atkinson, 2011). Grandparents cannot apply for custody in every state (DeLoe, 2023). In states where grandparents can petition the court for custody over parents’ objection, proof is required that the parent is unfit for reasons such as child maltreatment, crime, severe mental illness, substance abuse, and so forth. However, some exceptions do apply. If a grandparent has been raising a grandchild for a significant period of time, such as four years or more, the grandparent may be granted custody even if the parent is fit. The court will consider what is in the child’s best interests, including factors such as the child’s wishes about living with the grandparent (Atkinson, 2011). Single Parents

Recent studies have called into question the accuracy of the term single parent. Even when low-income parents are unmarried, they are not alone. According to the landmark Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study, they engage in high rates of cohabitation and close partner relationships. When their baby was born, half of unmarried mothers were living with the child’s father (McLanahan, 2009), and three-quarters of unmarried fathers visited the mother in the hospital. Almost all of the fathers (99.8%) wanted to be involved in the lives of their children, and nearly all of the mothers (93%) wanted them to be involved. Four out of five fathers financially contributed during pregnancy, and four out of five mothers said the father planned to continue to do so (Edin et al., 2019).

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

149

Yet, despite these good intentions, by the time of their child’s third birthday, only onethird of low-income, unmarried mothers were still living with the father; of those mothers with a different partner, two-thirds had experienced one partnership change, over onethird had experienced at least two changes, and about one-fifth had experienced three or more changes (McLanahan, 2009). This study, and others, suggest that the label singleparent families is misplaced as children are being parented by multiple romantic partners. Transnational Families

Globalization has propelled the emergence of a new family form. The transnational movement of capital, labor, and goods has devastated economic opportunities in some regions and expanded opportunities in others. In response, family members or whole family units have migrated in search of a better life. Transnational families, as they are called, strive to retain roots in their home country while putting down new roots in their host country. Recently, these migratory flows have been dominated by women who leave their own children to find work, often caring for others’ children and elders to economically support their families back home. The exporting of affordable family services such as child and elder care benefits families in the host country, while depleting caregiving in the home country for young and old alike (Trask, 2022). Families With Children Who Have Developmental Disabilities

About one in six children in the United States has one or more developmental disabilities—a physical disability, an emotional or behavioral problem, a learning or language delay, or a developmental disorder (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2022). The time and cost of arranging or providing care for children with disabilities can interfere with the financial stability of the family, the employment of the primary caregiver, and the parents’ relationships with other children and each other. Marriages tend to be more fragile, and parenting is more stressful, which can affect parents’ physical and emotional well-being. The stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination that surround disabilities can result in parents blaming themselves for their child’s condition and isolating themselves from social interactions (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020). Initially, family science blamed parents for the disabilities of their members, but it has slowly and surely transitioned from a deficit model to a model that identifies family strengths (Walsh, 2016a; 2016b). For example, when autism was first diagnosed in the 1940s, researchers initially got it wrong. They blamed the repetitive behaviors of autistic children on mothers for being too emotionally distant from their children. This idea of “refrigerator mothers” has long since been discredited. In contemporary studies, parents of autistic children have been found to focus more on their children’s strengths than on their weaknesses and to provide unconditional love and support that extends throughout their lives. In addition, parents of autistic children often assume the added responsibility of fighting tirelessly for the services their children are entitled to, which often requires providers to diverge from “business as usual” (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020).

150

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Disparities have been documented in the extent to which children with disabilities are diagnosed, especially in immigrant families and families of color. These diagnoses matter as more public policies are emerging to support families that have members with disabilities. Family Stigmatized by Race/Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity

Stigma and discrimination appear to affect family formation and functioning. For example, in the United States, family formation varies by race and ethnicity (Cherlin, 2009). Less marriage occurs among African American families, which may be a legacy of discriminatory slavery laws that prevented marriage between male and female slaves. Female kin assumed authority over childrearing, which has continued to this day with grandmothers sometimes raising children born to teen mothers (Margolis et al., 2016). Hispanics have substantially higher rates of marriage than African Americans, even though both groups are similar in terms of economic disadvantage. However, Hispanics are a diverse ethnic group, with those of Mexican origin marrying more quickly, particularly those born in Mexico. Family formation appears to be affected by stigma and discrimination toward LGBTQI+ populations, who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or non-binary. Among same-sex couples, for example, relationships are more apt to break up than in heterosexual families, perhaps due in part to the stress surrounding discrimination. Many LGBTQI+ couples have children, but they are less likely than heterosexual couples to want or intend to become parents. When they become parents, they are more likely to be foster or adoptive parents (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2020). The policies of most concern to LGBTQI+ populations govern anti-discrimination, gender-affirming care, and family functions, such as adoption, child custody, child welfare, foster care, and recognition of birth parents. Because these issues are primarily handled by states, a patchwork of policies exist across the country (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2020). State authority for anti-discrimination policies has resulted in uneven support across the country for LGBTQI+ families to fulfill family functions such as providing education, housing, and insurance for their members. Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legal protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity; however, even in these states, religious exemptions may still apply (Patterson et al., 2021). The remaining gaps in legal protections disproportionately affect people of color, transgender people, and those who face income insecurity (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2020). This evolution of the political landscape may reflect, in part, a massive shift in social acceptance of LGBTQI+ populations and policies to support them. As recently as 1988, only about 1 in 10 Americans (11%) thought that gay and lesbian relationships between

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

151

consenting adults should be legal, which has risen to 6 in 10 today (Chua, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2019b). In recent polls, the vast majority of Americans believe that there is at least some discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual (75%), and transgender people (79%), which is similar to beliefs about discrimination toward Blacks (84%) and Hispanics (77%). Paralleling these beliefs, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults support policies to protect LGBTQI+ people from discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing; support is lower in some demographic groups but still registers over half (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2020). With these family examples as background, let us step up a level and take a broader view of the meaning of the demographic changes that have occurred within contemporary U.S. families.

Transformational Changes Within Contemporary Families A whole host of changes have occurred in family life, many of which are reviewed in Table 7.1. Social science research has expanded our knowledge well beyond family arrangements comprised of biological parents and full siblings (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Looking at all the changes that have occurred, four are highlighted here that demographers consider “transformational.” To be designated as transformational, they must represent a previously unseen degree of change and one that thoroughly diverges from prior conventions (Cherlin, 2020b). The Remarkable Rise in Cohabitation

First, one of the starkest examples of transformational change in contemporary family life in the United States, according to preeminent family demographer Andrew Cherlin, is the rise in cohabitation (2020b). The change in just over 25 years is remarkable. Among women aged 19 to 44, one-third had ever cohabited in 1987, and by 2013, two-thirds had cohabited. Sharp increases in cohabitation occurred across the board, regardless of education, and among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. American family life has been transformed by how partners entered into cohabitating relationships and also by how they exited them. In the mid-1980s, never-married women who began a cohabiting relationship were more apt to marry than to dissolve the union; in stark contrast, those who began a cohabiting relationship around 2010 were more likely to dissolve the union than to marry (Cherlin, 2020b). The Stunning Decline in Marriage

A second transformational change in contemporary family life is the “stunning” decline in marriage, which has “befuddled demographers and social policy wonks alike” (Smeeding, 2016, p. 267). American adults still highly value marriage, but alternatives

152

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Table 7.1  Changes Within Contemporary Families Across the Lifespan in the United States and Abroad • In the 2020 U.S. Census, the White population declined by 8.6%, but still remained the largest racial or ethnic group • 235.4 million people identified as White alone or in combination with another group • 46.9 million identified as Black or African American alone or in combination with another group • 24 million identified as Asian alone or in combination with another group • 9.7 million identified as American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination • 1.6 million identified as Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone or in combination • The Hispanic or Latino population was 62.1 million, which encompasses people of any race (Jones et al., 2021) • Immigration surged between the 1980s and early 2000s. In 2017, 44.4 million people (13.6% of the U.S. population) were foreign-born (Smock & Schwartz, 2020) • The rates of increase in nonmarital births have been greatest in White families, yet it occurs more often in other racial/ethnic groups. In 2016, the overall rates of all births to unmarried women were 70% among African Americans, 53% among Hispanics, and 29% among Whites (Cherlin, 2020b) • Cohabitation has risen sharply. Yet in 2016, 60% of all children lived in a household with two biological parents who were married to each other (Smock & Schwartz, 2020) • Since the 1970s, divorce rates have remained high. However, divorce rates have declined recently with one exception. Between 1990 and 2010, the divorce rate among those aged 50 and older has more than doubled (Smock & Schwartz, 2020) • Many grandparents, especially those who are Black and of lower socioeconomic status, provide care to their grandchildren; however, many grandparents also require care as they survive into their 80s and 90s (Ooms, 2019) • Immigrant older adults face special challenges due to language barriers, caregiving traditions that differ from their children, and difficulty keeping in touch with kin in their country of origin (Carr & Utz, 2020) • For the first time in human history, the population in urban areas outnumbered the population in rural areas. In lower-income countries, urban families often face public health challenges due to lack of fresh water and poor sanitation (Trask, 2022) • Globally, the United Nations estimated that COVID-19 affected the wages of 1.6 billion workers, pushed 71 million people into poverty, and kept 90% of students out of school in 2020 (Trask, 2022)

to marriage are more prevalent than in the past. Marriage used to be viewed as a first step to adult personal life, basically the cornerstone that was put in place before buying a home, having a child, and being taken seriously when applying for a job. Now, these steps to adulthood can occur without marriage. Marriage has become the last step—the capstone—that is a symbol of one’s personal achievements worthy of being celebrated with family and friends (Cherlin, 2020b).

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

153

These changes in marriage have evolved into two separate subsystems (Cherlin, 2020b). For Americans with college degrees, family life continues to be centered around marriage. In contrast, a transformational change has occurred in Americans without college degrees, who experience less marriage and more cohabitation, divorce, repartnering, and nonmarital childbearing. As aptly put by DeParle (2012), “The United States is becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.” The Dramatic Drop in the Stability of Children’s Lives

A third transformation is the drop in the stability of children’s living arrangements. Instability is more than a statistical curiosity. It has been shown to cause declines in children’s cognitive and socioemotional development (Lee & McLanahan, 2015; Smock & Schwartz, 2020; Walsh, 2016a). Transitions in family life put children’s lives in flux, such as when parents engage in multiple romantic relationships and bear children with more than one partner (Cooper & Pugh, 2020). For children, multipartnered fertility means that they are less likely to be living in stable relationships with their biological parents and more likely to be living with a shifting cast of full- and part-time household members who play parenting roles, such as romantic partners, stepparents, and grandparents. Along with these complicated living arrangements come challenges in communication and coordination, accompanied by less time for parenting (Kearney & Haskins, 2020; Smeeding, 2016). Parents’ education appears to drive instability. For women under age 40 without a college degree, 55% of births between 2010 and 2014 occurred outside marriage to parents who were single, divorced, remarried, and/or cohabiting, often with more than one partner. However, for those with a college degree, only 12% of births occurred outside marriage; among the collegeeducated, most wait to have a child until after they are married and are able to invest heavily in their children in terms of both money and time. Between the early 1970s and the mid2000s, the top 20% of parents spent three times more on their children than the bottom 20% of parents. And between 1985 and 2012, married men with a college education increased the time spent caring for their children compared with married men without a college education (Cherlin, 2020b). Studies consistently report that parents with less income and less education use more harsh and physical discipline, provide less stimulating home environments, and are less apt to read to their children and do math-related activities (Kearney & Haskins, 2020). For those parents without a college degree, transformational change has occurred in the stability of their children’s lives. Because not every family can provide the same resources and opportunities, inequalities in family experiences have been linked to inequalities in child outcomes. Family complexity and instability are contributing to growing societal and economic inequality both within and across generations (Berger & Carlson, 2020; Cherlin, 2020b). The Looming Gap Between the Demand and Supply of Family Caregivers for Older Adults

A fourth transformational change is the looming gap between the demand and supply of family caregivers, who have always provided the lion’s share of care for older adults

154

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

with impairments. Americans over 50 accounted for 93% of COVID deaths (Statista Research Department, 2023), which resulted in a drop in life expectancy from 79 years of age in 2019 to 76.1 in 2021 (Greenhalgh & Simmons-Duffin, 2022). Still, a growing proportion of the population will be over 65 years of age. In 2050, an estimated 22% of the population will be 65 or older. This is a resounding increase over the 8% of the population that was 65 or older in 1950 (Duffin, 2022). Demographers visualize this generational change as looking like a pyramid at the beginning of the 20th century, with one elder at the peak, three to nine children in the middle, and 20 to 30 grandchildren at the base. By the beginning of the 21st century, the pyramid had turned into a beanpole with more elders and fewer members of every subsequent generation (Bengtson & Boss, 2000). The demand for family caregivers is expanding at the same time that the supply is shrinking due primarily to demographic trends. During the past five decades, decreasing fertility and increasing childlessness have contributed to a drop in the size of families. This means that older adults often have fewer children whom they can rely on to provide care. Moreover, their adult children who could provide care may be unable to do so because they live far away or because their jobs may make it difficult to juggle their work and family responsibilities (Carr & Utz, 2020). Potentially, an expanded pool of kin (and quasi-kin) could be available for caregiving if adult children are divorced, remarried, and/or cohabiting. For example, in 2018, 40% of middle-aged and older parents had stepchildren. Yet the evidence is unclear as to whether stepchildren and quasi-kin will feel the same obligation to provide care to older adults as do biological children, especially if family ties are strained (Seltzer, 2019). Shifting demographic patterns in aging families themselves have also reduced the supply of potential caregivers. Daughters and spouses are the primary family caregivers. Today’s older adults have had fewer children, so there are fewer available daughters to assume a caregiving role. In addition, fewer of the elderly are growing old with their first and only spouse; for those over 50, divorce has doubled between 1990 and 2010. “Gray divorce,” as it is termed, is higher among Blacks than Whites and among high school than college graduates (Carr & Utz, 2020). Family policy must acknowledge these demographic changes that have occurred within contemporary families. At the same time, family policy must take into account the social and economic inequalities that have grown across contemporary families.

Growing Inequalities Across Contemporary Families The United States has long been thought of as a land of opportunity where anyone could achieve the American Dream, regardless of their wealth or celebrity. If you were willing to work hard and play by the rules, you could get ahead. You could buy a decent home,

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

155

live in a good neighborhood, raise kids who would have a better life than you did, and save enough for retirement” (Reeves, 2017). Since the 1970s, belief in the American dream has declined so dramatically that it has been called one of the “defining challenge of our times” (Obama, 2013). A number of surveys have revealed that parents’ confidence that the lives of their children in the future will be better than their own lives today is at or near the lowest levels ever recorded (Galston, 2014). Only about a fourth of Americans (28%) think that life for the next generation of Americans will be better than it was for their generation; almost half (48%) think it will be worse (Pew Research Center, 2017b). Moreover, over half of Americans (55%) do not believe that everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed (Smeeding, 2016). In America, inequality is about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Inequality is about racial and ethnic minorities being excluded from opportunities for a good education or a decent job. Inequality is about whether Americans who work hard are compensated with a wage that can support a family. It’s about having the chance to participate fully in the labor force and be taxed fairly. So, inequality in America means more than simply differences in income. It can be viewed from many angles, including education, family formation, occupation, race and ethnicity, and zip code (Obama, 2013; Reeves, 2017). Essentially, whether a child has an equal chance to succeed in life depends, to a large extent, on the family they grow up in. Infants and toddlers score lower on cognition and positive behaviors when they are born to a mother with less education or raised by a low-income family with a home language other than English (Smeeding, 2016). Children who grow up in complex families face increased odds of experiencing societal and economic inequality and of passing it along to their children (Berger & Carlson, 2020; Cherlin, 2020b). Family policy is positioned to be a driver for addressing inequality, given that “the primary sources of investment in children” are families and government (Jackson & Schneider, 2022, p. 105; Nieuwenhuis, 2020). Family factors such as parents’ income and education are shaped by public policy. The contexts in which families operate— their jobs, neighborhoods, and schools—depend, in part, on public policies (Smeeding, 2016). Public policies can perpetuate inequalities, such as when racial/ethnic groups are disproportionately incarcerated and when legal protections do not exist for addressing discrimination against transgender people in jobs, housing, and public spaces (Allen & Henderson, 2022). But has family policy risen to the challenge of addressing inequality in all its forms, such as racism; classism; residential and geographic segregation; and discrimination in terms of disability, ethnicity, family heritage, gender identity, sexual orientation; and so forth? Has family policy ignored inequalities, or have they been relegated to the sidelines? (Anderson, 2019). Inequalities exist in several realms, two of which are discussed here— income and wealth inequalities, and race and ethnic inequalities.

156

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Inequality Based on Income and Wealth

For years, a strong U.S. economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats (Wilson, 1997). This story of equal opportunity for all families changed in the 1970s. In the midst of a strong economy, income inequality began to rise. Since that time, inequality between rich and poor families has continued to increase irrespective of whether it is indexed by the growing divide in income, wealth, and so forth (Pew Research Center, 2020). Gaps in household income have grown between 1970 and 2018. During that time, the median income of upper income households increased by 64% ($126,100 to $207,400). For middle-income households, the median income rose 49% (from $58,100 to $86,600) and 43% for the lower income tier (from $20,000 to $28,700). Thus, the income gains favored higher income families, with the most rapid growth in the top 5% of families (Pew Research Center, 2020). Also, the wealth gap among U.S. families has widened. Basically, wealth means adding up all a family’s assets, such as the value of their home and savings accounts, and subtracting all their debts. Between 1983 and 2016, only upper income families were able to increase their median wealth with gains of 33%. In stark contrast, middle and lower income families experienced a shrinking of their median wealth. Median net worth declined by 20% for median income families and by 45% for lower income families. By 2016, the wealth of upper income families was 7.4 times greater than that of middle income families and 75 times greater than that of lower income families (Pew Research Center, 2020). The epicenter of many of these economic disparities is families with children. According to Cooper and Pugh: “Some of the biggest economic dividing lines in our society run through children and their families” (2020, p. 275). This raises concerns about whether income inequality is reproduced in families, especially in light of evidence that 35% to 40% of children who are born at the top or bottom of the income distribution remain there as adults (Smeeding, 2016). Public policy has the potential to narrow inequality in several ways (Jackson & Schneider, 2022; Smeeding, 2016). For example, children in low income families tend to be enrolled in lower-quality child care (Vandenbroeck, 2020). Lower skilled workers are less able to negotiate benefits such as sick leave and flexible working arrangements (Adema et al., 2020). Also, work training, tax policy, and welfare reforms could be designed and implemented in ways that contribute to a more equitable economic system (Chan et al., 2021). Inequality Based on Race and Ethnicity

This book comes at a watershed moment. The United States now appears ready to recognize its laws, institutions, and practices that have created and perpetuated racial and ethnic inequalities (Allen & Henderson, 2022; van Eden-Moorefield & Shih, 2022).

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

157

Historical examples abound of discrimination by ethnicity and race. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, African Americans were kidnapped from Africa and enslaved to work in U.S. cotton and tobacco plantations (History.com Editors, 2021a). In 1819, the Civilization Fund Act was the beginning of assimilationist policies where Native Americans were coerced to send their children to boarding schools intended to deprive them of their culture (Pember, 2019). In 1848, suffragists advocated in Seneca Falls, New York, for White women to receive the right to vote (Brown, 2018). Race restrictions were placed on nonwhite immigration, including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 Asian Exclusion Act. The 1935 Social Security Act provided a safety net for millions of workers, but it excluded agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominantly AfricanAmerican, Mexican, and Asian. In that same year, the Wagner Act granted unions collective bargaining rights but permitted unions to exclude nonwhites from their membership (Chatters et al., 2022). In response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order in 1942 that called for placing people of Japanese descent, including those who were U.S. citizens, into internment camps (History.com Editors, 2021b). One legacy of this discrimination is its institutionalization in certain laws and practices that continue to contribute to racial and ethnic disparities to this day. Racial inequalities are embedded in biased policing and sentencing of boys and men of color, employment in jobs without or with lower-quality health insurance, residential segregation, schools’ dependence on local property taxes, unfair lending practices, voter suppression, and so forth (Braveman et al., 2022; Yearby et al., 2022). Given these and a number of other factors, racially and ethnically diverse families have lower incomes and less wealth. Since the 1970s, income inequality has increased steadily among racial/ethnic groups, although it varies strikingly from one group to another. Income inequality has increased the most among Asians, as the incomes of those near the top of the distribution increased much more rapidly than the incomes of those at the bottom (Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018). Racially and ethnically diverse families also experience barriers to accumulating wealth. In 2019, the net worth of White families was $188,200, $36,100 for Hispanic families, and $24,200 for Black families. Furthermore, racial disparities exist in one of a family’s major assets—their homes. In 2021, 74% of non-Hispanic Whites owned their homes compared with only 44% of Black Americans (Chatters et al., 2022). The epicenter of doing better on racial equity in all its manifestations is families with children. Essentially, whether children have an equal chance to succeed in life depends, to a large extent, on the families in which they grow up. The economic resources and opportunities provided to children come from families (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Moreover, racial socialization and prejudice have been shown to originate in families and are perpetuated across families (Allen & Henderson, 2022). Prejudice and stereotyping matter; in studies, when children are subjected to them, they have poorer health and developmental outcomes (Sáurez-Orozco et al., 2015).

158

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

After the election of an African-American president, many assumed that we were living in a post-racial society. However, the harsh realities of racial inequality were exposed during the summer of 2020 in the midst of a pandemic (Russon, 2022). Americans witnessed the deaths of several Black victims, including George Floyd (under the knee of a police officer), Breonna Taylor (shot by police while asleep in her bed), and Ahmaud Arbery (shot by a vigilante as he jogged in his neighborhood). COVID cases and deaths were disproportionately experienced by Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians or Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders (Hill & Artiga, 2022). These events and others mobilized the Black Lives Matter movement and appear to have inspired the desire to do better on racial equity as a people and as a nation (van Eeden-Moorefield & Shih, 2022). Despite this initial enthusiasm, the reality of racism remains (McNeil Smith, 2022). Granted, progress has been made. In his historic speech at the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches, President Obama (2015) asserted that it would be a “disservice to the cause of justice” to say that nothing has changed in the past 50 years. But he also cautioned that it would be a mistake to assume that the race to racial justice has been won: “We just need to open our eyes, and our ears, and our hearts to know that this nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow.” The eyes of some Americans were opened to racial inequalities and stayed opened. As one marker, the majority of Americans (55%) expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement in September 2020, with the same percent expressing support again in September 2021 (Horowitz, 2021). Yet among other Americans, as of January 2021, 186 bills had been introduced in state legislatures that proposed restricting teaching, training, and textbooks about racism (Chatters et al., 2022).

How Nimbly Have Policies Adapted to Family Demographic Changes The complexity of families has grown. Today, children may live with one biological parent without the other one present, or they may live with same-sex or transgender parents. Children may grow up in a multi-generation family or in a household with members with “mixed” immigration status. These changes have led to ongoing questions about how policy can serve complex families and to disputes about which types of families should be supported by government policies (Berger & Carlson, 2020; Cherlin, 2019). The adaptation of public policy to the changes in contemporary families has been slow due, in part, to the incremental process of making public policy. Adaptation has also been uneven, given that many family policies have been delegated to the states (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Nevertheless, spending on policies to support families has continued to grow over the last half century. The government continues to attempt to mitigate negative consequences for families, especially those living in poverty (Haveman et al., 2015).

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

159

In some circumstances, family policies have acknowledged changing family circumstances, but the response has been neither nimble nor efficient (Berger & Carlson, 2020). As illustrations of policy adaptation, one of the three largest programs for low-income children and families does recognize family demographic changes and provides benefits to diverse family forms (Moffitt, 2015). SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as Food Stamps, defines family as all household members who prepare and eat food together at least half the time; SNAP has proven to be the most effective family policy for reducing deep poverty (Berger & Carlson, 2020). Medicaid is another large program that provides health care to families with low income and assets. Medicaid acknowledges family diversity by making its benefits available to all children who are tax dependents and even those who are not dependents if they are living in the household and cared for by the householder (Berger & Carlson, 2020; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2019). In contrast, U.S. anti-poverty policy has been less nimble in adapting to changes in family life. Historically, poverty policy has tended to favor or promote families formed around marriage (Moffitt, 2015). In 1996, the first two pieces of federal legislation that explicitly addressed marriage policy were enacted, one being the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) law that sought to promote stability in low-income families with children (Ooms, 2019). TANF provides block grants to states to encourage twoparent families and to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. One of TANF’s main goals was to end the dependency of low-income families on government benefits by promoting marriage and mandating work. In contrast to its predecessors, welfare benefits were timelimited and required a much greater work effort, but with fewer education and training options (Chase-Lansdale & Brooks-Gunn, 2014). The law allowed states to divert direct cash assistance away from those with the lowest incomes and most erratic work histories and toward other purposes such as child care and income support (Azevedo-McCaffrey & Safawi, 2022). Similarly, two of the largest and most important supports for low-income children and families in the United States tend to favor biological relationships and families formed around marriage. The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit are administered through the tax system. Accordingly, eligibility is based on marital status and, in some instances, biological relationships or whether a child is claimed as a dependent (Berger & Carlson, 2020). These tax credits are designed to reduce the tax liability of low-income people, with some policies, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, available only to those with earnings. Other policies also privilege marriage, even when it ends in divorce. For example, child custody and visitation rights are easier to obtain if parents were once married. Parents who legally marry tend to be more socioeconomically advantaged than unmarried parents. Those who do not marry tend to be more economically and ethnically diverse, which has played out in class, race, and ethnic disparities in parents’ ability to gain custody and visitation rights (Edin et al., 2019).

160

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Despite many marriage benefits, a whole host of marriage penalties do exist, especially among policies that are designed with income thresholds. When couples marry, their income goes up, which may put them above the eligibility threshold of many social and welfare programs (Badger & Cain, 2018). For example, in one Midwestern state, seniors lost eligibility for prescription drug coverage if they married because their combined income would put them above the income cutoff (Normandin & Bogenschneider, 2005). Taken together, the primary policies for low-income families with children are designed to benefit married families (more than single parents), working families (more than those with members not working), and low-income families (more than the “poorest of the poor” living in deep poverty; Berger & Carlson, 2020; Moffitt, 2015). In an analysis that spanned 37 years, the greatest increases in government support have been redistributed away from single parents and those living in the deepest poverty and toward families with older adults and families that have members with disabilities (Moffitt, 2015; Steuerle, 2021). For older adults and families with members with disabilities, marriage and biological relationships play a less prominent role in government support. For example, the 2000 National Family Caregiver Support Program provides support to caregivers who are caring for anyone age 60 or older, regardless of whether they are family members. Older adults and families with members with disabilities are supported, in large part, through social insurance programs, such as Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Disability Insurance, and Unemployment Insurance. In these programs, eligibility is based, not on family or poverty status, but instead on whether a recipient has worked a sufficient amount of time and has earned enough to qualify. Yet even some policies for older adults do include family penalties. For instance, the Family and Medical Leave Act provides unpaid, job-protected leave to provide care for spouses, domestic partners, children, and parents. Yet it excludes coverage for some caregivers whom many would define as family, such as daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, and stepchildren. For some women, marriage plays a role in determining Social Security benefits, which are based not only on one’s own work record but also on one’s marital history and the work record of a former or current spouse (Couch et al., 2017). Compared to those who are widowed, divorced persons are penalized (especially those married for a short time and who earned less income than their former spouse; Lin et al., 2017). Thus, despite transformational changes in family structure, some U.S. policies continue to be constructed around marriage even though, practically speaking, there is less need in contemporary society to marry. Consider that people can have sex, live together, and bear children outside marriage with less public disapproval and fewer social sanctions than previously. Marital status and biological relationships still appear to be more prominent in policies for young families than in policies for older adults or families with disabilities. This has prompted questions about why policies are constructed around marriage. Is it to leverage the benefits of marriage to achieve larger societal and economic goals? Or

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

161

is marriage used to privilege some types of families considered more “deserving” of government support. Are the “deserving poor” more apt to be those who are married or widowed? Are the “un-deserving poor” more apt to be families with absent fathers, single mothers, never-married parents, and those who are not exerting enough work effort? (Moffitt, 2015).

How Policies Could More Nimbly Adapt to Family Demographic Changes Many public policies were designed during a time when families were more uniform, more stable, and less complex than they are today (Trask, 2022). Social science has discovered much about the dynamic patterns, relationships, and circumstances of contemporary family life (Anderson, 2019). Yet policies and programs do not always reflect this knowledge. This may be due, in part, to the fact that policymakers do not know and cannot be expected to master this vast, complex, and interdisciplinary body of family research. Professionals can keep busy policymakers informed about changing family demographics and the ways that public policies do and do not support contemporary families. For example, policies centered around marriage do not work as well for diverse family forms, such as nonresident parents, stepparents, grandparents, and nonbiological household members. However, there are many ways that policies could be more nimble in supporting families in the context of changing cultural, economic, and social conditions. Three are detailed here. First, policymakers may need to address more directly some of the family instability that is holding poor children back by providing supportive policies, such as homevisiting programs for parents, intensive early childhood education for young children, and mentoring programs for teenagers (Tough, 2012). For low-income households that are experiencing high levels of chaos, the Harvard Center on the Developing Child has proposed an innovative approach for improving the quality of care provided by both parents and childcare providers that moves beyond the traditional teaching of knowledge and best practices. New neuroscience points to a core skill set to help parents and care providers better deal with the pileup of stressors they often face. Building self-regulation and executive functioning skills enables adults to plan, focus, and approach life with self-control and flexibility (Magnuson & Schindler, 2019). Second, policymakers could look outside the mainstream and learn from the innovative supports provided by the complex families in our midst. Historically, there always have been families that “had no choice but to innovate” (Cherlin, 2020a): For African Americans, the destruction of family ties under slavery and the discrimination faced since then have made reaching out to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins imperative. For LGBTQ individuals, the rejection they sometimes

162

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

face from their families of origin and, until recently, their exclusion from the institution of marriage has led them to build their own families, where they combine any biological kin who may accept them with partners and close friends whose long-term relationships have taken on the character of kinship. For divorced and re-partnered individuals, multi-partner fertility and stepfamily ties necessarily take them beyond the nuclear family.

Third, another approach that policymakers could take is to target the social and economic forces that push families into poverty in the first place (Edin & Kefalas, 2011). Twogeneration programs take a whole-family approach that combines training and education for low-income parents and children from the same family. Specifically, the parents receive support services that include career-oriented training, job skill certification, coaching, and peer support. Children receive high-quality early childhood education programs and wraparound child care (Chase-Lansdale & Brooks-Gunn, 2014). Regardless of which approach policymakers take, they need to proceed with caution. It can be all too easy to romanticize the upside of supporting alternative family forms. One downside is that they lack the “enforceable trust” of marriage. Marriage invokes trust because it involves a public commitment that is backed up by legal protections. These protections are particularly important to college-educated couples in which one parent might sacrifice his or her own career advancement to invest heavily in cultivating their children’s development. Yet they also could benefit the couples least likely to marry— those with less education and fewer financial resources to fall back on (Cherlin, 2020b).

Summary The structure and functioning of contemporary families have been transformed in unprecedented ways. Family complexity and instability are contributing to growing societal and economic inequality, both within and across generations. • Transformational changes have occurred within families, including the remarkable rise in cohabitation, the dramatic drop in the stability of children’s lives, the looming gap between the demand and supply of family caregivers for older adults, and the stunning decline in marriage among the less educated. Marriage and its rewards are increasingly confined to Americans with college degrees. • Since the 1970s, income and wealth inequality between rich and poor families have continued to rise. Racially and ethnically diverse families have lower incomes and less wealth. Discrimination has been institutionalized in certain laws and practices that perpetuate racial inequalities. • Essentially, whether children have an equal chance to succeed in life depends, to a large extent, on the families they grow up in. The economic resources and opportunities provided to children primarily come from families. Moreover, racial socialization and prejudice have been shown to originate in families and are perpetuated across families.

H O W M U C H A R E FA M I L I E S C H A N G I N G ? H AV E P O L I C I E S K E P T PA C E ? 

163

• Family policy is positioned to be a driver for addressing inequality, given that the primary sources of investment in children are families and the government. Yet family policy has been neither nimble nor efficient in responding to changing family circumstances. • Some U.S. policies continue to be constructed around marriage even though, practically speaking, there is less need in contemporary society to marry. Marital status and biological relationships still appear to be more prominent in policies for young families than in policies for older adults or families with disabilities. • Policies for low-income families benefit married families (more than single parents), working families (more than those with members not working), and low-income families (more than those living in deep poverty). Historically, government support has been redistributed away from single parents and those living in the deepest poverty and toward older adults and those with disabilities. • Family policy could be more nimble and efficient by addressing family instability, learning from the innovative supports provided by complex families, and targeting the social and economic forces that push families into poverty in the first place.

Has family policy risen to the challenge of addressing inequality in all its forms, such as racism; classism; residential and geographic segregation; and discrimination in terms of disability, ethnicity, family heritage, gender identity, sexual orientation; and so forth? Will family policy once again make the United States a land of equal opportunity where anyone can achieve the American Dream?

8

165

CHAPTER 8 HOW INDIVIDUALISM IS WOVEN INTO OUR FAMILIES, OUR WORK AND PLAY, AND OUR POLITICS

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

The biggest difficulty is people have very different world views and you oftentimes can’t overcome that. The example I like to give is…social welfare programs. One party probably looks at those programs or beneficiaries of these programs and says, “Okay, here are people, who for reasons largely beyond their control are living in poverty or have unique circumstances, so they need some assistance from the government to kind of survive … or perhaps hopefully put them up into the next rung of the socioeconomic ladder.” Other people…say, “Here’s a lazy person who’s not applying themselves, who’s living off the hard-working taxpayers, and they don’t deserve the support. In fact, we’re enabling them to be lazy and nonproductive by giving them the support.” Democratic legislator

• Is individualism really a potent force in U.S. society? • In what ways does individualism influence how Americans think, behave, and live their lives? • To what extent does individualism affect policy decisions? • In what ways does individualism shape the study of families and family policy?

The United States may be the most individualistic country in human history (Yankelovich, 1995). But what difference does individualism make? Why does it warrant an entire chapter in a book on family policy? To answer these questions, let’s return to its roots. Individualism dates back to the 19th century, when it emerged following the French Revolution. At the time, individualism was thought to be a dangerous idea because it might sow instability in families and unrest in government (Kinder, 1998). In the 1830s, Tocqueville warned of how individualism could endanger U.S. democracy in his nowclassic book, Democracy in America (1945). He explained the threats to a free society of the widespread belief that every individual is considered a self-made person with control over one’s own destiny and with little expected from or owed to others. Americans could isolate themselves from their responsibilities to the larger society by focusing exclusively on themselves and their own families. If unchecked, this individualistic focus on one’s

DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-11

166

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

own family and one’s own circle of friends was characterized by Tocqueville as being “enclosed in one’s own heart.” But at the same time, it is also true that families serve as a counterbalance to unbridled individualism. Families are the first institution to teach what Tocqueville termed “habits of the heart,” such as commitment to others, empathy, and morality. Culture provides broad parameters for acceptable behavior, but it is families that translate these values into individual actions. And it is families, the only social sphere that encompasses multiple generations, that pass these moral lessons down from one generation to the next (Browning & Rodriguez, 2002; Donati, 2012). This is a classic example of “both-and” thinking. Families are a place where individuals can hunker down, enclosed in their own hearts far away from the rest of society. At the same time, families can also be a place where individuals learn habits that move their hearts beyond themselves to a commitment to others and a concern for the community. The individualism that Tocqueville observed in the 19th century pervaded American culture throughout the nation’s history (Bellah et al., 1996). In 1912, at the first national convention of the Progressive Party, Albert J. Beveridge gave the opening address, speaking eloquently for 90 minutes about the planks of the new Progressive Party— democratizing prosperity by passing it around to all and demonizing a cult of selfishness: “We stand for a nobler America….We stand for social brotherhood as against savage individualism. We stand for an intelligent cooperation instead of a reckless competition” (as cited in Morris, 2010, p. 222). In the 1990s, this age-old concern about individualism came to the forefront of American discourse. In the influential book, Habits of the Heart, published in 1996, Bellah and colleagues described how individualism is part of the American identity: “Anything that would violate our right to think for ourselves, judge for ourselves, make our own decisions, live our life as we see fit, is not only morally wrong, it is sacrilegious” (p. 142). The quandary is how this fierce spirit of independence can exist in American democracy without denying the need for interdependence, and without putting one’s own good ahead of the common good. Concerns over such corrosive effects of unbridled individualism were responsible, in part, for the rise of the Communitarian Movement, which called for a better balance between our rights as individuals and our responsibilities as members of families and communities (Etzioni, 1992). The Communitarian Platform was a statement of principles and a call for action. The signatories believed that the future of American democracy depended on active citizens, who respected the rights of others and assumed responsibility for the collective good, even when such actions entailed personal sacrifice (Glendon, 1992). Communitarianism attracted unlikely bedfellows, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Republicans like Pat Buchanan, and drew support from liberal and conservative philanthropists like the Carnegie, Ford, and Heritage Foundations.

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

167

In 2000, Robert Putnam extended this earlier thinking with his popular book, Bowling Alone. Putnam amassed an avalanche of evidence that individualism was eroding the nation’s participation in civic and political life, which Tocqueville had heralded as one of the pillars of American democracy. Putnam methodically reviewed how Americans were choosing to engage in activities alone rather than together. This departure from America’s storied reputation as a nation of joiners was a worrisome trend. Why so? It is engagement in the public forum that introduces individuals to interests beyond their own. It is democratic political participation that acquaints citizens with the responsibilities and actions that can restrain the power of an authoritarian government or ruler. The individualism that established a foothold in the United States, as documented by Tocqueville, Bellah, Putnam, and others, was unique from its manifestation in most western democracies. In the United States, equality of opportunity for every individual was established in the nation’s founding documents, based on ideas borrowed from the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. The familiar words memorialized in the Declaration of Independence are “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” At this time in history, equality was considered a radical and even subversive idea by most European intellectuals (Kinder, 1998). Instead of equality, the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the founding documents of other countries, like Canada, were “peace, order, and good government.” Moreover, Canada was explicit in recognizing in its Bill of Rights “the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions.” It was no accident that the United States is one of the only countries in the world without a specific mention of the word family in its constitution. The silence on families (Rice, 1977) was a deliberate attempt by the founding fathers to rebel against the British patronage system, where opportunity was appropriated based on individual wealth or lineage. Commendably, individualism has brought many benefits to a capitalistic country that celebrates personal responsibility and initiative. Yet individualism can be detrimental if carried to the extreme and if not counterbalanced with the community responsibility learned in families, in religious traditions, and through civic and political participation. This chapter amasses evidence and provides examples of the pervasiveness and potency of individualism in the way Americans think, behave, and live their lives. These examples may be eye-opening, given that individualism is so ingrained in American thought and experience that it remains almost invisible except to the most astute observer. For Americans, an individualistic culture is all we have ever known. Some have likened its influence over our thinking and behavior to the force of gravity, which, despite its indisputable power, often goes unnoticed. Others have described individualism as being as hard to notice as the air we breathe. In this chapter, we amass evidence of the pervasiveness and potency of individualism in American culture, family life, civic engagement, and policy decisions. We also provide

168

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

a snapshot of the ways individualism shapes how scholars and professionals approach research and practice. Each is discussed in the following.

Individualism and American Culture Individualism is interwoven into American culture in many ways. Individualism is reflected in the way Americans play, work, and live their lives. See a summary in Table 8.1. Individualism in the Way Americans Play

Individualism shapes the ways Americans spend their free time. One example popularized by Putnam’s (2000) book, Bowling Alone, is that Americans are spending less time bowling on teams. In the late 1970s, over 9 million Americans bowled in leagues, a number that has fallen to 2 million in 2019 and, since then, has continued to decrease about 5% each year (“Bowling Today,” 2021). In recent years, Americans have also spent more time eating alone. This reverses a universal human ritual of eating together, which is one important way that people have met the need for human connection. When people eat alone, it has been shown to have a negative impact on well-being, second only to having a mental health disorder (Fleming, 2019). According to recent estimates, Americans eat more than half of their meals alone. An exception to this trend occurred during the pandemic. During months of lockdowns and physical distancing, Americans spent more time dining together with their families. Time will tell whether this trend toward family dining will continue or whether Americans will revert back to eating alone (Hudson, 2020).

Table 8.1  How Individualism in Woven into American Lives Individualism Affects the Way Americans Play • Less time bowling on teams • More time eating alone Individualism Affects the Way Americans Live in Family • Americans enter into and exit from relationships more frequently than in other Western countries • Americans experience more partnership instability and multiple-partner fertility than other Western countries Individualism Affects the Way Americans Live Their Lives • Less time committed to charitable causes and less personal involvement on behalf of people in need • Less time spent in traditional religious communities and more time praying alone • Less time associating with coworkers in unions halls and professional societies

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

169

Individualism has also permeated another popular American pastime—watching movies and television dramas. In film, the hero is often the archetype of a rugged individualist. The cowboy, exemplified by the Lone Ranger, was a shrewd sharp­ shooter who saved the townspeople, but always ended up leaving the town and riding off alone into the sunset. Other vivid exemplars are the enigmatic superhero and hard-boiled detectives, who, like the cowboy, are loners. Superheroes like Batman and detectives like Kojak, MacGyver, Matlock, and Veronica Mars are smart and relentless in detecting corruption and bringing justice to bear for the good of an often corrupt society. What makes the superhero, the cowboy, and the detective rugged individualists is that they have special skills they can use to save society. Yet, to save society, they must remain outside it, devoid of family and community connections (Bellah et al., 1996). Individualism in the Way Americans Work

To illustrate how individualism is interwoven into work life in America, we need to go no further than the real-life, everyday experiences of our friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Each of the following examples is a true story, but names have been changed to protect people’s privacy. I received emails from two friends who had recently given birth—one in Austria and one in this country. In Austria, Marta received 16 weeks of paid maternity leave during her pregnancy and childbirth. During this time, she was forbidden to work and, if found doing so, could have been fined. Following maternity leave, she was eligible for an additional 18 months of paid parental leave. My American friend, Jeanette, returned to work following an 8-week unpaid leave. Immediately, she was placed on mandatory overtime, despite having two preschoolers at home and a husband who was working two jobs to make ends meet. In the United States, the needs of the employer trumped the needs of the employees, even during milestone moments of family life. Penny and Jerry had two teenage sons. Jerry was a top-level executive in a national manufacturing company in Wisconsin, and his wife was finishing a doctoral degree. Jerry was offered a lucrative promotion and transferred to Georgia. The two boys wanted to complete high school in their hometown, so the company paid for an apartment for Jerry in Georgia and flew him home every other weekend. Fast forward. Jerry had an affair with a woman in Georgia and the marriage of over 25 years ended in divorce. One of the boys had trouble adjusting. The executive’s responsibilities at work superseded his responsibilities at home. Nadine, a mother of four, was laid off from a job at a manufacturing company in a rural community where well-paying jobs with health insurance were scarce. When Nadine was called back to work 6 weeks later, she was placed on the night shift. She had to depart for work each day just 30 minutes after her children arrived home from school. When Nadine was hired, the boss promised she would never have to work the night shift. Yet when she raised this issue with him, he bluntly replied, “Do you want the job or not?”

170

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

The priority was the need of the employer for night-time workers, not the need of the employee to tuck her children into bed at night. As illustrated in these case studies, the employer’s primary focus is the individual worker, with the worker’s family being of secondary interest at best. The individualistic practices of employers span from their prerogative in whom they hire to the family supports provided after they are hired. Studies have examined hiring practices and uncovered a bias against workers whose family commitments might interfere with their work responsibilities. In a landmark study, researchers sent fictitious applications from women applying for jobs. The applications were similar in every respect with one exception—some of the women made reference to children and parent-teacher associations. The women who did not mention children or parenting were two times more likely to get an interview (Ogden, 2019). Employers have the prerogative to grant their employees the family/work benefit that they desire the most—workplace flexibility. The pandemic pushed employers to offer remote work options. Telework accounted for about 50% of paid work hours between April and December 2020, compared to 5% before the pandemic began (Monthly Labor Review, 2022). Yet 60% of employers rarely or never allow employees to work remotely, and even those with flexibility over where they work still face challenges in how they work and when they work (Zalis, 2021). Based on past performance, this individualistic focus of many workplaces cannot be overcome with policy alone. In a 2016 national study, one-fourth of employers were out of compliance with the leaves mandated in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (Matos et al., 2017). Individualism in the Way Americans Live Their Lives

The aforementioned case studies attest to the insidious ways that individualism impacts American family life through external forces. In addition, many contemporary examples exist of how individuals choose to prioritize their own interests over the interests of society (Bellah et al., 1996; Blankenhorn, 1990; Bumpass, 1990; Lesthaeghe, 1995). Two examples illustrate how individualistic choices permeate the lives of the old and the young alike. For the elderly, an estate planning industry has grown up that advises the elderly on how to divest themselves of resources, so they can pass on their inheritance to their own family and divert the costs of their long-term care to government­-financed programs; of course, when the government assumes responsibility, the costs are essentially passed along to all taxpayers, including those less likely to be able to afford them. At the other end of the life span, individualism can be found on college campuses. For example, college students believe those charged with a crime have the right to a trial by their peers. However, when asked to assume the responsibility of serving on a jury, they say, “find somebody else” (Braiker, 2003). In recent polls, only half of those aged 18–29

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

171

see serving on a jury as part of what it means to be a good citizen compared with twothirds of older adults (Gramlich, 2017). For both the young and the old, an organization, No Kidding, was born in 1984 and has 40 chapters worldwide (“No Kidding,” n.d.). No Kidding plans social events for those who choose to remain childless. Members refer to themselves and others (who they claim are enlightened enough not to have children) as THINKERs (two healthy incomes, no kids, early retirement). Couples with a stay-at-home parent are disparagingly referred to as SITCOMs (single income, two children, oppressive marriage). The printable names for children include ankle-biters, crib lizards, and sprogs. No Kidding is critical of policies that support children (e.g., child care, the child tax credit, health insurance for dependents, parental leave) because they are thought to cheat the childless, which make up about 10% of registered voters (Belkin, 2000). Because individualism is like the air we breathe, individual needs can be prioritized with little thought about what this means for families and the rest of society. Individualism is central to a book on family policy to create awareness of its pervasiveness and potency, and to point out how its corrosive effects can be countered by policies that support family and community commitments.

Individualism and Family Life Life in the United States is distinct in several ways from life in other Western societies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Western Europe. American citizens have a long history of negotiating the tension between our rights as individuals and our responsibilities to one another. Perhaps this tension is best illustrated by the iconic stories of Horatio Algers, the self-made man who rose from rags to riches, and the idyllic paintings of Norman Rockwell of collective barn raisings: Our individualism has always been bound by a set of communal values, the glue upon which every healthy society depends. We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies. We value community, the neighborliness that expresses itself through raising the barn or coaching the soccer team. We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation…but we cannot avoid these tensions entirely. At times our values collide because in the hands of men each one is subject to distortion and excess. Self-reliance and independence can transform into selfishness and license, ambition into greed and a frantic desire to succeed at any cost. (Obama, 2006, pp. 55–56)

These dual tensions have also made American family life distinct from family life in other Western societies. As observed by Cherlin (2009), Americans uphold a strong

172

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

commitment to both marriage and individualism. The majority of young people highly value marriage and expect to marry, a desire that has not changed over the past several decades (Sassler & Lichter, 2020; Smock & Schwartz, 2020). Americans eagerly make an earnest commitment to sharing their life with another person by entering into marriage vows that they hope will last a lifetime (Cherlin, 2009). Yet, at the same time, Americans highly value individualism and are quick to endorse the importance of self-expression, self-fulfillment, and personal growth. Similar tensions are found in other Western countries, but not nearly to the same extent as in the United States. Other countries seem to focus more on one cultural ideal than the other. For example, Italians are so committed to marriage that few partners live together before marrying, and few children are born outside of marriage. Other Western countries, like Sweden, are highly individualistic, with no more value placed on marriage than cohabitation. What sets Americans apart is that they hold these two seemingly contradictory ideals uppermost in their minds at the same time (Cherlin, 2009). These competing models may explain the flux of American family life—family relationships that are entered into and exited from much more frequently than in other Western countries. Families in the United States experience more partnership instability and more multiple-partner fertility. For example, a child living with two married parents in the United States has greater odds of experiencing a family breakup than a child living with two unmarried parents in Sweden. Moreover, in the United States, 10% of lowincome women had three or more husbands or cohabiting partners by age 35. In some countries, like Italy or Spain, such instability was almost nonexistent. This pattern was less than 2% in France or Canada, 3% in Germany, 4% in New Zealand, and 4.5% in Sweden (Cherlin, 2009). It is not uncommon for Americans to explain their family decisions using these twin cultural ideals of individualism and marriage (Cherlin, 2009). For example, the ideal of marriage would be used to explain a decision to marry a live-in girlfriend or boyfriend. If that relationship sours, the ideal of individualism could be used to justify the ending of a relationship because it no longer meets one’s personal needs or aligns with one’s life goals. When a second marriage looms on the horizon, one might revert back to using the marriage ideal to explain the decision. Cherlin contends that, without fully realizing it, people explain their family behaviors by switching back and forth between these two cultural ideals depending on which matters most right now. Does this revolving carousel of family relationships in the United States really matter? According to family scholars, we should be concerned about the flux in family relationships for a couple of reasons. First, instability matters for the people involved. When a relationship ends, it has been described as one of life’s most distressing transitions (Carr & Utz, 2020). It’s been likened to breaking a favorite water glass. Sometimes, the glass can be glued back together, but it is never quite as beautiful and durable as it was originally, and one never trusts it quite as completely

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

173

as before. Second, the impact of family instability on children and adolescents has been well-studied and has been found to actually cause declines in cognitive and socioemotional development (Lee & McLanahan, 2015; Smock & Schwartz, 2020; Walsh, 2016a).

Individualism and Civic Engagement Tocqueville is one of the most often cited observers of America’s civic traditions, which date back to his observations of the fledgling democracy in the 1830s. In his famous words, “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions constantly form associations” (Tocqueville, 1945, p. 239). This civic tradition was considered by Tocqueville to be a counterbalance to individualism. Also, civic institutions have reinforced the norm of marriage and strengthened family life by supplying Americans with a ready venue for moral guidance, financial support, and a family-friendly social network (Wilcox et al., 2015). The current state of America’s civic health is in decline as foretold by Putnam two decades ago (Hudson, 2020). However, there is one major exception. Voter turnout has not declined, contrary to Putnam’s predictions. Voter turnout hit a three-decade low of 48.9% in 1996, but rose to 66.8% in 2020, the highest of the 21st century (Fabina, 2021). Political participation has particular significance because it is through political engagement that citizens learn how to build other types of intellectual, moral, and religious associations. As discussed in the following, the story is not as rosy for charitable giving and activities, church membership and attendance, and union and work associations. Individualism in Charitable Giving and Activities

According to Putnam, one of the backbones of a nation’s civil society is its citizens’ contributions to charity. Putnam made an important distinction between two forms of charitable contributions: making a monetary donation at a distance or getting involved personally on behalf of people in need. Americans appear to be more generous than ever in terms of monetary giving, but there has been a decline in voluntary commitments of time for charitable causes. In the late 1990s, nearly half of Americans were involved in some form of volunteering, a proportion that has declined dramatically to 28.9% among Generation X, 25.7% among Baby Boomers, and 21.9% among Millennials (Hudson, 2020). Increasingly, charitable contributions have come to mean donating one’s money rather than one’s time. Individualism in Church Membership and Attendance

Americans also seem to be spending more time praying alone (Hudson, 2020), as membership in traditional religious communities is dwindling. Church membership

174

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

and attendance matter to civil society because they are two key drivers of charitable contributions in terms of money and time. In several faith traditions, particularly in the African-American community, church membership is central to the creation of civic engagement and social capital (Hudson, 2020). For the immigrant community, religious institutions are often the place where social ties are formed that foster civic participation (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Moreover, churches are one of the only places in U.S. society where low-income and working-class Americans, including lower income African Americans, have opportunities for leadership (Wilcox et al., 2015). One recent example of charitable contributions is the interfaith collaboration formed in New York City that includes respected faith leaders, who are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The collaboration has been working closely with government officials to address maternal mortality rates, prison reform, and food insecurity in and around New York City. This delegation has worked together to feed 100,000 people a year, with Latter-day Saints helping hand out food to 400 to 600 families each week (Walch, 2022). In general, religion is viewed more individualistically in the United States than in other countries. Globally, most religions are based on a body of believers who support and reinforce personal beliefs, but in the United States, religion is first seen as something individual prior to any affiliation with a religious body (Bellah et al., 1996). In many of the new religions, the emphasis is on a “solitary journey of the inward-seeking self” (Palmer, 1980, p. 72). This emphasis on self is exemplified in church lyrics. The word I was seldom found in the original German hymns that were imported to the New World, whereas it is frequently found in hymns originating in the United States (J. Strandjord, personal communication, June 24, 2022). With a more fine-grained analysis of the religious community, some denominations glorify the individual and the gospel of self-improvement. However, it is more typical for denominations to provide counter-cultural messages about the importance of humility and community. An emphasis on humility shatters the allusion of being a self-made person. Humble people know what they do not know, and recognize how much each person benefits from the contributions of other members of the community (Denker, 2022). Individualism in Unions and Work Associations

Historically, unions and work associations were places for developing social ties, but they have not recovered from the declines observed by Putnam two decades ago. Membership peaked in the 1950s when almost one-third of Americans were union members but dropped to 10.1% in 2022 (Andrews & Roque, 2023). This decline has been observed across all professional associations. Hudson (2020) suggests that the decline in social solidarity may reflect, in part, a rise in obligations to one’s own good rather than the common good.

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

175

Individualism and Policy Decisions A careful scrutiny of who American policymakers view as their constituents—those in their direct line of sight—reveals that they are disproportionately individuals, such as children, the elderly, veterans, women, and people with disabilities (Butterfield et al., 2010; Moen & Schorr, 1987). The families of these individuals are relegated to policymakers’ peripheral vision, if they come into view at all. Neither the federal government nor state governments have established a charter or declaration that sets forth their aims and principles regarding families. What happens instead is that policymakers pass piecemeal legislation that responds to specific individual needs but does not provide a comprehensive vision for families (Butterfield et al., 2010). To further complicate matters, not all policymakers think that individuals who are struggling with poverty or economic hardship should be treated the same. Two divergent lines of thinking are captured in the words of a policymaker at the beginning of this chapter. Some policymakers believe that individuals may need some support from the government to take a step up to the next rung of the socioeconomic ladder. Other policymakers believe that individuals should be expected to take personal responsibility for their lives. They question whether it is fair to those who make it on their own to support government policies for people who might be lazy or lack the diligence and discipline to overcome hardships (Kinder, 1998). According to political activists like Reverend William Barber, who co-chairs the Poor People’s Campaign, such beliefs can devolve into a moral narrative that “has blamed people for their poverty and has pitted people against each other” (Jarvie, 2018). Court rulings and laws enacted in federal, state, and local jurisdictions have (advertently and inadvertently) undermined or overlooked families. In the following, I review the role of individualism in (a) judicial rulings, (b) social safety net decisions, and (c) federal, state, and local policies. Individualism in Judicial Rulings

According to legal scholars, family law has been profoundly reshaped in the last half century by a marked infusion of constitutional law. The Supreme Court extended the Equal Protection Clause to family matters in decisions that allowed interracial individuals to marry, and ended the favoring of mothers over fathers in child custody suits (Meyer, 2008). Most recently, same-sex marriage was protected under the Equal Protection Clause in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Yet, the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause has been shaped by individualism, which is illustrated here with court decisions on racial desegregation. Race and racism have come to be viewed as deliberate acts of racist individuals or by institutions led or managed by them. This view was made law in the 1976 Washington v. Davis case, which required that the plaintiff must prove racist intent

176

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

in claims of racial discrimination. This is a high bar in a society where almost all sectors of society denounce racism and almost all individuals resist being called bigots: “The good American refuses to engage in conscious racially motivated behavior and refuses to see race or call it out” (Powell, 2012, p. 5). This race-blind approach has far-reaching implications, as exemplified by the 2007 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. The case involved school districts plans to assign students to schools in ways that would foster diversity and equality of opportunity. When schools took race into account in their plans, the court ruled this was an act of discrimination on the basis of race. Thus, noticing race was not an acceptable way of addressing inequities, which were believed to be real only if they were intentionally caused (Powell, 2012). Another relevant judicial trend is the privatization of family law (Meyer, 2008). In the last two decades, family law has been shifting from treating marriage and families like social institutions based on commitments to each other to considering them more like private individual contracts (Mason et al., 2004). For example, family policy scholar Marygold Melli notes that in several states, family has no legal status separate from its members; this means the substance of family law has become defining and enforcing the rights and obligations of individuals in certain types of relationships (Bogenschneider et al., 1993; Mason et al., 2004). As families have become less of a social institution in legal traditions, spouses and family members are treated no differently than other contracting individuals (Regan, 1996; Reich, 2018). Legal scholars have noted that litigation in the U.S. jurisprudence system (especially constitutional litigation) undercuts arguments based on family, community, or collective responsibilities (Melnick, 2005). Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned of the limitations of constitutional autonomy in family matters where “the rights of individuals are intertwined and the family itself has a collective personality” (as cited in Meyer, 2008, p. 566). Communitarians express alarm over these shifts that they believe threaten the family as a social institution built on mutual responsibility and commitment (Meyer, 2008).

Individualism in Social Safety Net Decisions

America has been said to be “drunk on the rhetoric of individualism” (“A Conversation with Richard Sennett,” 1981, p. 79). In today’s jargon, when Americans drink the Kool-Aid of individualism, questions arise about whether it is morally right to provide any type of government support that might replace individual effort (Murray, 2012). For example, the major welfare reforms of the 1990s were based, to a large extent, on person-level explanations for poverty rather than structural explanations, such as the labor market or public policy. Consequently, cash supports have been scaled down and eliminated in some cases. The cash supports that remained were designed with an eye to changing individual behaviors—promoting marriage, capping family size, requiring

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

177

work, and imposing an array of sanctions. This individualistic focus of policymaking has continued to this day, with the partial exception of the first two years of the pandemic (Gornick, Maldonado, & Sheely, 2022b). Taken together, skepticism about the proper role of public policy in private matters and Americans’ individualistic instincts make it difficult to enact policies and programs that support and strengthen families. In the United States, family policies are less extensive and intensive than in other industrialized countries (see Chapter 3). In policy speak, the United States has a smaller social safety net, which includes the policies and programs that the government provides for purposes such as child care, education, health care, and caregiving for those with disabilities. When government social safety nets are smaller, families are called on to be the failsafe. Compared to countries with a larger social safety net, families in the United States support society in a number of ways to “mind the gap” in government support. For example, the U.S. education system relies more on parents to ensure that children are ready for school. With privatized health care, hospitals send patients home before they have fully recuperated, assuming that family members will take up the slack. With a declining union presence, employers have come to expect that family members will contribute to employee productivity in several ways, such as tolerating long work hours, relieving the employee of routine family obligations, and taking over during special events such as the birth, adoption, or illness of a family member (Giele, 1996). When a person is diagnosed with a disability, it is families that provide the extensive care and support that the government might otherwise have to assume at considerable public expense (Duncan & Magnuson, 2002). When government social safety nets are smaller and less certain, families step up to serve more prominent roles as educators, health care providers, personnel managers, and social workers for their members. However, in contemporary American society, the uncertainty and instability of family ties threaten the certainty and stability of the safety net that families provide (Seltzer, 2019).

Individualism in Federal Policies

Oftentimes, no policies exist that recognize the extraordinary value to society of the ordinary responsibilities that families perform for their members. For example, when there is no government assistance, many family members themselves provide long­ term care to the chronically ill, the frail, and those with disabilities. The service these caregivers repeatedly say they need most is respite care to provide time away from the long hours and unrelenting demands of caregiving. Medicare provides limited coverage for respite care, which is available only when the patient is eligible for hospice services during the last six months of life (“Respite Care,” n.d.). Many policies that do exist have a mixed record of supporting families. In some ways, Social Security recognizes a family’s responsibilities to care for each other by providing benefits to widows, divorced spouses, and surviving children under age 18 (who receive

178

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

more benefits through Social Security than through welfare programs). In other ways, Social Security fails to acknowledge family caregiving responsibilities. For example, unemployed mothers who provide full-time care for their children are not eligible to accrue benefits from Social Security; however, if nannies are hired to provide care for children, they do qualify. The same is true for disability insurance; nannies can purchase disability coverage, but mothers cannot. Individualism in State Policies

Policies such as marriage and child welfare are historically relegated to the states under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Anderson, 1995). Thus, many family policies, such as child welfare, marriage, divorce, and property distribution, are decided on a state-by-state basis. What’s more, landmark devolution legislation in the 1990s transferred federal authority to the states on a range of other issues, including children’s health insurance, family preservation, and K-12 education (Tubbesing, 1998). The decisions made in state capitols privilege some types of family structures over others, often in ways that policymakers may not have intended. For example, marriage penalties (a reduction or elimination of benefits if an individual is married) have largely been eliminated for most upper income families (Wilcox et al., 2019). However, penalties for marrying one’s partner will always exist for the poor, as long as the U.S. tax system is progressive and as long as benefits like food stamps, housing, Medicaid, and welfare are income-tested (LaJoie, 2020). Depending on the state, if a pregnant woman who earns $21,000 per year marries the father of her child, who makes $29,000 per year (with no health care through his workplace), the couple’s combined income makes them ineligible for Medicaid/CHIP coverage. This marriage penalty for or the birth of the baby would amount to about $12,000; moreover, after the birth, the mother would lose Medicaid coverage and also receive reductions in tax benefits through the Earned Income Tax Credit and food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Wilcox et al., 2019). One of the most effective antipoverty policies is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Under current law, if a low income working couple with a combined income of $25,000 decides to marry, they will suffer an estimated financial loss of $1,502 in annual EITC benefits (Congressional Research Service, 2022). In one Midwestern state, the program eligibility rules for a senior prescription drug program were written in such a way that benefits depended upon marital status; if a senior couple married and combined their incomes, they were less apt to be eligible for benefits than if they were unmarried but living together (Normandin & Bogenschneider, 2005). Individualism in Local Policies

Many policies enacted at local levels of government—in towns, villages, cities, and counties—focus more on individuals and less on the families in which these

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

179

individuals reside. One example occurred in a mid-sized city in Wisconsin. The city passed an ordinance regulating the residence of a sex offender. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections tried to place a 17-year-old sex offender who had completed his disposition back with his own family. The juvenile’s family had lived in the city for 18 months, but the ordinance required 24 months of residence. The upshot? The juvenile’s family had to move, or the juvenile had to be placed with a foster family. Developing family-sensitive policies and programs is necessary but not sufficient. Steps must also be taken to ensure that agency administrators and front-line staff members develop operational practices and procedures that carry out the intent of the legislation. A number of our nation’s cities provide emergency services such as food and shelter to vulnerable populations, many of whom are families with children. The federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Program requires that “families should be housed together, without regard to the sex of the children” (Federal Register, 2016). Yet organizations that provide access to domestic violence programs across the country report that some programs only take male children under a certain age, with a typical cutoff of 12 years of age or younger. This means that families sometimes have to break up to receive services (DomesticShelters.org, 2016). A former homeless person explained that policies that separate families are one of the main reasons families do not use a homeless shelter even when they need one (Shay, 2022). In sum, individualism has shaped the way citizens think, behave, and live their lives. Knowing the ways that individualism affects family functioning and family policy— for good or ill—provides a solid foundation for professionals who study and practice family policy. But has individualism also reached into the study of families and family policy? This is the topic we turn to next.

Individualism and the Study of Families and Family Policy How can it be that individualism has shaped the study of families? Perhaps individualism gained a foothold because it takes two or more individuals to form a family. Yet, according to researcher Froma Walsh (2016b), families are so much more than a simple typology of the individual traits of its members. According to family policy pioneer Theodora Ooms: “Families are not easy units of analysis; they are complex, dynamic, messy, ever-changing systems” (2006, p. xi). The strength and resources of individual members come together through complex processes within the family that extend beyond the boundaries of the family unit in dynamic transactions with their environment. To complicate matters further, Walsh (2016b) explains that these core processes are expressed in varied ways across families and are related to cultural norms and family

180

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

preferences. Moreover, a family’s core processes may evolve as they become “more (or less) relevant and useful in different situations of adversity and evolving challenges over time” (p. 320). The potency of individualism has weakened the quantity and quality of research about the complex, messy family system, including (a) what data are collected, (b) which measures are used, (c) who is targeted, (d) how are data analyzed, and (e) in what ways are studies theoretically conceptualized and discussed. Each is reviewed, in turn, in the following. What Data Are Collected?

Family science has had a hard time keeping up with the changing landscape of families. The changes in family life have been so profound that they have changed demography itself. A new field of family demography has emerged to address some of the challenges that arise in the study of family relationships in all their diversity. For example, no data on same-sex couples were collected until 1990, when, for the first time, the U.S. Census took the step of differentiating same-sex couples from same-sex roommates. Since then, the Census and other federal surveys have collected data on same-sex couples who live together and whether they have children. It wasn’t until 2005 that census data distinguished whether cohabiting same-sex couples were married (Seltzer, 2019). In addition, the U.S. Census has struggled with what race means to individuals and families. The Black race is typically treated as a uniform, undifferentiated category that obscures distinct ethnic subgroups such as Black with origins in the Caribbean or in Africa (Chatters et al., 2022). A major step forward in measuring race occurred in 2000; for the first time, individuals were permitted to identify as belonging to more than one race. Prior to this change, the measurement of family variables, such as interracial marriage, were likely distorted (Burton et al., 2010). Our understanding of race and ethnicity and their embeddedness in society has been limited, given that they are often unmeasured or measured in isolation from other influences on individual development, such as poverty. For example, Head Start prides itself on its efforts to advance equity among its participants which, since its inception in 1965, have been more than a million children and families from under-resourced communities. A recent analysis revealed that equity might be better centered in programming if data regarding equity were routinely collected and reported in Head Start’s program information system. For example, no data is provided on the race or ethnicity of some participants in its programs, such as dual-language children with disabilities. Similarly, the services provided to pregnant women, foster parents, and homeless families are not broken down by race, ethnicity, or the language spoken, making it hard to determine whether demographic variations exist in the access to or quality of services (Soto-Boykin et al., 2022).

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

181

Which Measures Are Used?

Family science, in general, and family policy, in particular, would benefit from measures that focus less on individuals and more on families. Scientists are skilled at measuring individual phenomena with clear beginnings, endings, and boundaries. Unfortunately, family life rarely has these nice properties (Cherlin, 2010). For example, divorce is not a discrete event that just happens one day but rather a gradual process that begins when couples are still married and extends for years after the legal relationship ends (Amato, 2010). Similarly, cohabiting relationships may not always have a clear beginning, and there may not be a single understanding of whether a new cohabitant is part of the family. Even individual characteristics like sexuality that were once thought to be a discrete category of either heterosexual or homosexual have been found to be more fluid, taking diverse forms that are harder to measure (Diamond et al., 2020). Collecting data on some aspects of family life seems to be a low priority. For example, few studies have examined interpersonal behaviors that are commonplace in family relationships like generosity (going beyond common obligations) and sacrifice (giving up what is personally advantageous to support a marital or family relationship; Dew & Wilcox, 2012). Even when family variables are included, measurement often varies from survey to survey. Using cohabitation as an illustration, some studies use questions about whether respondents are “not married but living with a person of the opposite sex.” Some ask whether they are living in a “marriage-like relationship,” and others inquire about “how often a residence is shared.” Estimates of cohabitation vary, which appear to result more from differences in measurement than from differences in family behavior (Manning et al., 2017). For family measures, one common limitation is collecting data on individual characteristics rather than family properties. Take, for instance, the standard approach of asking one individual in the family to describe the properties of the whole family system. Historically, women’s voices have been used as a stand-in for the family perspective, which researchers have referred to as “wife’s sociology” (Allen & Henderson, 2022, p. 365). Presumably, each member of the family may view relationships in markedly different ways depending on their development and stage of life (Cherlin, 2010). For example, adolescents, who are striving to become autonomous from parents, have an incentive to understate emotional closeness to parents; conversely, parents have a stake in inflating emotional closeness with their offspring and in portraying their parenting practices with their protégé in a positive light (Bogenschneider & Pallock, 2008). Different generations also view family life with a different eye. Adult children report giving their parents more emotional, social, and instrumental support than their older parents report receiving, and older parents report giving more practical support and less advice than adult children report receiving (Carr & Utz, 2020).

182

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Who Is Targeted?

Researchers have focused more on some individuals in a family than others. One family member who is often absent from research is the father. Not until the 1970s and 1980s did studies focus on fathers’ contributions to their children. To this day, evaluations of fatherhood interventions are rare. In a worldwide search of studies published between 1990 and 2011, only 150 studies of responsible fatherhood programs were found; of these, only 15 used rigorous research methods (Cowan & Cowan, 2019b). Surprisingly, another notable absence in family policy research is the effect of policies and programs on children (Allen & Henderson, 2022). In a review of interventions designed to improve parenting, coparenting, or partner relationships, not one program assessed effects on children (Cowan & Cowan, 2019b). For years, family size has been quite an individualistic notion; it was a straightforward calculation of the number of children born to one woman. Today, family demographers are increasingly considering the child in the context of the family and all the families they are part of. For example, how many different parents are connected to the child, such as biological parents, stepparents, cohabiting parents, and grandparents? How many generations of parents are alive at the same time? How many peers does the child have, such as siblings, stepsiblings, and the nonrelated children of cohabiting parents who live with them or in other residences? (Seltzer, 2019). How Are Data Analyzed?

Moving analysis beyond the individual to the whole family system is a daunting task, even for the experienced researcher. For example, in a three-person family, there are six relationships (i.e., mother to father, mother to child, father to mother, father to child, child to mother, and child to father). In a two-parent family with two children, the number of relationships escalates to 12, with substantially more if a divorce is followed by remarriage. Considering all these relationships within a family system is fundamental to fully understanding the dynamics of family relationships and how they change over time (Papp, 2004). Studying relationships in families entails an added level of complexity because it moves beyond studying individuals to studying the interconnectedness of individuals, such as how the characteristics and experiences of one family member may influence the development of another. Because family members are not independent of each other, traditional statistical methods that assume independence among the observations, such as regression and analysis of variance (ANOVA), are not appropriate. To understand the reciprocal nature of family relationships requires analytic methods such as structural equation modeling, repeated measures ANOVA, intraclass correlations, and multi-level modeling (Maguire, 1999; Papp, 2004). For example, multi-level process models help researchers disentangle the interconnections

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

183

of family members by simultaneously estimating how the developmental trajectories of family members may be both independent and interdependent.

In What Ways Are Studies Theoretically Conceptualized and Discussed?

It has been said that nothing is as practical as a good theory. But does this maxim apply to policymakers when they are making decisions about family policy? Policymakers may not be able to name an explicit theory that influences their thinking, but they often have implicit theoretical assumptions about how a policy is expected to work. For policymakers who are interested in alleviating the negative child outcomes that sometimes occur in low-income families, they probably have in mind some theoretical mechanisms about how family income affects child development. For example, if the lack of income is thought to directly jeopardize child outcomes, then the appropriate policy response is monetary subsidies to provide more income to families with children. However, if income is considered a marker of something else, such as parents’ enhanced feelings of competence or the role modeling that parents provide to their children when they earn income, then earned income is more important to child well-being than monetary subsidies. Consequently, the appropriate policy response would be to provide training and work supports so people can develop the skills and work habits they need to succeed in the labor market. If lack of income is perceived as producing stress or depression in parents, and if these negative emotions interfere with competent parenting, then the best response may be evidence-based interventions to help parents cope with stress and deal with depression (Sawhill, 1992). Individualistic theories shape public policies in fields other than family policy that would also benefit from a family approach. One prime example is the absence of any theoretical framework for a family-based approach to taxation (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2016). The U.S. tax system includes policies designed to affect families, such as child care tax credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and joint filing of income tax returns. Yet the justification for taxation is premised on the economic theory of the individual taxpayer, who is considered the basic taxable unit. Family factors come into play only as they benefit the individual taxpayer. As an alternative, a family-based approach to taxation would be premised on the social obligation of the individual to society and how public policy can help society achieve its larger economic and social goals. A family approach would encourage policymakers to ask questions that an economic theory might overlook or ignore. For example, is the U.S. tax system doing any harm to families or society? Does the U.S. tax system have a disproportionate effect on low-income filers when estimates factor in federal and state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, and all the other taxes families pay? Are regressive tax policies hurting low-income families and contributing to economic inequality? Are there more effective and efficient

184

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

ways to design tax policy for the benefit of families and the good of society (see Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2016)?

Summary The United States may be the most individualistic country in human history (Yankelovich, 1995). Individualism has brought many benefits to a capitalistic country that celebrates personal initiative and responsibility. But what differences does individualism make for families, for family policy, and for democracy? • Individualism can be detrimental to democracy if everyone is considered a self-made person with control over one’s own destiny, and with nothing expected from or owed to others. • Individualism shapes how Americans work, play, and pray. Individualism has influenced the steady decline of American participation in unions, work associations, and religious organizations. Courts have come to see families more like private contractual arrangements and less as a social institution based on members’ love and commitment to each other. Public policies are often targeted at the needs of individuals without paying much attention to the needs of the families in which individuals reside. • In individualistic societies concerned about whether public support could replace private effort, government social safety nets are smaller. Families fill the gap by serving more prominent roles as educators, health care providers, personnel managers, and social workers for their members. • Americans uphold a strong commitment to both marriage and individualism, which makes family life in the United States distinct from other Western societies. For example, the ideal of marriage would be used to explain a decision to marry a live-in girlfriend or boyfriend. If that relationship sours, the ideal of individualism could be used to justify the ending of a relationship because it no longer meets one’s personal needs or aligns with one’s life goals. Without fully realizing it, people explain their family behaviors by switching back and forth between these two cultural ideals depending on which matters most right now. • Families serve as a counterbalance to unbridled individualism. Families are the first institution to teach what Tocqueville termed “habits of the heart,” such as commitment to others, empathy, and morality. And it is families, the only social sphere that encompasses multiple generations, that pass these moral lessons down from one generation to the next. • The potency of individualism has weakened the quantity and quality of research about complex, messy family systems and the policies that support them.

This chapter argues for moving family consideration from the margins to the mainstream of research, policy, and practice. This does not mean that families should always be the unit of analysis, nor should they be the only unit of analysis. Child data or data on other individuals in families are often needed to document social problems in ways that capture

H O W I N D I V I D U A L I S M I S W O V E N I N T O O U R FA M I L I E S 

185

the attention of policymakers, the press, and the public. However, policy responses to social problems might be more effective and efficient if families were involved in the solutions. Individualism is so ingrained in American thought and experience that it often goes unnoticed. Families operate in an individualistic culture in the context of a strong market economy. The pervasiveness and potency of the market economy for American families is the topic we turn to in the next chapter.

9

187

CHAPTER 9 HOW THE ECONOMY INFLUENCES FAMILIES AND HOW FAMILIES INFLUENCE THE ECONOMY

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Everybody has their area that they are interested in, and we only have so much money …. If we would just address the problem on the front end, we’d save a lot of money. But it seems like, in some of these cases, it’s seen as a political football. And in others, it’s seen as some moral failing of people. Some policymakers don’t think we could save ourselves money if we would address these things at the front end. (Democratic legislator)

• Is the market economy a force for good or ill for families? • Does the market economy work equally well for all families? • What contributions do families make to the market economy, and how efficiently do they do so? • In what ways does the market economy influence the design and delivery of family policy? • Does the market economy pose a peril to family policy?

Families do not operate in a bubble. Families are shaped by the economic, cultural, and political environments in which they operate. The last chapter zeroed in on one powerful cultural force in U.S. society—individualism—and the next chapter focuses on a powerful political force—polarization. This chapter considers another powerful force in which families are embedded in the United States—a strong market economy. This chapter considers the interdependence of family and the market economy, beginning with whether the economy is a force for good or ill for families and whether the economy exerts the same influence across all families. Then, the chapter considers the bidirectional influence of families and the economy. On the one hand, families contribute to the economy by effectively and efficiently generating the productive workers that a knowledge-based economy needs (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2016; Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). On the other hand, the economy infiltrates family life in ways such as shaping whether and when individuals enter into family relationships and by replacing some of the functions that have made families a cornerstone of American society. Finally, the chapter considers how the market economy influences the design and delivery of family policy and what perils it can pose. DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-12

188

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Is the Market Economy a Force for Good or Ill for Families? Experts disagree about whether the influence of the market economy on family life is praiseworthy or blameworthy. Economist Arthur Brooks (2019), former president of the American Enterprise Institute, praises free markets for creating more wealth than any economic system in the history of the world. Since 1970, the free-market system can be credited with lifting two billion individuals out of extreme poverty. One reason that free markets produce wealth is that excellent ideas come from competing ideas. Ideas drives innovation, which leads to higher quality products, and competition fuels demand, which leads to lower consumer prices. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild criticizes capitalism, the engine of the U.S. free-market economy, calling it an insidious threat to the formation and functioning of families: “Capitalism is the most important economic force in the world today, and it affects whatever it touches” (2003, p. 9). As an illustration, Americans cherished for three generations living in small towns with extended family nearby. However, when those small towns could no longer offer upwardly mobile jobs, Americans left their families and communities behind to seek out new economic opportunities. So, economic pressures forced families to become more mobile, and without the ready support of kith and kin, families became smaller (Palmer, 1980). The threat of capitalism is more insidious in a culture of individualism. Individualism is both a cause and a consequence of a strong market economy (Bellah, 1990). Individualism is a cause of innovation that is central to a competition-based economic system. Yet the transition from an agrarian to a job-based economy also accelerates individualism. When jobs moved from rural to urban areas, lifestyle decisions were, by necessity, governed more by individualistic preferences and less by family traditions enforced by elders (Furstenberg, 2019). So, economic pressures reached inside families to shape more individualistic decision-making. Moreover, changes in the economy shaped the way Americans think about changes in family structures and functions. As family traditions lost their cultural grip, individuals became more open to new ways of thinking and new forms of behavior that they encountered in the urban labor market and in the schooling required in a job-based economy. For example, family behaviors, such as maternal employment, and family structures, such as cohabitation and single parenthood, that were once unthinkable became socially acceptable (Furstenberg, 2019). Some market-based forces were no doubt a force for good that strengthened families and society. Yet some were also a force for ill that weakened families and society, as we discuss more fully in this chapter. I begin here by exploring whether the market economy exerts a uniform influence across families or whether it works better for some families than for others.

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

189

Does the Market Economy Work Equally Well for All Families? For almost three decades after World War II, the United States enjoyed strong economic growth, real wages that almost doubled, and diminishing income inequality. Between 1959 and 1972, poverty dropped by almost half among the poorest fifth of Americans (Berlin, 2008). Since the 1970s, the economic story has changed. Income inequality has grown among U.S. families. It is important not to gloss over the family element of this inequality. Inequalities originate in families and are perpetuated across families (Allen & Henderson, 2022). It is also important not to gloss over the racial elements of this inequality. Families of color, in particular, have experienced significant economic disadvantage. One way that racial inequality is reproduced in society is through family wealth that is passed down from one generation to the next (Allen & Henderson, 2022). Substantial racial gaps exist in income and wealth, with the typical White family having five times more wealth than the typical Hispanic family and eight times more wealth than the typical Black family (Bhutta et al., 2020). One concern going forward is that the United States spends less on children and families than other advanced nations; less social spending is known to be associated with inequality (OECD, 2015). Another concern is that inequality in the United States is twice as high in families raising children (Cooper & Pugh, 2020). Because the biggest economic divide runs through families with children, this may contribute to growing income inequality within and across generations (Berger & Carlson, 2020). As incomes become more unequal, questions arise about whether families in every social class will be able to continue producing the competent workers that are essential to knowledgebased market economies in this country and abroad (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). The Potential of the Market Economy to Bring the Disenfranchised Into U.S. Society

Arthur Brooks (2019) is a proponent of free markets but acknowledges that they fail to work for everyone, particularly low-income people who are precariously positioned on the periphery of society. He rejects the claim of some economists that this market failure would disappear if markets were left alone to work their magic (Kinder, 1998). The potential of the market to bring the disenfranchised into society happens only when it operates in tandem with a sense of morality that the poor are our “brothers and sisters.” Policies could be deliberately designed to provide our low-income “brothers and sisters” with pathways into the market and into mainstream society. Brooks illustrates his line of thinking with one disenfranchised group that is experiencing a crisis in dignity—working-class men. These men have struggled to gain a foothold in the economy. More than 1 in 10 (11.5%) have withdrawn from the labor force and other social institutions as well. Compared to men with full-time employment, men

190

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

without work are less likely to care for family members, volunteer in the community, or participate in religious activities. They have lost a sense of dignity that their life has value for others. Dignity comes to the disenfranchised when they have opportunities to work, so they feel needed in the economy, in their community, and in their families. For instance, when workers are able to contribute to the needs of their family members, this sense of being needed can bring purpose, meaning, and happiness to life (Brooks, 2019). To engage the disenfranchised, critics contend that policies that provide job opportunities in the local economy are necessary but not sufficient. Equalizing opportunities would also entail overcoming two primary barriers. Public policy would need to address the barrier of families living in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty and with little contact with those more economically advantaged. Public policy would also need to ensure more equitable funding of schools, so they can provide the academic and social skills that fully prepare students for well-paying jobs. And the list goes on of barriers that public policy could address. The Benefits of U.S. Public Policies to the Upper Middle Class

Instead of targeting barriers in the working and middle classes, public policies often benefit the upper middle class. One example is the large amount of money that goes to agriculture subsidies that primarily benefit larger, not smaller, family farms (Cabrera et al., 2022). Another example is the major overhaul of the tax code that occurred in 2017 with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The provisions targeted tax cuts for higher income households. When all the tax provisions were taken into account, those in the bottom quintile were estimated to receive a $60 tax cut in 2018, with those in the middle quintile receiving a $930 tax cut; filers in the top quintile received the largest estimated tax cut of $7,640 (Berger & Carlson, 2020). A tax expert recently calculated the effective tax rate of the lowest- and highest-income workers when all taxes are taken into account (B. Bogenschneider, 2020). These calculations included all federal and state taxes, such as the threshold on Social Security taxes for the wealthy, wage taxes, property taxes (often included in high rents), sales taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, and fees for mandatory government services. Workers in the bottom fifth of the income distribution pay effective tax rates of 27%, compared to 9% for those in the top fifth of earners. Policies may favor the wealthy because they exert more influence over policy and politics than the less advantaged. The top quintile is comprised of 20% of all Americans, but they represent 30% of voters. Wealthier Americans make more campaign contributions and live in communities that insulate them from the middle and lower classes. This geographic isolation impedes empathy for the poor and for the policies that might provide opportunities for them. The wealthy are increasingly becoming more liberal on social issues but less so on economic issues that affect the poor and needy (Edsall, 2016). Public policy is positioned to address the challenge of addressing inequalities across families (Jackson & Schneider, 2022; Nieuwenhuis, 2020). Families are an important

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

191

economic unit because they are the only one that produces human capital (Longman, 2004). Initiatives to grow the economy would be well served by factoring family considerations into the debate and taking into account whether families have the resources and supports to effectively carry out their functions.

Contributions of Families to the Market Economy Families are the powerful and unique engine of a vital market economy. As aptly put by Boushey (2016), “What happens inside families is just as important to making the economy hum along as what happens inside firms” (p. 20). Families Make Effective Contributions to the Formation of Human Capitol

The contributions that families make to the economy date back to the origins of Western civilization. Today’s knowledge-based economies depend more than ever on human capital and, in particular, the education and social skills of their labor force. According to a Nobel Prize recipient, productive workers need both cognitive and noncognitive skills, which are shaped to a large extent by socialization that occurs early in family life and in preschool programs (Heckman, 2006). In knowledge-based economies, family contributions can be even more substantial because of the time that children remain economically dependent on their parents. It can take 30–35 years to develop the panoply of technical abilities, credentials, social competencies, and personal maturity required by technically advanced jobs. Take, for instance, what it takes to become a successful physician (Longman, 2004, p. 136): Doctors … must first be born. Doctors must also, for many years, be swaddled, fed, and comforted … Prodigious human effort is further required to teach them to read their first sentence and to add their first sums. Indeed, teaching them to read almost always requires far more adult effort and pedagogical savvy than teaching them biochemistry, the latter of which is usually performed in large lecture halls by teaching assistants and junior faculty members. Moreover, because doctors must be trusted with highly technical life-and-death decisions, they had also better acquire a strong sense of morality, a balanced personality, sober habits of living, and discipline—all of which will most likely require vast commitments of time and money by parents and other nurturing adults.

Scientific evidence for the family foundation of the formation of human capital has come from many sources (Reynolds & Temple, 2005). For example, in a rigorous 30-year longitudinal study, researchers followed 180 low-income, primarily European American children from the last trimester of pregnancy through adulthood; about 61% of the mothers were unmarried when the child was born, and about half were teenagers. Based on some of the earliest influences in a child’s life, the researchers were able to predict educational attainment in young adulthood. By the time the child entered school, a combined measure of early care and the quality of the home environment correlated at 0.35 with educational attainment at age 23. In statistical terms, this correlation is

192

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

considered moderate. In practical terms, however, it seems substantial given that it persists across a couple of decades of a child’s life (Sroufe et al., 2005). Debate over economic policy can be short-sighted if it ignores family influences on human development and fails to connect the dots between family contributions and all the other contributors to human capital. As aptly put by Folbre (2008), “If parents don’t create and nurture children, schools can’t educate them, employers can’t hire them, and governments can’t tax them” (p. 179). Even worse than not connecting the dots, according to a legislator in our study, is that “some people don’t even see the dots.” Overlooking family contributions can undermine the effectiveness of economic policy: Empirical data indicate that when economic policy is either indifferent to the family structure or undermines it, the consequences for the economy of a country are disastrous and economic growth can become unsustainable. Policy shapes behavior; thus, it behooves policymakers at all levels to design policies that foster and support healthy families, both directly and indirectly. (Aguirre, 2006, p. 437)

Policies could reward the essential contributions that families make to society by producing the human capital that drives economic growth in knowledge-based economies. This would be in keeping with a long tradition of U.S. policies that reward contributions to the public good. For instance, in historical analyses across the past century, policies in the United States rewarded public contributions, such as bearing children and serving in the military in times of war (Skocpol, 1997). Families Make Efficient Contributions to Society

In a market economy, it is not enough to drive economic growth. It also depends on how efficient the driver is. Policymakers are interested in how efficiently families can perform functions that benefit society and how costly it is if they fail (Kalambokidis & Bipes, 2008). Of utmost interest to policymakers is economic data that convert family contributions into dollars and cents or that compare families to other contributors to human capital. Economists have compared the value of family contributions to government contributions. For example, Folbre (2008) estimated the value of the cash support for childrearing provided by the federal government in 2000 to be $920–$2,200 per year per child under age 18. (This estimate included tax subsidies or transfers, social insurance for death and disability, and means-tested benefits for low-income families, but excluded tax subsidies for child care and college.) Taken together, government cash subsidies represented a small portion of childrearing costs. Government subsidies represented only 10% to 25% of a middle-income parent’s annual cash expenditures on a child under age 18, and only 4% to 10% when both a parent’s cash and time expenditures were included in the calculation. Stated another way, taxpayers received a return of $10.50 to $25 in private contributions from parents for every public dollar allocated to a child in a two-parent, middle-income family. For a child in a single-parent, low-income family, taxpayers receive a return of $8.00 to $18.50 for every dollar the government spends.

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

193

This example and many other cost-benefit analyses suggest that the government cannot afford to fully replace the functions that families perform for the benefit of their members and the good of society. Economically, it makes sense for the government to support an institution that performs its functions as efficiently as families do.

Influences of the Market Economy on Families The influence of the market economy is so ubiquitous that it blinds us to the ways it infiltrates nonmarket life. Market forces accentuate individualistic actions that yield a profit and attenuate family contributions that cannot easily be assigned a price tag (Hochschild, 2003). The market economy also encroaches on family life by interfering with the formation of families, replacing family functions, and imposing an economic price on the priceless value of families. Each is considered, in turn, below. How the Market Economy Interferes With Family Formation

Marriage in contemporary society is an economic act. Beginning in the 2000s and continuing to this day, family demographers have observed two distinct patterns of family formation; some families are becoming more stable and prosperous, while others are becoming less so (Cherlin, 2010, 2020b; McLanahan, 2004; Murray, 2012). Today’s trends align with what sociologist Sara McLanahan famously called in 2004 “diverging destinies” (McLanahan, 2004), which was popularized as “family haves and family have nots” (DeParle, 2012). Americans who finish college are more likely to marry, stay married, land good-paying jobs, and delay childbearing. Less-educated Americans are struggling to make ends meet, marrying less, bearing children out of wedlock, and, when they do marry, divorcing more often. Historically, these shifts in family structure are relatively new compared to a half-century ago, when most Americans, rich and poor, lived in two-parent families (Cherlin, 2009). Social scientists disagree about what is causing these demographic shifts toward less marriage and more alternative family forms. Some attribute it to cultural shifts and others attribute it to changing economic conditions. One prominent proponent of the cultural explanation is Charles Murray (2012). Murray argues that the weakening of family ties is brought about by government overreach. When families experience problems and government step in, family members can more easily step away. For example, when a father knows that the government will provide for his children if he cannot, it makes it easier to sidestep one’s personal responsibility. A competing explanation for the rise in alternative family forms is changing conditions in the labor market. Steady work and decent wages are increasingly out-of-reach for those with less education. Less-educated Americans with lower incomes earnestly want to marry, but they appear to be in a holding pattern. Everything appears to be in place except for one major prerequisite—money (Cherlin, 2009, 2020b; Smock & Schwartz, 2020). When money is in short supply, Americans are less apt to marry (Cherlin, 2020b).

194

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Economists are uncertain why men and families are earning and acquiring less, but what is certain is this: We know from rigorous experiments that boosting young men’s economic prospects eased their transition into family roles by increasing the likelihood that they would get married and live with their children (Kemple & Willner, 2008). How the Market Economy Replaces Family Functions

To learn more about how Americans experience their work and family lives, researcher Arlie Hochschild interviewed employees at a Fortune 500 company. When she started her study, she fully expected to find that for most people, family was a “haven in a heartless world”: I imagined that they experienced home as a place where they could relax, feel emotionally sheltered and appreciated for who they “really are.” I imagined home to feel to the weary worker like the place where he or she could take off a uniform, put on a bathrobe, have a beer, exhale—a picture summed up in the image of the worker coming in the door saying, “Hi, honey, I’m home” … Given this, they would want to maximize time at home. I also assumed that these working parents, especially those who were low-paid factory or service workers, would not feel particularly relaxed, safe, or appreciated at work, at least no more so than at home. (2003, p. 205)

Hochschild knew what workers in most previous studies had said about work and family: “Work is what they do. Family is why they live” (2003, p. 205). She assumed that she was well aware of the best intentions and deepest wishes of workers. For Hochschild, the results of her study were unexpected and disturbing—a cultural reversal of the meaning of work and home (Hochschild, 1997, 2003). When parents arrived home, they were immediately deluged with attending to the demands of children, listening to the details of their partner’s day, responding to the pressing need to put dinner on the table, and planning for the looming challenge of ensuring that everyone is fed and clothed. It’s no wonder that this arrival at home has been called the “arsenic hour.” In contrast, when parents arrived at work, the morning began with a steaming cup of hot coffee and a couple of moments for a relaxed chat. Hochschild’s book is chockfull of employee stories of their day-to-day experiences at work and at home that told of being affirmed at work and unappreciated at home. She connected her findings to the changes that are occurring in family structure in contemporary America: In fact, a good number of workers I interviewed had worked for the company for 20 years or more, whereas they were on their second or third marriages. To these … work was their rock, their major source of security. They were getting their pink slips at home. (2003, p. 206)

The findings of Hochschild’s qualitative interviews have been confirmed in quantitative research. In one study of over 1,400 middle- and upper middle-class parents in their early thirties, a full 85% reported that home often feels like work, and 58% reported that work often feels like home. In another nationwide study, when employees were

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

195

asked about their performance in each setting, 86% said their performance was good or unusually good on the job, but only 59% gave these same ratings to their performance in their family. Today, Americans find themselves caught between the intersecting cultures of work and family during a time of transition (Hochschild, 2003). The workplace is becoming more ritualized (more get-togethers, award ceremonies, and office parties), and the family is becoming less ritualized (fewer picnics, church socials, and family gatherings). How Families Outsource Their Functions to the Marketplace

One of the greatest shifts in American culture in our time may also be one of the most unnoticed. As time-crunched American families have less time for the gatherings with relatives and friends that they had known growing up, they are turning to the private marketplace to buy even the most intimate functions of family life (see Table 9.1; Browning & Rodriguez, 2002; Hochschild, 2012). A century ago, most of the family’s food budget was spent on meals prepared at home, compared to only half today. The clothes we wear, our hair care, and vehicle repair all used to be performed at home but are now primarily purchased outside the home. In her books, Hochschild (2003, 2012) details other less obvious examples of services that used to be in the exclusive purview of the home that are beginning to be outsourced to the marketplace. For example, you can retain an expert to plan the perfect birthday party that matches the games and activities to your child’s interests and energy levels. You can “Rent-a-Husband” that can help you clean your garage and hang your pictures (with no sex required). You can hire kiddy taxi services, personal gift buyers, and even someone to stand in line for you at the motor vehicle department.

Table 9.1  How the Market Economy Has Infiltrated Family Functioning Some of the most intimate functions of family life have been outsourced to the marketplace: • Planning the perfect birthday party • Hiring a coach to advise branding for an online dating service • “Renting-a-Husband” to clean the garage and hang pictures • Contracting kiddy taxi services to drive children around • Purchasing eggs and sperm, and renting a womb to carry the baby to term • Retaining a consultant to help select names for baby • Payrolling someone to visit and to love Grandma • Hiring a personal shopper or online service for clothing or gifts • Renting someone to stand in line at the motor vehicle department Note. Based on examples from The Commercialization of Intimate Life: Notes from Home and Work, by A. R. Hochschild, 2003, Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press and The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times, by A. R. Hochschild, 2012, New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

196

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Even the most private aspects of family life can be commercialized. In today’s marketplace, you can buy human eggs or sperm, and rent a womb to carry the baby to term. For the sake of convenience, the eggs and sperm can be purchased online and delivered in liquid nitrogen to the surrogate, often in India, where surrogacy is legal and unregulated. The fertilized egg can be implanted in the surrogate, with pickup of the baby scheduled for nine months later (Hochschild, 2003, 2012). You can also purchase services and support previously provided by friends and extended family. You can outsource your love life to a coach who can advise you on how to brand yourself for an online dating service. You can contract with a wedding planner and pay someone to help select a name for your baby. You can hire someone to visit and to love Grandma. This outsourcing of family functions has even extended to the international marketplace, as exemplified by the growing child care industry. Women migrate from poor countries with meager job prospects to rich countries where they can earn money, often as nannies, that they can send home to provide a better life for their own children (Trask, 2022). Parents in poor countries use the money to pay school fees, buy food and medicine, make home repairs, and support informal businesses (Schmalzbauer, 2010). Parents in rich countries are purchasing a service for their children, but often they are also purchasing the poor country’s family values—warm family ties and patient, loving care. These nannies report great sadness at being separated from their own children and find themselves compensating, in part, by pouring great love and care warmth into their wards in the host country. Why Families Outsource Their Functions to the Marketplace

Hochschild (2003) astutely observes that these mothers (without realizing it) are taking part in a “global heart transplant” where love is “extracted from one place and enjoyed somewhere else” (p. 190). The extraction of love is not simply a matter of personal choice but a response to global economic pressures—few jobs and low pay in poor countries, and more jobs and higher pay in rich countries. Some argue that the intrusion of the market economy into family life may be a matter of personal choice. Individuals could be making choices that respond to a culture of consumerism that transforms “today’s luxuries”, such as a perfect birthday party, into “tomorrow’s necessities” (Bellah, 1990; Lesthaeghe, 1995; Schor, 1991, p. 122). Others contend that this commercialization of family functions may be an artifact of several romantic myths that individuals hold about the meaning of family and community. One such myth is that family and community are just another creature comfort that can be purchased just like any other luxury: For the affluent, community has become another consumer item. You can buy it in weekend chunks at human potential centers … Of all the myths of community, this one will be the hardest to overcome. For the world teaches us to go after what we want— directly, aggressively, single-mindedly. But …. we cannot have it just because we want

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

197

it—precisely because the foundation of community itself goes beyond selfishness into life for others. Only as our beliefs and acts link us to the invisible community of humankind will the forms of visible community grow up around us. (Palmer, 1980, p. 80)

Whatever the driving force, families appear to be moving down a path from a production role to a consumption role, relinquishing many of the functions once performed in the home to the marketplace. If this trend persists and if it continues to grow, Hochschild sees a potential threat: “As the family become more minimal, it turns to the market to add what it needs and, by doing so, becomes yet more minimal” (2003, p. 37). How the Market Imposes an Economic Price on the Priceless Value of Families

The market economy can shape the way Americans think and behave. For example, looking at issues through an economic lens puts a price tag on everything, which can be tricky when it comes to family matters. For example, adoption agencies charge considerably more for a healthy White baby than for a baby of another race or ethnicity (Raleigh, 2017). This is a crude example of how not everything that is measured matters. Moreover, not everything that matters can be measured in economic terms (Vandenbroeck, 2020). For example, children would be considered “economically worthless” despite being “emotionally priceless” (Hirao, 2022). Similarly, the market value of many of the contributions that families and communities make to their members and society is hard to quantify. And the contributions that can be quantified tend to have a lower value in the market economy. For example, caring for and raising children are considered lower priced commodities, which suggests they are less worthy pursuits: Those who devote themselves full time to raising their children receive no wages … Daycare workers take home less pay than hotel maids. Elementary school teachers could easily make more money as casino dealers. Camp counselors could raise their income by taking a cashier job at the mall. High school teachers would receive more money if they taught stock or real estate seminars. (Longman & Gray, 2008, p. 10)

One reason these important childrearing functions may be undervalued is how economic metrics are used to calculate compensation. For example, the wages of daycare workers, camp counselors, and teachers are based on the contributions they are making to children’s lives today rather than taking into account how the value of these contributions accumulates and pays off tomorrow. No computations are made of the economic value of creating competence in the next generation of workers, citizens, and taxpayers. William Doherty (2001), a professor of family social science, illustrates how family members in a throw-away society dominated by short-term thinking may turn to the familiar metrics of economics to take stock of the meaning and quality of family life.

198

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

For example, adopting an economic model for thinking about one’s marriage would result in questions like, “What am I getting out of this relationship?” or, “Am I giving more to this relationship than I am getting back?” This type of cost-benefit analysis, which is often valued in business and policy settings, maps less well onto family commitments like faithfulness to marriage and responsibility to children. For example, when marriage is viewed in family terms, it means a commitment to one another “as long as we both shall live.” When marriage is viewed in economic terms, its meaning shifts to a commitment made as long as it works out for me. An individualistic calculus of how this relationship is going for “me” leads to less marital satisfaction than a calculus that includes what it means for “we” (Doherty, 2001). This individualistic approach may reflect the training of therapists, many of whom have not taken a single course in marriage therapy. In fact, most programs in counseling, psychiatry, psychology, and social work do not require training in marital and family relationships. Typically, therapists are trained in the Rogerian, cognitive, behavioral, and psychodynamic traditions that focus more on the needs and interests of the individual client seeking treatment (Doherty, 2001). The therapeutic goal is to foster individuals, who can function independently without support, even from the therapist (Palmer, 1980). One real-world example of individually oriented therapy comes from a friend who experienced post-partum depression after the birth of her baby. When the baby was only one week old, JoAnne’s therapist suggested that she needed time away from her family. Even though she was nursing the baby, the therapist recommended that JoAnne spend a weekend in a motel by herself. This therapist focused on the needs of the individual client, with no regard for how the advice would reverberate throughout her family. Individually oriented therapists are so predominant that a separate registry was developed for Marriage Friendly Therapists (“Marriage Friendly Therapists,” n.d.). Therapists included in the registry have verified credentials in relationship counseling and training in helping couples preserve their marriage and repair their relationship. Every therapist on the roster must sign a values statement stating that their first stance is to support “‘couples’ original commitment to their marriage, unless there is a compelling reason not to.” Participating therapists do not make a blind commitment to marriage, acknowledging that some marriages are “toxic and dangerous” to the safety and dignity of partners and their children. In sum, the market economy influences families in a myriad of ways. But does the market economy also influence the design and delivery of family policy?

In What Ways Does the Market Economy Influence Family Policy? The market economy influences family policy in several ways, only two of which are reviewed here. The design and delivery of family policies are influenced by the economic environment in which they operate.

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

199

The Influence of the Market Economy on the Design of Family Policies

In the United States, family policies are designed to rely less on government and more on the market economy (see Chapter 3; Gornick et al., 2022a). The impact of this reliance on the market economy is illustrated here using the example of single mothers. The workplace earnings of single mothers in the United States make up about threequarters of their disposable income, with the remainder being provided by means-tested government policies, child support, etc. In contrast, for single mothers in the United Kingdom and Ireland, earnings make up less than half of their disposable income. This policy difference has a two-pronged effect depending on whether single mothers have lower or higher income potential. Single mothers in the United States with the lowest income potential remain highly disadvantaged. Single mothers in the United States with higher income potential are more able to reach the middle of the income distribution, so they experience wider economic opportunities than in other countries (Harkness, 2022). Another difference between the United States and other countries is that a large proportion of U.S. public expenditures on children and families rely on the market economy. Families receive tax breaks rather than direct cash payments or access to universal programs (Filgueira & Rossell, 2020). Providing benefits through the tax system provides greater benefits to higher income families, who pay more taxes, than do lower income families. Contrary to common perceptions, however, lower income families in the United States do not “enjoy a free ride”; they seldom pay very much in income taxes, but more than two-thirds of U.S. households pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes (Folbre, 2008, p. 159). The Limitations of the Market Economy in Delivering Family Policies

The market economy is limited in its ability to deliver family policies, especially to those families who are the least skilled and most disadvantaged. As an illustration, two examples are provided here. First, I examine whether employers are positioned to provide familyfriendly policies to their workers, specifically flexible working arrangements. Second, I examine whether the market economy is positioned to deliver family policies, such as child care services. The Limitations of the Workplace in Providing Family Policies

Historically, in the United States, employers have provided flexible working conditions to their employees. Oftentimes, this flexibility was offered informally, especially in small businesses. Bosses would occasionally approve leaving work one or two hours early or taking a day off for a family death or emergency. Recently, the demand for family-friendly work policies has risen. However, studies have consistently reported that the provision of workplace flexibility is not equitable across families and may not be available to the families who need it most (Adema et al., 2020). The families with the most access to flexible working arrangements are highly skilled workers in higher status jobs who have greater bargaining power (Chung, 2020). Those

200

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

families with the least access are those that might benefit the most—single parents and low-income families (Begall & Van der Lippe, 2020). In European countries, professionals and managers have more access to work/family policies than employees in clerical or service jobs (Adema et al., 2020). My own experience after the birth of my first son is an example. As a county-based Family Living Educator, I was able to negotiate the first job-sharing arrangement in University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension with my Extension director and the county board of supervisors. This flexible arrangement was not made available to my program assistant, who was a single parent employed by the county. Many of the 38 advanced nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have enacted policies that provide paid family leave or flexible working hours. However, some exceptions exist. In most countries, companies are able to refuse access to the policies on business grounds (Adema et al., 2020), and in some countries, the generous leave policies exist only on paper (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). Similarly, in a 2018 survey of over 2,200 U.S. employees about the Family and Medical Leave Act, experiences with leave-taking were worse for lowwage workers. About two-thirds of low-wage workers who were eligible for leave did not take it, primarily because of fear of job loss; in stark contrast, only one-third of non-low-wage workers eligible for leave did not take it (Brown et al., 2020). Increasing evidence shows that when family-friendly policies are more generous at the national level, companies are more likely to provide generous leave, though variations may exist across policies and populations (Chung, 2020). Without government policies, it is unclear to what extent the market economy would provide family-friendly work policies, such as more flexible working arrangements. What is clear though is that if such policies were provided, they would disproportionately benefit the highly skilled workers in higher status jobs. The Limitations of the Market Economy in Providing Family Policies

Nations have experimented with the privatization of family policies. For example, child care was seen as a promising market by private (for profit) companies in the Netherlands in 2005 after the economic crisis. Six years later, almost half of the child care places were owned by 5% of the (for-profit) providers. Privatization fell short in several respects; the availability of child care was reduced in low-income areas, and the quality of services and staffing declined. In an attempt to cut labor costs, privatization resulted in a lowering of staff qualifications, less professional support, decreased staff satisfaction, and increased turnover. In the Dutch experience, the quality of child care was able to show improvement only after significant government intervention (Vandenbroeck, 2020). This is not surprising because child care is simply not a market. Parents are often illinformed about choosing quality child care, and they are not present to observe some of the best indicators of quality. Even if parents were equipped to make informed decisions,

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

201

the availability of child care is limited in some areas, particularly in rural and lower income communities of color (Vandenbroeck, 2020). The verdict is out on privatization, but similar “market” limitations have been observed in other family services, such as foster care. The privatization of foster care in U.S. states caused relatively immediate declines in the quality of placements and an increased risk of child abuse and neglect (Eatough, 2017). Privatization was also associated with racial inequality in outcomes for foster youth (Wulczyn, 2021).

Can the Market Economy Pose a Peril to Family Policy? Yes and no. The evidence is not definitive, but it suggests that the market economy might work in some circumstances, especially for more advantaged families. For example, family-friendly workplace policies appear to benefit higher wage workers more than those in lower wage positions. The market-based approach to privatizing services appears to limit their availability to families that are disadvantaged. For example, privatization seemed to disadvantage those with the least access to high-quality child care. Similarly, the privatization of foster care appeared to place some of the nation’s most disenfranchised children and youth at greater risk of being abused and neglected. The market economy poses one additional threat when the for-profit industry uses its power and influence to lobby against family policies for the most disenfranchised. These efforts often fly under the radar, but one example was exposed in the debate over child care in 2022, as described by Goldstein (2022). To cope with a child care shortage primarily in rural areas and low-income communities of color, the 2022 Build Back Better Act proposed $100 billion to create a near-universal child care system. Child care payments would be limited to 7% of family income, except for the wealthiest families. In addition, child care providers would be required to pay workers a “living wage,” with the federal and state governments helping shoulder the costs. In public settings, the plan was endorsed by private, for-profit child care providers that were primarily high-end chains that were expanding in higher income suburbs and urban neighborhoods across the country. For-profit child care chains, such as Kinder Care, Bright Horizons, and Lightbridge Academy, offer parents frequent photos of their child and hourly updates, including the times a baby dirtied its diaper and how many raspberries a toddler had eaten at snack time. These centers served about 8% of U.S. children under five years of age, mostly children of upscale parents. In these centers, the percent of children who would qualify for federal and state subsidies is in the single digits, in part because the subsidies are much less than the fees paid by wealthy parents. In most child care centers, the typical salary for a worker is $13 an hour, with little room to raise wages because families cannot afford to pay more. In contrast, for-profit providers can raise fees by up to 7% a year and still earn annual profits in the range of

202

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

15% to 20%. They sometimes pay their workers more, but they often offer paid time off and health insurance. These attractive benefits and modern facilities draw workers away from centers that serve low- and middle-income families. As the debate progressed, the high-end child care chains began to question whether the legislation would limit their profits. Bright Horizons openly stated in their 2021 annual report that such a broad-based benefit for child care could “place downward pressure on the tuition and fees we charge, which could adversely affect our revenues.” KinderCare too warned in its public filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchanges Commission that expanded government benefits for child care could lessen demand for its services. Ultimately, the bill that passed included no dollars for child care or for other family policies such as pre-K or paid parental leave. After its defeat, for-profit providers continued to support a much more modest $1 billion for child care subsidies targeted at low-income families. The market economy poses a peril when it targets high-quality services for the most advantaged and then uses its influence to lobby against quality services for the less advantaged. These actions make family policies more of a “luxury good” and less of a “public good,” according to child-care expert Elliot Haspel (cited in Goldstein, 2022).

Summary Families do not operate in a bubble. Families shape and are shaped by the economic environment in which they operate.

• In the United States, families function within a strong market economy. The economy influences families, and families influence the economy. Families socialize and educate children, provide dependable workers, and build the foundation early in life for later workplace productivity. • Families are efficient at producing the workers needed in knowledge-based economies. In economic terms, it makes sense for the government to support an institution that performs its functions as efficiently and inexpensively as families do. • The free-market system is praised by some for creating more wealth than any other economic system in the history of the world. The free market can restore dignity to the disenfranchised by providing jobs that make it possible for workers to contribute to the economy, their community, and their families. Being able to contribute provides a sense of being needed, which brings purpose, meaning, and happiness to life. Yet the free market works for all only when accompanied by policies that provide pathways for low-income workers into the market economy and mainstream society. • The market economy encroaches on family life by influencing family formation, replacing family functioning, and imposing an economic price on the priceless value of families.

H O W T H E E C O N O M Y I N F L U E N C E S FA M I L I E S 

203

• In the United States, family policies are designed to rely less on the government and more on the market economy. Providing benefits through the tax system provides greater benefits to families that have higher incomes than those with lower incomes. The biggest economic divide runs through families with children, which raises questions about whether this may contribute to growing income inequalities within and across generations. • The evidence is not definitive, but it suggests that providing private, for-profit family services might work for more advantaged families. However, privatization might imperil the availability of policies and programs to support families that are disadvantaged. Privatization may position policies and programs to support families as more of a luxury good than a “public good.”

The evidence is clear. Families are an important economic unit and the only one that produces human capital. It falls to professionals to communicate to policymakers the public value of the private functions that families perform. We can figure out ways to document in dollars and cents the long-term economic value of family functions to society. We can encourage policymakers to look beyond economic indicators to new metrics that capture the moral, social, and psychological contributions of well-functioning families to our communities, nation, and world. We can help policymakers capitalize on their lofty rhetoric about families by communicating with them about the effectiveness and efficiency of policies that invest in families in all their diversity across the lifespan. We can help family members themselves understand that the outsourcing of family functions to the marketplace violates one of the essential qualities of family life—the commitment of family members to each other. Family functions are performed even when such actions entail a personal cost. Over time, these personal costs become part of the family tapestry and deepen the commitment that family members hold for each other. This chapter incorporates content from a previous publication that is reprinted with permission. Copyright @ 2010, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K., and Corbett, T. (2010). Family policy: Becoming a field of inquiry and subfield of social policy. [Invited family policy decade review]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 783-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00730.x

10

205

CHAPTER 10 WHY POLARIZATION INFLUENCES FAMILY POLICY AND HOW TO BRIDGE THE DIVIDE

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

GUIDANCE FROM THE THEORY OF PARADOX

If you’re polarized and people aren’t hearing each other, I do not believe any legislation can be at its best. The way a piece of legislation is at its best is when you have people who are not necessarily always on the same side … discussing what should happen. (Democratic legislator) I find [names legislator] effective because … he tries to move from the edges to the middle [and is] trying not to be on the fringes … Because if you’re on the fringes all the time, it’s just not where the work gets done. (Democratic legislator)

• Why is the debate over family policy so controversial and divisive? • What are the prominent worldviews of how we should respond to the demographic changes that have occurred in family life during the last half-century? • How can we break through the polarization to develop more comprehensive and innovative family policy responses? • What will it take in an era of polarization to move out of our comfort zone and discuss politics with people even when we disagree?

Spirited political debate is the engine of democracy and always has been. It is through debate and disagreement around political ideas that Americans seek truth and search for the common good (Macedo et al., 2005). Few would dispute that talking about politics has become more difficult in the current era of partisan polarization. The partisan divide in politics between Democrats and Republicans is now larger than differences by age, education, gender, race/ethnicity, and religion (Carlin & Love, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2019a). The polarization of our politics and the paralysis of our policymaking has become one of the most significant societal challenges of our times (Snyder, 2017). If we are unable to bridge our partisan divides, will we blow the extraordinary opportunity that lies before us in this century to demonstrate that democracy can work in a diverse society (Rivlin, 2006)? DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-13

206

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Polarization has raised questions about how “united” the United States really is. Across the last couple of decades, polarization has grown broader and deeper among the U.S. citizenry and body politic (Pew Research Center, 2019a). In Congress, partisan polarization has been traced back to the mid-1980s; the polarizing effects of political parties first were observed when members of Congress increasingly viewed their political preferences as more similar to members of their own party and more dissimilar from members of the opposing party (Fleisher & Bond, 2004). In 2022, over half (52%) of voters thought partisan polarization had increased among policymakers (Manning, 2022). Moreover, 70% of Americans believe that it will hurt the country if opposing parties are unable to work together (Brooks, 2019). One of the main reasons polarization has a bad reputation for eroding democracies is the mistrust and even hatred it breeds among policymakers and the public (Fiorina, 2013). In addition, the gridlock perpetuated by polarization impedes public policy from adapting to changing demographic and economic conditions (Barber & McCarty, 2013). Polarization also sidelines science in the making of public policy by blurring the line between fact and opinion (Jung et al., 2019; Peterson, 2018) and by eroding the public’s trust in science and scientists (Contandriopoulos et al., 2010; Funk et al., 2020). These dangers are recognized by the majority of voters. Both Democrats and Republicans want to see policymakers rise above their political differences and work together to pass bipartisan legislation on issues like health care, criminal justice, and working families (Manning, 2022). What lurks beneath the surface of this polarization is a conflict of ideas and distrust of people with opposing views. Policymakers cannot seem to agree on what conditions constitute social problems, which factors contribute to them, what values should drive the policy agenda, and whether responses should come from individuals, civil society, government, or the market economy. When controversy arises, policymakers resort to simplistic explanations and single solutions that they (and their base) believe are true, right, and good. The more polarized the issue, the more likely it is to be portrayed in stark either-or terms or as black-and-white political choices that make rousing campaign speeches and catchy 30-second sound bites. The problem is that the sorting of policymakers and the public into these rigid, opposing camps often generates more contention than compromise, “more heat than light, more politics than policies, more slogans than solutions” (Bayme, 1991, p. 14). Political discourse can quickly descend into a discussion of good and evil rather than a search for solutions to serious societal problems (Snyder, 2017). Sadly, these polarized portrayals can be surprisingly persuasive, despite their inaccuracies or distortions, because they often contain a kernel of truth (Bayme, 1991). If polarization is thought to be inevitable, it can lead to an intellectual coma (Snyder, 2017). It can stifle the fresh thinking that is needed to break through partisan gridlock. If there is no theoretical framework that can explain why polarization occurs, this bodes poorly for the prospects of overcoming the controversy and coming to common ground. This chapter introduces the theory of paradox to provide guidance during an era of

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

207

polarized politics. The theory begins by explaining the process of polarization and then provides practical guidance on what steps can be taken to bridge conflicting ideas and find more productive solutions. One staging ground for these dueling ideas is family policy that is emblematic of a core philosophical debate among the left and the right (Badger & Cain, 2018). Family policy arouses passion beyond its monetary significance because it taps into those core issues that define civic and personal responsibility, such as children, poverty, sex, and work, as few other policy realms do (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). Yet, unlike other political realms, the public and political resonance around the importance of families brings into sharper relief a common concern from which innovative ideas and policy solutions can spring forth. What happens when contention arises, however, is not unique to family policy. Polarization can arise anytime people move into ideological corners and are branded in stereotypic terms such as left or right, libs or neocons, or good or evil. In the spirit of reconciling conflicting ideas, this chapter begins by introducing the theory of paradox and explaining how it can be used to bridge controversy and move forward. I describe in some depth the three worldviews regarding the meaning of the family demographic shifts that have occurred in the last half-century. To demonstrate the power of the theory, I illustrate how it can inform how we define families and their role in policymaking. The theory is also applied to political decisions, such as which strategies can advance specific issues, who should respond, and how to design a comprehensive family policy agenda. The chapter concludes with some specific guidelines drawn from the theory and from thought leaders about how family policy during an era of polarization. Several pragmatic strategies are proposed for knowing when and how to engage people with whom you disagree.

The Theory of Paradox The theory of paradox is a conceptual framework that recognizes the validity and utility of seemingly contradictory viewpoints. Through compromise and consensus building, innovative policies can be developed that hold these contradictions in creative tension (Hall, 2005; Palmer, 1980). The theory of paradox conceptualizes polarization as a process that is dynamic (not linear) and proposes policy responses that are pragmatic (not impossible). The Value and Virtue of Seeking Compromise

At the center of this theory is the value and virtue of compromise. However, not everyone agrees that seeking compromise is desirable with some seeing it as a vice and others as a virtue. These varying views were evident in our recent interviews of 225 policymakers in Wisconsin and Indiana, both Midwestern states, which at the time of the study had Republican legislatures and Governors (Bogenschneider et al., 2022); despite

208

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

their similarities, they differed in the extent of polarization, with Wisconsin ranked as the 6th most polarized state in the nation and Indiana 34th (Shor & McCarty, 2011). A Republican in the more polarized Wisconsin argued that compromise was neither feasible nor necessary: “Having control of everything means, ‘Why are you compromising?’ … What percentage should you give the minority so that they feel included? … Is it 50-50? Or we’re in charge, so is it 80-20?”. Another Wisconsin Republican described compromise using the logic of “us” versus “them”: “We’re a partisan body and elections … have consequences …. If you have to negotiate with the minority, you’ve got a problem. So, polarization does interfere because we don’t listen to the other side like we should” (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). Yet Republicans in the less-polarized Indiana characterized compromise as a virtue rather than a vice. An Indiana Republican explained the value that compromise can bring to policymaking: “So, you interact with … your colleague and you find they’re very interested in exchanging their ideas. I really don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. It’s just more important to get things done” (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). Another Indiana Republican explained how polarization is a negotiated, relational process, in which policymakers can choose to act in more collaborative and less polarizing ways: There are ways for both sides to misbehave [when] …. there’s a super majority. So, we could shove everything down Democrats’ throat and say, ‘We don’t care if you’re here or not, you can go take a hike’ …. And I’m proud to say we have not done that. The Democrats could abdicate all responsibility and just continue to try and polarize and polarize and polarize all the time, because nothing they do could ultimately affect the new policy …. But neither side has done that. (Bogenschneider et al., 2022)

One reason that both sides chose to act in less polarized ways is that working with colleagues in the other party is an indispensable component of a democracy. Policymakers are elected by the people to conduct business for the people. Conducting business for the people entails collaboration and a willingness to compromise. Compromise has an additional value in a lawmaking body where members are continually running for election and majorities can shift. As explained by a Wisconsin Republican: Because you’re not always going to be in power. One example was when the Democrats jammed this thing through with sex ed in schools where if you’re going to teach it, you had to teach the state’s curriculum. And as soon as we got in power, we flipped that thing and put it back to where it was. So … you want to make sure that there is bipartisan buy-in because otherwise the other side will flip it. And then it won’t last very long.

So, the theory of paradox is constructed around compromise, which is valued as the “law of collective survival” (Palmer, 1980, p. 18) and as the essence of democratic decision-making. Compromise is as relevant in contemporary times as it was early in the

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

209

nation’s history. Henry Clay, who served 16 years as a U.S. Senator in the 1800s, earned a reputation as “The Great Compromiser”. He viewed compromise as the “cement that held the Union together” (Henry Clay, n.d.; Kennedy, 2006, p. 4). A prominent political scientist of our times agreed that compromise is “not a mediocre way to do politics; it is … the only way to do politics” (Elshtain, 1995, p. 61). Compromise is critical to a well-functioning democracy: “Little change can happen … without some compromise, and almost no major change can happen without major compromises” (Guttmann & Thompson, 2010, p. 1129). With compromise at its core, the theory of paradox expands on the earlier writing of Julian Rappaport (1981), a psychologist, and Parker Palmer (1980), a sociologist, philosopher, and theologian. The theory of paradox builds on two compelling concepts—real contradictions and true paradox. A Real Contradiction

A real contradiction is two ideas or principles that seem, at first blush, to occupy opposite poles that are irreconcilable with each other; upon closer scrutiny, however, both poles appear to be simultaneously valid (Bogenschneider, 1997; Palmer, 1980; Rappaport, 1981). Hall describes real contradictions as being like the positive and negative poles in electricity: “They need one another, because neither can be what it is and do what it does without the other” (2005, p. 102). The poles comprise a real contradiction only if both are valid and if pursuing either one to the extreme distorts our understanding and limits our responses. Rappaport illustrated this premise with the contradiction between two widely held, but opposite, values in American politics: freedom and equality. Allowing total freedom might result in the powerful dominating the weak, thereby obliterating equality. Conversely, promoting total equality would impose more limits on some people than others, thereby constraining freedom. Thus, freedom and equality exemplify a real contradiction because they are both valid and opposing schools of thought that are nevertheless intertwined. Both poles are legitimate pursuits but maximizing one necessarily limits the other. Contradictions are understood here as “very real opposites pulling vigorously against each other” (Palmer, 1980, p. 20). In social and community life, such contradictions are more the rule than the exception. However, not all poles are real contractions and not all opposites are valid polarities. There are crucial differences between principles that are right and wrong and ideas that are true and false. For example, are anecdotes and statistics real opposites that exist in tension with each other? Would “living in the past” and “living in the future” be valid polarities that are intertwined so that maximizing one correspondingly minimizes the other? Self-indulgence and family enmeshment might be opposites, but would either be a valid pole for understanding societal problems and designing policy responses? Identifying a real contradiction takes critical thought about whether the polarities are indeed valid schools of thought and also whether they exist in dynamic tension with each other (Palmer, 1980).

210

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

A True Paradox

Contradictions appear on the surface to be “irreconcilable, discouraging, and defeating” (Palmer, 1980, p. 18). Concentrating on only one pole of a contradiction seldom deepens the understanding or resolution of a public problem. Take, for instance, the polarities of freedom and equality. The problem one encounters is that a focus on the pole of freedom alone, no matter how well it is done, has only one outcome—more of the same; that is, more freedom for the individual that comes at the expense of less equality. Similarly, a singular focus on the pole of equality has only one outcome—more of the same; that is, more equality that comes at the expense of less individual freedom. Because both poles need attention, we become one-sided when we focus on only one pole and ignore it equally compelling counterpart. Perhaps real contradictions are not impediments but an inherent part of human nature and the circumstances of modern life. Perhaps their prevalence presents a framework for understanding social problems and designing responses to them (Hall, 2005). Real contradictions hold the potential to deepen into paradox. The true paradox occurs only when the contradictions are able to be held in creative tension with each other. Recognizing and reckoning with contradictions offer the opportunity to move away from concentrating on only one pole to getting both poles into a dynamic relation (Peterson, 1985). Pursuing possibilities within these tensions can sometimes transform our understanding by identifying solutions that might not previously have been imagined or even considered (Palmer, 1980). The deeper truths and most challenging policy problems of our times seem to need paradoxes to be more fully understood. Instead of choosing one pole or the other, we can “live the contradictions” by positioning them at the center of debate, dialogue, and negotiation (Palmer, 1980). We can strive to synthesize the two poles and come up with innovative ideas and compromise solutions that hold them in creative tension. For our purposes, public policy can be a means of institutionalizing mechanisms for productively establishing and maintaining these critical tensions. A true paradox is not always self-evident. When controversy arises, policymakers, professionals, and the public often feel compelled to take sides, which forces them toward the extremes of one pole or the other (Lewis, 1996). With this “either-or” mindset, it is easy to be enticed by the persuasiveness of the political rhetoric and seduced by selfrighteous posturing that only one position deserves to be pursued. To discover whether true paradox exists, professionals should conduct a painstaking perusal of any societal response in the following two ways: (a) examine whether real contradictions exist that are distorting political debate and decision-making and (b) pursue innovative responses that hold real contradictions in creative tension with each other. Examine Whether Real Contradictions Exist That Are Distorting Political Debate and Decision-Making

Before getting involved in the debate of a political issue, a first step is developing proficiency in discovering whether real contradictions exist. One example emerged

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

211

from evaluations of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. Evaluators noticed a skewed interest in one valid pole—reducing caseloads—with much less attention to another valid pole—reducing child poverty. Another real contradiction emerged in the case of child care. One valid pole was the family’s desire to have access to the child care setting of their choice, which is often family-based care for infants and young children. Another valid pole was the state’s interest in ensuring that tax dollars are invested in high-quality care, which is easier to monitor in center-based settings. In the case of mental health policy, the contradiction is stark when the decision arises as to whether or not a mentally ill individuals should be institutionalized. One valid pole is the individual’s right to selfdetermination and the valid opposing pole is the rights of the individual, family, and community to be protected from potential harm. Pursuing one of these policy goals and neglecting the other may result in one-sided responses that, like a free-floating pendulum, can swing from one extreme to the other without ever solving the problem. In policy, as in other pursuits, error often occurs in pairs that are diametrically opposed to each other. When we recognize one error, the danger is that we overcompensate and back right into the reverse error (Lewis, 1996). Policy examples are not hard to find, such as the historical record of movements toward and away from institutionalization of the mentally ill, shifts in whether work is required or is not required in welfare reform initiatives (Corbett, 1993), and the rise and fall of school busing (Rappaport, 1981). Pursue Innovative Responses That Hold Real Contradictions in Creative Tension With Each Other

Instead of pushing toward the extreme of either pole, the optimal responses may focus instead on holding real contradictions in creative tension with each other. Examples include policies that are intentionally designed to reduce both welfare dependency and child poverty, to support both family- and center-based child care, and to provide dual options for institutionalizing some mentally ill patients and deinstitutionalizing others. According to the tenets of the theory of paradox, many social issues have more than one decent solution that can serve to balance these opposing tensions (Rappaport, 1981). When real contradictions exist, we should embrace multiple solutions because the more solutions, the better the chances of achieving the comprehensive responses that complex problems often require. When policy debate and discourse devolve into arguing over a single solution, we should pause for careful reflection on whether the controversy is masking a true paradox. If so, two seemingly antithetical solutions may both be valid. Policy debate can then move toward a focus on finding common ground that acknowledges the validity of opposing positions and away from a contentious debate over a single policy solution. A case in point is poor-performing, inner-city schools. Can the source of the problem be attributed to people or to policy? All the money in the world won’t solve the problem if children are not willing to delay gratification and work hard on their schoolwork. Money can’t replace the value of parents who instill in their children the will to work hard, the

212

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

hope that their hard work will pay off, and the dreams of what they can accomplish in the future. But even well-motivated children and fully engaged parents can’t overcome illprepared teachers and dilapidated schools with outdated equipment. So policy responses need to incorporate the creative tension that people matter, but also that the best intentions of people are shaped by their circumstances (Obama, 2006). Providing government support for working parents is another issue that may require policies that, upon first glance, appear to be in stark opposition to each other. Skocpol (1997) introduced a proposal that, she argued, is in the best interests of both liberals and conservatives because it incorporates a real contradiction—the valid, opposing poles of how working parents are affected by both social conditions and the cultural climate. Skocpol’s proposal is liberal because she calls for policies that create social conditions that strong families and healthy marriages need, such as workforce training and jobs that provide decent wages and benefits. At the same time, her proposal is conservative because she advocates for policies to change the culture in which parents operate—taxes and benefits that reward work and encourage parents to marry. Skocpol’s proposal represents a true paradox because it provides an innovative solution that recognizes and reinforces each pole of the dialectic. Liberal policies create the support that families need to succeed, and conservative policies create a cultural climate that values and rewards the commitments parents make to each other and to their children.

Three Worldviews of Family Change This chapter illustrates the theory of paradox using family policy as an example. To expose the polarizing fault lines that define family policy, I raise a fundamental question initially proposed by Blankenhorn (1990). This is an overarching question that may not be apparent even to ardent activists because it moves the discussion up a level and encompasses a number of specific policies: What are the social consequences of the demographic changes that have occurred in family life in the United States in the last 50 years? The answers to this question prompt debates that are still alive in the United States and remain one of the most contentious issues facing Americans today (Gornick et al., 2022a; Sawhill, 2022). Three different worldviews provide different answers, which have starkly different consequences for the debate and design of societal responses. Expanding on the earlier work of Blankenhorn (1990), I describe in some detail varying interpretations of what these family changes mean when viewed through the filter of each of these camps. The concerned camp focuses to a large extent on the negative consequences of family changes in the last half-century, particularly for the development of children. The satisfied camp focuses more predominantly on the positive consequences of these changes, especially for the well-being of women. The impatient camp claims families have changed too slowly with insufficient respect and support for the diversity of family life. There is no dispute among the three worldviews that families have changed, and changed dramatically, in the last 50 years (Cherlin, 2020b; Cowan & Cowan, 2019a;

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

213

Popenoe, 1993). Chapter 7 discussed in detail four transformational changes in contemporary family life in the United States. First, remarkable rises in cohabitation have occurred across the board, irrespective of race/ethnicity or educational attainment. Second, compared to Americans with college degrees, those without college degrees are experiencing less marriage and more cohabitation, divorce, repartnering, and nonmarital childbearing. Third, transformational change has occurred in the stability of children’s lives, with the most instability among the less educated and the most disadvantaged. Finally, older adults are living longer, which has increased the demand for family caregivers at a time when the supply is shrinking. All three worldviews recognize this tidal wave of family change. There is no disagreement that children are increasingly being born to single mothers and that fathers are increasingly absent due to abandonment, separation, divorce, or incarceration. There is little question that mothers of young children are increasingly working in the labor force and that income inequality is growing between the haves and the have nots. The dispute arises about the consequences of these changes, which have generated political disagreements over family policies that were unheard of in the 1950s (Cheal, 1991). All three sides reach different conclusions from the same data about why these consequences occur and draw on different values and beliefs to decide how to respond. I illustrate here with a brief discussion of one demographic change—the retreat from marriage. Several of the demographic changes that have occurred in family life around cohabitation, single parenthood, divorce, unstable living arrangements, and a shortage of caregivers are related, in part, to the retreat from marriage (Wilcox et al., 2015). All three worldviews would probably agree with the science that children being raised by their married biological parents are less apt to grow up in poverty and more apt to have better outcomes, on average, than children who experience single parenthood, divorce, and family instability. In children’s early years of life, growing up in a married family benefits their school success and socioemotional well-being, and in adulthood, benefits their employment, marriage, and mental health (Raley & Sweeney, 2020; Ribar, 2015). Moreover, marriage was shown to advantage children’s outcomes over and above other factors, such as economic resources, higher productivity at work and home, and economies of scale (Ribar, 2015). Disagreements arise over why marriage has these effects and what can be done to address the retreat from marriage. Some argue the retreat is primarily an economic problem. Others attribute it to changes in culture and civil society. And still others see it largely as a problem of shortfalls in public policy. Social science research finds qualified support for each of these positions, but the evidence is weak and inconclusive. For those who believe that economics are the foundation of marital decline, the Great Recession would have been expected to reduce marriage rates. It didn’t (Smock & Schwartz, 2020). The evidence is modest that increasing economic well-being would increase marriage rates (Haskins, 2015). For those who believe the solution is public policy, one would expect programs to be designed in ways that promote marriage. In some studies, generous welfare benefits have been linked to lower levels of marriage and higher rates of nonmarital childbearing (Wilcox et al., 2015). For those who believe the keys to marital decline are

214

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

cultural, media and social marketing campaigns against smoking, drunk driving, and teenage pregnancy have been successful in changing public attitudes and behaviors; yet still untested is whether marketing campaigns and nonprofit initiatives can promote the social desirability of marrying, staying married, and having children within marriage (Wilcox et al., 2015). The evidence is mixed and so are the views of the American public. In polls, about onethird thought the demographic changes in family life were a good thing, about one-third thought they were a bad thing, and about one-third thought they made no difference (Cowan & Cowan, 2019a). Without a firm consensus in research evidence or in public opinion, reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the data with polarized claims and counterclaims about how to act on it (Cabrera et al., 2022; Cowan & Cowan, 2019a). The responses of the three main worldviews depend, in part, on strongly held values and beliefs about how substantial these changes are for families and society; what the causes of these changes are thought to be; and what roles should be played by the cultural climate, economic conditions, government policy, and legal reforms. The three worldviews presented in this chapter draw upon the original thinking of Blankenhorn (1990), who limited his discussion to two worldviews, which he termed the pessimistic and optimistic perspectives of family change. I have added a third worldview, the postmodern. Yet I am the first to admit that this framework is still incomplete, given that there likely are more than three worldviews and many hybrids as well. The purpose of this chapter is not to detail every worldview, but rather to draw out some of the fault lines that define the parameters of family policy debate. In the spirit of opening the reader’s mind to the validity of each of these worldviews, I have renamed them because of the pejorative undertones of the term pessimism and the appealing nuances of the terms optimism and postmodern. These terms seem especially value-laden in America, a country that prides itself on its modernity, and its reputation as one of the world’s most optimistic societies (Blankenhorn, 1990; Hall, 2005). Moreover, the terms optimism and pessimism conjure up a simplistic notion of only two views of family change that are opposite sides of a single coin when, in reality, there are several views that differ on multiple dimensions. As a shorthand to represent the responses of the three worldviews to family demographic changes, I propose the descriptive terms concerned (for those who lambast family changes as detrimental primarily to children), the satisfied (for those who laud changes as being beneficial primarily to women), and the impatient (for those who lament the changes as being too slow and unwelcomed). I discuss the perspective of the three worldviews in detail here, provide their preferred agenda for responding to family changes and discuss the values that underlie each view. Naming the underlying value stances is fundamental to fully understand a worldview because they embody people’s notions of “what should be”, which is basically their “conception of the desirable”. Values drive the durable claims that people make about the meaning of “virtue” and the “good society”, which motivate them to adopt particular positions or ideologies (Kinder, 1998, p. 808). Granted, many sources integrate these views to varying degrees, but for pedagogical purposes, I try to present these perspectives in a pure, unadulterated form that clearly

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

215

differentiates them from each other. In the words of philosophy professor Ben Hunt, “When we learn something new, it is almost impossible not to absolutize it in some way” (cited in Doherty, 1995, p. 165). As you embark on learning about these different worldviews of family change, proceed with an open mind. A natural tendency of many students of family policy is to sort themselves into one of the three camps described here—concerned, satisfied, or impatient. Resist this temptation. Instead, strive to see the validity and utility of each of these different worldviews and seek to identify the “value-added” that each can bring to the debate and design of family policy. Look for the perspectives, values, and solutions that each of these camps can contribute to the development of policy responses that can strengthen and support families in all their diversity across the lifespan.

The Concerned Camp The Concerned Camp considers families to be in decline. Symbolic of this change is the decline in the nuclear family, which comprises a married couple and their children. For this camp, the two most consequential changes are the growing class divide in the decline of marriage and the rise in unmarried births (Haskins, 2015; Wilcox et al., 2015); for unmarried women under age 30, the majority of births now are unplanned (Sawhill, 2014). According to this view, the societal trends contributing to this decline include unprecedented levels of cohabitation, high rates of divorce and repartnering, feminism, and declines in fertility (Popenoe, 1990; Wilcox et al., 2015). The concerned camp highlights the worrisome effects of these family changes, particularly for children, whose lives are in flux as they experience transitions and instability in their living arrangements; about half of U.S. children are estimated to spend some time in a single-parent family before they turn 18 (Haskins, 2015). According to the concerned camp, the quality of family life would be better today and the prospects for the future more promising if several of these changes had not occurred (see summary in Table 10.1). Popenoe (1990), a prominent spokesperson for the concerned camp, does acknowledge that decline is not always negative, and he pinpoints positive aspects of the decline of the nuclear family, such as greater opportunities for women and more fulfilling marriages. He also notes that several of the traditional functions of the family that were taken over by the state, market, and voluntary sectors have been carried out more effectively by these institutions. Yet Popenoe (1990) also acknowledges that recent changes have weakened the capacity of families to carry out their two most important functions: for children, socializing them to become productive members of society and, for adults, providing affection and companionship (Blankenhorn, 1990; Popenoe, 1990). As families become smaller, less stable, shorter in duration, and more separated from extended family, their ability to perform these important functions is compromised. Marital ties have weakened (Popenoe, 1990), as have the ties of parents to children (Popenoe, 1990; Uhlenberg & Eggebeen, 1986). For example, children are still important, yet “their position at the top

216

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Table 10.1  The Concerned Camp View of Family Changes as Detrimental, Especially to Children Family Changes of Interest

Values

Policy Agenda

• The decline in marriage

• Marital commitment

• A marriage and family agenda in civil society to bolster naturally occurring sources of support

• Increases in unmarried births

• Parental responsibility

• Devolution of power and authority from the federal to state and local governments, which are closer to families and can be customized to local circumstances

• Unprecedented levels of cohabitation

• Civic engagement

• A grassroots cultural and media campaign that elevates the values of family, marriage, parenting, children, and community

• High rates of divorce and repartnering

• Self-sacrifice

• Policies that encourage marriage, discourage unmarried births, promote work, make family life more affordable, and promote commitments to parenting and marriage

• Weakened ties of parents to children • Feminism • Declines in fertility • Families that are smaller, less stable, shorter in duration, and more separated from extended family

of the value pyramid is not a given anymore” (Lesthaeghe, 1995, p. 19) and they are no longer an impediment to divorce. Children have been placed in double jeopardy because both mothers and fathers began investing less in their families at about the same time, albeit for different reasons. Women spent more time in paid employment at the same time that fathers absented themselves from childrearing responsibilities due to increases in divorce, desertion, separation, and incarceration (Popenoe, 1990). Values of the Concerned Camp

The values that drive this camp are marital commitment, parental responsibility, civic engagement, and self-sacrifice, which they claim have been overshadowed by a cultural ethos of individualism (see Chapter 8). This camp is concerned about several indications

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

217

in recent decades of the cultural tilt away from a commitment to children, family, and community and toward individual rights, personal freedom, self-reliance, and selffulfillment (Bellah et al., 1996; Blankenhorn, 1990; Bumpass, 1990; Popenoe, 1992). Public opinion polls have captured this ongoing cultural tension over how much freedom the individual can have, and the right balance of individual freedom and commitment to others (Yankelovich, 1989). Polls suggest the pendulum may have swung too far toward individualism in recent decades. When surveyed in 1999, more than 80% of Americans said more emphasis on commitment to community was needed even if it meant placing more demands on individuals (Putnam, 2000). A 2015 poll suggests that individualism may still be a major concern with over two-thirds of the public (68%) describing the typical American as “selfish” (Smith, 2015). The concerned camp is alarmed that individualism also is encroaching into marriage and family life. Today the most intimate relationships are approached with an eye toward one’s own self-fulfillment, as opposed to one’s contributions as a spouse and parent to the fulfillment of a happy family life. This individualistic approach to family life appears to have cut across social classes, having peaked among the college-educated, and continuing or even increasing among those without a college degree. When asked about their goals in adulthood, the non-college-educated now speak about individualistic pursuits such as overcoming childhood trauma or personal struggles with drugs and alcohol rather than family pursuits, such as getting married and having children. Nonresident fathers do mention their desire to develop relationships with their children but not with the mother of their children (Cherlin, 2020b). Another potential indicator of a decline in commitment comes from research on couples who divorce. Many married couples who divorce report little conflict in their marriage and even moderate happiness; this raises questions about whether individuals value self-fulfillment over commitment to the marital relationship and to their children’s wellbeing (Amato, 2010). The weakening of commitment and responsibility is a particularly troubling trend in individualistic societies like the United States. Individualism has worked well in the past because it has operated as a true paradox; historically, U.S. citizens have balanced individualism with the values of a high sense of personal responsibility and obligation to others. However, political observers say we no longer can take these countervailing values for granted, despite their continuing importance (Yankelovich, 1995). Regardless of education or income, an individual’s road to happiness and a life of meaning is paved with one’s relationships with others, investments in family, and commitments to the community (Bellah et al., 1996; Brooks, 2019; Wilcox et al., 2015). Because they point out the potential “dark side of modernity” (Blankenhorn, 1990, p. 15), the concerned camp is often criticized for being antiprogressive and overly circumspect about accepting any change as progress (Cheal, 1991). In response, the concerned camp warns against unwittingly embracing every change as progress rather than weighing whether it moves you closer to the most desirable destination. For example, if you take a wrong turn, no matter how far or fast you travel, it only gets you to the wrong place quicker; the person who does an about-face is actually the most progressive (Lewis, 1996). Thus, the concerned would argue for cautious reflection on demographic changes,

218

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

with an eye to correcting the course when evidence suggests it is threatening the wellbeing of children or the vitality of family life. The Family Agenda of the Concerned Camp

What can be done to counteract family decline? Popenoe (1990) rejected the notion of returning to the traditional nuclear family, which he believes may be “fundamentally flawed” in contemporary society (p. 47). Instead, Popenoe (1990) emphasizes the role of broad shifts in the cultural climate and civil society, especially among less-educated Americans (Wilcox et al., 2015). Thus, for the concerned camp, the family agenda is not primarily a legislative initiative, but rather a campaign for cultural values that shape an individual’s image of what families should be like and how family members ought to behave. The concerned camp calls for a grassroots cultural movement that would elevate the values of family, marriage, parents, children, and community and devalue greed, selfishness, and excessive self-fulfillment (Blankenhorn, 1990; Popenoe, 1990). The concerned camp would advocate for a marriage and family agenda in civil society to bolster the naturally occurring sources of support in the extended family, religious institutions, neighborhood, and community. Nonprofit organizations could offer family education programs that move beyond today’s predominant focus on the child alone, the father alone, the mother alone, or the parent-child relationship alone; instead, they would focus on the marital relationship and the whole family system (Cowan & Cowan, 2019b). Civic organizations could sponsor media and social marketing campaigns to change attitudes, norms, and behaviors around marriage, and to encourage participation in premarital education programs, based on emerging evidence of their effectiveness in reaching less educated and non-European Americans (Hawkins, Higginbotham, & Hatch, 2015). Religious organizations could provide premarital preparation and marriage education classes that include messages about forgiveness, fidelity, and mutual generosity (Clyde & Hawkins, 2020; Wilcox et al., 2015). Policymaking also plays a role, though the concerned would warn against relying too exclusively on government programs warning that “more is not always more” (Gornick et al., 2022b). The first piece of federal legislation that explicitly addressed marriage was the 1996 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) that provided block grants to states to encourage two-parent families and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies in low-income families with children (Cowan & Cowan, 2019a; Ooms, 2019). According to the concerned camp, government policies also could play a role in strengthening lowerincome families by providing economic and educational opportunities that encourage work, make family life more affordable, and promote commitments to parenting and marriage (Wilcox et al., 2015). Yet the concerned camp raises caution that if policies are not carefully designed and calibrated with each other, they can inadvertently replace or weaken the functioning of twoparent families or make single-parent families more viable (Sawhill, 2022). For example, they note that with the progressive tax system in the United States, most welfare programs for low- to moderate-income households with children significantly penalize couples for

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

219

getting married. One study has shown that these penalties reduce the odds of marriage, particularly among lower-income households (Wilcox et al. 2015). Also, programs that supplement family incomes need to be carefully designed because studies have shown that their effect on family stability can be either negative or neutral (Cowan & Cowan, 2019b). When government is involved, the concerned camp would prefer that power and authority be devolved from the federal to state and local levels. The closer the government is to families, the better positioned it should be to develop strategies for strengthening families that are customized to local circumstances (Giele, 1996; Gornick et al., 2022a). Public policy could be designed to create formal structures for family support that encourage families to develop and rely on their own sources of support that, in the future, will render the formal structures obsolete (Bronfenbrenner & Weiss, 1983). The family agenda of the concerned camp is often dismissed because, instead of being for positive initiatives, it is primarily against family changes that have been moving in the same direction for over four decades and will be hard to reverse (Haskins, 2015). According to Cheal (1991), “The best this camp can hope for is to prolong the life spans of selected traditions for a little longer or to invent new ways of incorporating elements from the past into contemporary ways of living” (p. 47). The concerned camp would dismiss this criticism, however, by arguing that broad cultural change is possible, citing the extraordinary changes brought about in relatively brief periods of time by activist movements for civil rights, early childhood care and education, environmental protection, gay rights, and special education.

The Satisfied Camp The Satisfied Camp views recent family changes not as symptoms of decline, but rather as indicators of the capacity of families to adapt to new social and economic conditions (see summary in Table 10.2). The satisfied camp focuses on the consequences of family demographic changes, primarily for the adults in these families. The increasing rights and equality of the formerly oppressed, and the growing opportunities for rewarding occupations and relationships (Giele, 1996) are seen as signs of progress that justify breaking with the constraints of traditional roles and norms (Cheal, 1991; Giele, 1996). The satisfied camp emphasizes, in particular, the positive consequences of these changes for women. Women entered the workplace in record numbers with more opportunities for rewarding occupations. One of the consequences of their resulting economic independence was the freedom to escape abusive or patriarchal relationships. Given the option of divorce, individuals who chose to remain married were more apt to experience relationships that were emotionally fulfilling. When divorce or death did occur, policy changes in Social Security, unemployment insurance, divorce laws, and pensions allowed women, the elderly, and children to continue living their lives in dignity (Schroeder, 1989). The elderly received government benefits for health and living expenses, which made them less dependent on the care of adult children. Children were seen less as the property of their parents, which provided them with protection against abuse and exploitation.

220

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Table 10.2  The Satisfied Camp View of Family Changes as Beneficial, Especially to Women Family Changes of Interest

Values

Policy Agenda

• Increasing rights and equality of the formerly oppressed • Growing opportunities for women to have rewarding occupations • Expanding options for emotionally fulfilling relationships • Enhanced freedom from abusive or patriarchal relationships • Policies that allow lives of dignity amidst changing circumstances, such as aging, death, or divorce • Children’s and adults’ resilience in response to family change

• • • •

• Policies in health, housing, nutrition assistance, and income security to create a strong safety net • Vocational and apprenticeship programs to increase individual earning potential • Policies that avoid harsh penalties and adversarial interactions in family disputes • Policies that support individual well-being and women’s equality

Individual rights Personal freedom Self-fulfillment Individual variation and customization of family roles and expectations

Compared to the other worldviews, the satisfied camp neither views the consequences for children as dire (Furstenberg & Condran, 1988) nor children’s ability to cope as fragile. The satisfied camp discounts pessimistic assessments of declines in child well-being, claiming that concerns about youth have been raised in every decade (Orthner, 1990). Encouragingly, teen birth rates have fallen 58% since 2007, although births to teens are still higher than in peer nations (Guzzo & Hayford, 2020). In 2021, 95% of children across America have access to health insurance (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2022), and child mortality rates have fallen over the last two decades, particularly among children living in poverty (Cabrera et al., 2022). The satisfied emphasize the resiliency of children and adults in overcoming the emotional upheaval and long-term consequences of divorce (Orthner, 1990). The satisfied camp acknowledges that the recent demographic changes have harmed individuals and families in selected segments of society (Skolnick, 1997). Yet they focus less on those harmed, such as individuals in low-income and less-educated families (Cherlin, 2020a), and more on those who have thrived in the midst of family change: The majority of first marriages do not end in divorce, the overwhelming majority of families do not experience child or spouse abuse, the majority of teenage girls do not get pregnant, the majority of adolescents do graduate from high school, and the majority of youth and adults consider themselves happy with their lives in this changing world. (Orthner, 1990, p. 109)

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

221

When considering factors that influence human development, the worldview of the satisfied camp is broader than just family (Skolnick, 1997). They cast a wide net that includes such factors as historical changes, economic hardship, gender inequality, and emotional stress. Social problems are attributed, not to the lack of resiliency in individuals or families, but rather to the lack of response from public policy and social institutions. The nature and rapidity of the changes have overwhelmed the family supports that public policy has already put in place (Marshall & Sawhill, 2004) and have not allowed enough time for society to respond with the needed countervailing supports (Giele, 1996). Values of the Satisfied Camp

The satisfied camp believes that core American values regarding the importance of marriage, commitment, and nurturance have changed very little. The satisfied camp points to data that the majority of young people hope to marry someday and most adults do marry at some point in their lives (Cherlin, 2020b; Smock & Schwartz, 2020). Moreover, even people who divorce do not give up on intimate relationships but often remarry or enter into a cohabiting union (Smock & Schwartz, 2020). According to the satisfied camp, family values have changed very little since the 1950s. They cite as evidence studies that show the valuing of marriage does not differ among lower- and higher-income groups (Few-Demo, 2014). What has changed dramatically are norms and standards regarding appropriate or inappropriate behaviors (Orthner, 1990). Norms regarding marriage, as an example, have been revolutionized; cohabitation before marriage has been commonly accepted, and 40% of all births are to unmarried women, with large differences by race and ethnicity (Cherlin, 2020b; Smock & Schwartz, 2020). The valuing of children has remained stable, according to the satisfied camp, but norms regarding who is responsible for their nurturance are in flux (Orthner, 1990). Critics of the satisfied camp, however, insist that values and norms are inextricably linked and that “you can’t go on revolutionizing norms forever without changing values” (Bellah, 1990, p. 228). Underlying these changes in norms is a valuing of individual rights, personal freedom, and self-fulfillment. For example, this camp shies away from making it more difficult to divorce because such policies could interfere with an individual’s right to self-fulfillment and could subject women, in particular, to domination or abuse (Giele, 1996). Even in the family realm, individual variation is the norm rather than the exception. For example, Orthner (1990) explained that what is expected in family roles such as that of parent or spouse is less apt to be prescribed by societal norms and more apt to be customized to the needs of the individual in a particular family situation. The Family Agenda of the Satisfied Camp

For this camp, the crux of family policy is not reversing the family trends that have occurred, but rather establishing the institutional supports needed to cushion families from rapidly changing social and economic conditions (Giele, 1996). Any negative consequences of these changing conditions are attributed, not to the structure of the

222

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

family itself, but rather to the quality of the relationships and the processes that occur within the family. The satisfied camp focuses on family processes noting that not all children in a traditional married family structure grow up in a nurturing environment (Cowan & Cowan, 2019a) and many children who grow up in nontraditional family structures do well. Focusing on family processes rather than family structure calls for a qualitatively different family agenda. The satisfied believe that a family agenda ought to include public policies that “rebuild a social environment in which diverse family forms can sustain themselves with dignity and mutual respect” (Stacey, 1993, p. 547). Consistent with their views that human development is multiply determined, the agenda would include broad-based policies in health, housing, nutrition assistance, and income security to create a strong government safety net that can buffer families from the negative repercussions of demographic, economic, or social changes. To reduce poverty, the satisfied camp would propose government supplements to income along with vocational and apprenticeship programs to increase individual earning potential. They would support policies that decrease the adversarial nature of divorce and oppose policies that impose harsh penalties for nonpayment of child support (Stacey, 1993). A key plank of the satisfied family agenda is women’s equality, as articulated by the prominent spokesperson and former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (1989, p. 114): If we get rid of the inequalities that hinder women, we strengthen the family at the same time. For me, building a family policy has meant finding a way to bridge the gap between public policy and the reality of women’s lives.

Critics say that equating the needs of women with the needs of families magically creates a coherent argument but one that fails to acknowledge the inevitable conflicts that arise between individual rights and family responsibilities. What’s more, it overlooks the inherent tensions that men (like women) face in balancing their rights as individuals with their responsibilities as family members (Blankenhorn, 1990). A cornerstone of the satisfied camp is that public policies should target individuals who, they contend, will in turn contribute to family well-being. This is the polar opposite of the argument advanced by the concerned camp—policies should target families that will, in turn, contribute to individual well-being.

The Impatient Camp According to the impatient camp, the tumultuous changes in family life in the last 50 years have been insufficient in their magnitude and societal acceptance. This camp applauds the decline of the nuclear family and the rise of multiple family forms, such as cohabiting couples, multi-generational families, same-sex partners, single parents, and families with children from multiple partners. The impatient camp worries about the grim prospects for children brought about by these rapid changes in family structure. Yet this camp still contends that family changes have not gone far enough and that society has

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

223

Table 10.3  The Impatient Camp View of Family Changes as Insufficient in Magnitude and Acceptance Family Changes of Interest

Values

Policy Agenda

• Welcomes the decline of the nuclear family • Applauds the rise in multiple family forms • Worries about the grim prospects for children brought about by family change • Concerned about society’s failure to respect and support increasingly diverse family forms

• • • •

• Legal, economic, and social policy reforms that promote cultural diversity • Policies aimed at supporting the realities of alternative family forms rather than recreating middle-class lifestyles and values • Universal policies that provide benefits regardless of work, class, marital status, family structure, or income

Relativism Pluralism Diversity Skepticism about progress • De-emphasis of perceptions of the individual • Continual questioning of assumptions of truth and meaning, and a constant search for bias

not come to grips with how families are impacted by forces, such as racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism (Allen & Henderson, 2022). In essence, this camp is impatient with society’s understanding of diversity in contemporary families, respect for family diversity, and the shortage of social policies that support family forms that diverge from the norm (see summary in Table 10.3). Because the concept of family is so historically and culturally specific, the impatient camp contends that no definition of the term family is possible (Stacey, 1993). They propose eliminating the concept altogether and replacing it with more generic terms such as enduring intimate relationships (Cheal, 1991), a location for resource production and redistribution (Hartman, 1981), partner relationships, or primary relationships (Scanzoni as cited in Doherty, 1999). The decline of the nuclear family should be hastened, according to Stacey (1993), because the family is not an institution, but rather an ideology with a history and politics created by more privileged or powerful groups to advance their own interests (Cheal, 1991; Williams et al., 1995). This ideology upholds the image of the Standard North American Family: a heterosexually based, gender-normed, two-generational unit formed around a married couple (Allen & Henderson, 2022; Doherty, 1999). Casting this family form as the standard infers its superiority and implies that any family that deviates from this standard is defective or dysfunctional (Cowan & Cowan, 2019a; Williams et al., 1995). Consequently, many children in this country growing up in other family forms may be harmed by the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle messages that their family does not measure up. The impatient camp points a finger at those who study, teach, or design family policies for too rarely calling into question standard assumptions about families (Cheal, 1991;

224

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Rapp, 1978). The impatient raises questions about how personal family experiences and the dominant family ideology may blind researchers’ understanding and bias their analysis, largely in unconscious ways (Doherty, 1999; Rapp, 1978; Smith, 1993). For example, in research designs, single-parent families are often contrasted with two-parent families, who are treated as the normative standard of comparison. In practice, when a child in a nonnormative family experiences a problem in school, the problem can easily be blamed on a defective family rather than on other potential causes in the peer group, school, or community. The Values of the Impatient Camp

The values that underlie this camp are relativism, pluralism, diversity, skepticism about progress, and a de-emphasis of the perspectives of the individual. This camp is relativistic in the sense that they believe in no single truth, no ubiquitous moral code, no preferred family form, and no universal core to family life that can be defined as the family (Cheal, 1991; Giele, 1996). They would resist identifying any set of values as core American values because truth and meaning are arbitrary, revealing themselves only in a local context (Cheal, 1991; Williams et al., 1995). This perspective prompts a continual questioning of assumptions and a constant searching for bias. Fundamental to this perspective is pluralism and diversity, which the impatient substantiate with examples of the dysfunctionality of traditional family forms and the functionality of alternative family forms (Cowan & Cowan, 2019a). For example, the impatient contend that children who are growing up in a traditional married family can be more disadvantaged by conflict in the marriage than by divorce (Stacey, 1993). The impatient contend that family dysfunction is often racially loaded (Cox, 2015) and point out the pragmatism of nontraditional families in turning friends into family, as illustrated by the fictive kin observed in ethnographic studies of African-American social networks. Although there are no legal ties, those friends who provide care and support may be called mommas and daddies. The pooling, borrowing, and exchange that occur is functional in helping families deal with crises and cope with the realities of their daily lives (Rapp, 1978; Smith, 1993). In economically disadvantaged families, a woman who has children with several different fathers and is able to maintain relationships with them expands the potential for economic support of her children (Rapp, 1978; Smith, 1993). The impatient camp values diversity and points out hypocrisy when lofty words don’t match reality. For instance, the U.S. Constitution with its high-sounding principles that all men are created equal was written at a time when African Americans, who constituted one-fifth of the population, were bound in slavery (Williams et al., 1995). Yet critics point out the hypocrisy of the impatient, who claim to value diversity but are dogmatic in their rejection of family forms based on marriage (Cheal, 1991): Certainly, under present conditions of political, economic, social, and sexual inequality, truly egalitarian marriage is not possible for the majority. One can only conjecture whether a fully egalitarian marriage would be compatible with lifelong commitments to dyadic intimacy under utopian conditions of gender, sexual, racial, and economic

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

225

justice. If, as many feminists have begun to suspect, a stable marriage system depends upon systemic forms of inequality, it will take more than thought reform or moralistic jeremiads about family decline to stanch our contemporary marital hemorrhage. (Stacey, 1993, p. 547)

This camp believes that privileging the Standard North American Family formed around a married couple works against gender equality by assigning women responsibility for children and casting them in a subservient role to men. This privatized model of family life keeps women “in their place” and portrays children as a personal responsibility rather than as a resource for the whole society (Havas, 1995). In contrast to the satisfied camp, the impatient camp does not see family demographic changes as progress. The satisfied camp sees family changes progressing toward a state of equilibrium marked by improved well-being or increased social harmony. Conversely, for the impatient camp, the endpoint of change is a continual state of instability that will bring only dubious benefits, advantaging some and disadvantaging others (Doherty, 1999; Williams et al., 1995). The individual is less central to this camp than to the satisfied camp because the individual’s perceptions are shaped by experience, culture, and the dominant ideology. For example, the impatient frequently cite the familiar words of Jessie Bernard that there are two marriages—his and hers. Because the perceptions of men and women are socially constructed, social science data based on these perceptions can be easily distorted (Cheal, 1991). The Family Agenda of the Impatient Camp

The impatient camp argues for legal, economic, and social policy reforms, yet cautions that they should promote cultural diversity rather than cultural conformity. In the policy arena, the impatient believe the insidious family ideology becomes a set of blinders that obscures the family circumstances of the disadvantaged to the more privileged, who are often the designers of policies and programs. This camp claims that welfare policies designed to encourage employment are an example of attempts to recreate middle-class lifestyles and values among minorities and less privileged families who lack the resources to emulate the family patterns of the privileged (Rapp, 1978; Williams et al., 1995). To parallel the entry of middle­-class mothers into the labor force, recent welfare policies have required welfare mothers to work. Yet in contrast to the employment experiences of the middle class, the jobs available to welfare mothers do not provide the salaries, training, benefits, and flexibility that facilitate the integration of work and family responsibilities (Boushey, 2011). Given their job prospects and preparation, some welfare mothers may be unsuccessful at moving into the workforce—a result that can lead to a trampling of their dignity (Williams et al., 1995); moreover, it can feed into public perceptions that the poor are undeserving, which can erode public support for welfare programs. Welfare policies may also fail, according to this perspective, because of opposition by members of the

226

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

dominant group who resent upsetting the existing social order by bringing minorities and the disadvantaged into the mainstream (Williams et al., 1995). To avert a system of cultural conformity that deepens class and racial divides, this perspective favors universal policies that provide benefits irrespective of work, class, marital status, family structure, or income (Williams et al., 1995). In the United States, universal programs are more expensive than means-tested programs but, once established, are able to maintain ongoing political support, as evidenced by the success of programs like Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, and universal public education (Gornick et al., 2022a; Skocpol, 1996; Wilson, 1997). The value of inclusive, universal policies was demonstrated in a recent study of parental leave policies across 27 European countries. When universal family leave policies were inclusive of all single parents, and they helped those who were employed to maintain employment and also those who were unemployed to gain employment (Bartova et al., 2022).

Applying the Theory of Paradox to Family Policymaking The concerned, satisfied, and impatient worldviews differ in whether the family changes that have transpired over the past half-century are an “unwelcome decline or welcome diversity” (Cowan & Cowan, 2019a, p. 307). Embedded in these different interpretations are several true paradoxes such as an emphasis on consequences for children versus adults, a focus on cultural or structural responses to family change, and perceptions of government as the problem or the solution. Policymakers often grapple with several other true paradoxes of family life— rights versus responsibilities, moral absolutism versus moral relativism, self-sacrifice versus self-fulfillment, and conventional versus pluralistic family forms (Rappaport, 1981). According to the theory of paradox, the optimal response is not a pendulum swing to either extreme or a rigid either-or mentality (Gates, 2004), but rather an elegant integration that falls somewhere in between or holds both poles in dynamic tension. Compromises that move toward the middle ground hold the potential to result in more realistic family policies that mirror the inherent give and take of family life. To demonstrate its potential in avoiding these false debates, I apply what the theory of paradox means for settling on a definition of families and for considering the role of families in policymaking. The theory is also applied to political decisions, such as which strategies can advance specific issues, who should respond, and how to design a comprehensive family policy agenda. Applying the Theory to Defining Families in Policymaking

This book argues that a focus on families in policymaking, referred to here as familism, is valid and defensible. Yet the theory of paradox would raise the question of whether familism comprises a real contradiction and whether it has an equally compelling

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

227

opposite pole. A valid counterpoint is individualism (see Triandis et al., 1993). Focusing exclusively on familism can interfere with hard-fought individual rights, such as women’s career opportunities, equal wages, and reproductive rights (Ooms, 1998). Focusing exclusively on individualism and its excessive striving for occupational advancement, social status, material gains, or pleasure-seeking can interfere with the time and commitment required for healthy marriages, effective parenting, and strong civil societies (Brooks, 2019; Hewlett & West, 1998; Wilcox et al., 2015). Thus, the familism-individualism dichotomy is a true paradox that raises the need for holding these two poles in creative tension to avoid the ominous specter of pushing too far in either direction. But what would a family and a family agenda framed by the theory of paradox look like? At the heart of the three worldviews of family change is the definition of family itself and whether one endorses conventional family forms and/or pluralistic variations. The theory of paradox would not endorse the extreme position of romanticizing the two-parent, married family as a “haven in a heartless world” (Lasch, 1977) nor the equally extreme position of demonizing married families as an instrument of oppression, patriarchy, and abuse (Stacey, 1993). Instead of painting either a nostalgic or gloom-and-doom view, the theory would conceptualize families as a source of some of life’s most exhilarating joys and devastating sorrows (Ooms, 1990; 2019). According to this theory, not everyone would belong to the same kind of family. Accordingly, a family agenda to support and strengthen families would not support the extreme conformity of the concerned camp or the excessive relativity of the impatient camp but would absorb and integrate the best thinking of both views. For example, there would not be an undiscriminating acceptance of all family forms as functionally equivalent, and there would not be an exclusionary rejection of families formed around marriage. Family forms would be assessed based on their capacity to foster the responsibility and commitment that appear to be the engine for producing competence and character in children and adults alike. Ideas would not be dismissed solely because they emerged from middle-class lives nor would we “accept at face value the historic claims of the middle class to speak for everyone” (Featherstone, 1979, p. 43). Family life, by its very nature, would revolve around commitment. Marriage or partnerships would not be built on an unbending, steel-like commitment that traps people in abusive relationships, nor on a commitment of such fragile metal that it fractures under mild stress. However, commitments to children (who depend on the care of adults) would resemble titanium steel that does not yield to stress and persists despite duress. Marital commitments would not be broken casually and, when children are involved, would be acceptable to the community only after conscientious involvement in marriage or relationship education, parent training, family therapy, or support groups (Doherty, 1999). Applying the Theory to Strategies for Advancing Specific Family Issues

Applying the theory begins with a painstaking perusal of a specific family issue to discover whether a real contradiction exists. Once it has been discovered, a response can be designed that, in the spirit of a true paradox, holds the dynamic tensions in balance.

228

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

For example, family policies that derive from the theory of paradox would not be based on the self-sacrifice advocated by extremists in the concerned camp or the self-fulfillment advanced by zealots in the satisfied camp. Using the example of long-term care, policies would be established that assist families in providing care to elderly members or those with disabilities without requiring total self-sacrifice of other personal, family, or occupational pursuits. Yet policies would not allow a singular focus on self-fulfillment by freeing individuals of any responsibility to care for and assist family members who experience impairments in functioning (Nieuwenhuis & Van Lancker, 2020). At the heart of many family policy issues is the tension between the competing interests of children and their parents. This tension is exemplified by Corbett (1993) in his discussion of welfare reform. Welfare reformers face the dilemma of balancing two important, yet contradictory, goals: reducing parental dependency on welfare (as the concerned advocate for) and reducing child poverty (as the impatient advocate for). Reaching either goal alone would be relatively simple but attempting to simultaneously reach both goals has proven extraordinarily difficult. For example, Corbett (1993) claimed that dependency could easily be ended by eliminating all welfare benefits, thereby providing the parent with no program on which to become dependent. Ending welfare programs, however, would increase the number of children living in poverty, thereby jeopardizing children’s well-being. Alternatively, child poverty could be ended by increasing welfare benefits. Yet making welfare more generous would run the risk of increasing the number of welfare recipients and the prospect that they might become dependent on government assistance. Thus, the crux of welfare reform is to reduce welfare dependency by encouraging parental self-sufficiency, but to do so in a way that does not increase child poverty and harm child well-being. Welfare reform is a policy dilemma that constitutes a true paradox. When addressing a true paradox, the impatient warns about approaching it through one’s own cultural and historical experiences (Gergen, 2001). The problem that can ensue is engaging in perceptual reductionism, which is (self-righteously) viewing one segment of the population as the dominant identity who should be the target of the policy response (Brooks, 2016; Corbett, 1993). For example, using welfare reform as an example, those concerned about welfare dependency fixate on adult welfare recipients who, they contend, bear some responsibility for their family’s economic situation and who, they believe, should assume some obligation for improving it. Those concerned about reducing child poverty, however, fixate on the children in welfare families, who are perceived as not being responsible for their plight nor able to exert control over it. Children are seen as deserving protection, especially given the lifelong consequences of childhood deprivation (Gornick et al., 2022b). Another way that this plays out in reforms to the welfare system is that some policymakers hold uppermost in their mind a middle-class mother who divorces and loses her job, and will need short-term support to get back on her feet. Other policymakers conceptualize a low-income, (oftentimes Black), unemployed mother who will need long-term job training and work experience to become self-sufficient. The conceptual error of zeroing in on one image of the population and falsely assuming that it represents the whole distorts policy

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

229

debate. In addition, it lessens the likelihood of compromise and a comprehensive policy response that will work for the diverse welfare population. Applying the Theory to Considering Who Should Respond

Sometimes the decision that polarizes policy debate, albeit needlessly, is not what the policy response should be, but rather who should make the decision (Obama, 2006). Does the decision lie at the doorstep of individuals, government, civil society, or the market economy (Wolfe, 1989)? Should the state use its coercive arm to enforce its value preferences or are the value choices best left to individual conscience and the evolving norms of society? Do employers have a responsibility to pay for parental leave and can the government incentivize the business community to take the lead (Santorum, 2017)? Or will a broad-based cultural movement be needed, as occurred with women’s equality, civil rights, and environmentalism? One obvious fault line has been the preference among the satisfied and impatient camps for structural solutions that provide the conditions for change, and the preference of the concerned camp for cultural solutions that provide the motivation for change. For example, when considering the causes of poverty, the satisfied and impatient camps tend to attribute poverty to the conditions in which families live. Stated simply, if society provided jobs that paid a living wage, a strong social safety net, and better living conditions, poverty and its associated ills would disappear. The concerned camp, however, cites cultural causes, contending that some low-income people have different attitudes and values than exist in mainstream society. According to this view, if the poor would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get married, work hard, and believe in themselves, they could succeed under current conditions. Consistent with the theory of paradox, these two explanations are diametrically opposed to each other and neither alone is adequate. Attitudes and values are not the sole cause of poverty nor can social conditions fully explain everything. Moving too far in the direction of the attitudes and values perspective ends up with cultural explanations for poverty that blame the victim. Yet relying exclusively on the social conditions perspective can result in the government taking over responsibilities that individuals and families can better perform themselves, and overlooks the resilient individual who defies the odds and overcomes debilitating circumstances. Paying attention to one pole and ignoring the other is clearly a one-sided approach that fails to capture the complex, dynamic, and multifaceted face of poverty. In his study of poor African-American men in the inner city, Wilson (1991) raised the prospect that these two explanations may be inextricably linked in a cyclical pattern that, reminiscent of the proverbial chicken and egg, has no clear cause and effect. For example, is it possible that social conditions such as racism and plummeting job prospects of poor, inner-city men make it difficult if not impossible for them to secure employment? When these men do secure jobs, does the low pay and lack of benefits feed into negative attitudes about employment that, if expressed, increase discrimination by employers (Wilson, 1991)?

230

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

In policy circles, examples exist of extreme positions that have tempered recently as both poles have gravitated toward the middle. For example, some proponents typically classified in the concerned camp recently made policy recommendations that other camps conceivably would agree with—public policy should “encourage work, make family life more affordable, or teach valuable relationships skills” (Wilcox et al., 2015, p. 121). Similarly, Haskins (2015) advised that activists of all political persuasions face the fact that we have millions of female-headed families and that we need policies that respond to these new family realities. Even though Haskins leans toward the concerned camp, he has proposed policies that would likely gain broad-based support, such as expanding child care subsidies, creating more opportunities for young men to prepare for employment, and providing federally subsidized jobs for low-income parents, both mothers and fathers (Haskins, 2015). Some proponents typically allied with the satisfied perspective have noted that culture, although not an exclusive explanation, should not be dismissed as a contributor to problems of the poor (Cherlin, 1997; Wilson, 1991). Famed African-American activist Jesse Jackson advised advocating for structural solutions but suggested they be accompanied by a moral revolution as well. The power of the theory of paradox is evident in Jackson’s admonition, which integrates the cultural and structural viewpoints: People are not responsible for being down, but they are responsible for lifting themselves up. Applying the Theory to Designing a Comprehensive Family Policy Agenda

Each camp can play a role in building the fertile ground from which compromise and consensus can spring forth. For example, we can look to the concerned camp to document social problems, and to the satisfied and impatient camps for offering policy responses. Unless we are willing to admit that problems exist, policy responses will not follow (Gallagher, 1990). For example, the concerned point out that children do less well when raised by single parents; even when parents are employed, single-parent families still have lower incomes and higher rates of poverty than two-parent families. The primary reason and, perhaps one that is informative but infrequently mentioned, is that single-parent families lack a second adult (Harkness, 2022; Sawhill, 2022). Two adults have twice as much time, which can be used for earning income, caring for children, or performing domestic tasks. A second adult can fill in for the other parent when one of them is ill, unemployed, or needed at work. A larger extended family has the potential to bring the intergenerational transfer of resources and wealth of four grandparents rather than two (Sawhill, 2022). The concerned camp clarifies the gap that needs to be filled to meet the needs of children in single-parent families. Yet even this documentation of problems will not spawn political action unless policy solutions are forthcoming (Kingdon, 2011). The concerned and impatient camps focus on solutions that promote the needs of children for consistent and caring parents or parentlike figures. The satisfied camp emphasizes the rights of parents to transition out of conflictual or abusive relationships. Acknowledging the validity of multiple perspectives and responses can help avert the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other that generate public cynicism about the capacity of policy to get anything right.

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

231

The theory of paradox acknowledges the validity and utility of opposing views that provide a more realistic understanding of family problems, and more comprehensive and innovative policy responses. Searching for compromise and seeking multiple solutions is not a mealy-mouthed politics that leads to mediocre policy, but is often the only way that policy gets done. As discussed earlier in this chapter, Corbett (1993) claimed that the crux of welfare reform is the attempt to reach two valid, seemingly contradictory policy goals: reducing child poverty and reducing family dependency on welfare programs. Similarly, helping parents better balance conflicting commitments to work and family may require the simultaneous pursuit of both structural and cultural responses. For example, structural supports such as paid parental leave or flextime could provide parents with more opportunities to spend time with their children. Also, cultural campaigns that place a high priority on childrearing might provide parents with the motivation to create and take advantage of these opportunities. Ironically, these seemingly contradictory policy goals, which are often touted by opposing political camps, would each be more likely to be effective if implemented in concert with the other. For example, work-family benefits are more apt to materialize in a cultural climate that values childrearing. At the same time, when the cultural climate values childrearing, parents will be more likely to take advantage of the benefits available to them.

Applying the Theory of Paradox to Engagement in Polarized Politics The fault citizens find with politics is not that it is too complex, but rather that it oversimplifies, polarizes, and fails to examine the fertile, gray ground between extreme positions (Hahn, 1994). The theory of paradox offers a framework for bridging these extreme positions with the potential to circumvent the tired debates and paralyzing stalemates of the past. The theory is built around the very real contradictions that are an inherent part of human nature and the circumstances of modern life. These contradictions are presented, not as an impediment, but rather as a framework for more fully understanding social problems and designing effective policy responses. The theory calls for us to “live these contradictions” in the pursuit of true paradox that can identify solutions that might not previously have been seen or even imagined (Hall, 2005). Living in the midst of contradictions is a tense and uncomfortable place to be. Most people do not enjoy the ambiguous space between the poles where there are no sure answers, no decisive actions, and no guarantee of finality. This discomfort is made harder in the midst of a culture that wants certitude: Given the sociological mythology of attainability (instant everything!) by which our society is driven at every level, it is hard to live in the midst of irresolution, prolonged tension, conspicuous incompleteness …. People want what has become a favorite word in public discourse of late: closure. (Hall, 2005, p. 69)

232

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

The contradictions show us how chaotic and incoherent the world is. Yet these contradictions can deepen into a true paradox that offers the potential of responding in innovative, new ways: So, in the manner of paradox, we come full circle. By living the contradictions we will be brought through to hope, and only through hope will we be empowered to live life’s contradictions. How do we break into this circle which goes round and round with no apparent point of entry? (Palmer, 1980, p. 43)

Let’s get started! Let’s get inspired! As aptly stated by Palmer, “The world isn’t something we adjust to. It’s something we adjust … We are responsible for the world, and the shape the world takes depends on how we live our lives” (1980, p. 42). Engaging politics during an era of polarization takes the boldness and courage to step out of our comfort zone and a willingness to shed ourselves off stereotypes of people who think differently than we do. It will require being proactive to come in contact with people with whom we disagree. It calls for engaging them to seek common ground but always with the utmost respect and kindness. Finally, it will take seeking new ideas and innovative solutions with an open mind. Table 10.4 summarizes how to do family policy when politics are polarized. Table 10.4  How to Do Family Policy When Politics Are Polarized What to Do

Why to Do It

Be bold and courageous

The pursuit of new ways to bring together conflicting ideas is never easy, but once true paradox is glimpsed, it “burns to be said” (Rappaport, 1981, p. 7).

Move beyond being stuck in stereotypes

“You like or dislike people long before you know much about them; you trust or distrust strangers without knowing why” (Kahneman, 2011, p. 97).

Engage with people with whom you disagree

“There are few, if any, issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side” (J. F. Kennedy, 2006, p. 5).

Talk agreeably about politics even when you disagree

“We are going through a cultural transition … As a result, there are all these people in America who just don’t feel at home in their own country … When you threaten someone’s sense of home, it’s like stepping on an anthill of red ants” (Friedman, 2022, Feb. 9).

Seek new ideas and innovative solutions with an open mind

The most daring solutions will require “ideologically unpredictable” people, who are open to meeting liberal ends with conventionally conservative means, or to meeting conservative ends with traditionally liberal means (Brooks, 2019). “What if the boldest ‘new ideas’ in social policy involved figuring out ways to strengthen the oldest of institutions”— families (Dionne, 2004, p. 335).

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

233

Be Bold and Courageous

Political action will not happen without citizens willing to step out of their comfort zone into the unknown. It will take moving away from the same old ideas and familiar allies in search of political adversaries who have the potential to become new allies. The pursuit of new ways to bring together conflicting ideas is not easy, but the beauty of paradox is that once glimpsed, it “burns to be said” (Rappaport, 1981, p. 7). Discovering true paradox can create a sense of urgency, much like sounding an alarm that wakes people up to the need for political action. Recognizing true paradox requires the perceptiveness to look beyond the obvious and the courage to go against the grain of popular thought. Advocates often are bold and courageous for the most extreme positions on the right or the left. What is needed is bold and courageous actions for positions that are less popular and innovations that are less well-known. The advice offered by Rappaport (1981) is that “those who are interested in social change must never allow themselves the privilege of being in the majority, else they run the risk of losing their grasp of the paradox …. When most people agree with you, worry” (p. 3). In a similar vein, prize-winning historian Timothy Snyder encourages citizens to resist the temptation to follow along. Instead of going along to get along, he advises doing or saying something different: It is those who were considered exceptional, eccentric, or even insane in their own time—those who did not change when the world around them did—whom we remember and admire today. (2017, p. 52) Move Beyond Being Stuck in Stereotypes

When it comes to politics, it is easy to resort to stereotyping people we do not know or understand. Human beings come to rely on intuitive feelings or opinions about almost everything. This makes it easy to lump people we don’t know into big categories and make assumptions about what they are like and what they believe even before we speak with them (Cooper-White, 2022). According to Nobel Prize winner, Daniel Kahneman: “You like or dislike people long before you know much about them; you trust or distrust strangers without knowing why” (Kahneman, 2011, p. 97). Let me illustrate here with my extensive experience working with policymakers. Policymakers are easy to stereotype because we know so little about them and what it takes to be effective in their jobs. Take, for instance, Mayhew (2011) who characterized members of Congress as “mediocre slackers given to nastiness, pork-barreling, corruption, extremism, broken processes, lapdog behavior toward presidents of their own party, and other behaviors that vitiate policymaking and leave the public cold” (p. 890). This is a classic case of stereotyping policymakers that blindly places all policymakers in one big bucket. As aptly stated by a cognitive

234

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

scientist, “We can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness” (Kahneman, 2011, p. 24). Without personal experience working in the policy arena or access to others who have, one can be blind to those policymakers who are decent people of action (Albaek, 1995). It then becomes easy to paint policymakers with a broad brush that maligns all of them in negative terms. If these stereotypes remain unchallenged, they can morph into misperceptions that can sabotage attempts to build relationships and seek common ground. Sadly, negative stereotypes can be applied to any person you disagree with. It is all too easy during an era of polarized politics to portray adversaries in tribal terms—as right or wrong, as good or evil. With policymakers, these Black-and-White characterizations are reinforced by 24-hour news coverage that is made available largely through partisan or ideological filters (Pinker, 2018). Changes in stereotypes will come, not from minimal or superficial exposure. Instead, it will take ongoing, one-on-one engagement (Chua, 2018). Why is engagement so essential? In studies, it is easier to be hostile to people you disagree with in the abstract than it is when you meet them in person. It is harder to be hostile when you see a human face and when you hear a human story from a real person with their own struggles, hopes, and dreams. Changing stereotypes begins with building personal relationships that flow from engaging in difficult conversations (Cooper-White, 2022). Relationships are important at every level, not only our relationships with policymakers but also policymakers’ relationships with each other. In a recent study of polarization in state legislatures, we compared one of the most polarized states in the nation and one of the least polarized states in the nation. This study was unusual in that we asked for the perceptions of state legislators themselves. We examined the usual suspects for polarization including campaign finance laws, ethic laws, gerrymandering, lobbying, media coverage, polarization in the public, strong governors, and so forth. But to our great surprise, the driving force was policymakers’ relationships with their colleagues and how party leaders used these relationships for political ends. In the more polarized state, party leaders discouraged and even constrained members and their staff from building relationships with the minority party (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). Similarly, one of the most consistent findings in a decade on studies of how to increase research use in policymaking is establishing trusting relationships between policymakers and researchers. But how do you engage people you disagree with in an agreeable and productive way? Engage With People With Whom You Disagree

A cardinal rule of engagement, according to communitarian Amitai Etzioni, is that you cannot wait for people to be perfect. It’s so much easier to engage people who you agree with and who agree with you (Braiker, 2003). However, one tenet of the theory of paradox is that diametrically opposite views can be developed by reasonable, rational, well-meaning people. Accordingly, adherents to the theory are expected to respect, not

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

235

reject out of hand, views different from their own. Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president knew this well: There are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost everything, especially of government policy, is an inseparable compound of the two, so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded. (cited in Kennedy, 2006, p. 222)

Despite today’s ready access to information and the ease of travel, it is all too easy to find ourselves in a hall of mirrors where only our own views are reflected back at us (Amato, 2015). We tend to seek information that confirms our views and associate only with others who think like we do. Social psychologists call this confirmation bias. Because we associate with like-minded people, we conclude that everyone thinks the same way that we do (or at least every reasonable person). But how do we break out of this bubble, which is much of our own making? A simple way to start is to wander into unfamiliar territory. If you’re a liberal, watch Fox News or read the Wall Street Journal. If you’re a conservative, listen to MSNBC or read the Washington Post. The next step is to meet people at places where your views may be in the minority. Join a bowling team or a golf league. Participate in a book club or join a church and stay for coffee hour. Volunteer in a homeless shelter, a food kitchen, or a youth organization. Intentionally seek out places and spaces where you can make new friends with folks who think and vote differently than you do. Initiate conversations in the spirit of learning and listening. Engage for the purpose of understanding rather than trying to one-up people with your brilliance for the purpose of winning an argument (Cooper-White, 2022; Marsh, 2004). Will you be able to engage with every person and every group? Probably not! Deciding whether to strike up a conversation begins by considering how hardened the person is in their beliefs whether now is the right time and whether this is the right place. To assess whether to engage, Cooper-White (2022) uses the analogy of a traffic light. For some people and in some circumstances, you may encounter a red light: “STOP—talking will do no good—at least not here, not now, not by me” (p. 104). You need to recognize when you are encountering a person who is steeped in confirmation bias. Has the person adopted a deeply held set of beliefs that continually are being reinforced by right- or leftwing TV news networks and conservative or liberal social media sites? Is the person in frequent contact with a whole host of family and friends who also are true believers? Encountering a red light does not mean that all is lost. When you hit a red light, you can think about the voices this person may be crowding out and work for justice on their behalf (Hall, 2005). The trick is to avoid jumping to the conclusion that every person you disagree with is most certainly a red light. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that every policymaker you disagree with—every Republican or every Democrat, every conservative or every liberal—is a red light. It is also easy to assume that the other side is completely unified. Yet if the truth were told, there is usually plenty of internal debate about what the policy goals should be and how to best achieve them. A Republican in a

236

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Republican-dominated state explained the fallacy of assuming a unified front, even when that is how it appears from the outside: It’s funny because people think that, “Oh, you Republicans control everything, so you can do anything you want. So not true … You’re almost better with just about … 50% than you are with sometimes bigger majorities. It is because … [when] you have numbers that big, you have a diverse representation from all across the political spectrum.”

These ideological cracks can create a real opportunity. If you can find those people who are less extreme, you may find they are more pragmatic and willing to cooperate to get things are done (Jonathan Strandjord, personal communication, January 31, 2023). If you remain open-minded, you will encounter some people who are more like a yellow light and you can proceed cautiously. Others will likely be a green light where you engage in deeper conversations but always gently and wisely (Cooper-White, 2022). This requires giving the benefit of the doubt to those with whom you disagree just as they, in turn, will extend the presumption of good faith to you (Obama, 2006). Talk Agreeably About Politics Even When You Disagree

Ironically, the first step in talking with people you disagree with is not to talk much at all. Listen more than you talk. Therapists offer three guidelines to keep in mind: looking for common ground, showing respect, and treating others with kindness (Cooper-White, 2022). Look for Common Ground

The common ground begins with finding the values that you share. Americans share many values—compassion, the dignity of all people, fairness, peaceful resolution of conflict, opportunity, tolerance, and so on (Etzioni,1992). When beginning a conversation with a person you disagree with, it’s important to find a value or principle that you agree about. One way to identify shared values is by asking “why” they are interested in the issue before you ask “what” they want to do about it. The “why” reveals the reason a person is invested in an issue, which is often based on a value or moral stance that is close to their heart (Brooks, 2019). Finding agreement on something close to another’s heart is a good place to start. For instance, it may be easier to find agreement on a value, such as people deserving to be given opportunities; it’s harder to find agreement on what specific ways opportunity should be given. Perhaps a real-life example will help clarify. In the 1930s, Barry Flinchbaugh (1988), a Cooperative Extension educator, was asked to discuss Social Security in a conservative region of Indiana. In those days, if you dared mention Social Security in rural Indiana, you were “pink” at best, and downright “communist” at worst. Most likely, you were surreptitiously promoting the ideas of that wild-eyed, liberal New Yorker, Franklin D. Roosevelt. So, Flinchbaugh reframed the presentation toward “why” people were interested in the issue—the importance of taking care of old folks. In this way, he was able to move the discussion toward the “why”, which was a value widely shared

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

237

among most people, and away from the “what”, which was the single controversial and polarizing policy option of Social Security. Show Respect

Engaging with people with whom you disagree does not mean disagreeing less, but rather disagreeing better with less contempt and more respect (Brooks, 2019). To respond with respect takes an effort to try to understand how another person thinks about an issue, even when it seems foreign or hard to fathom. One common question in political circles is why working-class people vote Republican when Democratic policies might provide them with more opportunities for good-paying jobs, more job protections, and more support during periods of unemployment. One common answer is that instead of voting their self-interest, they vote their values and they vote their identity (Lakoff, 2004). What exactly does it mean to vote your identity? Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas Friedman gave this compelling account. He explained that the United States is in the middle of many major transitions that are all occurring at once. This has led people to ask “Whose country is this?” and to question whether they still belong: We are going from a majority White country to a minority dominated country … We are going through a cultural transition around issues of gender. And we are going through a technological transition. As a result, there are all these people in America who just don’t feel at home in their own country … When you threaten someone’s sense of home, it’s like stepping on an ant hill of red ants. There’s nothing that makes people more viscerally angry than a sense of you’re taking away my sense of being at home. (Friedman, 2022, Feb. 9)

Working-class folks vote as they do because they believe Republicans better grasp these challenges to the very core of their identity. This example also illustrates a common piece of advice that I heard in our study of state legislators—never question another’s motives. It is fair game to question what others say or do, but not why they say or do it. Coming to an understanding of why people think as they do makes it easier to avoid second guessing them. It also makes it easier to treat them with respect, even when you disagree. Working as closely with policymakers as I did had many benefits. One big benefit is that the longer that I worked with them, the more I came to respect them. The more that I came to know them, the more familiar I became with how hard the job of a policymaker is and the mix of skills it takes to do it well. Treat Others With Kindness

The more effort you make to find common ground and to show respect for what everyone brings to the table, the easier it is to be nice and treat others with kindness. Kindness means being attentive to the needs of others but does not mean always making them feel comfortable. You can debate ideas, but you can do so kindly and respectfully (CooperWhite, 2022).

238

W H AT F O R C E S I N F L U E N C E S T H E F O R M AT I O N O F FA M I LY P O L I C Y

Even at those times when you don’t feel like being kind, engaging with people in kind ways actually helps you become a nicer and kinder person. It’s not how you feel that determines how you act—it’s actually how you act that determines how you feel (Brooks, 2019). And contrary to popular thought, nice people don’t finish last. Nice people get better performance reviews from their bosses and are more often regarded as future leaders by their colleagues (Brooks, 2019). Seek New Ideas and Innovative Solutions With an Open Mind

The premise of the theory of paradox is finding constructive solutions to social problems during polarized times. One of the biggest challenges this theory presents to family policy activists is not understanding its logic or rationale but being able to operationalize its premises that may be at odds with their prior training and personal views. Recognizing the validity of views different from one’s own is no small feat for professionals whose training, experience, or ideology may imply there is a single view that is true, correct, and right. As aptly put by 35th President John F. Kennedy “There are few, if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side” (2006, p. 5). For example, the concerned camp needs to dampen its discomfort with government policies, the satisfied camp has to temper its distaste of cultural solutions, and the impatient camp needs to forgo its passion for relativity enough to recognize that some policy responses are better than others. We need both the left and the right, both liberals and conservatives debating vigorously (and kindly) over the best way to move forward (Brooks, 2019). The most daring solutions will require “ideologically unpredictable” people, who are open to operating outside the scripts imposed by established dogma (Brooks, 2019). Professionals and policymakers alike increase the odds that they will be effective if they are open to meeting liberal ends with conventionally conservative means, or to meeting conservative ends with traditionally liberal means. Just as a marriage counsellor knows that it will not work to advise a couple who is struggling with communication to fight it out with daggers, scholars need to acknowledge that attacking each other from entrenched ideological camps will not improve the situation. Daring ideas require first coming together around a moral consensus, such as helping low-income people live better lives, and then proceeding to debate innovative ideas that “scramble the categories” of the habitual hardline responses from the left and the right. E. J. Dionne (2004) argues that society needs a new political center and that, over the years, our abiding concern about needy children provides the focus for such a synergistic political realignment. Even the hardest of hearts soften at the specter of a child suffering from family failings or the workings of a coldly efficient economic system. So, one way to bring partisans together may be focusing on society’s interest in having children well cared for and nurtured, which most often happens in families. Dionne’s provocative conclusion is this: What if “the boldest ‘new ideas’ in social policy involved figuring out ways to strengthen the oldest of institutions”—families (2004, p. 335).

W H Y P O L A R I Z AT I O N I N F L U E N C E S FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

239

Summary The chapter illustrates the adage that “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” The theory of paradox explains how it is possible to overcome polarization by bridging conflicting ideas and building the compromise that is the essence of democratic decision-making. • A real contradiction is two ideas or principles that occupy opposite poles that are irreconcilable with each other but are simultaneously valid. Pursuing either pole to the extreme distorts our understanding of a societal problem and our ability to design effective responses. • The true paradox occurs when real contradictions are able to be held in creative tension with each other. Pursuing possibilities within these tensions can generate compromise solutions not previously imagined or considered. • The theory of paradox acknowledges the validity and utility of opposing views that provide a more realistic understanding of family problems and more innovative policy responses. The more the responses, the better the chances of achieving the comprehensive solutions that complex problems often require. • The promise of the theory was demonstrated by applying it to one of the most contentious and consequential issues facing Americans today—addressing the demographic changes that have occurred among U.S. families during the last halfcentury. The concerned camp focuses to a large extent on the negative consequences of these family changes, particularly for the development of children. The satisfied camp focuses more predominantly on the positive consequences of these changes, especially for the well-being of women. The impatient camp claims families have changed too slowly with insufficient support and respect for family diversity. • Engaging in politics during an era of polarization takes the courage to step out of one’s comfort zone and be proactive in engaging people who think and vote differently than you do. It will take a willingness to seek new ideas and innovative solutions with an open mind. • The most daring solutions will require “ideologically unpredictable” people, who are open to operating outside the scripts imposed by established dogma. Professionals and policymakers alike increase the odds that they will be effective if they are open to meeting liberal ends with conventionally conservative means, or to meeting conservative ends with traditionally liberal means.

The next five chapters of the book build on the practical strategies presented here for discussing even the most polarizing issues with those with whom we disagree. First, we introduce a toolkit for analyzing policies and programs for their impact on families. In an era of political polarization, we offer nonpartisan tools built around the popular concept of families that policymakers say have the potential to rise above partisan politics.

Part 4 HOW PROFESSIONALS CAN MAKE FAMILIES MATTER IN POLICYMAKING

11

243

CHAPTER 11 A TOOLKIT FOR INFUSING THE FAMILY IMPACT LENS INTO POLICY, PROGRAMS, AND PRACTICE

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Karen Bogenschneider, Olivia Little, Theodora Ooms, Sara Benning, Karen Cadigan, and Thomas Corbett

Most policymakers would not think of passing a law without first asking, “What’s the economic impact?” The family impact lens encourages policymakers and professionals to routinely ask, “What is the family impact of this policy, program, or practice?” (The mantra of leaders of the Family Impact Seminars)

• What would it take for policymakers to routinely view policy decisions through familycolored glasses? • Could policy decisions be more effective and efficient and equitable if viewed through the family impact lens? • What tools exist for infusing the lens of family impact into policy, program, and practice decisions? • What family knowledge and policy expertise are needed to conduct family impact analyses?

Families themselves are among the most private and individualized units of society. Yet strong and well-functioning family units are a powerful tool for public good. Family units that are able to move up the economic ladder contribute to our collective economic growth. Families being able to care for their members—whether infants or elders—lifts that expense from the community. Families nurturing members’ educational and vocational aspirations spur inspiration for a promising future. Families enhancing their member’s social and emotional development build the resilience of our schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces at a time when mental health support is needed on multiple fronts. Families are the cornerstone of every neighborhood, every school, every community, every state. But how often do we consider the impact that public policies have on building strong families? Not often enough. Why do many family policies and practices never see the light of day in the United States as they do in other nations? DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-15

244

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Australia is perhaps the longest-lived example of putting families firmly on public and political agendas. Over 30 years ago the state of New South Wales, in which a third of the country resides, required family impact statements in all cabinet ministries (Wong, 2010). Since this inauspicious beginning in 1988, the progress has been substantial. Former director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies Harry McGurk stated in 1994 that, “In the future, it ought not be possible for social, economic, or other policies, at local, state, and commonwealth levels, to be developed or implemented without consideration being given to their impact on families and family life” (McGurk, 1994). Also, around that time, Canada’s Premier Council in Support of Alberta Families developed a checklist that specifies aspects of communities that can contribute to or detract from family wellbeing. The checklist was widely used by realtors to help families choose family-friendly communities in which to live (Huemmert, 1995). In the 21st century, national attention to family impact continues. For example, in 2008, in Hong Kong, the Chief Executive and Family Council adopted a family impact perspective in policymaking; in 2013, this family perspective progressed to the point of making it mandatory that all policy submissions and Legislative Council briefs be assessed for their implications for families (King, & Mancini, 2014; Lau & Doneker, 2014). Meanwhile, in 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron famously called for a family test to be applied to all domestic policy: If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keep people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn’t do it. More than that, we’ve got to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work, the way people bring up their children …. This has got to be right at the top of our priority list. (Cameron, 2011)

In contrast to the experiences of many other countries, the concept of family impact in the United States still remains “highly abstract and seldom operationalized” (Ooms, 1995, p. 7). The idea of using family impact analysis dates back to U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings held in 1976 on the state of American families. Prominent scholars like Urie Bronfenbrenner, Margaret Mead, and Edward Zigler proposed that policies be routinely analyzed for their impact on families (Ooms, 1995). During the 1980s, several proposals for operationalizing family impact analysis emerged. Despite the initial enthusiasm, most of these proposals were never seriously implemented (Bogenschneider et al., 2012). Pro-family talk is no longer enough (Coalition of Family Organizations, 1988). In this chapter, we attempt to shift the discussion from rhetoric about appreciating families to prioritizing them as worthy of study, investment, partnership, and political action. We propose that families be viewed as an area of study that deserves financial support and encouragement, a specific population to be assessed as an indicator of societal health, and an explicit target of public policy, and a standard criterion for evaluating the impact of policies and programs. We present several pragmatic processes and procedures for applying the family impact lens at several points in the policy

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

245

process—when ideas are being debated, when policies are enacted, when programs are established, when practices are implemented, and when impacts are evaluated. The key questions that are asked and the fundamental issues that are raised are detailed in Table 4.3 in Chapter 4. Prioritizing families is so sensible that the reader should not be dissuaded by the potential complexity of bringing a family impact lens to the making and implementing of public policy. In an era of political polarization, we offer a nonpartisan toolkit built around the popular concept of families that policymakers report has the potential to rise above partisan politics (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). In the fast-paced setting of federal- and state-level policymaking, we offer an efficient tool—a simple checklist for keeping family impact front and center in the hearts, minds, and votes of policymakers. This chapter builds on the experience of other countries around the world and the success of this country using checklists in several fields. Family impact checklists mirror the checklists now common in medical decision-making that have been shown to improve surgical outcomes. For example, in one study several years ago, surgeons and nurses were asked to complete a one-page checklist of best practices before proceeding into the operating room. In an evaluation, completing this short checklist reduced surgical complications by 36% and deaths by 47%. The results were surprising because the checklist did not address the training or skills of the medical staff; instead, it helped them perform at the level they were capable of by bringing to mind the best practices they had learned in their specialized education (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Similar processes, ranging from checklists to more nuanced examinations, have taken hold for assessing environmental, fiscal, business, health, and racial impacts. Since 1969, environmental impact assessments are being conducted following standards and processes developed by the National Environmental Policy Act. Fiscal and economic impacts of legislative proposals are conducted by the Congressional Budget Office in the U.S. Congress and nonpartisan legislative service agencies in many state legislatures. What’s more, 45 states now use some form of health impact assessments to identify the effects of policy decisions on the health of individuals and communities. Ten states currently have mechanisms in place for racial impact analyses to determine how a proposed policy might harm or help different racial and ethnic groups (Sileo, 2022). Many developed nations associated with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have established business impact statements to assess whether proposed regulations follow best practices to protect business interests, while still advancing other societal goals (Head, 2015). These assessments appear to hold promise, but they clearly depend on the context. Their utility relies, in part, on who will use the analysis, the purpose for its use, the time and resources required to conduct it (Yeager & Walton, 2011), and how effectively policymakers can integrate the results of a family impact analysis into their decisions. Yet unknown is whether checklists that target a specific issue or a particular population are more or less effective than a general checklist that examines impacts across issues and across populations.

246

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Figure 11.1  The Family Impact Lens in Policy and Practice. Reprinted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., Cadigan, K., & Corbett, T. (2012c). The family impact lens: A family-focused, evidenceinformed approach to policy and practice (p. 523). Family Relations, 61, 514–531. Copyright 2012 by the National Council on Family Relations.

We propose here ways to infuse the family impact lens into policy and practice using methods that encompass a wide-angle view of family support and a more microscopic focus on a particular policy or program. We operationalize the family impact lens in three ways—as Family Impact Discussion Starters, Family Impact Checklists, or Family Impact Analysis, all of which builds on five core principles. In Figure 11.1, we organize these three methods from the least time–consuming (i.e., family impact discussion starters) to the most time- and resource-intensive (a full family impact analysis); the family impact checklist method falls in between in terms of required time and resources. Each method uses different procedures, but all have a shared purpose of developing policies and programs that strengthen and support diverse families across the lifespan. The methodologies vary according to who will use the analysis, the purpose of its use, and the available time and expertise. (These methods are adapted and expanded from the earlier writing of Ooms & Preister, 1988.)

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

247

We begin this chapter at the end. First, we provide examples of the value of conducting a family impact analysis, so you can decide whether its potential benefits are worth the costs of investing your time and resources. We introduce a set of theories rooted in a strong combination of paradigms that collectively provide the rationale for the family impact framework and guide the selection of which method is most suited to local circumstances and professional capacity. Next, we introduce the five Family Impact Principles that form the core of each method. Then we describe each method in detail indicating when and how it is used with examples of its effectiveness in applying the family impact lens to policies, programs, and practices. We conclude with tips for conducting family impact analysis and the resources available in the Family Impact Toolkit, comprised of two key definitions, three key procedures, and six key tools.

The Value of the Family Impact Lens in Policies, Programs, and Practices Viewing policies and programs through the lens of family impact has revealed consequences of policies and programs that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. For example, it can uncover unfair circumstances and perverse incentives when some individuals are eligible for benefits and others are not because of their family situation. It can identify how involving families can maximize policy and program effectiveness, efficiency, and equity, and thereby increase the return on investment. It can improve policy and program design and implementation, and denote which populations of families are the targets of interest and which are inadvertently overlooked or devalued. Family impact analysis can also identify when families and family policy are being used by government, business, and other institutions to serve their interests more than they serve the interests of families. Not everyone cited in these examples would have characterized their findings or analytic methods as a family impact analysis, but nonetheless they revealed undeniable family impacts. Policy and Program Eligibility

A published family impact analysis revealed disparities in eligibility in the design and debate of a prominent immigration bill. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was first introduced in 2001 to provide access to higher education, legal employment, or military service to qualified individuals, aged 12 to 35, who were undocumented. To date, the bill has not passed. The intent of the proposed legislation is clear. Those included in the bill who are eligible for protection are the children of undocumented immigrant families, not their parents or the family unit itself. The political rhetoric around the bill characterized undocumented children of immigrant parents as deserving and their parents as undeserving. As examples, in the words of former Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, “Those who came to the US as minors under

248

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

the care of their parents are not guilty of their parents’ transgressions” (Mahatmya & Gring-Pemble, 2014, p. 83). This same sentiment was expressed by the late Republican Senator Orrin Hatch: Thousands of children of undocumented immigration … came to America as children, playing no part in the decision to enter the United States, and may not even know they are here illegally. A great many grew up to become honest and hardworking young adults who are loyal to our country and who strive for academic and professional excellence. It is a mistake to lump these children together with adults who knowingly crossed our borders illegally. (Mahatmya & Gring-Pemble, 2014, p. 82)

The public discourse around the DREAM Act, “made assumptions about which family members are good and bad,” a dichotomy that was one finding of the family impact analysis (Mahatmya & Gring-Pemble, 2014, p. 83). Another prominent example is the frequent criticism of the Affordable Care Act for its “family glitch.” Basically, individuals who are offered health insurance through their job are not eligible for subsidies if they choose instead to buy a plan from the health insurance exchanges. Here’s the glitch. If an employee wants family coverage and the employer does not offer it, the employee can purchase family coverage on the exchanges but are ineligible for a subsidy and must pay the full exchange price (Carroll, 2014). In October 2022, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) finalized a new rule that will fix the glitch, which is expected to be implemented before November of 2023. This glitch made a massive difference on family access to health insurance. The IRS estimates that between 600,000 and 2.3 million individuals will now become eligible and will enroll in coverage through the Federal exchange. In addition, between 80,000 and 700,000 individuals who were previously uninsured will now gain coverage (American Bar Association, 2022). Policy and Program Effectiveness

Family impact analyses can reveal ways that individual family members or certain types of families are disadvantaged or advantaged by policies and programs. For example, one provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed 19- to 25-year-olds to be covered by their parent’s private health insurance plan. Not surprisingly, health insurance coverage increased among young adults. Surprisingly, this provision was associated with decreases in the likelihood that a young adult would marry or cohabit, and increases in the probability they would divorce (Abramowitz, 2016). This is consistent with evidence that having access to insurance coverage makes divorce more likely (Sohn, 2015). A family impact analysis was conducted and published on The National Family Caregiver Support Program, which provides direct services to family caregivers of persons aged 60 and older. An important contribution of this policy is that it increased

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

249

awareness of family caregivers as a legitimate target of long-term care policies and programs. Based on the available research, the program was found to provide valuable support to family caregivers and to delay nursing home placement for the care recipient. Moreover, in emerging evidence, programs designed to involve family members had a better track record in improving the quality of caregiving. For instance, family counseling was more effective in supporting family caregivers than either group counseling or peer-to-peer support (Barber, 2013). The use of checklists has also been shown to result in more equitable outcomes. In 2008, Iowa policymakers became aware that the state had the highest disparities in the nation for sending Black people to prison in comparison to other racial groups. In response, policymakers passed the nation’s first law requiring minority impact assessments of any bill that (a) created a public offense, (b) toughened penalties on existing crimes, or (c) changed parole, probation, or sentencing procedures. Between 2009 and 2015, 61 minority impact statements were issued. When the statement indicated no effect on minority incarceration or the potential to reduce disparities, the bills were twice as likely to pass (Foley, 2015). Policy and Program Efficiency

Family impact analyses reveal that our most revered policies and programs can have a family downside. For example, paid maternity leave improves child outcomes and mother’s labor force participation (Nandi et al., 2018). However, studies in countries with generous family leaves have found that when leaves are “too long,” it affects the types of jobs open to mothers when they return to work; after longer leaves, mothers are more apt to be employed in jobs that are segregated by sex and have larger gender-related wage gaps (Hook & Li, 2020). Family impact analysis revealed that one of our most effective anti-poverty programs does not treat all families the same. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) imposes penalties for being married. For instance, if a single mother marries another lowincome individual, each who earn $25,000, they will lose $4,000 in EITC credits. The penalties are even worse if each individual has children. A couple with four children, who each came into the marriage as a head of household, would lose $7,500 of EITC credits (Steuerle, 2021). This is a significant income loss for a family struggling to get by. Family impact analysis can reveal economic gains or losses for families, but also serious savings or costs for government. One example is the return on investments in subsidizing birth control for low-income women. In economic analysis, the annual cost of longacting, reversible contraception (LARC) is $100 to $600 annually. Compare this to the cost of a birth, which is $18,329 for a vaginal delivery and $27,866 for a C-section. Given that about half of births are unplanned, the potential savings are enormous. A study of Medicaid estimated that providing contraception saved $4.26 for every dollar invested (Klein, 2014).

250

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Policy and Program Design and Implementation

Family involvement proved pivotal to program implementation in a meta-analysis of 47 studies including 11,000 participants from seven different countries. Participants were involved in wide-ranging programs and services such as elementary schools, family support programs, mental health services, neonatal intensive care units, preschool programs, rehabilitation centers, and special education services. A family-centered approach proved relatively more effective for all outcomes and resulted in higher satisfaction with the program itself, as well as its resource levels and services. In addition, when families were deliberately involved in the ways programs were implemented, participants had stronger self-efficacy beliefs, higher ratings of child and parent behavior, and improved adult and family well-being (Dunst et al., 2007). Yet many of these evidence-based, family-centered practices are not routinely incorporated into programs for young and old alike. Family barriers emerged in analyses of how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, delivers nutrition benefits to needy families that are primarily lowincome households with children. In studies, SNAP has been effective in reducing food insecurity by as much as 36% and in improving birth outcomes, child health, and access to health care. Yet SNAP is administered in ways that make it challenging for potential recipients to apply for and maintain enrollment. Participation declines when applications for benefits must be completed onsite, which requires taking time off work or making special arrangements for child care or transportation. In studies, changing administrative policies to be more family-friendly increased program participation and also decreased costs (Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center, 2022). For the aged, family caregivers play critical roles at all stages of health care from prevention to chronic disease management. Family members often attend doctor’s visits, coordinate long-term care services, dress wounds and give injections, manage medications, participate in hospital admission and discharge, and so forth (Ooms, 2019). Yet despite their extensive involvement, a National Academy of Sciences analysis found that only about one in three (32%) family caregivers reported that a doctor, nurse, or social worker had ever inquired about what they needed to care for their aging relative. Moreover, only about one in six (16%) family caregivers said a health provider had ever asked what they might need to care for themselves (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2016). Impact analysis also revealed how the design and implementation of policies can result in racial disparities. Schools across the country have implemented zero-tolerance policies that arrest, suspend, or expel students for minor infractions, such as violating the dress code or talking back to school personnel. In Illinois in 2009, “get tough” infractions were estimated to account for 78% of the 4,597 school arrests and cost the state an estimated $240 million. Black students were 30 times more likely to be punished for these minor infractions than White students. Moreover, 46% more of the punishments for Black students were likely to result in out-of-school suspensions. In 2016, advocates used

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

251

this data to enact an anti-zero tolerance policy, which at the time it was enacted was the strongest in the nation (Nalani et al., 2021). Policy and Program Targets of Interest

The family impact lens examines who a policy or program targets and whether the target is more or less favored in society. For example, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in most states provides health care benefits to low-income children, who are seen as deserving, but not to the child’s parents living in the same home, who may be seen as less deserving (Ooms, 2019). In another example, an analysis of the sex education curriculum of secondary schools revealed the omission of the needs of a stigmatized segment of the youth population. Only 17 states and the District of Columbia teach sex education materials relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or questioning youth in at least half of their schools (Steed et al., 2021). Family impact analyses have revealed disparate effects of policies on disenfranchised or underrepresented populations. For example, the Adoption and Safe Families Act was found to inadvertently expedite the loss of parental rights among Black parents and increase the placement of Black children in foster care (Few-Demo, 2014). In Wisconsin, the parental rights of incarcerated people were threatened by a bill that was introduced in the Senate in 2021. Parental rights could be terminated if the parent was likely to be incarcerated for a substantial period of a child’s life, and if the parent had failed to maintain a relationship with the child. Critics maintained that the bill would likely deepen racial disparities and disregarded circumstances beyond the parent’s control, such as pandemic-era restrictions (Robinson, 2022). To date, the bill has failed to pass. Policies and Programs That Serve Institutional Interests More Than Family Interests

A single public policy has the potential to serve the interests of both families and other societal institutions in positive and negative ways. One of the best examples of a single policy that has private and public benefits is child care. Child care benefits parents by making it possible for them to go to work or attend school. Child care benefits children who develop stronger academic and socioemotional skills. And small businesses can benefit because it meets one of their demands if they are to grow—a reliable supply of child care for their employees. So a single policy can benefit multiple public and private stakeholders. Yet the iconic image of family also can be used for nonfamily and self-serving purposes. Take, for instance, the use of the term family farm. Whenever Congress is working on the farm bill, special interests paint a picture of the small struggling family farmer. Yet the subsidies that the government pays to farmers primarily go to large agricultural producers. In 2016, 89.9% of all farms were small family farms, yet they received 27% of commodity payments and 17% of the compensation for crop insurance (Bakst, 2018).

252

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

A family impact analysis also can uncover instances when institutions borrow the family brand and the whole culture that surrounds the family for nonfamily purposes. As illustration, think of a company that uses language like “We’re a family” or “Welcome to the [company name] family” (Luna, 2021). Companies have an incentive to brand their workplace as a family to emphasize the importance of working well together and to encourage employees to pitch in whenever needed. However, setting up the dynamic of the company being like family can create the expectation that employees should be loyal to the company. In studies, an exaggerated sense of loyalty can lead to employees feeling obligated to work unreasonable hours to get the job done or even to volunteer for work that falls outside one’s own responsibilities. Moreover, much as one feels duty-bound to keep “family secrets,” studies find that employees may be reluctant to report wrongdoing for the sake of the company (Luna, 2021). In such ways, the family brand can be co-opted to serve the interests of the company, government, or other institutions. Underlying all these examples is the broad bipartisan appeal of both families and agendafree family analysis to Democrats and Republicans, to liberals and conservatives, and in red, blue, and purple states. Family impact analysis seldom recommends a single policy option or particular program recommendation. Instead, it raises considerations that policymakers can weigh alongside other considerations and factor into their decisions. If the methods of family impact analyses and their consequences have inspired your confidence in their potential value, the next step is to understand how family impact analysis is guided by theory. Here we overview the theories that undergird the rationale and methodology for applying the family impact lens to policies, programs, and practices.

Theoretical Rationale for the Family Impact Lens Theoretically, the family impact framework and methodology are highly eclectic. Ecological family systems theory frames the foundation for the family impact lens, selfefficacy theory provides the rationale for and core components of supporting autonomous family functioning and the open policy windows theoretical framework guides the design and use of diverse methodologies. Ecological Family Systems Theory

Ecological family systems theory is an amalgam of Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) concentric nested circles representing human ecology and Minuchin’s (1974) structural family systems theory. According to ecological family systems theory, families are the first and foremost influence on individual development; policies and programs shape the environment in which families operate and, in so doing, can strengthen or undermine family’s capacity to support its members (see Figure 5.1 adapted from a diagram developed by the Minnesota Family Impact Seminars). According to structural family systems theory, organizational processes that maintain family systems (e.g., boundaries, power, transactional patterns) serve several ends. Internally, these processes promote the psychosocial development of individual family members. Externally, they help members

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

253

adapt to changes in their cultural, economic, and social contexts. The more contexts change, the more crucial families become. Self-Efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy theory provides a rationale for supporting family autonomy in ways that supplement rather than replace family responsibility. If policies were successful in building family self-responsibility, it could mean more government intervention in the short term, but it could also mean less government and lower costs in the long run. Prevention and support services that are made available at earlier stages when a problem is developing may help avoid more intensive interventions when a problem becomes a crisis or chronic situation (Coalition of Family Organizations, 1989). When families break down and are unable to fulfill their responsibilities, the costs to taxpayers of funding child support, child welfare, long-term care, and other assistance programs can be enormous. The capacity of strong, well-functioning families to fulfill their responsibilities stems, in part, from their beliefs about self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). As shown in Figure 11.2, to

Figure 11.2  Relational and Participatory Influences on Family Self-Responsibility Based on Self-Efficacy Theory. Based on Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Meta-analysis of familycentered help-giving practices research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 370–378.

254

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

build family self-efficacy, policies and programs need to incorporate relational practices that treat families with dignity and respect and participatory practices that provide choice and input into decisions (Dunst et al., 2007). Relational practices involve active listening, compassion, empathy, and respect that relay positive beliefs about family strengths and capabilities. Participatory practices are individualized, flexible responses to family needs that allow choices and input into decisions about family goals. In a large meta-analysis with an international scope, increases in both relational and participatory practices were associated with more positive and less negative perceptions of child, parent, and family behavior and functioning (Dunst et al., 2007). Relational practices, because they are strength-based, appear to focus family members on more positive aspects of their family’s functioning, their child’s behavior, and their own actions. Participatory practices, perhaps because they actively involve family members in goal-setting and decision-making, are positively related to a family’s capacity for autonomous functioning. These practices are included in the family impact checklist because they appear to have transcontextual validity, yielding similar results when used in different countries, in disparate disciplines, and in diverse settings (e.g., early childhood programs, mental health programs, neonatal intensive care units, public schools, rehabilitation centers, specialty clinics). Programs that utilize both relational and participatory practices exert direct effects on family self-responsibility and indirect effects through their influence on strengthening family self-efficacy. Open Policy Windows Theoretical Framework

Kingdon’s (2011) mid-range theory of open policy windows informs the design and use of methods that are best suited for applying the family impact lens. Kingdon uses the analogy of open policy windows to emphasize when the conditions are right for social change on an issue. When policy windows are open, policymakers are willing to invest their time, energy, and political capital because their efforts are more likely to pay off (see Figure 11.3). Policy windows open when three conditions for social change converge: problems are recognized, policy solutions are available, and the political climate supports change. Typically, elected officials such as legislators, the president, or the governor select the problems to place on the legislative agenda, whereas policy players such as scientists, policy analysts, and agency officials identify policy solutions. Elected officials determine which policy solutions are politically and economically feasible. Kingdon’s (2011) theoretical framework advanced our thinking beyond the single-family impact method of the 1980s to develop different methods depending on the unique role of the policy actor in the policy process. Typically, the role of elected officials is to identify which issues could benefit from a family impact analysis, what they hope to learn from it, and who is best positioned to conduct such an analysis. Other policy players, such as scientists, policy analysts, and agency staffers are more apt to conduct

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

255

Figure 11.3  Theory of Open Policy Windows to Guide Family Impact Lens Methodology. Based on concepts drawn from Kingdon’s Policy Agenda-Setting Theory (2011).

the analysis and draw family and policy implications. Elected officials determine when and how it may be most politically and economically feasible to apply the results. Given these different roles, we developed a two-page guide for policymakers that (a) presents five questions we term the Family Impact Discussion Starters to help determine which issues might benefit from an in-depth analysis, and (b) guide decisions about who might have the expertise to conduct the analysis. For family scientists and policy analysts, we developed a 28-page rationale (Bogenschneider et al., 2012b) and a 40-page handbook (Bogenschneider et al., 2012a) with specific procedures and protocols for (a) conducting an abbreviated analysis using a family impact checklist, (b) conducting a full family impact analysis, and (c) drawing implications about how the policy, program, or practices affect specific types of families and particular family functions. Typically, it is up to decision-makers to weigh these (often competing) implications and determine which actions are most feasible given current political and economic realities. These resources for professionals and policymakers along with several family impact checklists and family impact analyses are available at the Resource Center (https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/family-impactinstitute/) and also at the website for this book at www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider.

The Family Impact Principles The guiding principles were originally developed by the Coalition of Family Organizations in the 1980s (Ooms & Preister, 1988) and revised in 2012 by the authors of this paper under the auspices of the Family Impact Institute. We reviewed the original

256

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

principles in light of changes in family life and the diversity of contemporary families. We conducted an extensive literature review of advances in theoretical and empirical evidence, and updated the principles and questions accordingly. The updated principles enjoy a broad and consistent consensus among family scholars. The content, wording, and objectivity of the questions were vetted by family scientists, family practitioners, and policymakers of different political persuasions. Note that the principles apply the family impact lens to policies or programs (i.e., what policies or programs are enacted or established) and also to practices (i.e., how policies or programs are implemented). For ease of reference, the principles are numbered, but not rank-ordered. Keep in mind that not every principle will apply to every issue, and sometimes they may conflict with one another. Depending on the issue, one principle may be more highly valued than another, requiring trade-offs. Cost-effectiveness and political feasibility must also be taken into account. Despite these complexities, the principles have proven useful across the political spectrum and have demonstrated the potential to build broad, bipartisan consensus. Principle 1: Family Responsibility

To promote family self-responsibility and self-sufficiency, policy and practice should support and empower families to carry out such functions as family formation, partner relationships, economic support, child rearing, and caregiving (Krysan et al., 1990b; Walsh, 2016b). Policy and practice can help families build their capacity to fulfill these functions and avoid taking over these responsibilities unless absolutely necessary (Berlin, 2007, 2008; Conger et al., 2010; Hawkins & Ooms, 2012; National Human Services Assembly, 2009; Olds et al., 1997, 1998). At the same time, expectations of families need to be realistic. For those caring for family members who are dependent, seriously ill, or have disabilities, policies should acknowledge the societal value of this caregiving and take into account the support that caregivers may need depending on family structure, resources, and life challenges (Barber, 2013; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2016; Ooms, 2019; Patterson, 2002; Walsh, 2016b). Policy and practice should strive to address the root causes of family functioning. For example, policies that promote financial responsibility should consider contributing factors, such as child support payments, debt, low literacy, low and/or inequitable wages, availability of paid family leave (Nandi et al., 2018), the racial wealth gap (Bhutta et al., 2020), and unemployment (Black & Lobo, 2008; Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2008; Crosnoe & Cavanaugh, 2010; Daly, 2001; Fraenkel, 2003; Hawkins & Ooms, 2012; Walsh, 2016b). Principle 2: Family Stability

Family instability exposes children to an array of negative developmental outcomes, disadvantages adults emotionally and economically, and contributes to growing disparities of income and opportunity (Hawkins & Ooms, 2012; Lee & McLanahan,

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

257

2015; Smock & Schwartz, 2020; Walsh, 2016a). Policy and practice should reinforce healthy couple, marital, parental, and family commitments, especially when children are involved (Knox et al., 2011). Changes or transitions such as aging, adoption, or parental incarceration, give rise to internal processes and realignments that may extend over time and require ongoing support to maintain family stability (Gabovitch & Curtin, 2009; Leadbeater et al., 2004; Olson & Gorall, 2003; Walsh, 2016b). Incorporating prevention strategies can avert crises and chronic situations that can threaten family structure and functioning (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2008; Patterson, 2002; Small et al., 2009; Walsh, 2016b). Principle 3: Family Relationships

Policy and practice should acknowledge that family ties, whether positive or negative, are powerful and persistent (Conger et al., 2010; Knox et al., 2011; Moore et al., 2003; Walsh, 2016b). In healthy relationships, individuals are able to recognize and balance family members’ needs for separateness and togetherness (Moore et al., 2003; Olson & Gorall, 2003). Healthy families are able to maintain stability, while accommodating needed change, through positive relationships (Olson & Gorall, 2003; Walsh, 2016b). A number of family mechanisms contribute to family competence and resilience including strong communication skills, conflict resolution strategies, parenting skills, problemsolving abilities, and so forth (Krysan et al.,1990a; Miller et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2003; Olson & Gorall, 2003; Patterson, 2002; Walsh, 2016b). Principle 4: Family Diversity

Family functioning is influenced by an array of contextual factors including culture, family structure, geographic locale, life stage, members with disabilities, race or ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status (Leadbeater et al., 2004; Moore et al., 2003). Families of color, low-income families, and other marginalized groups are among the most disenfranchised in our society with well-documented and persistent disparities in education, employment, health status, and related outcomes (Allen & Henderson, 2022; Bhutta et al., 2020; Braveman et al., 2022; Burton et al., 2010; Olavarria et al., 2009; Pew Research Center, 2020; Reeves, 2017; van Eden-Moorefield & Shih, 2022; Yearby et al., 2022). To disentangle some of the complexities of where disparities occur and how prejudice comes about involves assessing such factors as biological differences, cultural practices, and institutional barriers in the community (e.g., biased policing and sentencing of men and boys of color, racial discrimination in health care, residential segregation, schools’ dependence on local property taxes, voter suppression; Bhutta et al., 2020; Braveman et al., 2022; Williams & Jackson, 2005; Yearby et al., 2022). Taken together, all these factors can affect family processes, financial stability, resource availability, and community connections, all of which can influence individual and family development (Allen & Henderson, 2022; Chan et al., 2021; García Coll, 2001; Jackson & Schneider, 2022; McGoldrick, 2003; Smeeding, 2016).

258

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Principle 5: Family Engagement

Family-centered approaches need to be systematically identified, verified, and incorporated into organizational philosophy, culture, and practice. For example, relational practices (e.g., communicating in ways that treat families with dignity and respect) and participatory practices (e.g., involving families in ways that provide choices and input into decisions) have been shown to strengthen family self-efficacy, which can, directly and indirectly, improve family self-responsibility in fulfilling their functions (Dunst et al., 2007). Formal policies and practices can connect families to informal resources such as friends; family-to-family supports; and community, neighborhood, volunteer, and faithbased organizations (Black & Lobo, 2008; Boyd-Franklin, 2003; Hawkins & Ooms, 2012). Policy and practice should strive to incorporate family voices (Walsh, 2016a), particularly those of marginalized families, who often are disconnected from political and planning processes and often labeled “hard-to-reach” (Greder et al., 2004; Winton & Crais, 1996). When family members are involved in reinforcing, supplementing, and sustaining the efforts of educators, health care providers, social workers, and other professionals, such efforts are more successful and sustainable (Dunst et al., 2007). These family impact principles are at the core of each of the three methods for operationalizing the family impact lens. A description of each method follows with examples of how it has been used in the real world.

The Family Impact Discussion Starter Method Each of the five principles has been translated into a single question, called Family Impact Discussion Starters, which are designed to place families front and center in policy discourse and decision-making (see Table 11.1). The discussion starters can be used to frame policy discussions on broad social problems or to generate policy responses by panels, boards, or commissions. They can also be used to prepare questions Table 11.1  Family Impact Discussion Starters How will the policy, program, or practice: • support rather than substitute for family members’ responsibilities to one another? • reinforce family members’ commitment to each other and to the stability of the family unit? • recognize the power and persistence of family ties, and promote healthy couple, marital, and parental relationships? • acknowledge and respect the diversity of family life (e.g., different cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds; various geographic locations and socioeconomic statuses; members with disabilities; and families at different stages of the life cycle)? • engage and work in partnership with families? Note. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012a). The family impact handbook: How to view policy and program through the family impact lens (p. 8). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

259

or testimony for hearings, committee meetings, and public forums about how policy and practice may have intended and unintended consequences for families. These discussion starters can help point out how well families’ needs are or are not being addressed. To illustrate their usefulness, the organizers of a Family Impact Seminar in one state used questions like these to examine whether rules for program eligibility provided incentives to marry or not to marry. Policy analysts who had written lengthy reports on eligibility for state programs were quick to acknowledge that questions regarding impacts on families were seldom asked and not easily answered. For example, eligibility for the state’s senior prescription drug program is based on federal poverty guidelines. For many elderly couples, if they married, their combined income would put them above the income cutoff. Meeting the income guidelines would be easier if they lived together rather than married, which is likely a consequence policymakers did not anticipate or intend (Normandin & Bogenschneider, 2005). Conceivably, the family impact discussion starters could provide a valuable perspective on many issues, but what are the odds that policymakers will use them? We asked 11 Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar advisors that very question (100% response rate). As a starting point for the 30- to 60-minute interviews, we discussed the two-page family impact guide for policymakers that includes the discussion starters along with an explanation of why the family impact lens is important and how it has benefited policy decisions. The sample consisted of 10 highly respected state legislators (5 Democratic and 5 Republicans), and 1 representative of the Republican governor’s office. Respondents included 8 women and 3 men, 10 who were White and 1 Black (Bogenschneider & Little, 2012). When asked how often family considerations are raised in the course of decision-making, most of the policymakers (8 of the 11) told us they are not mentioned very often and two said that it depends on the issue. One said that family considerations are mentioned more often than in the past, but still not often enough. When asked about the feasibility of raising family impact discussion starters at a hearing, committee meeting, or floor debate, nine said that it was feasible and two said that it was not (1 Democrat and 1 Republican). One representative explained that if legislators introduced these discussion starters during floor debate, they might get strange looks given the abstract nature of the questions that often have no concrete, numerical answers; instead, the representative advised that the questions would be more effective earlier in the process in hearings or committee meetings, perhaps raised by the committee chair or in testimony. One minority view was raised by a senator who questioned whether you could come up with any proof about family impact, contending that decisions about families are based, not on facts, but on dueling anecdotes—“just your anecdote versus mine.” Despite this dissenting view, the majority of policymakers viewed the family impact discussion starters as a helpful lens for policymakers to more regularly raise when making policy decisions. Several offered advice about who to target and how. Two legislators said that family impact is not something that most policymakers think about, but they could be taught to raise it more frequently and with greater effect. They could

260

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

envision one or two legislators being trained to become champions for families and for the family impact lens. A senator suggested that we encourage all legislators to keep the family impact discussion starters prominently displayed on their portfolios or committee folders so they remember to raise them. We often joke that it might be best to laser them to policymakers’ eyeballs. Because families are often thought of as a “soft, feel-good” issue, one legislator recommended that families need to be raised using an economic frame—how families contribute to sound fiscal policy and what are the long-term economic returns of supporting families. Finally, we asked policymakers who they would turn to if they wanted a family impact analysis. They told us they would “go to people they know” and groups they already work with. Nonpartisan legislative service agencies (N = 7) were mentioned most frequently followed by executive state agencies (N = 6). Several other sources of family expertise were mentioned by two or three legislators, including universities (N = 3). These findings suggest that effectively raising the family impact lens will take more than a slick checklist delivered to the desk of a policymaker. What will be needed is personal contact from a family professional trained to explain what family impact is, why it can be effective, and how to raise family considerations throughout the policy process.

The Family Impact Checklist Method The Family Impact Checklist method expands on each of the principles with a set of detailed questions that can be used to guide policy, program, and practice decisions. The family impact checklist includes the 5 family impact principles and 33 accompanying questions that delve more deeply into how to support and involve families in ways that reinforce policy or program goals. For example, the principle of family engagement is supplemented with a question regarding how well the policy, program, or practice “builds on social supports that are essential to families’ lives (e.g., friends; family-to-family support; and community, neighborhood, volunteer, and faith-based organizations).” Another question “acknowledges that the engagement of families, especially those with limited resources, may require emotional, informational, and instrumental supports (e.g., child care, financial stipends, transportation).” This general checklist is available as well as several targeted checklists for assessing family impacts in specific settings (e.g., adolescent treatment centers, communities, and schools) and for particular policies (e.g., child and family services plans, school funding formulas, and early care and education policies). These checklists can be found at the Resource Center (https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/family-impactinstitute/) and also at the website for the book at www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider. These checklists help organize the vast, complex, and fragmented evidence related to families into categories and factors that have special relevance for policy and practice. Paralleling the experience of medical professionals with checklists, professionals who use these checklists typically contemplate a greater breadth of factors and influences than they might have otherwise (Ooms, 1995).

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

261

Family impact checklists can be used as stand-alone tools to be applied before programs or policies are enacted. As such, they can help anticipate how families may affect and/ or be affected by a program plan or policy proposal. Even without a full family impact analysis, reviewing the principles and questions can encourage a focus on evidence-based program components and best practices that may be critical to family well-being and program efficacy. For evaluations of family impact, the checklists can help determine what data to collect, which outcomes to measure, and what criteria can assess whether effects differ by family type or context. Trainings have been provided on how to use the checklist by the Children, Youth, and Family Consortium at the University of Minnesota. One training at the state capitol attracted 57 participants including two state legislators along with parents, practitioners, program implementers, and university members. Another training in the largest urban county in Minnesota engaged 12 county-level staff from various departments including evaluation, human services, juvenile justice, and public health. Participants are trained to apply the checklist or conduct a full family impact analysis on the issues they contend with in their work setting. The usefulness of the family impact lens in raising family implications is illustrated here with the reentry experience of formerly incarcerated parents. For example, two-thirds of incarcerated females and one-half of incarcerated males are parents. When one parent is incarcerated, the children left behind are at risk of unhealthy development and all family members face financial stress, along with the emotional strain of separation (MihalecAdkins & Shlafer, 2022). When formerly incarcerated parents return home, the family can be central to the reentry process. Of course, not all families have the desire or means to help. Yet in one study, 90% of formerly incarcerated individuals “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their family had been supportive in the first few months after their release. Those who reported that their family was supportive had more success finding a job and, if substance abuse was an issue, staying substance-free. In fact, continuing contact with family members during and following incarceration has been found to reduce recidivism and foster reintegration (Travis, McBride, & Solomon, 2005). As critical as this support is, it often comes at a price for families, many of whom have limited resources. As a foundation for successful reentry, policymakers could enact programs that strengthen families who, in turn, could support the returning family member. The use of the family impact checklist revealed several specific ways that family needs could be taken into account. For example, policymakers could examine the state statutes and administrative rules that may affect the ease of reentry for those returning from prison and for their families (e.g., whether or not a formerly incarcerated parent can access food pantries or homeless shelters, obtain a driver’s license, or qualify for benefits such as food assistance or health care). Corrections agencies could improve visitation policies; expand the definition of family to allow visits by significant others who sometimes are raising the incarcerated parent’s children; and make it easier to maintain phone, video, or Internet contact. Schools, youth organizations, and family-serving agencies could assess and address special post-release challenges faced by families with a parent or partner impacted by the justice system (Bogenschneider, 2015; Mihalec-Adkins, & Shlafer, 2022).

262

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

The Family Impact Analysis Method Family Impact Analysis is a formal, in-depth methodology that uses the checklist tool to fully examine the extent to which rules, legislation, laws, programs, agencies, or organizations advantage or disadvantage family well-being. Family impact analysis differs from evaluations of policies and programs. Evaluation studies focus on whether stated goals are met, whereas family impact analysis examines whether these goals or efforts to achieve them have intended or unintended consequences for families. In contrast to the abbreviated use of the family impact checklist, this method is a full and in-depth analysis of family impacts. Four general steps or procedures apply. First, a policy, program, or organization must be selected. This entails a careful assessment of political feasibility and organizational readiness. Family impact analysis can be useful at different stages of policy/program development: early on when a policy or program idea is being debated or when a bill is being designed, at an intermediate stage during implementation, or at a later stage of evaluation or reauthorization. Picking the topic of the analysis and the stage of the policy process depends on the target audience, intended use, and available time and resources. These decisions often benefit from consultation with policymakers or program staff. Second, it is important to determine which family types might be affected. Table 11.2 identifies a range of family types, life cycle stages, and contexts. Early in the process, a family impact analysis ideally would consider various dimensions of family diversity, such as life stage (e.g., families caring for young children or elderly members with impairments), family structure (e.g., single parent, stepfamily, extended family), geographic locale (e.g., rural, suburban, urban), heritage (e.g., cultural, racial, ethnic, religious backgrounds), presence of disabilities (e.g., cognitive, emotional), and socioeconomic diversity (e.g., education, income). Third, the analysis needs to be conducted by selecting a family impact checklist (from the various checklists that are available), identifying the most relevant principles and questions, and determining the family impacts for each. Family impact analysis can consist of conducting an in-depth empirical analysis or computer simulation depending on the types of information and data that exist, and the time and resources available. Typically, however, it is a more qualitative process of drawing from existing evidence to estimate likely consequences. Expertise is generally needed from family scientists who understand family functioning and also from policy analysts or program staff who understand the specifics of a policy, program, agency, or organization. Fourth, it is important to interpret, disseminate, and apply the results. Family impact analysis seldom results in overwhelming support for or opposition to a policy or program. Instead, an analysis identifies ways in which families are impacted both positively and negatively. Conflicts are pointed out, such as trade-offs between older and younger generations, between costs and benefits, and between principles such as maintaining family stability and positive family and relationships. The analysis details likely impacts

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

263

Table 11.2  Family Diversity and Contexts Family Types

Family Life Cycle Stage*

Family Contexts

Socioeconomic Characteristics

• • • •

• Ethnic/racial/ cultural • Geographic (rural/ suburban/urban) • Informal social networks (extended family, friends, neighbors, peers) • Presence of disabilities (e.g., cognitive, emotional, physical) • Religious • Socioeconomic • Stigmatized or target of discrimination

• Education level • Income level • Occupation Structure • Adoptive family • Couple with and without dependent children –– Same-sex/heterosexual marriage –– Cohabiting –– First marriage –– Remarriage/stepfamily • “Estranged” family • Foster family • Immigrant family • “Living-apart-together” family • None, one, or more wage earners • Nuclear/extended/ multigenerational family • Grandparent-led family • Single-parent family –– Never married –– Separated –– Divorced –– Widowed –– Single-by-choice • Transnational family

• • •

•

•

•

Dating Hooking up Cohabitation With no dependent children With infants and preschoolers With school-age children With children in transition to adulthood With elderly members who have impairments Elderly with adult children/ grandchildren “Sandwich” generation— midlife adults with both young and old dependents

Note. *Families can be at more than one stage at a time. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012a). The family impact handbook: How to view policy and program through the family impact lens (p. 37). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

of the policy and its implementation on specific family types and particular family functions, but it does not rank or weight them. For example, is there one impact that is so important that it is a deal-breaker? These weightings often are based on value judgments made by policymakers on behalf of their constituents, or by program administrators on behalf of their governing boards and the families they serve. We developed two family impact protocols for different purposes. One protocol is for conducting a family impact analysis of rules, legislation, laws or programs. A second protocol is for conducting a family impact analysis of an agency or organization using a quantitative checklist supplemented with stakeholder discussion. Examples of how each

264

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

protocol was used and what family impacts emerged from the analysis are discussed in the following. The key procedures for each protocol, several family impact analyses, and several family impact checklists are available at the Resource Center (https://evidence2 impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/) and also at the website for this book at www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider. Conducting a Family Impact Analysis of Rules, Legislation, Laws, or Programs

Four examples of family impact analyses are given here that were conducted using the general family impact checklist. Three of these analyses were paper-and-pencil qualitative assessments and the fourth involved data collection. First, a family impact analysis of Wisconsin Works, the state’s cash assistance welfare program, revealed that the program’s success tends to be measured in strictly economic terms, with evaluations rarely considering how the program affected family relationships. Furthermore, although program guidelines promote building on family strengths and involving family members in case management, no data was available on how often or how well these provisions were implemented. Second, a family impact analysis of the Child-Parent Center, an effective early childhood education program in the Chicago public schools, revealed that parent involvement and family support were central to the program’s mission, operation, and effectiveness (Eddy, 2012). For children to be accepted into the program, parents were required to spend at least onehalf day per week at the Center. The analysis revealed a conflict between these program requirements and a family’s work responsibilities; the Center offered no weekend or evening hours, raising the issue of whether more flexible options for parent involvement are needed for parents employed during normal school hours. Another implication extended beyond the Center to society at large, specifically whether government has a role through actions such as parental leave laws that allow time off work for parents to participate in children’s schooling. Third, a family impact analysis of after-school programming found that effective programs provide families with an opportunity for interaction with program staff and with other families; in so doing, after-school programs offer the potential for families to build supportive social networks. However, in after-school programs, strategies to involve families often have been implemented on an irregular basis with limited time and attention (Lee, 2012). Finally, focus groups were used to collect data for conducting a family impact analysis of how well local child care centers supported families. In collaboration with two county Cooperative Extension educators, this family impact analysis was completed in two state-licensed child care centers serving 112 and 304 children, respectively, in two towns with populations of 10,000 and 15,000, respectively. The process employed a qualitative approach to gathering data and included the perspectives of both program staff and parents of children enrolled in the centers.

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

265

Each county extension educator partnered with a child care center director who helped recruit participants for focus groups, that were conducted separately for staff and parents. Each group of 8 to 12 participants was asked open-ended questions (derived from the family impact checklists) about how the center supports families and how their policies and practices might raise challenges for families. In addition, questions were asked about how the center works with families, assists and benefits them, and makes their day-to-day lives better. Participants were directed to provide specific examples and to think broadly and creatively about ways that the center could be supportive of families. The focus group methodology was useful because it allowed participants a confidential avenue for providing feedback to the center. Moreover, it resulted in rich conversations, which allowed participants to feed off each other’s comments, stimulating ideas and explanations that might not have emerged from a quantitative survey. The downside was that recruitment proved to be challenging, especially for parents with busy work and family schedules. The focus groups were supplemented by asking parent and staff participants to complete the quantitative checklist, Assessing the Impact of Child Care Centers on Families. Then participants were asked if the checklist questions raised any additional ideas, comments, or concerns. The center director was not present at any of the focus groups, but provided input by completing surveys about family demographics and an instrument assessing the family-friendliness of the center’s operating policies and procedures. The focus group conversations were transcribed verbatim by the extension educators, who then analyzed the transcripts for common themes and prepared a report to present to the director and staff. The report focused on ways families were well supported by the center and areas where the center could improve its support. Also, the report indicated areas where there were differences of opinion between the staff and parents. For example, in one center, staff felt it would be extremely beneficial for the center to provide parent education classes, whereas parents tended to consider this unnecessary because they were too busy or were already getting enough parenting information from one-on-one conversations with the staff about their child. Follow-up interviews were conducted with the directors three to six months later to identify any changes in policies and practices that had resulted. In one site affiliated with a church, the director credited the analysis with helping secure a vote of confidence from the congregation for a proposal that she had been working on for five years to remodel the church basement into a more usable, multi-purpose space. The director presented the report at a congregational meeting and some of the parents who were involved in the family impact analysis advocated on behalf of the remodeling project. For example, the remodeling provided private space for talking with family members about their child’s development, which 45% of staff reported in the analysis was “in need of improvement.” Also, the new space allowed the capacity to offer their camp program throughout the summer, which parents voiced as an important need. The show of support from the congregation had the side benefit of validating the child care staff, making them feel more like valued professionals and less like babysitters.

266

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

In a six-month follow-up at the second center, the center assigned consistent “closers” at the end of the day, so parents could discuss their child’s day with familiar staff. Clear communication and routines were implemented for scheduled room changes. Breakfast times were adjusted so all children could be served irrespective of their arrival times. In fact, the center was so pleased with the parent feedback that they developed monthly surveys so that they could collect parent concerns on a real-time basis. Conducting a Family Impact Analysis of an Agency or Organization Using a Quantitative Checklist Supplemented With Stakeholder Discussion

The community engagement process was developed and used in 28 Wisconsin communities for issues such as promoting positive youth development (see Bogenschneider, 1996) and in six Wisconsin middle schools for increasing parent involvement, which we describe here. The need for a family impact analysis of parents’ involvement in middle school was clear. In studies, one-third of students reported that their parents did not know how they were doing in school and one-sixth of students said their parents didn’t care if they earned good grades in the following year. Research evidence revealed that when parents were involved, students got better grades, scored higher on achievement tests, attended school more regularly, dropped out less often, and had higher career aspirations. However, without special efforts, few families continued as active partners after the transition to middle school (Steinberg, 1996). In response, Cooperative Extension educators teamed up with a state specialist to conduct a family impact analysis of parental involvement in their child’s schooling in each of six Wisconsin middle schools. The goal of the family impact analysis was to assess parental involvement in the school, pinpointing strengths that were present and gaps that existed. This analysis was then used to identify strategies for building stronger family-school partnerships and to develop detailed action plans that could be implemented in each school. The protocol for the three-meeting process includes how to identify the stakeholders, plan the meetings, conduct the family impact analysis, and develop the action plan. The process was organized around the evidence-based Family/ School Partnership Checklist, which was adapted from research reviews and the work of the National Network of Partnership Schools. Participants reported that the family impact analysis process increased their knowledge of parental school involvement. In evaluations from one middle school (N = 19, 100% response rate), participants reported knowing more after the meetings than before about the benefits of parent involvement, the different ways parents can get involved, and how other schools have built successful family/school partnerships. Participants also commended the community-based process for conducting the family impact analysis. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), the importance of the strategies the team selected was rated an average of 4.5 and the process for developing the action plan was rated 4.9. Every person involved said that they would recommend the family impact analysis process to other schools. The results of the family impact analysis were different in each of the six middle schools. For example, one school hired a parent volunteer coordinator and, in one year’s

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

267

time, parents contributed 1,503 hours at the school—almost a five-fold increase from the previous year. Another school hired a VISTA coordinator, and teachers began to post daily assignments on the school’s website to keep parents informed of classroom expectations and student responsibilities; teachers also began sending postcards to parents when their child did something well or improved. A third school worked to develop more stable teacher and student relationships by putting in place policies to ensure students had the same homeroom teacher for seventh and eighth grades; also, a directory of county services was developed and distributed to new families to ease their integration into the school and community. Other schools established parent resource rooms and created a handbook for middle-school parents. Also, an evidencebased, parenting program was taught at one school and weekly parent newsletters were developed in another school. All these actions helped build greater parent involvement in the schooling of their child during a time in development when it typically tapers off.

The Family Impact Toolkit The Family Impact Toolkit includes 11 new and updated key resources. The four definitions, three procedures, and six tools are detailed in Figure 11.4. Key Definitions are given for policy, family policy, direct family policy, the family impact lens, and family. Key Procedures include how to conduct a family impact analysis of (a) rules, legislation, laws, or programs; (b) agencies or organizations; and (c) implementation tips. Tips for effective implementation of family impact analyses are summarized in Table 11.3.

Figure 11.4  The Family Impact Toolkit. Reprinted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., Cadigan, K., & Corbett, T. (2012c). The family impact lens: A family-focused, evidenceinformed approach to policy and practice (p. 523). Family Relations, 61, 514–531. Copyright 2012 by the National Council on Family Relations.

268

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Table 11.3  10 Tips for Conducting Family Impact Analysis 1. Include the appropriate members on the family impact team—experts in family science; experts on the specific policy, program, or agency; and experts familiar with family impact analysis and the theory and practices in the Handbook (Bogenschneider et al., 2012a) and accompanying Rationale (Bogenschneider et al., 2012b). 2. Family impact analysts must be aware of the complexity and diversity of contemporary families to be able to accurately assess impacts for various family types and particular family functions at different points in the lifespan. 3. Family impact analysis is often difficult to conduct if relevant family data are unavailable. Sometimes data need to be collected before a family impact analysis can be completed. 4. When possible, data on cost-effectiveness and political feasibility should be collected and taken into account in the analysis. 5. Attention should be paid to each step of the procedure for conducting a family impact analysis. Skipping a step can threaten the integrity and usefulness of the results. 6. Depending on the issue, the principles may conflict with each other. The decision about which principle(s) or question(s) to value more highly should be left to decision-makers (e.g., policymakers, program administrators, boards of directors, key stakeholders). 7. The analysis should note the daunting prospect that decision-makers face in factoring in family impacts along with competing priorities and other policy levers, such as economic and political considerations. 8. The family impact analysis is meant to be nonpartisan. The intent is not to end up supporting or opposing a policy, program, agency, or organization. Instead, the goal is to raise several, often conflicting, considerations that policymakers and professionals may want to weigh alongside other factors in policy and program design, deliberations, and decisions. 9. In analyzing the data and presenting the results, keep in mind that family impact analysis has the potential to build broad, bipartisan consensus. To do so, the analysis must be a high-quality, rigorous examination that clearly and fairly presents ways that families are and are not supported. Instead of making recommendations, the analysis should include implications for those responsible for making program and policy decisions. 10. The purpose of the family impact analysis is not to plan for the sake of planning, but rather to plan for the sake of acting. To move from analysis to action, be sure to develop next steps for discussing and disseminating the results and, when possible, for evaluating the implementation and impact of any actions undertaken. Note. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012a). The family impact handbook: How to view policy and program through the family impact lens (p. 24). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

Key Tools include the Family Impact Discussion Starters, the general Family Impact Checklist, Family Functions and Roles, Family Functions Shared with Social Institutions, Family Diversity and Contexts, and Policy and Program Implementation. Other resources include the Family Impact Handbook How to View Policy and Practice through the Family Impact Lens (Bogenschneider et al., 2012a), the Family Impact Rationale: An

A T O O L K I T F O R I N F U S I N G T H E FA M I LY I M PA C T L E N S I N T O P O L I C Y 

269

Evidence Base for the Family Impact Lens (Bogenschneider et al., 2012b), and the Family Impact Guide for Policymakers: Viewing Policies Through a Family Lens. All these resources are available at the Resource Center (https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/ what-we-do/research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/) and also at the website for this book at www.routledge.com/cw/Bogenschneider.

Summary Policies and programs affect families in many ways that often go unnoticed. Figuring out how policies and programs affect families sounds deceptively simple, yet has proven to be extraordinarily elusive. In this chapter, we operationalize the family impact lens to shift the discussion from rhetoric about appreciating families to prioritizing them as worthy of study, investment, partnership, and political action. We present several pragmatic processes and procedures for applying the family impact lens at several points in the policy process—when ideas are being debated, when policies are enacted, when programs are established, when practices are implemented, and when impacts are evaluated. • Policymakers do not have the time or resources to keep up-to-date on the myriad of changes in contemporary family life. Family professionals can communicate with and encourage decision-makers to apply the family impact lens in their decisions to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and targeting of family policies and programs. • Conceptually, a new set of family impact tools and protocols are tailored to the unique roles played by policymakers and professionals at various points in the policy process. The family impact lens can be applied to policies or programs (i.e., what policies or programs are enacted or established) and also to practices (i.e., how policies or programs are implemented). • Theoretically, ecological family systems theory frames the foundation for the family impact lens, self-efficacy theory provides the rationale for and core components of supporting autonomous family functioning, and the open policy windows theoretical framework guides the design and use of diverse methodologies. • Pragmatically, three new family impact methods are presented. The Family Impact Discussion Starters method has translated each of the five principles into a single question, which can be used to frame the way we think about issues or to prepare questions or testimony for hearings, committee meetings, and public forums about how policy and practice may have intended and unintended consequences for families. The Family Impact Checklist method expands on each of the 5 family impact principles with 33 detailed questions that delve more deeply into how to support and involve families in ways that reinforce policy or program goals. Family Impact Analysis is a formal, in-depth methodology that uses the checklist tool to fully examine the extent to which rules, legislation, laws, programs, agencies, or organizations advantage or disadvantage family well-being. • Procedurally, family impact analysis has been constrained by the required skill sets and by inadequate training of those conducting the analysis. For example, family scientists

270

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

have substantial family expertise, but little policy science background: generic policy analysts have substantial policy expertise, but little family science background. Both are needed to conduct analyses that are family-sensitive and policy-relevant. • Further research and evaluation are needed to examine (a) the effectiveness of the family impact lens, and (b) the reliability and validity of the various family impact checklists. For example, the results of family impact analyses of several early childhood programs could be compared to independent evaluations of each program’s support for families. Programs with strong support for families in program evaluations should likewise demonstrate strong family support on the family impact checklist (and vice versa). Such analyses could isolate which family impact principles and questions are the most potent predictors of family support; fewer items that are valid and reliable would yield more accurate analyses than a greater number of items of questionable validity and reliability (see an example in Mills & Bogenschneider, 2001).

In sum, applying the family impact lens entails the hard theoretical and normative work necessary to translate science into policy and practice. The fact that it is hard, however, does not mean it is not worth doing. Advancing the family impact lens has the potential to build broad consensus in an era of increasing polarization during a historical time when families have bipartisan political appeal (Bogenschneider et al., 2022). This familyfocused, evidence-informed approach can generate momentum for developing policies and practices that can strengthen and support families in all their diversity across the lifespan. In turn, strong families serve as the cornerstone of every neighborhood, every school, every community, and every state in America. This chapter incorporates content from a previous publication that is reprinted with permission. Copyright @ 2012, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., Cadigan, K., & Corbett, T. (2012c). The family impact lens: A family-focused, evidence-informed approach to policy and practice. Family Relations. 61, 514–531. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00704.x

12

273

CHAPTER 12 WHAT INSIGHTS FROM THE PAST CAN GUIDE FAMILY POLICY IN THE FUTURE?

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Karen Bogenschneider and Thomas Corbett

Wise men say, and not without reason, that whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past. (Niccoli Machiavelli, 1532)

• What family policies were enacted in the last century? Why have many of them endured to this day? • How is it that women were able to become some of the most effective pioneers of family policy even before they had the right to vote? • Since the field of family policy originated in the 1970s, what are some of the controversies, dilemmas, and stumbling blocks that it has overcome? • What inspiration and insights can be learned from family policy efforts of the past to form a foundation for a more enduring set of family policies in the future?

Public policy discourse in the United States has always had a family tilt. Though not always expressed, an underlying premise of U.S. policymaking is that families are the basic building block of society to be relied on, protected, and nurtured. How families affect and are affected by public policy has not always been made explicit in the debate and design of public policy. Sometimes it is easy to get so engrossed in the controversies of contemporary family policy that we forget that we are standing on the shoulders of the giants who have come before us. We must acknowledge and examine the efforts of the pioneers of family policy if we are to draw inspiration and insights from them. Like Cairns, we believe that we are as much “determined by history as we are makers of it” (Cairns, 1983, p. 90). Anyone who is going to make history in family policy “will have to know some” (Snyder, 2017, p. 126). In this chapter, we look back at three early pioneering efforts to strengthen and support families long before family policy was officially recognized as a field. Then we overview how the fledgling field of family policy has slowly and inexorably evolved over the last half century. We review some of the major defining questions and controversies facing an emerging field and how they have been answered. Family DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-16

274

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

policy still has a long way to go, but it has made significant strides forward in the past 50 years. This question remains: Is the recent palpable shift toward a focus on families permanent or merely a passing policy fad? Historically, interest in family policy has ebbed and flowed; periods of interest and investment in family matters have been followed by periods of benign neglect. Families have often drawn considerable political attention, but arguably they have failed to secure a sustained niche in American public policy. In this chapter, we ask whether the themes and cycles of the past will dictate the future. Can analysis and understanding of the roots of American social policy shape a more enduring set of family policies in the 21st century? Could it be that the way forward “cannot be spun out of one’s own … immediate experience,” but requires a past “from which to struggle and from which to learn” (Hall, 2005, p. 73). By consulting the past, we extract six insights that may be instructive in building a more enduring set of family policies in the future.

Three Pioneering Family Policies of the Past Contemporary family policy stands on the shoulders of the giants of the past. Many pioneers of family policy exist, three of which are featured here: the activism of middleclass women between 1890 and 1920, the child- and family-saving movement from 1900 to 1930, and the Social Security Amendments of 1939. These early pioneering efforts and their insights for future family policies are discussed here and summarized in Table 12.1. Table 12.1  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Pioneers of Family Policy Early Pioneering Efforts in Family Policy

Insights for Future Family Policy

Women’s advocacy from 1890 to 1920

To an extent unparalleled in the world, the government’s response to the problems of working-class mothers and children were shaped by American women reformers, particularly middle-class women. Remarkably, this political activism occurred a full two decades before women had the right to vote.

Child and family saving movement from 1900 to 1930

The Children’s Bureau organized a grassroots movement to save babies through promoting better mothering and family life. Women’s organizations formed one of the strongest lobbies ever seen in Washington DC in support of the 1921 Sheppard-Towner Act that provided federal funding for maternity and child care.

The Social Security Amendments of 1939

Maternalists, a motherhood movement, shaped the Social Security Act of 1935, which is considered the foundation of U.S. public social programs to this day. The Act transformed Old Age pensions from a program for an individual worker to a social insurance program for the entire family unit.

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

275

The Origins of Family Policy in Women’s Advocacy, 1890–1920

The rapid industrialization, massive immigration, and urbanization of America in the 1880s and 1890s were accompanied by social conditions such as unemployment, low wages, homelessness, and poverty. A relatively unregulated workplace led to high rates of injuries and death (Sklar, 1993). Unhealthy living conditions, particularly in urban settings, contributed to high mortality rates among infants and children (Lindenmeyer, 1997). In 1890, 9% of children lived with one parent, and most of these single parents were widowed mothers (Gordon, 1994). Single mothers who lost a breadwinning husband were typically thrust into dire economic need (Skocpol, 1997). In the first decade of the 1900s, when a living wage was $8 per week, single mothers could earn about $2 to $4 per week. To earn enough to afford food and housing, children without fathers were over six times more likely to be pressed into the workforce (33%) than children with fathers (6%). The impulse of early reformers was to separate highly vulnerable children from their impoverished families and place them in what they considered more suitable family situations or institutions. In fact, the primary reason for institutionalizing children, in one Massachusetts study, was the inability of mothers to support them. By the end of the 19th century, single mothers and their children were perceived to be a social problem of such magnitude that they warranted public attention (Gordon, 1994). To an extent unparalleled anywhere else in the world, the government’s response to the problems of working-class mothers and children was shaped by American women reformers, particularly middle-class women. The agenda of these women activists extended beyond motherhood to the workplace. Nowhere else in the world did protective labor legislation focus so directly on women, and nowhere else were women so involved in its enactment. Women’s activism extended well beyond labor legislation to a restructuring of America’s social and political priorities at the local, state, and federal levels. Their success can be attributed, in large part, to mobilizing grassroots, class-bridging coalitions that lobbied for benefits for working-class mothers and children, many of whom were unable to lobby on their own behalf (Sklar, 1993). This track record may also have resulted from the unprecedented growth in female literacy in the United States compared to anywhere else in the world that occurred between 1790 and 1850 (Crittenden, 2001). By 1890, about 56,000 women were pursuing a college education and, in lieu of attending graduate school, many leaders of the social reform movement chose to live and work in settlement homes in working-class, immigrant neighborhoods. These settings provided a venue for collecting data and experimenting with the design and implementation of welfare programs and policies (Koven & Michel, 1993; Sklar, 1993). This knowledge and skill were subsequently put to use in the nation’s women’s clubs (Sklar, 1993). In the last quarter of the 19th century, literally hundreds of local women’s organizations formed national associations (Koven & Michel, 1993), including the Congress of Mothers, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the National American Woman Suffrage Association, the National Council of Catholic Women, the National Consumers’ League, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Women’s Trade Union League, and the Young Women’s Christian Association (Sklar, 1993).

276

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

The most important women’s organization, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), was formed in 1875 as an umbrella organization with 39 departments, 25 of which did not deal with temperance. In Chicago, the WCTU maintained two nurseries, an industrial school, a mission, a medical dispensary, and a lodging house for men. In 1890, another influential association, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, assembled a vast number of local networks that addressed a range of topics. For example, in 1893 the federation resolved that each club should appoint a standing committee to inquire into the labor conditions of women and children, and another committee to investigate state labor laws. By 1919, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs represented an impressive grassroots network of 800,000 women (Sklar, 1993). During the peak of American industrialization between 1900 and 1920, these middle-class women’s organizations worked in collaboration with male professionals to pass an array of social policies (that men previously had been unable to enact on their own) to protect current and future mothers and their children. These campaigns for compulsory education, protective labor legislation for women, and child labor were family policy in the truest sense because they focused on the state’s interest in preserving families (Gordon, 1994; Sklar, 1993) and on the parents, usually the mother’s, responsibility for the child. These collaborations were responsible for local initiatives such as establishing kindergarten programs, playgrounds, libraries, and maternal and child health services, but also influenced legislation at the state and regional levels (Skocpol & Dickert, 2001). The most important of the issues they addressed were compulsory school attendance (passed by every state by 1918), mothers’ pensions to support impoverished widows (enacted by 44 states), limits to the hours that women wage earners could work (46 states), and minimum wages for women workers (15 states). Curiously, during the same time period in which these laws were passed to protect women and mothers, proposed benefits and regulations for male workers often were defeated (Skocpol, 1995). Later, these policies for women workers were extended to wage-earning men and non-wage-earning women and children (Sklar, 1993). These progressive-minded women activists challenged the rigid determinism of Social Darwinism by working to change the social conditions in which families operated and by arguing for a more explicit role for government in the protection of families and children (Gordon, 1994). Experts contributed to these early reform campaigns with studies and reports that exposed social problems (Smith, 1991). For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published 19 volumes on their investigation of the predicaments faced by many women and child wage earners (Lindenmeyer, 1997). In addition, the writing of Samuel McCune Lindsay and G. Stanley Hall in the early 1900s helped establish childhood and adolescence as unique periods of development that deserved special attention. Quite remarkably, this political activism at the turn of the century occurred at a time when a woman’s sphere of influence was almost universally accepted as the home and a full two decades before women had the right to vote. The lexicon of these early reformers helped legitimize women’s involvement in policymaking by domesticating politics. In the words of Frances Willard, “[G]overnment was only housekeeping on the broadest scale” (cited in Stage, 1997, p. 28), and according to Ellen Swallow Richards, women could move into the larger world and “clean it up, as if it were no more than a dirty house” (cited in Stage,

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

277

1997, p. 30). Historians have noted, however, that this movement was not entirely altruistic in that it created new jobs and positions of power for women, and tended to advance White, middle-class notions of women and childrearing; the movement operated primarily in the North and mostly separate from the activism of Black women (Sklar, 1993). The commitment of these women’s organizations to grassroots organization and social reform waned in the 1920s. Professions like home economics and social work lost their spirit of systemic social change and focused more on skill building, individual pathologies, and therapeutic treatment modalities. This narrowing of professional mission reflected larger societal trends: a shift toward greater individualism following World War I; the Hoover era’s emphasis on individuals, standards, and profitability; a backlash against women’s reform efforts outside the home; the end of the Progressive Era; and the rise of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management theories (Stage, 1997). The Origins of Family Policy as “Child and Family Saving” 1900–1930

Children slowly became more prominent as a distinct population of social policy interest over the last half of the 19th century. Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. president from 1901 to 1909, pored over turn-of-the-century census data, which he thought signaled family decline. Between 1890 and 1910, for example, the number of Americans who divorced tripled. Between 1880 and 1920, the U.S. birth rate fell by over 30%. Because immigration rates were high, this led to concerns, particularly in some geographic regions, over the decline in the proportion of “native” stock. In 1918, the infant mortality rate was double that of Western Europe, 80% of pregnant mothers did not receive prenatal care, and 23,000 mothers died in childbirth (Carlson, 2002a). Given these trends, Trattner (1999) noted that a focus on children and family once again became paramount to many social reformers of the time: The fate of the world is determined by the influences which prevail with the child from birth to 7 years of age … All the problems go back to the child­-corrupt politics, dishonesty and greed in commerce, war, anarchism, drunkenness, incompetence. (p. 109)

The establishment of the Children’s Bureau is often regarded as the first political victory in a series of family- and child-saving policies. In the words of Florence Kelley, social reformer and one of the originators of the Children’s Bureau, “If the government can have a department to take such an interest in the cotton crop, why can’t it have a bureau to look after the nation’s child crop?” (Carlson, 2002a, p. 15). With support from a number of women’s associations, the U.S. Children’s Bureau was established in 1912, becoming the first federal agency to focus on improving the lives of children and mothers. Julia Lathrop, its first director, was the first woman to head a federal agency, albeit one with a small budget of $25,640 and a staff of only 15. To advance the bureau’s agenda, Lathrop mobilized thousands of volunteers in settlement houses and women’s clubs (Carlson, 2002a). Building on the Progressive Era’s faith in research and education, the Children’s Bureau organized a grassroots movement to save babies through promoting better mothering

278

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

and family life (Ladd-Taylor, 1993). The Children’s Bureau published books, organized 50,000 girls in 44 cities into Little Mother Leagues, elevated Mother’s Day to a national holiday, and spearheaded a National Baby Week. In 1917, with war looming on the horizon, Lathrop helped develop an innovative compensation plan designed to maintain decent living standards for families. Half of the wages of soldiers and sailors were paid directly to their wives and children, and a family allowance was provided on a sliding scale of up to $50 per month for families with four or more children. Death and disability benefits were also provided for widows and children (Carlson, 2002b). One of the greatest accomplishments of the Children’s Bureau was the passage of the Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy Act, better known as the SheppardTowner Act, which provided federal funding for maternity and child care. The American Medical Association fiercely opposed the bill as “German paternalism” and “sob stuff.” However, women’s organizations actively sought its passage, forming “one of the strongest lobbies that have ever been seen in Washington.” When a powerful Congressman blocked the measure in a House Committee, Florence Kelley appeared before its members and compared Congress to King Herod and the slaughter of the innocents, asking, “Why does Congress wish women and children to die?” (cited in Carlson, 2002a, p. 17). The Democratic, Socialist, Prohibition, and Farmer-Labor parties endorsed the act, as did Republican presidential candidate Warren Harding. The Sheppard-Towner Act won an easy victory in 1921, in part because Congress was nervous about facing newly enfranchised women voters for the first time (Ladd-Taylor, 1993). Eventually, 45 of 48 states participated in the program (Carlson, 2002a). During its seven years of operation, the bureau distributed 22 million pieces of literature, held 183,000 health conferences, established 3,000 prenatal centers, and visited 3 million homes. By 1929, the Bureau estimated that its childrearing information had benefited half of U.S. babies. Moreover, the Children’s Bureau was the federal leader in statistics, providing most Depression-era poverty data and serving as a primary consultant for the establishment of the Bureau of Labor Standards. Job applicants to the Children’s Bureau had to be able to design a study of a major social problem and create a table from raw statistical data (Gordon, 1992). Yet even though the Sheppard-Towner program remained broadly popular with American women and retained most of its political support from women’s groups, it was vigorously opposed by the male physicians and bureaucrats who had come to dominate children’s health policy (Ladd-Taylor, 1993). Congress never made the program permanent, and it was unable to secure access to stable funding, as Social Security had done via the trust fund. The program was eliminated through legislative maneuvers in 1929. The Origins of Family Policy in the Social Security Amendments of 1939

Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency in the midst of an economic depression that followed closely on the heels of the stock market crash of 1929. In March 1933, one-third

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

279

of the U.S. labor force was out of work. Between 1928 and 1932, during President Hoover’s administration, rates of birth and marriage each declined about 20%. These work and family trends led to starkly different interpretations by the two prominent ideologies of the time: the Hoover technocrats and the American Maternalists of the 1920s. In 1930, Hoover appointed a number of distinguished social scientists, referred to as Hoover technocrats, to the President’s Research Committee on Social Trends. According to their report, released in 1933, falling birth rates were seen as evidence of the failing of the family, particularly the housewife, who arguably could contribute more to society by entering the labor force. The report claimed that most family functions―care of the elderly, child care, cooking, education, health care, laundry, religious acts, and sewing―could be better and more efficiently carried out by experts in corporate, state, or charitable bodies that were organized according to industry standards. As summarized by Carlson (2002b): The frail nature of the family meant that “schools, nurseries or other agencies” would need to enroll a “larger proportion of the very young children in the future” so as “to conserve childhood in the midst of rapidly shifting conditions of family life.” Only “society” has the new expertise needed to grapple with “developing the personality of its children.” … Concern should no longer focus on family strength … Instead, attention should be on “the individualization of the members of the family.” (p. 4)

These views, which were endorsed by business leaders, were perceived as an attack on family life by the Maternalists, a motherhood movement with roots dating back to the settlement house movement. Maternalists believed that the ideal family―the breadwinning father, the mother at home, and their children―was being threatened by industrialization. The cornerstone of the Maternalists’ policy agenda was a family wage: a living wage for the father so that the mother could stay home to raise the children (Carlson, 2002b). This Maternalist defense of the value of women’s traditional labor against the forces of industrialization undergirded the New Deal domestic policies of the Roosevelt administration and continued to shape the American welfare state for many years to come. The New Deal has been criticized by feminists as creating female dependency through patriarchal policies, a debate that extends beyond the purposes of this chapter. The New Deal did come to reflect the Maternalist perspective on social policy―a perspective consistent with views of family life that were widely accepted at the time. When asked in a 1936 Gallup poll if wives should work when their husbands had jobs, a resounding 82% said no, leading George Gallup to contend that this issue was one that voters were “about as solidly united on as any subject imaginable―including sin and hay fever” (cited in Carlson, 2002b, p. 6). Even unmarried women reformers of the day, “did not … contradict the prevailing premises that children and women needed breadwinner husbands, that children needed full-time mothers, that women should choose between family and career” (Gordon, 1992, p. 34). We consider here how these Maternalist views of the family shaped only one New Deal policy, the Social Security Act of 1935, which is considered the starting point for the

280

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

broad public safety net in the United States and the foundation of the country’s most effective antipoverty policies. In the original act, Old Age pensions were funded by contributions to individual accounts. With overwhelming political support, the Social Security Act was amended in 1939 to add survivor and dependent benefits. Old Age pensions were thus transformed from a program for an individual worker to a social insurance program for the entire family unit. Widowed mothers received 75% of the pension their husbands would have received, as long as they did not remarry or earn more than $15 per month. Surviving children received half of the benefits their fathers would have received. An aged widow who had been married for at least five years and was not divorced was eligible for 50% of the pension her husband would have received, whether or not she herself had a work history. Thus, the 1939 Social Security Amendments established the American welfare system on the family wage, marriage, and a nonemployed mother at home. Those who deviated from these family norms through divorce, deliberate childlessness, illegitimacy, or maternal employment incurred financial penalties for which there would be no broadly available public redress (see Carlson, 2002b). The New Deal is one example of how an individualistic society appears to justify social programs by explicitly acknowledging recipients’ service to the nation; for example, mothers were rewarded for bearing and rearing children. The legislation was based on the premise that mothers deserved to be honorably supported if a breadwinning husband was not available (Skocpol, 1995). In the words of Molly Dewson, who served on the Social Security Board: [When] you begin to help the family to attain some security you are at the same time beginning to erect a National structure for the same purpose. Through the wellbeing of the family, we create the well-being of The Nation. Through our constructive contributions to the one, we help the other to flourish. (as cited in Carlson, 2002b, p. 10)

Experts played a new, more active role in the design of the New Deal. Roosevelt attracted hordes of intellectuals to Washington by establishing various advisory and planning agencies, including his legendary Brain Trust. He also reorganized the Executive Office in the late 1930s in ways that ensured that his successors would have access to intellectual resources. By 1938, when most of the New Deal programs were in place, more than 7,800 social scientists were working in the federal government.

The Emergence of the Field of Family Policy in the Last Half Century The field of family policy is young in terms of both intellectual inquiry and policy formulation centered on the family concept. By most accounts, family policy was formally conceived in the 1970s. Since that time, each decade has brought a different set of controversies, dilemmas, and stumbling blocks. The defining questions of each decade are overviewed in Table 12.2.

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

281

Table 12.2  Questions Defining the Progress of Family Policy as a Subfield of Social Policy Decade

Defining Question

1970s

Definitional: What is family policy anyway? How can a family impact perspective be prioritized in policy decisions?

1980s

Partisanship Ownership: Is family policy too controversial? Is family policy owned by the liberals or the conservatives? Without clear objectives, is it better to focus on single issues and single constituencies?

1990s

Legitimacy: Are families a legitimate focus of policy attention and public investments, or are families a private matter?

2000s

Rationale: Why do we need family policy? What unique and value-added perspective can the concept of family bring to research, social policy, and the design and conduct of social programs?

2020s

Tipping point: Was the pandemic a tipping point when policymakers were able to observe firsthand the benefits of investing in family policy? Has the ground shifted toward less resistance to and more demand for family policy in the future?

Beginning with the decade of the 1970s, U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings were held in 1973 to examine the pressures American families were facing and the influence of government policy on family life (Kamerman & Kahn, 1978). Senator Walter Mondale chaired the subcommittee and presided over testimony by distinguished scholars, such as Urie Bronfenbrenner, Margaret Mead, and Edward Zigler (Bogenschneider, 2021). One outcome of the hearings was a call for family impact statements that, like environmental impact statements, would routinely assess the impact of government policies and programs on family well-being. Members of the subcommittee believed that the idea held promise, but concluded that it should be researched more thoroughly before developing legislation requiring its adoption. In response, the Family Impact Seminar was formed at George Washington University in 1976 and charged with conducting a number of studies to decide whether family impact statements were the best approach for prioritizing families in policy decisions (Ooms, 1995). During the 1980s, acceptance of family policy as a field made little headway, in part because of partisan controversies that surfaced during the 1980 White House Conference on Families. The purpose of sponsoring a national conference focused on families was to legitimize family policy, but ironically it ended up provoking ideological debates that became so divisive that they (along with associated political developments) moved family policy off the federal agenda for almost a decade. Delegates reached agreement on several family policy issues, but debates over abortion and same-sex unions were so divisive that politicians shied away from even using the words family and family policy because of their association with these explosive issues (Ooms, 1984). Following the conference, many of the constructive suggestions that emerged were abandoned when President Carter was defeated in the 1980 election. Newly elected President Ronald Regan advocated so vigorously for conservative family policies

282

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

(e.g., restrictions on abortion and family planning) that Democrats and middle-ofthe-road Republicans backed away from the family theme; those in the research and advocacy communities followed suit. In 1981, Gilbert Steiner published an influential book on the futility of family policy in which he argued that families were no more than a short-lived and shortsighted fad (1981, p. 194): I am impatient with the entrepreneurs of family policy, finding it a concept without a clear content; suspicious of politicians, bureaucrats, or scholars who participate in the movement without pinpointing its objectives; and doubtful whether family policy, no matter if described as comprehensive or partial, implicit or explicit, is a useful or practical theme.

According to an analysis by the second director of the Family Impact Seminar Theodora Ooms, “All talk of ‘family’ in policy and research circles became distinctly unfashionable and the pendulum swung back once again to single issue and single constituency research and advocacy” (Ooms, 1984, p. 160). Following what became known as the “decade of disregard” (Jacobs, 1994, p. 9), activity on family policy did not begin anew until the late 1980s and early 1990s. The decade of the 1990s began with the question of legitimacy: Are families a legitimate focus of policy attention and public investments, or are families a private matter? Only a generation before, President Richard Nixon had vetoed a federal child care bill as an unwarranted governmental intrusion into what he considered a family concern. But views gradually changed in the 1990s, spurring on federal investments in child care and other family policies. A number of laws were passed on issues such as adoption, the child care tax credit, child support, children with disabilities, domestic violence, the Earned Income Tax Credit, family and medical leave, Food Stamps, grandparent visitation, marriage promotion, parental abduction and kidnapping, parental involvement in education, same-sex marriage, teenage pregnancy, television V-Chips, welfare reform, and so forth (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). As the decade came to a close, it became apparent that families had emerged as a legitimate field of empirical and theoretical inquiry throughout the 1990s (Bogenschneider, 2000; Ooms, 1995). Across the political spectrum, with important exceptions, a consensus emerged that government had a legitimate role in nurturing and protecting the functioning of families. At the dawn of the 21st century, the defining question became the rationale for family policy: “Why do we need family policy, anyway, and does it bring a unique, valueadded perspective to social policy?” This question had continued to plague the field since Steiner’s influential book was published two decades earlier, where he raised several critiques about the content, objectives, and themes of family policy that had yet to be sufficiently addressed. In response, the 2010 family policy decade review drew on decades of research to provide an evidence-based rationale for legitimate family policy as a serious subfield of social policy (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). Based on this rationale, families make several contributions to achieving policy ends that are essential to society. Families are the cornerstone for raising responsible children who become

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

283

caring, committed contributors to a strong democracy and competent workers in a sound economy. Families are a means for effectively and efficiently achieving policy and program goals. Moreover, families are widely embraced as a normative ideal for fostering political consensus and the finding of common ground (see this updated rationale in Chapter 3). In the 2020s, the pandemic prompted unprecedented job losses, school and child care closures, nursing home lockdowns, and countless related challenges. A common thread woven throughout the political response to the COVID-19 pandemic was families— how they were affected by each of these challenges and the central role they played in responding to them. Policymakers took notice of families and extraordinary investments were made. The American Rescue Plan provided an unparalleled $47.5 billion of funding for children, families, and communities to support child care, family violence prevention, Head Start, preventive child welfare interventions, and so forth (American Rescue Plan, n.d.). Spending on child care alone was the largest in U.S. history (Wilson, 2022), and the federal Child Tax Credit was temporarily expanded in 2021 (Hamilton et al., 2022). These investments in family policy paid off. As examples, the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit immediately lifted an unprecedented 3.7 million children out of poverty in minority and low- to moderate-income families (Hamilton et al., 2022). Despite the rising unemployment, the Family First and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Acts, prevented 10 million people from falling into poverty (Giannarelli et al., 2020). Policymakers observed the effectiveness of these pandemic-era family policies. As further evidence, poverty rates rose sharply in 2022, as these policies ended and living costs rose. The poverty rate increased from 7.8 percent to 12.4 percent, the largest oneyear increase on record following two years of historic lows (Cusselman & DePillis, 2023). The question that remains is whether the effectiveness of these pandemic policies will become a tipping point where the ground shifts to more demand for family policy going forward (Gornick et al., 2022b)? Only time will tell.

What Insights Have Emerged From the Giants of the Past? Over time, the impetus for social policy, in general, and family issues, in particular, has been demographics (concerns about family decline), economic suffering (the Great Depression, the COVID-19 pandemic), societal health (labor market issues), intellectual fads (Social Darwinism), and advocacy (particularly by women’s organizations). National policy in the United States has always been cyclical in character. For example, it has cycled between individual and structural explanations for social problems, whether policy should protect or mainstream women and children, and whether government responses should be proactive or remedies of last resort. Political pushes to strengthen families and use them as instruments of social change often have been followed by periods of neglect when the family was viewed as the exclusive province of the principals themselves. Consequently, it has proven challenging to sustain the promise of an activist family policy perspective over the course of the 21st century.

284

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Table 12.3  Insights From the Past for Moving Family Policy Forward in the Future Family Policy Moves Forward • When Legitimated by Relevant Research and Theory • When Relevant Research and Theory Are Communicated to Policymakers • When Policymakers and the Public Support Structural Rather Than Individual Explanations for Social Problems • When there is a Broad Interdisciplinary Focus on Families • When there Are Formal Structures that Embody Families in Government Decision-Making • When there is Broad-Based Citizen Activism

Some challenges to a sustained family policy perspective may well persist. Yet we think that family professionals must deconstruct the repeated rise and fall of family policies over the past century to identify circumstances that hold the promise of keeping family policy in the mainstream of social policy debate, and to elevate its status as a field commensurate to that of economic or poverty policy. Family policy is in much the same condition that poverty policy was in the 1960s. There is a good deal of it going on, but ways of distilling and translating the work to shape and inform policy have yet to be fully exploited. We still need a generally accepted definition of the concept. We need a policy arena that continues to accept families as a legitimate subject of political discourse. This will require more than wishful thinking and good intentions. We need to reflect on the history of family policy and learn from the past how to fashion a better future for families. As presented in Table 12.3, we offer six insights on which family professionals can build so that family policy may be more firmly established as a field and so that an enduring set of family policies can be constructed for this century. Family Policy Moves Forward When Legitimated by Relevant Research and Theory

One impetus for the development and enactment of family policy in the past was clear data that family structure was changing in deleterious ways or that family integrity was being compromised. As examples, family policies were enacted early in the 20th century when progressive reformers were able to document trends that high numbers of women were dying in childbirth, infant mortality rates far exceeded those of other industrialized nations and incidences of child labor were escalating. Child labor reformers were able to justify their advocacy, in part, by drawing on theories that conceptualized childhood and adolescence as distinct periods of development that warranted special protections. Similarly, New Deal legislation emerged when one-third of Americans were unemployed, with obvious repercussions for family stability and economic well-being. Advocates framed their support of the New Deal on Maternalist thinking that provided a conceptual link between the well-being of the family and the well­being of the nation. What this means for today’s family professionals is that good data can help policymakers determine whether social action is needed, either by identifying problems or by refuting

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

285

contentions that problems exist (see Bogenschneider & Gross, 2004). Moynihan claimed long ago that data may be particularly important for family policy: “Family matters, in other words, are not a subject for which there is a well-established alarm system that alerts the larger society to dangers as they arise. Something truly alarming has to happen” (1941, pp. xii-xiii). COVID-19 is an excellent example of the sounding of a loud family alarm. One of the deadliest viruses of the last 100 years infected and affected countless members of families, young and old, rich and poor, rural and urban (Settersten et al., 2020). Even when the alarm sounds, policymakers’ first inclination is often to focus on individuals. Rightly or wrongly, policymakers tend to deal with individual outliers in the population, such as child-abusing parents, crime-committing youth, or students who need remedial education. For the purposes of family policy, however, thinking needs to move beyond the individual to an examination of risks and outcomes for families, which is a hard sell in a society in which individualism is so pervasive in our culture, theories, and research (see Chapter 8). Individualistic theories do have the power to impede the progress of family policy, as exemplified by the industry-driven recommendations of Hoover’s panel of social science technocrats and the efficiency-based tenets of Taylor’s scientific management theory. One telling illustration of this individualistic bias in research and theory is the effort in the 1990s to develop indicators of societal well-being. Several federal executive agencies, with substantial input from the academic community, supported a concerted effort to identify key indicators by which to assess how well we were doing as a society and to help guide and shape future policy development and social investments. Looking back, it is curious that there was so little debate about the underlying basis for framing the social indicator initiative. By default, the major intellectual work to come out of this effort was titled Indicators of Children’s Well-Being, even though many of the indicators discussed were based on the family concept (Hauser et al., 1997). Similarly, a 1997 Executive Order established the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics to publish a set of national statistics from 18 federal agencies on the health of families. The resulting annual publication conspicuously left the word family out of the title: Trends in the Well­Being of America’s Children and Youth (Westat, 2000). This omission may be attributable, in part, to the individualistic focus of data collection. Employment statistics make no distinction between an unemployed father of nine, a teenager looking for a part-time job, and a senior citizen supplementing pension and Social Security incomes (Moynihan, 1986). When researchers document the increasing number of Americans working long or nonstandard hours, no indication is made of whether these hours occur in families who are caring for children or elderly members with disabilities. In our close association with policymakers over the years, we have encountered much family research that is relevant to policy, often conducted by scientists who take the step of immersing themselves in the daily phenomenon they are studying. There may be no better example than Professor Kathryn Edin, one of the nation’s leading poverty researchers. Much like early reformers who lived in settlement houses, Edin along with her husband and three-year-old daughter moved into a two-bedroom apartment

286

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

in a dangerous, impoverished neighborhood in Camden, New Jersey. In Edin’s words, “Experiencing what other people are experiencing while you’re studying them is critical.” Her study was groundbreaking, shattering myths about some of the nation’s most disadvantaged families. Her findings raised questions about whether contemporary family policies may have adverse, unintended consequences for unwed parents who are living in poverty (Mencimer, 2014). To her surprise, Edin found that most poor unwed men view unplanned fatherhood as a blessing, not a burden. For these disadvantaged dads, who live amidst violence, poverty, and poor economic prospects, bringing a child into the world seems like an opportunity for them to do something good (Edin & Nelson, 2013). Of the Black fathers, 9 of 10 were in routine contact with their child until they were 2 years old, though their involvement did fade over time (Mencimer, 2014). By immersing herself in the lives of the families that she studied, Edin’s research resulted in a truly family-focused approach to child support policy, an issue that has long confounded policymakers. Edin and her colleagues proposed a bold, innovative, and workable vision that builds on conservative ideas of requiring parents (usually fathers) to provide economic support for their children living in another household. This thinking also builds on liberal ideas of designing a dignified way to improve co-parenting that provides parents (usually fathers) with the opportunity and autonomy to be involved in their children’s lives (see Edin et al., 2019). Family Policy Moves Forward When Relevant Research and Theory Are Communicated to Policymakers

Several historical examples exist of how effective communication of data has advanced family policy. Theodore Roosevelt has been called the first American president to philosophically describe the importance of family life to the nation. He was influenced to a large extent by census data that, he believed, spelled out a crisis in family life (Carlson, 2001). A number of family policies were prompted, in part, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ turn-of-the-century studies depicting the predicaments faced by women and child wage earners. Florence Kelley, one of the women reformers who advocated successfully for the 1912 Children’s Bureau, used analogies that poignantly contrasted policymakers’ interest in the nation’s cotton crop versus its child crop, and compared Congress to King Herod and the slaughter of the innocents. The 1912 Children’s Bureau became a pioneer in collecting statistical data and translating it for public consumption. Examples exist of research-informed policy, but there are no guarantees that research and theory will, because they are good, somehow find their way into the policymaking process (Rist, 1994). Our ability to discover reliable methods for generating high-quality research has outpaced our ability to develop evidence-based practices for disseminating this research to policymakers. Going forward, a three-pronged approach is required that encompasses universities, researchers, and practitioners. First, systematic steps need to be taken inside the academy to encourage and reward efforts to communicate research to policymaking outside the academy (Scott et al., 2019). Also, researchers need to devote more attention to turning research translation into a science that discovers best practices for effectively engaging

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

287

policymakers. Finally, practitioners should encourage policymakers to view issues through the lens of family impact that considers how families affect and are affected by policies, and whether policies would be more effective and efficient if family considerations were taken into account (Bogenschneider et al., 2012). We are familiar with three promising models that do all three: the Research-to-Policy Collaboration, the Family Impact Seminars, and the Welfare Peer Assistance Network (WELPAN). The Research-to-Policy Collaboration is a nonpartisan knowledge-brokering effort that connects researchers and Congressional offices around child and family policies. First, policymakers are contacted to identify the issues they are working on that might benefit from research evidence. Next, researchers are recruited, trained, and coached to reply to these requests in a prompt and responsive manner. In a randomized controlled trial, policymakers in the treatment condition were more apt to use research for conceptual purposes and also were more apt to incorporate research into legislation that they introduced (Crowley et al., 2021). The Family Impact Seminars are an ongoing series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports that communicate rigorous and nonpartisan research to state policymakers on issues they identify, such as child care and early education, early brain science, economic development, health care, long-term care, juvenile crime, Medicaid, poverty, welfare reform, and so forth (see Chapter 13). In evaluations, policymakers report seminar information is useful in their jobs and shapes their policy decisions. Because of the Family Impact Seminars, the vast majority of policymakers report being “quite a bit” more likely to “consider how pending legislation affects families” and to “see the practical value of research.” What is unique about the Seminar model is its track record in providing a neutral, off-the-record venue where policymakers of different political persuasions come together to discuss high-profile issues. In an era of rising polarization, policymakers report that the Seminars help them foster relationships with colleagues in the other party and engage in the dialogue it takes to find common ground (Bogenschneider, 2020). During its operation, WELPAN regularly brought together state-level welfare officials for discussion about common problems and solutions, and for exchange of views with researchers and policymakers (see Corbett et al., 1998). From this dialogue emerged some common solutions to shared problems as well as new insights that might not have been apparent without the dialogue. For example, in several reports, WELPAN members identified and supported a shift in the direction of welfare policies toward family promotion and stability purposes (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; WELPAN, 2002c). WELPAN has also invested considerable time thinking through how to deliver coherent and comprehensive services for disadvantaged families by blending discrete, categorical programs in innovative ways (WELPAN, 2002a, 2002b). Family Policy Moves Forward When Policymakers and the Public Support Structural Rather Than Individual Explanations for Social Problems

Throughout the nation’s history, we have wavered between structural and individual explanations for social problems. The examples in this chapter suggest that family policies were more likely to have been enacted when more comprehensive structural

288

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

explanations for social problems were in vogue. For example, it was hard to blame the high rates of infant mortality on individuals when they affected the rich and poor alike. The death of male breadwinners was difficult to attribute to individual choice and behavior. When one-third of the nation’s workers were unemployed, it was hard to imagine that so many people were unwilling or unable to work. The family policies passed during the pandemic pointed to a massive breakthrough in the idea that caregiving was an individual responsibility, as observed by Ai-jen Poo: And the dominant idea before the pandemic was that care and caregiving is this personal responsibility to be shouldered by the women in our households. And if we couldn’t figure it out—we couldn’t manage it, we couldn’t afford it—it was a personal failure … And I think what ended up happening in the pandemic … is that culturally, we were all experiencing some form of a care crisis, whether it’s because day care centers closed down, or schools were closed, or our parents were on lockdown in a nursing home or thousands of miles away, and we weren’t able to get to them. We all just realized that we can do the very best we can, do everything right, and it’s not sufficient, because there is infrastructure and a work force and systems that are required to support something as fundamental to the functioning of society and the economy as care. (as cited in McGhee & Poo, 2021)

The use of structural explanations for social problems does not always depend upon policymakers’ political party or the constituency they represent. For example, the Sheppard-Towner Act was passed when Republican Warren Harding was elected president, and the New Deal was enacted when Democrat Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency. Structural explanations for social problems do seem more apt to emerge during political campaigns. Challengers for political office tend to have a vested interest in structural or systemic explanations of social problems that point out the inadequacies of the current officeholders in charge of the system. In contrast, it is typically more politically expedient for incumbents to defend the system by arguing that their administration has contributed to a good quality of life with few problems. Any problems that are difficult to deny are attributed not to the administration, but rather to the attitudes and actions of certain individuals or groups (Ross & Staines, 1972). Historically, debates over policy have been linked to public perceptions about what the government should do and also to beliefs about how effective government intervention can be (Skocpol, 1995). Data have been used to address questions about effectiveness. For example, at the turn of the century, data collected in the settlement houses demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of government intervention on behalf of families. Public opinion polls in the 1930s demonstrated widespread support for the family focus of the New Deal legislation. Studies revealed the immediate effectiveness of pandemic-era policies in reducing child and family poverty (Hamilton et al., 2022). Thus, research is relevant to family policy when it identifies the success of prior family programs or policies, and the receptivity of the public or affected organizations to familyoriented political responses (Rist, 1994). Research can also determine whether social

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

289

problems are driven more by structural and/or individual factors (Crowley et al., 2019), and whether individual or family responses are more effective and efficient (see Dishion et al., 1999; Kumpfer et al., 2003). Family Policy Moves Forward When There is a Broad Interdisciplinary Focus on Families

The pioneers of family policy featured in this chapter all have a broad and interdisciplinary family focus. Between 1900 and 1920, female middle-class activists adopted a comprehensive political agenda that included compulsory education, child labor, and protective labor legislation for women. The Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921 encompassed activities ranging from parent education and home visiting to prenatal centers and health conferences. By including the terms survivor and dependent, the 1939 Social Security Amendments explicitly transformed the American welfare state from a system that focused narrowly on the individual to one that incorporated the individual’s most proximal context, the family. The nations that responded most effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic were the ones that used a comprehensive approach. Germany, New Zealand, and South Korea implemented sweeping measures, such as contact tracing, lockdowns, mandatory face masks, quarantines, social distancing, and so forth. More disease spread and deaths were experienced by countries that responded less comprehensively, such as Brazil, Mexico, and the United States (VanLandingham, 2020). By its very nature, a family focus leads policymakers toward a broad and interdisciplinary perspective on issues. One specific issue has been the refocusing of welfare policy on behavior and community rather than merely handing out checks. This has prompted many policy analysts to think more broadly rather than merely zeroing in on particular problems and a narrow set of service strategies. We now think about how families function overall rather than focusing on specific issues such as lack of child care or food insecurity. What are the multi-faceted, community-wide supports that it takes to change fundamental behaviors such as work, fertility, parenting, or family formation? Another issue where an interdisciplinary approach has gained traction is addressing poverty using a two-generational approach that supports vulnerable parents and children living in the same family. This approach, spearheaded by the Aspen Institute and the Bernard van Leer Foundation builds on evidence that children’s development depends on their education and care, but also on their parents’ education and economic stability (Ascend, 2016). Two-generation approaches have a dual focus on (a) helping children to get a good start through early education, Head Start and quality schools, and (b) assisting parents to get a better job through education and skills training. In recent polls, this two-generation approach proved popular with voters, who endorsed it even if it would increase their taxes. Worthy of note, this voter support appeared to transcend the polarization of our politics with no variation by political party, nor by gender, education, race, or whether children lived in the home (Haight, 2020). A family focus also leads to a broad and interdisciplinary perspective on systems. Focusing on families prompts such questions as, “How do diverse policies and systems

290

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

interact with complex family dynamics to affect families?” Focusing on families pushes thinking outside the box where the interactions among policies and systems become more apparent. But think for a moment about how we typically organize our policy and analytic spheres. In a recent review, Cowan and Cowan expressed concern that family policies and programs are implemented through a “bewildering” array of policymakers and program administrators “who operate independently in a series of fragmented, isolated departments” (2019b, p. 93). These byzantine bureaucratic arrangements are baffling given that executive departments typically have overlapping goals. Still, they rarely talk to one another, which constrains their ability to learn about new policy approaches, collaborate to improve program effectiveness, and modify strategies that are not working well. Similarly, in lawmaking bodies, committees are organized and segregated around relatively narrow jurisdictions. The academic world is divided into disciplines and subdisciplines with their own language and publication outlets; synthesis and interdisciplinary work remain the exception. The field of evaluation is expert-driven and dominated by experimental methods, which are most powerful for examining narrowly defined programs and policies. In a time of shrinking portfolios, the philanthropic community is targeting its resources to increasingly narrow and specific priorities (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). If family policy is to become more than politicians kissing babies (Jacobs & Davies, 1994), we must restructure how we organize our policy and intellectual worlds―break down program silos, reorganize legislatures and executive agency expertise, transform academic reward systems, make some fundamental changes in how we evaluate policies, and encourage funding priorities to move toward a more holistic emphasis on the family system. A real focus on family policy also demands rethinking how we train professionals and how our institutions do business (see Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Corbett, 2021). Family Policy Moves Forward When There Are Formal Structures That Embody Families in Government Decision-Making

Historically, the Children’s Bureau and Roosevelt’s Brain Trust are prime examples of formal policy structures. Today, such formal structures exist for economic issues, but not for family issues. Over 70 years ago, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Joint Economic Committee were established to help the nation set and reach its economic goals. Yet no entity exists in the U.S. Congress with sole responsibility for families. One promising entity, the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House of Representatives, was abolished in 1993 (Gormley, 2012). Today, the formal structures in Congress are focused around individual family members, including the “Moms in the House” caucus established in 2019 and a Congressional Dads Caucus formed in 2023 (Richardson, 2023). Hengstebeck (2021) recently proposed a White House Child and Family Policy Council to raise the visibility of families and to furnish access to the key levers of power at the

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

291

highest echelons of government. The Council could provide a forum for diverse and separate public entities to work together on family issues, a locus for integrating policyand family-relevant research, and a central agenda-setting body for developing a plan of action and assigning responsibility for advancing it. Would such a council have any real power and influence, or would it be a small cog in a big bureaucracy? Such an entity could wield power, according to Moynihan, who argued that the 1946 Employment Act, which established the Council of Economic Advisers, might have been more important than any jobs bill: The mere declaration of policy was an event; it marked acceptance of a social responsibility …. The point was not what answers were provided, but what questions were posed …. It would be enough for a national family policy to declare that the American government would be formulated and administered with this object in mind; and finally that the President, or some person designated by him, would report to the Congress on the condition of the American family in all its many facets. (1986, pp. 10–11)

Can you imagine the impact far and wide if the President delivered an annual message to Congress on the state of the nation’s children, youth, and families (Shore, 1979)? The visibility and energy that a formal entity can bring have been embraced across the United States with the establishment of children’s councils in Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Tennessee (Forum for Youth Investment, n.d.). The value of formal entities to embody families in government decision-making has not gone unnoticed around the world. In 2013, Hong Kong made it mandatory that a family impact analysis accompany all policy submissions and Legislative Council briefs (King, & Mancini, 2014). In 2017, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom introduced a “Family Manifesto” to center families in government operations; one provision is the appointment of a Cabinet-level minister in each department with responsibility for conducting family impact assessments and delivering policies to strengthen families. The signatories include members of Parliament and peers (Cowan & Cowan, 2019b). In 2017, the Singapore Ministry of Social and Family Development adopted a holistic approach to supporting families in partnership with business, community, and school organizations (Darling et al., 2019). One never knows the fate of these proposals. Will they disappear without a trace or evolve into a formidable force for families that cannot be denied (Richardson, 2023)? Family Policy Moves Forward When There is Broad-Based Citizen Activism

In the early years of the Progressive Era, citizen action made critical contributions to family policy. Through political activism, it became obvious that family support, once supplied through women’s volunteer work, could become the province of public policy (Stage, 1997). The constitutionality of government interventions on behalf of working families was established by women’s success in advancing broad-based labor legislation between 1890 and 1920 (Sklar, 1993). In addition to establishing its legitimacy, advocacy shaped the legislation that was enacted. Julia Lathrop’s success

292

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

can be attributed to her ability to negotiate policy proposals that were agreed upon by liberal and conservative organizations like the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and the National Congress of Mothers, which later became the Parent Teacher Association (PTA; Skocpol, 1995, 1997). The GI Bill and the Sheppard-Towner Act were successful, in part, because they were championed by advocacy organizations, typically those organized at the local, state, and national levels, that could exert unified political pressure across legislative districts. In the United States, examples of citizen activism occurred even during the pandemic. For example, half a million Americans joined in Black Lives Matters protests in 40% of counties across the country (Buchanan et al., 2020). Black Lives Matter was successful in engaging citizens despite three recent trends that have undermined political activism. First, between the 1970s and the 1990s, active participation in an organization, such as serving on a committee or assuming a leadership role, has declined much more sharply than more individualistic forms of participation, such as sending a check or writing a letter to the editor (Hudson, 2020; Putnam, 2000). Today, Americans are five times more likely to donate their money than their time to charitable causes (Dumitru, 2022). Second, our era of cynical and partisan politics is a potential barrier to citizen activism by making it harder to work together and trust one another (Pew Research Center, 2019a). Family scientist William Doherty has been involved with Braver Angels, a series of over 1,000 facilitated workshops designed to “heal political polarization among ordinary Americans” (Braver Angels, 2021; Doherty, 2021a, p. F2). The purpose of these three- to seven-hour workshops is, not to change anyone’s minds, but rather to help citizens move beyond stereotypes of those with whom they disagree. Through structured conversations with each other, participants are able to better appreciate what each can bring to solving society’s pressing problems (Doherty, 2021b). Third, a troubling trend for citizen activism is that most U.S. organizations, at least those that include families in their advocacy, promote an agenda with a particular political bent. Is it Pollyannaish to think that liberal and conservative advocacy groups would ever join forces for the ultimate good of the whole family unit? Could advocates from any political persuasion rally around the first step of encouraging policymakers to routinely ask, “How would this policy or program affect families?” Family issues, because of their fundamental importance to a wide range of constituencies, have a unique capacity to generate unexpected alliances in ways that mirror the inherent give and take of family life (Dionne, 2004).

Summary From our analysis, it is clear that family-centered policymaking has enjoyed periods of robust support followed by years of benign neglect. The past may not be a prologue. We are not necessarily doomed to repeated, short-term waves of interest in family policy, particularly if we can carefully draw insights from the past. These insights can guide

W H AT I N S I G H T S F R O M T H E PA S T C A N G U I D E FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

293

the future direction and dissemination of our research, the design and delivery of our policies, and the operation of our institutions. • The family policy has made progress over the last five decades by responding to the controversies of the 1970s regarding the definition of family policy, the dilemma of the 1980s regarding partisan ownership of family policy, the issue of the 1990s regarding the legitimacy of government’s role in supporting families, the stumbling block of the 2000s regarding the distinguishing value of the family policy, and the pandemic tipping point of the 2020s regarding whether the demonstrated benefits of family policy have shifted the ground toward more demand for the it going forward. • We should look to some of the origins of contemporary family policy in earlier periods as both a focus of attention and a source of inspiration: the activism of middle-class women between 1890 and 1920, the child- and family-saving movement from 1900 to 1930, the Social Security Amendments of 1939, and the political support for family policies during the pandemic. • Professionals can erect more enduring family policies in the 21st century by building on insights that were tested in the past, such as conducting research and developing theories that are more policy- and family-minded, and communicating these to policymakers in ways that will entice them to be more research- and theory-minded. • Professionals can conduct studies, design theories, and develop programs that deliberately include both structural and individual factors. Citizens can be encouraged to invest their time in family causes and to put aside petty partisan differences to join with unconventional allies around the societal good of well-functioning families. • Family professionals can adopt a broad interdisciplinary focus that encourages the integrative perspective of families across issues and systems. Family policy advances through top-down approaches like developing formal structures to elevate the status of families in policymaking and by bottom-up approaches that encourage broadbased citizen activism and support.

By standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past, we can make “future policies work for families and family policies work for the future” (Richardson, 2018, p. 3). This chapter identifies insights that can inspire policy decisions that are more informed, deliberate, and self-conscious about their impact on families. We believe that the potential exists to build a more enduring set of family policies in the 21st century. This chapter incorporates content from a previous publication that is reprinted with permission. Copyright @ 2004, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. (2004). Building enduring family policies in the 21st century: The past as prologue? In M. Coleman & L. Ganong (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 451–468). Sage Publications.

13

295

CHAPTER 13 HOW TO ENGAGE POLICYMAKERS IN FAMILY POLICY BEST PRACTICES FROM THEORY, RESEARCH, AND THE FAMILY IMPACT SEMINARS

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Kids are easier because … everyone in the end sees that how we invest in our young people will determine what our future looks like … Children and families … [is] a policy place where bipartisan efforts work … It’s a chance for people to put down their partisan divide … [and] not only bi-party divide … [but also] race, even geographics. (Democratic legislator) One of the things I take a lot of credit in is meeting with individuals who provide that information, so I can see who they are and kind of gauge what kind of person or what kind of [information] …. If somebody comes in … and say[s], ‘Hey, can I have like 10 seconds?’ … It makes a lot more sense to me than a form letter of research that I get from other interest groups (Republican legislator)

• Is family policymaking an art or a science? • What research and theory can provide guidance for engaging policymakers? • What can be learned from the success of the Family Impact Seminars in building better public policy for families? • Are there best practices that focus explicitly on engaging policymakers around family policy?

Much has been written about the need for evidence-based policy. Much less has been written about becoming more evidence-based in promoting evidence use in policymaking (Tseng, 2022). Even less attention has been dedicated to explicitly promoting evidencebased practice in family policymaking. All too often when professionals engage policymakers, they just wing it and then are surprised when the encounter fails to work out as they hoped (Miller, 2022). Professionals can set themselves up for success by turning to a growing body of evidence on research use in family policy. New theories can guide the way. Counsel can come from professionals who have waded into the family policy arena (Bogenschneider, 2020; Crowley et al., 2021). This chapter introduces a DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-17

296

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

number of best practices for more effectively engaging policymakers to a build better public policy for families. These theory-driven practices are grounded in decades of experience with the Family Impact Seminars and the advice that policymakers themselves have offered to professionals in recent studies. To effectively engage policymakers, it is important to acknowledge that the use of research evidence is occurring in a new information marketplace. Looking back to World War II, scientific advances from the atomic bomb to primitive computers to radar were so revolutionary that Congress was willing to write blank checks to fund research studies (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Lupia, 2017). In 1950, Congress established the National Science Foundation to provide support for research and education in all nonmedical fields of science and engineering (Mazuzan, 1994). In selected fields, formal intermediary institutions were established, such as the agricultural experiment stations and the cooperative extension service, to link the producers of research to the practical needs of farmers and the practice of farming (Sarewitz & Pielke, Jr. 2007). Fast forward to today. Science no longer holds a monopoly as a revered source of information with a comparative advantage over all the others. Bloggers write faster and better, and they are a lot less expensive (Lupia, 2017). Many policymakers today, especially the most effective among them, want research evidence but few formal entities exist in the social sciences for establishing relationships between the producers and the users of research evidence (Gamoran, 2018). With few such infrastructures, the experience of the Family Impact Seminars in connecting researchers and policymakers can be instructive. This chapter begins by reviewing recent studies of policymakers who point to youth and family issues as a place where policymaking functions better and policies are more research-based. Next, I introduce a theory that explains why research is underutilized in policymaking and that offers rich insights into how professionals can engage policymakers in ways that hold promise for turning research into policy. I then describe how this theory has informed the design of the Family Impact Seminars, which have effectively engaged hundreds of policymakers in a couple dozen states over the past three decades. Finally, based on this research, theory, and practice, I propose 10 best practices for professionals interested in getting more involved in family policymaking and with greater effect.

Is Family Policy Worth Your Time and Effort? This chapter begins with one of the greatest barriers to building better public policy for families. Professionals are pessimistic that engaging policymakers around families is worth their time and effort. Some professionals see the tectonic ideological forces influencing family life and are pessimistic about the prospects that value-laden issues such as sex, love, marriage, and childbearing can escape the paralysis of polarization. Reeves epitomizes this pessimism: “By comparison to family policy, foreign policy is a breeze” (Reeves, 2019, p. 2). But those who are actually in the family policy arena,

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

297

researchers and policymakers alike, challenge this widespread defeatism. Based on their experience, youth and families are one place where policies move away from the seeming intransigence of polarization and toward a valuing of science in a substantive way (Bogenschneider et al., 2021). The perspectives of researchers and policymakers are each considered, in turn, in the following. What Researchers Say About Investing in Family Policy as a Worthy Pursuit

Family science “has always been translational science” (Grzywacz & Middlemiss, 2017, p. 547). It is difficult to study children and adolescents without producing information potentially useful to policymakers (Seitz, 1979). When researchers have taken family science into the political world, they have experienced success. Maton (2017) interviewed 79 psychologists about their greatest success in influencing a social policy. An overwhelming 70% of their narratives focused on youth and family policy. Psychologists described using science to influence policies around child abuse, child and maternal health, child obesity, child support, family leave, foster care, home visiting, juvenile justice, K-12 education, same-sex marriage, teenage pregnancy, undocumented parents, and welfare reform. Their experience supports Blankenhorn’s prognosis that a family policy agenda has a broad-based appeal that has not been captured by either the political left or the political right: “The core issues facing the American family … will fit the strategic needs of either party. Thus, it is twice blessed: good policy and good politics” (1988, p. 2). What Policymakers Say About Less Partisan Polarization in Family Policy

In one of our recent studies, policymakers told us that youth and families are a cluster of policies where dialogue is less polarized and decisions are more informed by research. This finding inspires confidence because it emanates from a voice that is often overlooked in scientific studies, policymakers themselves (Oliver et al., 2014). To capture this missing voice, we conducted three rounds of face-to-face interviews of 225 policymakers in Indiana and Wisconsin; the response rates ranged from 60% to 100% in a population with a typical response rate of 20% (Browne, 1999). Of particular relevance to family policy, we interviewed 24 legislators who received the most nominations from their colleagues as Youth and Family Champions (response rate = 86%; Bogenschneider et al., 2021). Champions were found in both states and both chambers of the legislature. They did not differ significantly by level of education or the number of years they had served in the legislature. They were, however, signficantly more likely to be Democratic, X2 (1, N = 173) = 8.34, p < .01; female, X2 (1, N = 173) = 15.31, p < .001; and Black, X2 (3, N = 173) = 14.85, p < .01. Perhaps surprising to many, is that legislators who champion youth and family issues find them to be less polarized than other policy issues. But what issues do these Champions place in the bucket of youth and family policy? The issues Champions mentioned most

298

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

often were education and health. Education topics included bullying, early childhood education, full-day kindergarten, higher education, home schooling, pre-K, school safety, sex education, student loans, and so forth. Health topics included mental and physical health care for low-income children and families along with baby formula, child lead poisoning, child vaccines, family leave, and sales tax on diapers and feminine hygiene products. Other youth and family topics that Champions mentioned in order of descending frequency included adoption and foster care, human trafficking, child safety, caring for children with disabilities, divorce, juvenile justice, child care, and domestic violence. Despite this vast array of issues, almost three-quarters of Champions reported youth and family issues were less partisan than other issues, including over half (52%) who said most youth and family policies were less partisan and over a fifth (22%) who said they were sometimes less partisan. In addition, policymakers reported that youth and families also bridge race/ethnicity and rural/urban divides. Notably, these perspectives on nonpartisanship did not differ by gender, political party, race/ethnicity, or state. Four explanations emerged for why youth and family problems were less partisan. One common reason is that they were a common experience, as voiced by an Indiana Republican: I think 75% of … my colleagues … are parents and probably 75%, maybe higher, are currently married. Obviously most of them have a family … If it’s something I don’t see, feel, touch or hear, you’re going to have … [to] drill down on making me feel it, see it, touch it, and hear it … It’s easier to do with youth and family because we’ve all been there … Someone brought us into this Earth and most of us have siblings … aunts and uncles … It is hard to find other areas … common to so many people. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1149)

A second reason youth and family issues were perceived as less partisan was their public profile. Unlike disagreements over taxes or climate change, youth and family issues were not “the high-profile stuff that makes the front page.” As put by a Wisconsin Republican: I can’t say that I’ve ever had a partisan fight on these issues. And I’ve usually had good bipartisan support on the bills. Having a lower profile … is very helpful … The frontpage issues, the volatile issues are much different than working on a family issue. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1150)

The absence of front-page coverage on youth and family issues, and the presence of front-page coverage on issues, such as global warming due to methane or military spending on Ukraine contribute to public misperceptions that all issues are partisan. An Indiana Democrat noted: “What makes the news is … the small amount that we don’t agree on” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1150). Third, youth and family problems were less partisan because they did not attract the attention of the political donor class that often polarizes issues. A Democrat elaborated on

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

299

the people who back youth and family issues: “They’re poor … They’re rich in what they do … but they don’t have big money … like other people with super PACs that take out a TV ad” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1150). Finally, youth and family problems were perceived as less partisan because legislators defined away some contentious problems as “social” issues. A Republican explained: I would betcha that if you look at the last couple years … at each bill that passed … about 400 or 500 pieces of legislation and if you categorize them as something in your definition of family and youth, you’d probably see … 95% unanimous or better, that’s my guess. Now, if you start expanding into other areas … you could get into social issues … Then you’re going to see it going down party lines … But if you’re talking about issues like violence and child sex trafficking … you’re going to see unanimous votes across the board … [but not] if you get into same-sex marriage and abortion. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1150)

One Democrat pointed out that youth and family issues were much easier to pass than socially divisive issues, which were defined in the interviews as abortion, same-sex marriage, sex education, welfare, and (sometimes) education. In sum, in our study, youth and families were found to be less partisan than other issues because, in part, they are a shared value premise to which policymakers can more easily relate. Yet even when youth and family issues are seen as a “common interest,” a Democrat observed that there may not be acceptance of a “common answer.” Consistent with policymakers’ reports, a high level of bipartisan support for family policies exists among the American public. The pollsters expected to find that a majority of Americans supported pro-family policies (e.g., paid family leave, the Child Tax Credit); they were surprised, however, that the level of support was “astronomical” and widespread. Support came from men and women, people of every race and party, rural and urban residents, and White voters without a college degree (Goeas & Lake, 2023). What Policymakers Say About More Research Utilization in Family Policy

Champions were enthusiastic about the role that research plays in family policymaking. Champions portrayed the value of research as “huge,” “it’s just everything,” “crucial,” “extremely important,” “tremendous,” “very powerful,” “very critical,” and “very significant” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1151). These laudatory terms, expressed by 13 of the 24 Champions, cut across gender, race, state, and political party. Youth and Family Champions also explained why research is important: “Knowledge is power,” “Evidence is first and foremost,” and “Those who have the gold rule, [but] those who have the numbers … can really move” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1151). An Indiana Democrat pointed to the power of stories, but added it’s equally important to have research to back them up: “When you’re helping people, you could be hurting people at the same time, so you have to be incredibly mindful of that.” Another

300

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

contribution of research, according to a Wisconsin Democrat, is the credibility it adds to her arguments: The data-driven strategies that are best practices that have worked in other states completely drive my entire conversation … If I say something and there’s research and data that is solid, it shoots it out of the park. Now, granted people can say, “Oh, we can get research to say anything.” You can, but not really. There’s a level of validity that comes when research is added that frankly is priceless … [especially] when research is connected to … solutions that have been tried and this is what happened with those. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1151)

When asked directly, 40% of Champions reported that research was more important for youth and families than for other issues. The Champions expanded on three ways research had added value for youth and family issues. First, research played a greater role simply because more research and data were available. The state agency charged with children and families “usually keeps statistics on everything and everybody,” so these data were only a phone call away. In addition, a Champion claimed research on youth and families were more believable: I have some colleagues who believe environmental research is kind of all subjective … When it comes to our families and children, it’s pretty black and white. If you pass this bill, X amount of kids will this or X amount of low-income families will that. It’s pretty black and white … They’re both based on fact, but one is much more believable. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1152)

Beyond its availability and believability, a Democratic Champion reported that his colleagues were more open to research on a shared value premise such as youth and families. Children are paramount. We have to take care of them, and they’re going to go in with probably a little more of an open ear. Tell me why we have a problem here, and what is it about, and how do we address it … but you still have to have persuasive information. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1152)

A Democrat noted a greater openness to research when it was discussed in the context of youth: When trauma is brought up in criminal justice, it’s seen as soft on crime. When trauma is brought up for youth, it’s seen as “Well, that’s necessary as [their] brains are [developing]” … They can see it … with children even more so—hands down. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1153)

The reason for more receptivity to research on families argued an Indiana Democrat, is because “it affects the family in more crucial ways” and because of how crucial families are for society. According to an Indiana Republican: “[Families are] the core of where I think all other problems start. If you … improve youth and family situations, hopefully

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

301

you’re going to have less dysfunction that creates all the other issues whether that be drugs, homelessness, joblessness” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1153). In sum, recent studies suggest that we can engage policymakers across the political spectrum on youth and family issues with some confidence. But what theoretical guidance is available to help us know how to proceed in ways that may bring greater success?

Guidance for Policy Engagement From Community Dissonance Theory Much of my career has been spent working “in the trees” with families and policymakers. I observed firsthand occasional instances of effective translation of science and also experienced frequent failures, which inspired me to step up a level and focus on the forest. I turned to theory that provides a larger vantage point for explaining why some things worked better than others. What can we learn from theory to improve the odds that policymakers will use research for the benefit of families (Gamoran, 2018)? Effective engagement of policymakers begins with knowing why engagement so often fails. Until we better appreciate the forces that separate and divide researchers and policymakers, we cannot construct strategies for effectively bringing them together. One theory that can provide guidance was originally introduced by Nathan Caplan (1979) as “two communities theory,” which we have expanded into community dissonance theory (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019). We propose that engagement fails because researchers and policymakers come from separate communities and live on distant islands with distinct cultures. They speak different languages, seek information for different purposes, and use different decision-making processes. A community’s culture is a pervasive, undeniable force that can facilitate or frustrate the flow of information across the deep waters that divide the islands from each other. The premise of the theory is that inhabitants of the research and policy communities are not destined to remain isolated on their own island. If the research community had a better understanding of the policy community—its inhabitants, institutions, and culture—this could improve communication and trust between researchers and policymakers. Opening a conversation and building trusting relationships are vital to increasing the use of research in policymaking (Ward, 2008). In our revision of community dissonance theory, we argued that policymakers do not live on one big monolithic island; instead, they are more like an archipelago situated in a chain of related smaller islands (e.g., state legislators, program administrators, and local policymakers). The theory proposes that each island in the chain has a distinct culture that substantially shapes its way of life and may, in turn, inform best practices for effectively engaging its inhabitants (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019). The beauty of community dissonance theory is that it suggests that mistrust and miscommunication are due to behavioral factors. If behavioral factors are indeed

302

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

responsible, then careful attention to several pragmatic processes and procedures can improve communication and trust, and increase the use of research in policy decisions. For example, those in the research culture are cautious and reflective, relying heavily on statistics and methodology with decisions based on the rigor of the data and its replication. In contrast, on the distant shores of the policy culture, policymakers are “people-people.” They operate in a long-standing oral tradition that relies much more on the spoken than the written word with decisions dependent upon persuasion, negotiation, and compromise. Policy administrators are pragmatic. They rely on research and experience to adapt programs to local populations in ways that are politically and economically feasible. Several differences in the research needs, work culture, and information preferences of researchers, policymakers, and policy administrators can be found in Table 13.1. In sum, cultural differences can tell us a lot about what kinds of information are sought, for which purposes, and how urgent the need is. But are there formal programs that have translated these theoretical insights into practice?

The Family Impact Seminar Infrastructure for Engaging Policymakers Community Dissonance Theory guides the design and operation of the time-tested, long-standing Family Impact Seminars. This section describes the Seminar model, its signature components, the way the Seminar process works, and its impacts. The Design of the Theory-Driven Family Impact Seminar Model

The Seminars are a university-based infrastructure organized state-by-state to promote more ongoing, routine use of research rather than a single instance of use now and then. The Seminars are a series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports for communicating research to state policymakers on topics they identify, such as children’s health care, early childhood care and education, family poverty, foster families, homelessness, incarcerated parents, job preparation for youth, long-term care, and welfare reform. The state Seminars are modeled after those held in Congress for several years (Ooms, 1995). Across the last several decades, more than 250 Seminars have been convened by University and Extension faculty in northern and southern states, red and blue states, poor and prosperous states, and states with and without term limits. To create a nonpartisan, off-the-record setting, lobbyists and the press are not invited. Opportunities are provided for policymakers to discuss issues with their colleagues across the aisle to foster relationships and the finding of common ground. The Signature Components of the Family Impact Seminars

The Seminars are grounded in the tenets of Community Dissonance Theory, which sets them apart from other engagement efforts in several ways. Chief among the differences is that its signature components are guided by an understanding and

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

303

Table 13.1  Differences in the Research Needs, Work Culture, and Information Preferences Among the Three Communities of Researchers, Policymakers, and Policy Administrators Characteristics Researchers

Policymakers

Policy Administrators

RESEARCH NEEDS Content

Focus on what we do not know; prefer questions that are longer-range, more discipline-driven, and organized around understanding rather than doing (Shonkoff, 2000)

Focus on what we do know; prefer answers that provide innovative ideas that are politically and economically feasible (Bogenschneider et al., 2013; Shonkoff, 2000)

Focus on what we need to know; prefer asking questions to seek politically and economically feasible answers about how to implement policies in ways that work for the target population (Bogenschneider et al., 2013; Shonkoff, 2000)

Level of detail

More detail on narrow topics (Weiss & Weiss, 1996)

Comprehensive overviews that emphasize malleable factors policy can influence (Weiss & Weiss, 1996)

Like some detail, but on procedures and best practices for operationalizing policies and programs (Shonkoff, 2000; Unrau, 1993)

Source of data

Focus is representative, preferably random samples that produce knowledge that is generalizable (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Riley, 1997)

Focus is often comparison of how a policymaker’s constituency stacks up to a similar city, county, state, or region (Kaufman, 1993)

Focus is on their target community and how programs and practices can be adapted to different circumstances (Kaufman, 1993)

Reactive; to enhance reelection bids, must respond relatively quickly in a fast-paced, fluid environment where progress can occur in weeks (Bogenschneider et al., 2013; Kaufman, 1993)

Action-oriented and pragmatic; often required to respond quickly even if information is incomplete or resources are insufficient (Bogenschneider et al., 2013; Shonkoff, 2000; Weimer, 2009)

WORK CULTURE Approach and timing

Cautious, skeptical, tentative, and reflective; progress in research can take years to achieve (Gallagher, 1990; Shonkoff, 2000)

(continued)

304

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Table 13.1  continued Characteristics Researchers

Policymakers

Policy Administrators

Criteria for decisionmaking

Statistical probability, sound research methods, rigorous designs, and publication in peerreviewed journals (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Shonkoff, 2000)

Consensus reached through negotiation and compromise; compelling stories and single anecdotes are easy to remember and repeat (Heath & Heath, 2007; Shonkoff, 2000)

Combination of research, clinical judgment, observation, and the experience of reputable practitioners that are incorporated into a theory of change (Bogenschneider et al., 2013; Shonkoff, 2000)

Views of ambiguity and complexity

Excited by ambiguity and complexity (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Shonkoff, 2000)

Counterproductive to embrace complexity because it impedes taking firm positions and explaining them in sound bites (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Weiss, 1989)

Energized by complexity, but still have to simplify enough to make hard program decisions (Shonkoff, 2000)

INFORMATION PREFERENCES Emphasis

An emphasis on sample, methods, and analysis to improve the quality of future research (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021)

Little attention to sample, methods, and analysis because reputable intermediaries are trusted to provide only rigorous studies (Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980)

An emphasis on sample to assess similarity to the target population and on program methods to allow for replication and adaptation (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021)

Organization

Building in a logical progression to the conclusions at the end (Huston, 2008; Newman & Vincent, 1996)

Placing the most important conclusions for policy at the beginning (Huston, 2008; Newman & Vincent, 1996)

Placing the most important conclusions for practice at the beginning (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021)

Writing Style

In-depth discussions with discipline-specific terminology and technical graphs and illustrations (Hines & Bogenschneider, 2013)

Concise, easy-toread reports with accessible language, active voice, strong verbs, short sentences, frequent paragraphing, and simple graphs and illustrations (Hines & Bogenschneider, 2013; Nelson et al., 2009)

Reports of moderate length with some technical language and illustrations that provide the necessary background for communicating with both researchers and policymakers (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021)

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

305

appreciation of the policy community—its inhabitants, institution, and culture (Bogenschneider, 2020): • Research is provided on what policymakers are thinking about (not what professionals wish they were thinking about); • Research is presented in the oral format that policymakers prefer with opportunities for conversation and clarification (rather than a zippy email or slick report delivered to a policymaker’s office); • Seminar organizers adhere to an educational, nonadvocacy approach (in an agendadriven culture accustomed to spinning the results for a particular political purpose); • The Seminars provide opportunities for policymakers to discuss issues with their colleagues from across the aisle in a nonpartisan, off-the-record setting (without the presence of lobbyists and the press who quickly politicize policy debate); and • The Seminars view issues through the lens of families, particularly those who are marginalized because of their race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or stigmatizing circumstances (and have little voice or influence in policymaking).

The logistics of implementing a Family Impact Seminar are detailed in a recent article that covers the multi-faceted skill set of knowing why action is important, knowing about barriers to success, knowing what to do, knowing who to target, and knowing how to communicate effectively (Bogenschneider, 2020). The Way the Family Impact Seminar Model Works

To provide a glimpse into the operationalization of the Seminar’s signature components, imagine yourself filing into the Wisconsin State Capitol at 8 a.m. on a cold winter morning in January of 2014. You are one of 98 participants who pick up a briefing report on today’s topic, The Science of Early Brain Development: A Foundation for the Success of our Children and the State Economy. You manage to find a chair in the crowded hearing room where you sip a hot cup of coffee and nibble a fresh donut as you page through the 39-page briefing report that includes chapters from each speaker and a family impact guide for policymakers. You keep an eye on the dignitaries filing into the room, particularly those in the first rows of reserved seats, which are occupied today by 26 legislators, the First Lady of Wisconsin, and eight leaders from the executive echelon of state agencies. The remainder of the chairs are filled by agency staff (22 in total), legislative aides (20), analysts of the nonpartisan legislative service agencies (10), members of the court system (6), and Extension faculty from the University of Wisconsin–Madison (5). Even the long-serving and well-known Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court shows up. She discretely sits off to the side in case she must leave early, but still positions herself in a prime spot to ask one of the first questions of the day. As usual, the Seminar begins with a brief welcome and introduction of the first speaker, who commands attention because he is an unlikely voice for young children—an economist and former vice president at a federal reserve bank. He presents extensive

306

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

evidence of how government investments in early childhood policies enhance economic development and result in extraordinarily high public returns. His 25-minute presentation is followed by 5 minutes of questions and answers, with priority given to legislators, agency leaders, and Supreme Court justices. The second presenter is a commanding presence given his background as a neuroscientist who discovered one of the genes that increases the risk for autism. He eloquently discusses how the brain develops and the ways that children’s early caregiving experiences are wired into the architecture of the brain. He drives home the relevance of this research to policymakers by explaining how they can capitalize on this exciting new science to build a solid foundation for economic productivity, responsible citizenship, and a prosperous society. The third speaker, an engaging professor and Extension child development specialist, reviews evaluations of eight early childhood programs and policies, explaining their life-changing impacts on the lives of individuals and their cost-effective, long-range benefits for society. After all three speakers, a lively discussion ensues. The presentations, briefing report, and policy briefs can be found at the Resource Center (https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/ research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/). The day’s activities include a private briefing of the First Lady of Wisconsin followed by an invitation-only luncheon discussion, which attracted 23 state legislators. At lunch, one indicator of the impact of the morning Seminar was this adamant claim from a senior Republican legislator: Wisconsin needs to act on early childhood development or Minnesota is going to “eat our lunch.” A second discussion session involves a spirited exchange among ten high-ranking officials from five state agencies, legislative service agencies, and state courts about the mechanics of operationalizing early childhood policies in Wisconsin. The Impacts of the Family Impact Seminars

Our experience in multiple states suggests that if you build the infrastructure for the Family Impact Seminars, legislators will participate. In the 2015–16 biennium, 80 of 132 Wisconsin legislators had participated in Seminar activities, and 13 of those not participating had sent an aide. This means that the Seminars had engaged 70% of legislative offices. This high level of participation and the consistently high ratings of the Seminars’ relevance, objectivity, and usefulness may be responsible, in part, for their instrumental, conceptual, relational, and procedural impacts on policy decisions and the policymaking process (for further information, see Bogenschneider, 2020; Chapter 8 in Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Chapter 15 in this book). Instrumental Impacts

In follow-up evaluations three to five months after the early brain development seminar, legislators reported several direct instrumental uses of the research (N =18, 69% response rate). For example, 79% of legislators reported incorporating the Seminar research into speeches and presentations, 72% reported sharing information with colleagues, 39% reported using it to evaluate pending legislation, and 28% reported using it to draft legislation. Specifically in regard to family policy, 94% of legislators said because of the Family Impact Seminars they were “quite a bit” more likely to consider how pending

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

307

legislation might affect families and 94% were “quite a bit” more likely to consider how new legislation they are developing might affect families. Legislators say they use Seminar research, but what evidence do we have that they really do? Over the years, Seminar research has been used in the design of several Wisconsin laws. For example, a 2010 jobs law included five provisions that were extensively discussed at a Seminar. A prescription drug law included four features of other states’ prescription drug laws discussed by Seminar speakers. The Seminars also contributed to laws on advanced manufacturing skills training, alternative diplomas for disengaged students, career pathways for youth, home visiting, long-term care insurance, youth tobacco use, and workforce training for low-income workers. Similar impacts have been reported for other Wisconsin Seminars and for Seminars in other states as reported in Chapters 1 and 15 of this book (see other examples in Bogenschneider et al., 2017; Hines & Bogenschneider, 2013; Tomayko et al., 2019; Wilcox et al., 2005). Conceptual Impacts

The Seminars also have contributed to indirect conceptual uses of research that enlighten policymakers’ understanding of the complexity of issues (Nutley et al., 2007; Tseng, 2012). Using the seminar on early brain development as an example, a legislator gained an understanding of why early intervention is important to infants and society: Poverty, education, and health issues are all linked through early brain development. Poverty affects brain development which, in turn, affects health which, in turn, affects school which, in turn, affects poverty. I want to work toward legislation that connects those dots.

Conceptual shifts in policymakers’ understanding also extended to the value of research and universities. In interviews three to five months after the early brain development seminar, 83% of legislators reported that because of the Seminars, they were “quite a bit” more likely to see the practical value of research (N = 18, 69% response rate). These attitude shifts are important because they transcend any single Seminar or any specific topic, and they have added value for universities as well. Universities often employ lobbyists to explain to legislators in theoretical terms the value of universities and the research they produce; in contrast, the Seminars demonstrate in practical terms the usefulness of research packaged and delivered to them by universities. Relational Impacts

Legislators in more polarized states, in particular, report having few opportunities to get to know their colleagues across the aisle. Policymakers value the Seminars because they provide an institutional mechanism for dialoguing about issues beyond one’s own party and circle of contacts. Take, for example, the ideological diversity of legislators who attended one Seminar—a legislator who introduced a single-payer health plan, the sponsor of a bill allowing teachers to carry guns to school, the representative who cast the deciding vote against allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, and

308

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

a legislator widely recognized as one of the most vocal critics of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Evaluations confirm that the Seminars open doors for legislators to build relationships with researchers and with their own colleagues. In interviews following the early brain development seminar, 72% of legislators reported being “quite a bit” more likely to see researchers as approachable. Also, 50% of legislators reported that, because of the Seminars, they were “quite a bit” more likely to get to know their colleagues on the other side of the aisle (N = 18, 69% response rate). Legislators report that Seminar discussion sessions, moderated by a neutral Seminar facilitator, allowed them to identify colleagues who they did not know were “thoughtful” about the issue and who could become allies. This is particularly important for those in the minority party, who must partner with someone in the majority party to have any chance of moving an issue forward. But the dialogue also benefits the majority party, as explained by a Republican legislator in a Republican-controlled chamber: They’re valuable from the standpoint of the legislators getting to really have a one-onone discussion with the presenters. But the other value that they bring is the legislators getting to familiarize themselves and become comfortable, in an informal setting, with themselves; because at the end of the day, it’s not the experts that actually pass the legislation. At the end of the day, it’s the legislators. And so this ability to bring legislators together that, frankly, have a very different viewpoint …. And out of that discussion and out of the widely opposing viewpoints on how to solve a problem can come the middle area that we try to achieve in government and move forward … The dialogue that is created between legislators is very valuable.

Institutional Impacts

The Seminars have provided an infrastructure that contributes to the more effective functioning of the legislative institution itself around both family policy and evidence-based policy. An executive agency official explained the value of the Seminars to family policy: This is the only forum I know of where state agency administrators, legislators and other interested parties are briefed on key family policy issues in a non-politicized environment where questions can be asked and answered without media interference. It gives all of us a common frame of reference later when discussing these same topics in other settings where policy is being shaped and decisions made.

Similarly, a Wisconsin Senator emphasized the value of the Seminars to evidencebased policy. At a convening of state Seminar directors, he emphasized the value of an institutional infrastructure like the nonpartisan Family Impact Seminars that brings policymakers together to discuss research across partisan and ideological lines: I’ve also come to realize that we tend not to make decisions either as voters or as legislators based on facts. We tend to make them based on emotion. Emotion tends

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

309

to override reason. So, we need to find ways of delivering facts, information, and research in a way that breaks down those barriers, that opens our minds to what the research tells us …. How do you break down the ideological and the partisan barriers that prevent us from communicating effectively? I think that institutional frameworks such as the Family Impact Seminars are extraordinarily beneficial in making that happen … in creating that institutional framework by which we can have a discussion across the partisan and ideological divides that often separate us, unnecessarily. Because what I find … is that we have more commonality than differences. But our differences are what keep us from coming to effective solutions.

The Family Impact Seminars also have influenced the legislative process itself. According to a press release issued by two legislators (The Wheeler Report, 2014), the early brain development seminar influenced the formation of a legislative study committee. This is an important outcome in a lawmaking body because study committees are an institutional mechanism that often advances policy. These committees are comprised of policymakers, subject matter experts, and members of the public who are knowledgeable about the issue. The committee meets several times to discuss policy options, find areas of bipartisan agreement, and draft legislation that is introduced in the next session. Another impact on the policy process was relayed by a Republican Senator. A Seminar discussion session prompted her to initiate a legislative process that she found effective in encouraging ongoing dialogue around an issue. She kept in contact with the bipartisan group of legislators that she met at the Seminar discussion session, notifying them of the status of legislation on the issue and the changes that occurred as it moved forward. These impacts suggest that infrastructures, like the university-sponsored Family Impact Seminars, can contribute to family policy decisions that have benefited hundreds of children, youth, and families in states across the nation (see Chapter 15). Also, the Seminars seem to have made a positive impression on policymakers’ attitudes about the value of research evidence and the approachability of researchers that bode well for family policy in the future. In sum, we have recent studies, new theories, and the long-standing Family Impact Seminars that suggest it is possible to build better public policies for families. But how? Are there best practices that can guide us going forward?

Best Practices for Engaging Policy Inhabitants, Institutions, and Culture in Family Policymaking Ten best practices are proposed for engaging policymakers in family policy. These best practices supplement 12 others from my book co-authored with Thomas Corbett on building evidence-based policy (see Chapter 10 in Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). Instead of repeating the best practices for building evidence-based policy, I am drilling down on best practices for building family policy. Taken together, these best practices suggest the skills, attitudes, and approaches that it takes to build better public policy for families.

310

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

These best practices intentionally focus on the research end of the research-policy equation. Based on our experience with the Family Impact Seminars, researchers are typically not on the radar screen of policymakers. Thus, researchers cannot wait to be tapped on the shoulder. Instead, it is up to researchers and other policy-minded professionals to take the initiative to engage policymakers (Friese & Bogenschneider, 2009). I present these best practices with a spirit of humility. Policymaking is a complex, agenda-driven, and unpredictable process that makes it difficult to develop a set of uniform best practices that are guaranteed to work for every issue and across policy settings. Nonetheless, I present these best practices with a spirit of optimism. Many of these best practices are based on the advice of policymakers in our recent study, who were known for being effective champions of youth and family issues. The practices also derive from the decades-long experience of the Family Impact Seminars in connecting researchers and policymakers on family policy issues in several states across the country. So, the ideas presented here are not esoteric or untested practices. Instead, they are pragmatic processes and procedures that can be learned, refined, and improved upon over time. Effectively engaging policymakers is not a one-and-done endeavor, but rather a developmental process that eventually becomes easier and more rewarding. The 10 best practices discussed in this chapter focus explicitly on providing guidance for engaging policymakers around family policy. They are based on the premise of community dissonance theory regarding the importance of familiarity with the policy community. Thus, they are organized according to the three key elements of community dissonance theory—the inhabitants, institutions, and culture of the policy community (see the summary in Table 13.2). Table 13.2  Best Practices for Engaging Policymakers Around Family Policy Depend on Familiarity with the Policy Community Its Inhabitants 1. Identify the Policymakers Who Champion Youth and Family Issues 2. Build Trusting Working Relationships with Youth and Family Champions 3. Listen to Policymakers to Learn What Information They Need and Why Its Institutions 4. Provide Research at the Right Times and Places With the Right Partners 5. Consider A Nonpartisan Approach That Sets You Apart in a Partisan Body 6. Communicate Research Through Nonpartisan Seminars or Forums With Opportunities for Discussion Its Culture 7. Place a Human Face or Pragmatic Image on Youth and Family Issues using Language Familiar to Policymakers 8. Discuss the Economic and Political Feasibility of Youth and Family Policies 9. Communicate About Racial Disparities in Ways that Open Policymakers’ Minds 10. Frame Families as a Unifying Force Across Peoples and Communities

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

311

Inhabitant Best Practices in Family Policymaking Community Dissonance Theory provides guidance on how to get started. Our research and experience suggest that it is up to professionals to take the initiative to contact policymakers. Sadly, we are not always on policymakers’ radar screens. Effective engagement begins with getting to know more about the inhabitants who live on the metaphorical policy island. Effective communication begins with an environmental scan to locate available literature on what information policy inhabitants need and why. Or better yet, professionals can travel across the deep waters to foreign islands to meet the inhabitants and immerse themselves in their culture. Best Practice 1: Identify the Policymakers Who Champion Youth and Family Issues

It seems a daunting task to engage with policymakers around research. There are so many policymakers and so many issues. For instance, take Wisconsin where an average of 1,200 bills are introduced in the Assembly each biennium and another 600 in the Senate. Legislators tell us that reading and studying so many bills is literally impossible. To deal with this staggering volume of legislation on a sweeping array of issues, legislators “go to” the readily available sources they know and trust—their colleagues. Legislators specialize and develop a reputation for being an expert on a particular issue known as the “go-to” person in the legislature, or as “cue-givers” in the academic literature (Krehbiel, 1992; Matthews & Stimson, 1975). These “go-to” legislators advise their colleagues on what positions to take and how to vote. Legislators readily turn to their colleagues because policymaking bodies, unlike other institutions, do not recruit members with common backgrounds. Instead, they are populated with people with an “amazing mix” of professional training and real-life experience: You’re going to trust your colleagues. You’re going to listen to their view on bills … because there’s too many—the volume is too great. You’re pulled in too many directions … So that’s why those relationships with your colleagues are most important. (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019, p. 137)

This specialization is good news for professionals interested in engaging policymakers for a couple of reasons. First, the “go-to” legislators are most apt to be interested in in-depth research to attain and maintain their reputation as an issue expert. Second, when “go-to” legislators pass along your research to their colleagues, it is more apt to be taken seriously because it comes from a source they know and trust. Finally, and perhaps the best news of all, you do not need to build a lot of relationships. You can prioritize building relationships with the “go-to” legislators who specialize in youth and family issues. At a minimum, it is likely to be one Republican and one Democrat in the Assembly, and one Republican and one Democrat in the Senate. If you can get your research into the hands of these “go-to” legislators, they will spread it to their colleagues for you. I think of these “go-to” legislators as allies who are internally positioned to help your research “go viral.”

312

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

How can you find the “go-to” legislators who champion “youth and family” issues? Several avenues exist. One avenue is looking at the members of committees that address youth and family issues. Or you can contact political insiders. Typically, the leading voices that champion youth and families are common knowledge among anyone who works inside the legislature (e.g., legislators, legislator’s staff, legislative service agency analysts) or anyone who works closely with the legislature (e.g., advocates, intermediaries, or lobbyists). After identifying who the Champions are, the next step is approaching them. How do you make the approach most effective? If you know your own elected representative, you could ask if they would be willing to introduce you. Or you could attend one of the Champion’s town halls or listening sessions. You can introduce yourself and provide a one-page brief of your areas of expertise, along with a few relevant family facts or new findings. Legislators suggest that you avoid lobbying the Champion and, if possible, provide data on the Champion’s district. District data are prized, because it is so valuable to an elected official and so hard to find. When it comes to evidence-based policy, we quickly learned in the Family Impact Seminars that “who” receives your information is as important as “what” information you provide. But what have we learned from research and practice about getting information into the right hands in a way that makes them sit up and take notice? Several best practices provide guidance. Best Practice 2: Build Trusting Working Relationships With Youth and Family Champions

Early in its history, the field of evidence-based policy focused primarily on better techniques for communicating and packaging science. The idea was that policymakers did not have access to research and were unable to wade through its scientific terms and techniques (Tseng et al., 2022). However, this idea has been replaced by a consistent finding from studies funded by the William T. Grant Foundation and others over the last decade: Policymaking is a social process, heavily influenced by a network of trusting relationships (Tseng, 2022). These findings moved us away from the notion of “the individualization” of politics where individual policymakers make decisions on their own (Mayhew, 2011, p. 882), and toward an understanding of political decision-making as a relationship-driven process. The relational nature of policymaking underscores that professionals must resist the temptation to stay isolated on their own island (Hall, 2005). Instead, professionals would benefit by voyaging across the deep waters to build relationships with policymakers on distant shores. In our study, legislators recommended researchers personally contact them, which is in keeping with our experience in the Family Impact Seminars and with the advice of other experienced intermediaries (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021; Goodvin & Lee, 2017; Hawkins, 2019; Mayne et al., 2018). A Republican in our study advised that personal contacts can help build the trust that is needed for professionals’ research to be taken seriously. “I mean we get so much paper—stuff that I should be

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

313

looking at … I don’t think that is as effective as in-person.” This same point about the value of personal contact was made by the Republican quoted at the beginning of this chapter about how personal contacts are more meaningful than a form letter. This advice may be even more relevant with Youth and Family Champions. In our study, we coded the strategies mentioned by Champions for effectively advancing youth and family issues. Overall, 105 effectiveness strategies were coded into 11 categories, each with 2 to 21 mentions. The second most frequent strategy mentioned by Champions was building trusting working relationships. Relationships are key to effectiveness, according to a Democrat: Trust is totally your currency around here … You either are respected or you’re not, and, if you’re not, it’s very difficult, just as in life, to formulate relationships that people will be willing to work with you … Being the greatest orator in the world is … only going to get you so far, if people don’t believe what you’re saying. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1155)

Policymakers are often willing to meet with researchers because it is a common practice in a relationship-based culture and because research evidence can help policymakers be more effective. A Republican legislator reported how she uses research to help her pass bills: “I had to have the support of colleagues. And to have the support of colleagues, I had to have my facts.” A Republican explained how facts position him for collaboration with his colleagues across the aisle: Once I develop a reputation for sweating the details on these things, my colleagues have a degree of confidence that, number one, I will tell them the truth. Sometimes the truth requires me to tell them things that are not favorable to my position …. Second of all, if they know that I am going to tell them the truth … quite often they’re willing to give me the benefit of the doubt in moving ahead. And that has been helpful to me in many, many respects. It also helps lead to bipartisan collaboration. If your colleagues … know that you’ll tell them the truth and that you have your facts right, it at least gives you the basis for a compromise. (Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019, p. 787)

In our studies and those of others over the past decade, relationships and research use work hand-in-hand. Put simply, relationships influence research use, and research use influences relationships (Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019). Given today’s technological advances, can a virtual contact work as well as interacting face-to-face? Empirically, this question remains unanswered. However, I did raise this question with long-term Senator Mark Miller, who served as majority leader and in many other leadership positions in the Wisconsin legislature: I personally find it difficult during Zoom sessions to pick up on the subtle cues that I believe are essential to building trust. I think this applies to all of us. Younger people may be more adept at building trusting relationships online, but I think even they find

314

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

face-to-face better. Face-to-face is logistically more difficult, but much more likely to have a beneficial outcome. (personal communication, November 8, 2021)

Senator Miller finds that Zoom (and other similar platforms) are becoming increasingly less personal; in his experience, people sometimes turn off their cameras even when they are speaking. Best Practice 3: Listen to Policymakers to Learn What Information They Need and Why

Listening is important in engaging policymakers (Mintrom, 2000), and especially when working with Youth and Family Champions. Why so? We found in our study that Champions are very committed to listening. Compared to their colleagues, Youth and Family Champions were twice as likely to mention they listen to colleagues, constituents, and the public. Champions described who they listen to and why. According to one Champion, “I try to be more intentful in my listening with my colleagues that are across the aisle.” Another Champion emphasized why she finds listening so important: I always try to be extremely open-minded, really on any subject, because … listening to the other side in depth and asking questions can also make an argument stronger for what I believe in, or it may give me new information to change or shift my perspective.

Listening is also important when professionals are packing for travel to the foreign island of policymaking. Preparing to engage policymakers begins with learning about the individuals you want to approach, rather than making cold contact without knowing about their background or interests. In interviews with researchers rated as the best speakers at Family Impact Seminars, they reported an outsized payoff of one basic element of advance preparation—clarifying what questions policymakers are asking and why they are interested (Friese & Bogenschneider, 2009). One researcher relayed a compelling account of how not having this information can render research of limited utility. For example, when a policymaker requested cost estimates of guaranteed child support, the researcher calculated why it would be good to start small to avoid the large cost of going big. The researcher later learned that the request came from a policymaker who was planning to run for governor and wanted to show a big effect regardless of the cost. I missed the question …. I actually had the tools to answer the question that he wanted to know, but I hadn’t prepared for it …. It is really important to get the question right—to understand what the policymaker is hoping for … [what their] value-schema is, how they evaluate the trade-offs between cost and coverage …. The more I can understand what the policymaker is hoping for, the more information I can provide.

The gubernatorial candidate decided not to make child support a part of his campaign. The researcher wonders to this day what might have happened if he had done his homework.

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

315

This real-life story illustrates the importance of knowing why a policymaker is requesting research evidence. For instance, is the purpose to take credit for positioning a new and innovative issue on the policy agenda, perhaps with less concern about its cost? Or is the policymaker seeking a fast turnaround on evidence to make a convincing case for an issue that is coming up for a vote? Purpose matters. If a policymaker plans to use research to raise questions at hearings or to educate colleagues, constituents, or the press, information from more than a single study will be most useful; an overview of consistent findings across studies will bring a more enlightened understanding and comprehensive background for responding to questions that may arise. If the research will be used as a bargaining tool in political negotiations, policymakers will want to understand, not only the scientifically best policy response but also how far a policy response can stray from the ideal (Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019). One purpose for which policymakers use research surprised us and many scholars as well. In our study, policymakers told us that they use research, not only for its informational value, but also for its relational value. Policymakers reported using research to earn the respect and trust of their colleagues as knowledgeable and credible information source. To fully grasp the significance of this contribution, it is important to understand how critical trust is in the way business gets done in the policy culture. One Republican was emphatic that “You can’t get anything done without it.” If policymakers use research that turns out to be wrong, they lose the trust of their colleagues; without trust, they lose their ability to influence their colleagues and their constituents as well. A Democrat described the diligence required to leverage mastery of trustworthy facts into a reputation as someone who can be trusted: If you become known for the kind of person who uses studies and more fact-based stuff in the debate, I think people might give you a little bit more credit, but you have to be really careful that you maintain that confidence in people. So, in other words, if people kind of figure out that you’re just using bad studies to back up your point or that the data you’re presenting is just from some left-wing think tank or something, then that will undermine you …. If you kind of develop a reputation for somebody that’s more fact-based, and people feel like, ‘Okay, I may not agree with what the guy is saying but I’ve never known him to misrepresent something, or to just kind of throw garbage out there.’ (Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019, p. 787)

A former Democratic legislator echoed the thinking of many legislators about how fragile a reputation as a trustworthy information source can be, and how hard it can be to maintain. “You’ve got to be credible 100% of the time …. When trust leaves you, it gallops away, and it comes back walking very slowly” (Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019, p. 787). Given how fundamental trustworthy information is to policymakers’ effectiveness, professionals can help policymakers earn a reputation as a reliable and trustworthy information source. To do that, professionals need to earn the trust of policymakers that they are a reliable and trustworthy information source. We have learned in the Family

316

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Impact Seminars that trust does not come automatically, but takes conscientious and intentional effort to get to know the inhabitants of the policy community. It is worth all it takes to get to know policymakers and earn their trust. Once trust is earned, it is golden.

Institutional Best Practices in Family Policymaking Effective engagement entails becoming familiar with the institution in which policymakers operate. The burden falls on us to figure out how the policy process works. Professionals often misconstrue the use of research in the policy process by projecting onto it the way the scientific method works—a systematic step-by-step process that progresses toward a clearly defined goal. In contrast, policymaking is a fluid, negotiated process with research used at multiple points for a patchwork of purposes (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). Best Practice 4: Provide Research at the Right Times and Places With the Right Partners

Familiarity with an institutions’ decision-making processes can help identify the times and places where research is most likely to be used (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020). In our study, policymakers prioritized one particular time and one specific place where they used research. Research more often is used early on in the policy process when the issue is still a work in progress and policymakers have not yet staked out a position. After an issue becomes connected to a particular party or ideology, it becomes much more difficult for research to be heard and heeded. Research use is also shaped by one place in lawmaking institutions through which most bills pass and on which most legislators serve—a committee. In our study, 89% of Youth and Family Champions served on related committees, such as children, youth, and families; education, colleges, and universities; corrections, criminal justice, and judiciary; health and mental health; and human services. Key informants in our study explained that “The strength of the legislative process is in the committee structure.” Public hearings are held in committees, and chairpersons are typically appointed based on their expertise and experience filing bills in the committee’s jurisdiction. Committees tended to be the place “where the research is done, if it’s done.” A legislator found research most helpful at the committee level “where bills get the most scrutiny and they’re likely to be amended the most”: In committees, you can have a little bit more of a discussion …. You have these people testifying for three to five minutes at a time, and you can ask them questions …. You’re going to debate the amendments … so, it’s just a better flow of information. (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 418)

Instead of trying to go it alone, professionals also can scan the policymaking institution to identify who has the ear of policymakers and might be willing and able partners (Henig, 2009). The information source that legislators overwhelmingly cite as most

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

317

trustworthy, in our studies and others, is the in-house agencies responsible for the bill drafting, budget and fiscal analysis, committee support, issue research, and so forth (Hird, 2005). At the federal level, these agencies include the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the General Accounting Office. At the state level, they go by different names but generally are known as legislative service agencies. In our study, one former Republican legislator claimed that these agencies play such a central role that without them, “The legislature would shut down.” Their trustworthiness comes, in part, from their nonpartisanship. In the words of a Democrat: The reality is there are very, very few completely nonpartisan, nonpolitical data sources … Anyone who’s doing the research has got a stake in the game. Otherwise, why are they doing it? … I haven’t found a lot of [nonpartisan sources] … unless it’s one that is already been funded by the state … the Fiscal Bureau [a nonpartisan legislative service agency] … We consider that to be the gold standard for data. (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019, p. 139)

These agencies are a trusted partner of the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars. At their core, our missions are the same—helping policymakers develop research-based policies that benefit the families and citizens of the state. The agencies kept us informed about what research might best respond to policymaker’s interests, and we kept them informed of cutting-edge research in their areas of expertise. Sadly, few professionals are aware of state legislative service agencies, most of which operate on a nonpartisan basis. A state may have one or more of these agencies and their names will vary across states. However, as a publicly funded arm of government, they are relatively easy to locate on a state legislature’s website. Best Practice 5: Consider a Nonpartisan Approach That Sets You Apart in a Partisan Body

Effective translation science moves beyond what best practices to use to the critical issue of how to approach policymakers—as an advocate or educator. That is, professionals can utilize research to advocate for family policy decisions they deem most desirable, or they can use the nonpartisan, educational approach of providing policymakers with range of policy options along with research on the likely consequences of each (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). As we explain in Chapter 14, some professionals are hired for the express purpose of advocating for a particular policy or political agenda. However, other professionals can choose the nonpartisan, educational approach that will make them stand out from other interest groups in lawmaking bodies. This has been one core element of the long-term success of the Family Impact Seminars, irrespective of whether it is situated in a red state or a blue state or a purple state. This commitment to nonpartisanship has allowed the Seminars to gain bipartisan engagement at their inception and to maintain that engagement if control of the legislature flips from one party to the other. The Youth and Family Champions that we interviewed recommended that researchers establish and guard a nonpartisan reputation (Bogenschneider et al., 2021). Researchers

318

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

who have worked closely with policymakers agree (Bogenschneider, 2020; Doherty, 2019; Goodvin & Lee, 2017; Peterson, 2018). Odd as it may seem, this dispassionate and nonpartisan approach is highly valued in the influence-driven policy culture. Legislators in our study explained why this is the case. With technology and the Internet, legislators reported having “so much access to information.” At the same time, it has become “increasingly more difficult to find the neutral source or the neutral research gatherer” (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 420). Neutral, nonpartisan information has added value in a political body where decisions are reached through negotiation and compromise. Take a moment to think about it. To persuade their colleagues, policymakers prefer research that is credible, not only to one’s allies but also to one’s adversaries. To determine the credibility of research, policymakers rely less on scientific methods and more on its source, particularly the source’s reputation as being reliable and nonpartisan (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020). As professionals develop their reputation among policymakers, they can “signal nonpartisanship” in a number of ways, two of that are mentioned here. First, researchers can be intentional in addressing a potential political divide that arose in our study and others—whether youth and family problems are attributed to individual characteristics or structural conditions (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020; Crowley et al., 2019). Former Senator Luke Kenley, who chaired Indiana’s powerful state budget committee, wrote recently that researchers might be more effective at having their ideas accepted if they offered alternative solutions: “Too often, research on basic societal problems requires that you accept the social premise either that government is too big and should not be used for a specific problem, or that government is the right and easiest way to solve the problem” (2019, p. 156). One way effective communicators like Cherlin, Putnam, and Doherty appeal to both sides of the aisle is by using “both-and” thinking that acknowledges both individual and structural solutions to complex societal problems (Doherty, 2019, p. 159). Second, to maintain a nonpartisan reputation, professionals need to take care to speak as if the “proverbial mic” is always on and their words are being broadcast far and wide (Miller, 2022). You can’t disparage Republicans or lambast Democrats and then expect them to listen to you on the next issue. Policymakers play on political teams and it is their job to keep track of who is on their team and who is not. Unlike in the research culture, you cannot be on one political team on today’s issue and then switch teams on the next issue. The Youth and Family Champions explicitly avoided disparaging colleagues who disagreed with them. A Democrat explained that she refrained from giving “You don’t care about children” speeches. She believes most of her colleagues do care about children, but they also care about other considerations that influence policy decisions. She used the analogy of the eye doctor who flips lens in front of your eye and says, “Is this clearer or is this clearer?” The clearest vision for her was when she looked through the lenses of children or the common good. These were her default lens. For some of her

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

319

Republican colleagues, their default was the “fiscal” lens or the “individual freedom” lens or the “shrink government” lens. In her words: Because this top lens is so important …. That’s the one that you look through … I use that in my head all the time. Flip. Flip. And you know, you’ve got two or three [where it’s] blurry …. For me, it’s clear when it’s common good. That’s when I get to see clearly. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021)

In the interview, I asked the Senator where this idea came from. She replied that it came from one of her favorite policy books—Jonathan Haidt’s, The Righteous Mind (2013), which also is one of my favorite books. Yet I did not draw an implication as profound and practical as hers. Best Practice 6: Communicate Research Through Nonpartisan Seminars or Forums With Opportunities for Discussion

Studies of research dissemination to policymakers have reached a clear consensus: The most effective method is seminars or workshops that allow for some discussion between researchers and policymakers (Nutley et al., 2007). Scholars have long called for research dissemination that involves face-to-face presentation of research in seminars or forums that create a safe space for dialogue and discussion of next steps (Head, 2015; Nutley et al., 2007; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Smith, 1991; Walter et al., 2005; Weiss, 1999). Policymakers agree. In the policy culture, oral presentations work better than written reports. As explained by a former Democratic legislator: Physical presentations by other human beings are what grab you. Otherwise, there’s the strong likelihood that one of the legislators will write “File” on the report that just came across their desk, as … I did and we all do. And it’ll go in a file somewhere. But when there’s a presentation, and … if it’s a good speaker—entertaining, funny, or challenging … that’s what gets us hooked. We’re human beings. We’re ‘peoplepeople.’ We like to interact with folks. That’s one of the reasons we’re in politics. So, you have that dynamic of physically hearing and seeing someone, which is very important, and being able to listen to what they’re saying. You also have the report in front of you and a lot of times they can explain the report that we couldn’t dig through otherwise.

In our recent study, legislators told us that they were drowning in reports and policy briefs. A Republican legislator explained why he gave such high ratings to Seminar briefing reports. Seminar presentations allowed him to assess the credibility of the chapters written by the speakers. Seeing and hearing the speakers helped him determine whether they knew what they were talking about or whether they were “blowing smoke.” Regrettably, few nonpartisan and neutral policy forums have been created, and paltry opportunities exist for policymakers to engage in open dialogue with researchers or their own colleagues from across the aisle (for an exception, see Bogenschneider, 2020). I hear repeatedly in Wisconsin, one of the most polarized states in the nation, that legislators

320

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

have few opportunities to get to know their colleagues on the other side of the aisle and to discuss issues with them. Such opportunities could foster the building of bipartisan relationships and the finding of common ground. Now more than ever, the drift toward polarized politics cries out for such civilized conversation. Who knew that one role of professionals might be to introduce policymakers to each other? In an era of polarization, we need professionals and organizations with a nonpartisan reputation to organize bipartisan discussion sessions. If the organizers of these discussions have a conservative reputation, none of the liberals will come, and if the organizers have a liberal reputation, none of the conservatives will attend. Who knew that organizing nonpartisan discussions around research evidence could help address the polarization of our politics? Knowing about policymaking institutions can help you be more effective. Institutional knowledge helps you engage policymakers in the right times and places with the right partners, in the format they prefer, and in a way that grabs their attention.

Cultural Best Practices in Family Policymaking The culture of the policy institution shapes the way its inhabitants think, feel, and behave. Engaging policymakers is like becoming bilingual or bicultural. The good news is that effective engagement with policymakers is something that can be learned, much like learning a new language. Best Practice 7: Place a Human Face or Pragmatic Image on Youth and Family Issues Using Language Familiar to Policymakers

In our study, Youth and Family Champions mentioned 105 strategies for advancing youth and family issues (Bogenschneider et al., 2021). The effectiveness strategy mentioned most often was placing a human face or pragmatic image on youth and family issues. Most youth and family policies addressed issues that policymakers had not personally experienced. In our interviews, Champions described dozens of youth and family problems that policy should target; with only two exceptions, these youth and families were living in poverty, stigmatized, marginalized, or in need of services for addiction, developmental delays, domestic violence, infant mortality, sex trafficking, and so forth. Because most policymakers have little experience with these adversities, a human face helps them grasp their importance. Former Governor Tommy Thompson made this exact point. Thompson transformed welfare assistance in Wisconsin from an income support program to a system based on work and self-sufficiency. He said a letter from a former welfare recipient thanking him for helping her land a job brought tears to his eyes: A letter like this made everything that I had been doing to reform welfare realistic. It put a face on welfare reform. And I knew from this letter and from her example that we were indeed going in the right direction. (Thompson & Bennett, 1997, p. 9)

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

321

Champions tried to help their colleagues “see, feel, and touch” the issue. To do so, Champions often used stories because stories are easy to understand, remember, and repeat. We have long known that “humans think in stories” (Heath & Heath, 2007; Kendall-Taylor & Levitt, 2017, p. 709). A new era of neuroscience has shown narratives are effective because they excite certain regions of the brain that result in greater retention (Olson, 2018). Champions used stories or narratives to help advance an issue. During a time “when ideology divides the country and politics polarizes the population,” narratives can help turn attention away from politics and toward what causes policy problems and how to solve them (Kendall-Taylor & Levitt, 2017, p. 709). Take, for instance, a Family Impact Seminar speaker who compared the early development of the brain to building a home. Like a home, the brain is built in a predictable sequence—laying the foundation, framing the room, and wiring the electrical system. Toxic stress can interfere with the early wiring of the brain. Children’s ability to cope with stress depends, in part, on stable and caring relationships with parents and the adults who care for them. Policies that strengthen supportive caregiving for infants and young children can produce biological changes in the brain that can keep the foundation strong (Levitt, 2014). Legislators also gave examples of legitimizing issues with pragmatic data. One legislator provided the shocking statistic that 49 children in one local school had failed kindergarten. Another portrayed a pragmatic image of an issue by translating his state’s hourly minimum wage into the more meaningful metric of an $11,000 annual income. Another legislator used a family story to refute a colleague’s claim that low-income people receive entitlements equating $50,000 to $60,000 a year: One of my neighbors … asked to borrow $5. This lady was pregnant and she had a 12-year-old son … [When] she brought the money back … she said, ‘I’m so excited … I got accepted for rent assistance.’ I was like, That’s really, really good,’ because … she was paying $685 for a two bedroom. And you’re talking about a lady that’s making very little money. So, I asked her … ‘How long have you been on the waiting list?’ Ten years [since her son was two] … The ironic thing is that this mom … works two-part time jobs to make full-time hours, but she still qualifies for food stamps … for child care. How many jobs do you have to have to work your way out of poverty? … To hear somebody say, ‘Oh, the benefits they get are equivalent to $50,000 or $60,000’ is like, ‘Who … do you know on assistance?’ Obviously, nobody. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1155)

When it comes to “humanizing” issues, researchers have an edge because they can move beyond a narrative that is true for a single youth or family to one that their research shows is representative of a significant portion of the population. Just as there is a structure for writing a research article, there is a structure for telling stories or providing images that professionals can learn (Heath & Heath, 2007; Mayne et al., 2018; Olson, 2018). Olson proposes the ABT (Agreement, But, Therefore) method for properly telling a story. The story line begins with Agreement, which is the setup that lays out a few things that everyone agrees on. For example, “Families are a cornerstone for raising

322

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

responsible children who become caring, committed contributors in a strong democracy, and competent workers in a sound economy. Families financially support their members, and care for those who cannot always care for themselves—the elderly, frail, ill, impaired, and those with disabilities.” Agreement is then followed by a contradiction—a statement of the problem that needs to be addressed. For example, “Yet families can be harmed by stressful conditions—the inability to find a job, afford health insurance, secure quality child care, and send their kids to good schools.” Then the story concludes with a consequence—what needs to be done. For example, “Public policies are needed to help families effectively and efficiently cope with stressful conditions because keeping the family foundation strong today will pay off tomorrow.” (See this storyline in Figure 3.3.) For professionals to effectively communicate these pragmatic images to policymakers requires becoming bicultural. Just like learning a new language, it is possible to learn to communicate in ways that speak more clearly to inhabitants of the policy culture. One of the biggest barriers professionals encounter is talking in academic language or using unfamiliar terms. One frequent mistake that we observed in Family Impact Seminar speakers is the use of acronyms that are common knowledge in the research world, but off-putting to those in the policy world. In our study, legislators told us that it is easy for researchers to “get lost” in their “own world” and forget that other people think about other things. Another barrier that professionals need to overcome is the “curse of knowledge” (Heath & Health, 2007, p. 129). Table 13.3 reviews several ideas for writing policy briefs that avoid the curse of knowing too much by focusing instead on what policymakers need to know. Professionals need to simplify their message without dumbing it down or oversimplifying it. The ideal is not a sound bite. The ideal is not a simple idea. The ideal is a worthy idea, simply stated (Heath & Heath, 2007). Best Practice 8: Discuss the Economic and Political Feasibility of Youth and Family Policies

One surprising finding of our recent study was that political and economic feasibility of policy decisions was more important for youth and family issues than for other issues. In a related study, we interviewed 32 legislators nominated as Exemplar Research Users (response rate = 84%), who identified 14 contributions that research makes to policymaking. Five of these research contributions were near the top of the list for both the Research Users and the Youth and Family Champions: persuasion, enlightenment, design of legislation, education, and problem definition and awareness. Another contribution was near the bottom of the list for Research Users, but unexpectedly was one of the top six contributions for Youth and Family Champions—assessing the political and economic feasibility of policy decisions. Why so? One possible explanation for this difference emerged from Champion’s descriptions of how research contributed to political and economic feasibility. Three-fourths of these descriptions included terms such as “prevention,” “long term,” “assessing the problem

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

323

By Olivia Little, PhD Evaluation Scientist and Translational Researcher, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute Table 13.3  Writing for Policymakers: What Information Do Policymakers Prefer and How Do They Want to Receive It WHAT INFORMATION POLICYMAKERS PREFER Answers to policy relevant questions

First and foremost is the “Why” or the “So What?” Policymakers want definitive information that is targeted to the policy decisions they are facing.

Broad overviews and syntheses of findings

Focus on synthesizing multiple studies to give them the big picture and highlight the policy implications.

Conclusive, definitive findings or implications

If findings are mixed or inconclusive, you can and should acknowledge that. Always be upfront and honest. But there is no need to dwell on inconclusive results. Instead, you can confidently say, “based on the best available evidence.”

Information applicable to their constituents or groups of interest

Policymakers often deal with those on the margins of the normal curve—disconnected youth, people facing unemployment, children with disabilities. Highlight how research applies to their constituency, city, region, or issue areas.

Practical information about political and economic feasibility of issues

Policymakers often find cost-benefit studies of programs for youth and families to be very useful.

A compelling story or a catchy sound bite

Make it easy for them to share the ideas with colleagues and constituents. If you don’t distill the message, then someone else will.

HOW POLICYMAKERS PREFER TO RECEIVE INFORMATION Be brief and to the point

Cut to the chase. Get to the bottom line.

Turn your structure upside down

Policymakers prefer the journalistic style that starts with the conclusion, then goes back to explain how we got there. Emphasize the public importance of the issue and the policy relevant information.

Dedicate little time to methods or nuances of the research

Policymakers are trusting you to screen for quality. Your job is to signal the quality of the research. You can say that this finding has been replicated by many studies or these findings come from our most rigorous research design or this is really cutting-edge research.

Make it accessible

Use clear language in short sentences. Use active voice and strong verbs. If you have a long sentence, cut it in two. Use fewer words rather than more words, easy words rather than hard words. (continued)

324

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Table 13.3  continued Make it effortless, enticing, and informative

When you present research to a policymaker, all you are likely to get is a quick scan. A hugely important strategy is to utilize titles, headings, and pull quotes wisely to convey an overall message at a glance. Frequent paragraphing and plenty of white space are important. Don’t try to put too much on a page. Keep it simple and easy on the eyes.

Use visual appeal

Using graphics is also a great way to help convey your message. A simple graph, chart, infographic, or picture can be a really efficient way to get complex ideas across to your reader. A visual is far more likely to stick in the memory of a policymaker than a table of numbers.

Avoid jargon

Policymakers may be unfamiliar with acronyms or common terms in your field or with statistical terms like significance testing, p-values, regression coefficients, or effect sizes. Using these terms can make you seem out-of-touch.

on the front end,” and “return on investment” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1153). The findings of our study and others suggest that policymakers perceive children and youth to have a longer developmental horizon for short-term investments to produce long-term benefits (Gormley, 2011). Legislators advised emphasizing the political and economic feasibility of youth and family issues. As aptly put by one Champion: “I would argue research that doesn’t just talk about the touchy-feely, but taps down to what matters to us. What does it cost? … Always draw it to the money, because … we’ve got to know it.” Another Champion used economics to advance perennial problems like early childhood education: “Children’s issues, I see as economic development issues, and so it’s a circle.” She takes her advocacy for children full circle by connecting investments in early childhood education to the long-term outcomes many of her colleagues cared deeply about—the state’s economic growth and workforce productivity (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1152). Following her advice, a Family Impact Seminar on early brain development was framed as “The Science of Early Brain Development: A Foundation for the Success of our Children and the State Economy.” A Key Informant in our study suggested another way to leverage the family and economic lenses to advance youth and family policy. He described how those bringing research to policymakers could take a page from the playbook of The Pew Charitable Trusts on criminal justice reform: The bottom line is it will save you money if you do it this way … I mean just the idea, for example, of keeping families together has been around for decades, but they repackaged the research in a way that it made sense … The Pew Institute approach

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

325

is to build fewer prisons and use more community services … and brutally kick out local programs if they don’t show results … It wasn’t just “Give us more money” … [or the] amorphous “keep families [together]” and things will be fine, which they’re not always. But it was packaged in a way that it addressed real concerns that legislators had. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1156) Best Practice 9: Communicate About Racial Disparities in Ways That Open Policymakers’ Minds

Many Family Impact Seminar topics have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable families, often families of color that are most apt to face poverty and other compounding factors such as low-quality education and less access to health care. Given the Seminars’ nonpartisan credentials, they attract policymakers with diverse views and are well positioned to raise racial and ethnic inequities. The Seminars use an approach that keeps policymakers’ minds open to an ongoing conversation through which compromise and common ground can be reached. The Seminar approach builds on the thinking of Professor John Powell’s theory of “targeted universalism.” Basically, Powell proposes that we need to be universal in our goals but targeted in our strategies, because states are situated differently. As illustration, Powell explains that Americans hold many universal goals, such as wanting our children to be healthy and well educated. Most Americans want to be make a contribution to society and to be connected to their communities. Yet making progress toward those goals must be targeted to our social, economic, and environmental situations. As an illustration, Powell says that we would not develop the same policies to protect against hurricanes in Midwestern communities as in coastal cities (Powell, 2012). Similarly, the Seminars have found that bringing a racial equity lens to issues is most effective if addressed from where policymakers currently stand. Thus, distinct strategies were required in each state to respond to varying levels of policymaker’s awareness and readiness to discuss and address racialized outcomes. Using Powell’s theory of targeted universalism, some states have been able to move the dial on discussions of racial equity. For example, Pamela Monroe, former director of the Louisiana Family Impact Seminars, was able to assess in her planning for an upcoming Seminar that policymakers were unaware of the disparate racial impacts of pay-day lending. With this knowledge, the Seminars worked with collaborators to create awareness by producing a map showing the location of all pay-day lenders in Baton Rouge. Their concentration in minority and low-income neighborhoods was a “startling revelation” to many Seminar participants. In Michigan, Seminar Director Esther Onaga interviewed committee chairs and legislative advisors and found they were aware of racial disparities in juvenile justice reform. However, she detected little interest in organizing an upcoming Seminar around these disparities. Using this knowledge, Seminar speakers focused on juvenile justice in the state, how to improve dispositions, and what works to reduce recidivism among

326

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

juvenile offenders. In advance preparation, Esther coached the speakers that one of the Seminar goals was bringing a racial/ethnic lens to their presentations. She asked them to include stories and data about the effects of the juvenile justice system on youth and families of color. A Seminar discussion session quickly led to the discourse around disproportionate minority impact; in response participants requested more data to determine where decisions are made in the juvenile justice system that leads to disproportionality. In other states, Seminar directors found that legislators were aware of racial/equity disparities, so they specifically incorporated content about inequities into the design of their Family Impact Seminars. In Massachusetts, former director Denise Hines organized a seminar on how racial/ethnic minority men (e.g., African American and Latino men) had worse mental health outcomes than nonminority men. Participants at a follow-up discussion session spent an hour explicitly discussing how to address these disparities. Maryland held a Seminar on health reform, under the leadership of Elaine Anderson and Bonnie Braun. Later, two bills were passed including one that required cultural competence and health literacy as criteria in any state proposal for targeted health care. Another bill required all health professional schools to report on the extent to which students are taught about cultural competence and health literacy. The Family Impact Seminars have been working on-the-ground to infuse a racial equity lens into efforts to advance family policy for all families. The Seminars have been following Powell’s (2012) advice that we need to tease out situatedness to truly be responsive. By starting where policymakers stand, we may be able to open their minds to considering new information and engaging in conversation through which compromise and consensus can be reached. Best Practice 10: Frame Families as a Unifying Force Across Peoples and Communities

In our study, Champions perceived the potential of youth and families to be a unifying force across peoples and communities that could rise above partisanship and forge common ground. This was the third most frequent strategy that Champions used to advance youth and family policies. One legislator explained why youth and families are a potential unifier: “Everybody understands the value of family and youth where they may not with tourism or taxes or [environmental] issues” (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1130). Youth and family issues are more apt to advance on the policy agenda because they pass the first policy hurdle of being perceived as an important problem that warrants a policy response. For example, one Democratic Champion described how her colleagues coalesced around doing something to reform youth corrections, albeit for quite different reasons: One of the things that’s really important to me in corrections reform is trying to change our statistics that have been horrific for a long time. That’s true for me and some of my colleagues. Now, it may be for different reasons, but I try to hear what those reasons are because that’s the way that I have to communicate to them … For example, I might

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

327

Table 13.4  Questions for Bringing the Lens of Family Impact to Policy Discourse, Development, and Decision-Making The lens of family impact can be raised by asking: • How are families affected by the issue? • In what ways, if any, do families contribute to the issue? • Would involving families in the response result in more effective and efficient policies and programs? Note. Adapted with permission from Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012a). The family impact handbook: How to view policy and program through the family impact lens (p. 8). Family Impact Institute. Copyright 2012 by the Family Impact Institute.

want to do it because it’s a social justice issue. And it is human decency. One of my colleagues may … feel the same way because of financial outcomes … I try to hear that because when we message [youth corrections], then, guess what? I’m going to talk about it more from the financial perspective … So, that when I am speaking to the issue, I not only speak to the issue to them, but I make it easier … for them to speak to the issue. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1155)

A Democratic Champion was passionate in his belief that youth and families could be a unifying force. In fact, when asked what type of bills would be a “World Series” bill for families, he responded: Any piece of legislation that the “end takeaway” is for people to understand that we are Wisconsinites and we’re not Black and White and we’re not rich and poor. And we are not suburban and rural and urban. We are in this all together. (Bogenschneider et al., 2021, p. 1155)

One of the first steps to identify the ways that families can be a unifying force is by asking the three fundamental questions proposed in Table 13.4. The Family Impact Seminars have found these questions useful in raising the lens of family impact on multiple issues in many settings. Understanding the policy culture can help engage policymakers in ways that open their minds by bringing a human face to youth and family issues and by discussing their political and economic feasibility. Starting where policymakers stand can help them be more open to racial disparities and to seeing youth and families as a unifying force across race, income, and rural-urban divides.

Summary Building better public policy for families is not easy. It is not certain. Typically, it does not happen. Yet family policymaking is more than an art. Now it can build on a growing body of science and practice. Twelve best practices for building

328

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

evidence-based policy are discussed in some detail in my book co-authored with Thomas Corbett (see Chapter 10 in Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021). In addition, this chapter presents 10 best practices that focus explicitly on building family policies. • In recent studies, policymakers report that youth and families are a cluster of policies where dialogue is less polarized and decisions are more informed by research evidence. • Community Dissonance Theory proposes that building trusting relationships between researchers and policymakers is vital to increasing the use of research in policymaking. If the research community had a better understanding of the policy community—its inhabitants, institutions, and culture—this could improve communication and trust across researchers and policymakers. • The theory-driven Family Impact Seminars have contributed to family policy decisions that have benefited hundreds of children, youth, and families in states across the nation. Also, the Seminars have made a positive impression on policymakers’ attitudes about the value of research evidence and the approachability of researchers that bode well for family policy in the future. • Effective engagement around family policy begins with locating youth and family champions, building trusted working relationships with them, and learning about what information they need and why. • Effective engagement depends on providing research at the right times and places with the right partners, and in the formats that policymakers prefer—nonpartisan seminars or forums with opportunities for discussion. Understanding the influencedriven policy process can help you understand why a nonpartisan approach would set you apart. • In the policy culture, strategies for advancing youth and family policies include placing a human face or pragmatic image on issues using language familiar to policymakers, discussing the economic and political feasibility of youth and family policies, and portraying families as a unifying force across people and communities that can rise above partisanship. • For raising issues of racial equity, one effective way to open policymakers’ minds to new information and an ongoing conversation is responding to their current levels of awareness and readiness to discuss racialized outcomes.

In the end, I am not naïve. I do not want to underestimate the complexity and difficulty of building better public policy for families. The Family Impact Seminars have taught us the hard lessons of being modest in expectations, patient in expecting outcomes, and creative in developing innovative ways to attract policymakers’ interest and involvement. At the same time, I am hopeful. I believe family policy is worthy of our efforts, despite all that it takes to make it a reality. I hope that you will join in the cause. This chapter incorporates content from previous publications that are reprinted with permission.

H O W T O E N G A G E P O L I C Y M A K E R S I N FA M I LY P O L I C Y 

329

Copyright @ 2020, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K. (2020). Positioning universities as honest knowledge brokers: Best practices for communicating research to policymakers. Family Relations, 67(3), 628–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12339 Copyright @ 2019, John Wiley and Sons Bogenschneider, K., Corbett, T. J., & Parrott, E. (2019). Realizing the promise of research in policymaking: Theoretical guidance grounded in policymaker perspectives. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12310 Copyright @ 2021, American Psychological Association Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2021). A window into youth and family policy: State policymaker views on polarization and research utilization. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000681

14

331

CHAPTER 14 HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS THE CRITICAL CHOICE OF ADVOCACY OR EDUCATION

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

Karen Bogenschneider and Thomas Corbett

The reality is there are very, very few completely nonpartisan, nonpolitical data sources … Anyone who’s doing the research has got a stake in the game. Otherwise, why are they doing it? … I haven’t found a lot of [nonpartisan sources] … unless it’s one that is already being funded by the state … the Fiscal Bureau [a legislative service agency] … We consider that to be the gold standard for data. (Republican legislator) Some of the supposedly pristine university research is not all that clean either …. If you aren’t willing to stay above the fray and acknowledge both sides of any particular issue, then you’re going to be recognized over time as coming with a point of view. And that’s okay, but it will not be as universally accepted as it would be if it was clear you had no agenda at all. That’s why the Legislative Service Agency is far more respected. (Republican legislator)

• What is the optimal approach for you to engage policymakers in your own context? • What can we learn from the experiences of those who have engaged policymakers as advocates or educators? • Are their guidelines to help you know what individual, institutional, and culture considerations to factor into your choice of advocacy or education? • What consequences does the choice of the advocacy or education approach have for research organizations and professional societies?

Anyone who has ever played golf will resonate with this chapter’s rationale. Most golfers have a clear vision of what to do—deliver the ball into the hole with as few strokes as possible. However, golfers know a good score depends on knowing what to do and also how to do it. Success depends on a careful reading of the conditions of play, such as the prevailing winds and the grooming of the greens, to accurately gauge how to approach the ball. Deciding on the best approach is made more complicated by variations in skills from golfer to golfer and conditions from course to course. Like golfers, professionals DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-18

332

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

have a clear vision of what they want to do—build evidence-based family policy. To achieve that vision, professionals need to know not only what research to communicate but also how to approach policymakers on their turf. The decision about whether to approach policymakers as an advocate or an educator is a critical choice. This chapter addresses an age-old question that dates back to the origins of scientific inquiry and continues to perplex professionals and professional societies to this day: What is the most reasoned approach for engaging policymakers? The approach is critical to the success (or lack thereof) of research-policy connections. When approaching those in power, some recommend that professionals passionately advocate for the policy decisions they deem most desirable (Letiecq & Anderson, 2017). Others disagree, arguing that professionals must maintain a dispassionate stance at all costs and educate policymakers by providing evidence on a range of policy alternatives (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). We argue here that this issue has been addressed too simplistically by other writers and by our own earlier writing. Getting a handle on how to engage with policymakers will require that we think about this question in greater depth and sophistication. Our thinking on this issue has benefited greatly from discussions with others interested in this issue, including those who have participated in our many trainings on this topic and with members of the professional societies with whom we have consulted over the years. We have found that, based on such input, understanding the optimal approach for engaging policymakers is muddled by five main considerations that are missing from most discussions (see Table 14.1). First, we have found that discussions of approach can become murky when they occur amidst ambiguous definitions of key terms such as advocacy and education. On occasion, they are not defined at all. Without a grounding in what terms mean, professionals talk past each other in conversations that quickly descend into the rabbit holes of convolution and confusion. Second, the definitions of related terms like independent, nonpartisan, and social justice also have been imprecise. Assuming a shared meaning, when none exists, sabotages dialogue, and discussion from the start. Table 14.1  Why Is the Approach for Engaging Policymakers so Perplexing? 1. Definitions of advocacy and education have been ambiguous or absent 2. Related terms like independent, nonpartisan, and social justice have been imprecisely defined 3. Discussions have failed to draw on the experiences of those who have engaged policymakers as advocates or educators 4. Decisions about an individual’s approach to engagement have been lumped together with the decisions of research organizations and professional societies 5. Decisions about the optimal approach for engaging policymakers often occur without considering context

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

333

Third, our understanding has been muddied by our failure to draw upon experiential evidence from the past and the present about the effectiveness of efforts to engage policymakers under the mantles of advocacy or education. We can glean much from examining whether these experiences have been fruitful or frustrating, fertile or futile. Fourth, decisions about the optimal engagement approach of an individual, whether a researcher, intermediary, or other professional, often have been lumped together with the choices made by research organizations and professional societies. The decision points and implications for individuals and organizations not only overlap to some extent but also diverge in a couple of important respects. Finally, the conceptualizations of the study and practice of engaging policymakers have largely been context-free (Nutley et al., 2007). We argue that context is a critical consideration for deciding on the optimal approach for engaging policymakers. To help professionals choose the optimal approach in their own context, we pose seven guiding questions. We organize these questions based on the three key elements of our community dissonance theory—a community’s inhabitants, institutions, and culture (see Chapter 13). As with any meaningful discussion, we begin the conversation with clear definitions.

Advocacy and Education: Defining Terms We define here the advocacy and education approaches (see Table 14.2) followed by real-world examples of each approach in action. Then we turn to how our understanding of the approaches for engaging policymakers is confounded by imprecise meanings of related words like independent, nonpartisan, and social justice. The Advocacy Approach

Advocacy is a familiar term in the lexicon of policymaking, yet it is seldom defined based on the faulty assumption that everyone shares the same understanding of its meaning. Many individuals or organizations use advocacy as an umbrella term that Table 14.2  The Advocacy and Education Approaches to Engaging Policymakers: Defining Terms • The advocacy approach is campaigning or lobbying for a specific policy option or political position. Advocacy involves examining policy options in light of one’s personal value system and interpretation of the scientific evidence and then advancing the single option deemed most desirable. The intent of the advocate is to persuade. • The education approach informs political discourse by supplying nonpartisan information that clarifies the potential consequences of various policy alternatives but stops short of making a specific recommendation. The intent of the educator is to inform.

334

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

means prioritizing the interests of a specific population such as families, youth, or the poor. Yet others define advocacy beyond this generic understanding of advocating for an entire population. Instead, they define advocacy as campaigning or lobbying for a specific policy option or political position. As defined in this chapter, advocacy means examining policy options in light of one’s personal value system and interpretation of the scientific evidence, and then advancing the single option deemed most desirable (Barrows, 1994; Nye & McDonald, 1979). Put simply, the intent of the advocate is to persuade. The essence of advocacy is captured in the words of an advocate, who is also a research director of a prominent advocacy-oriented think tank in Washington, DC: “We are combatants in the battle of ideas. We are on one side and we make that clear. We are not just for better government and efficiency, we are for particular ideas” (Smith, 1991, p. 206). Terms like combatants capture how advocates jockey for political advantage as they engage in policy debate “in line with a preconceived set of ideas or principles rather than simply to pursue research questions in whatever direction they may lead” (Smith, 1991, p. 206). Research becomes an instrument to gain political influence. Advocates come in all stripes and flavors such as conservative, progressive, liberal, libertarian, and populist. Yet they share a common set of beliefs about how the policy process works and what contributions professionals can make which, in turn, shape the ways they engage with policymakers. For example, in the face of incomplete or conflicting research evidence, advocates do not shy away from drawing conclusions about the character of a social problem; they are not reluctant to propose a single preferred policy response, often predicated on personal beliefs or value systems. Advocates then commit their time and effort to championing it through a policy process that they believe responds to pressure from those interested in or affected by the issue. So, advocates are typically driven by a sense of urgency that motivates them to respond promptly and strategically to the ebb and flow of the political process. The Education Approach

Educators also may focus on the interests of a specific population but, in stark contrast to advocates, they do not lobby for a preferred policy option. Instead, they inform political discourse by supplying nonpartisan information that clarifies the potential consequences of various policy alternatives but stops short of making a specific recommendation (Kendall-Taylor & Levitt, 2017). In contrast to the advocate who aims to persuade, the educator aims to inform by presenting research in a neutral manner minus any mention of a specific policy recommendation or political preference. Instead of injecting their own views, the value judgments and ultimate decisions are entrusted to the policymakers elected to make such choices rather than to experts (Barrows, 1994; Maynard, 2006). The education approach rests on a set of beliefs about society, the democratic process, and the role of research in policymaking (Barrows, 1994). Education about alternatives is based on the premise of a pluralistic society in which policymakers are elected to represent a range of political and normative perspectives. When conflicts arise among these diverse interests, the educator believes that the democratic process will produce

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

335

better decisions more often than will administrative fiat or decrees by a single leader or expert. Educators trust the democratic process enough to give up control (which, of course, they never have anyway) and forgo attempts to influence the outcome in ways that are consistent with their own values and views. Educators hold an abiding belief in the principle of enlightened self-interest: Policymakers and citizens, when given good information, will make the right decisions most of the time. The education approach forms the basis of the operation of some think tanks and several long-standing legislative support bureaus such as the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accountability Office, and most legislative service agencies in state legislatures. Education also underpins the successful operation of some intermediary organizations like the Family Impact Seminars (see Chapter 13) and the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (Crowley et al., 2021). Advocacy or education can also be used to approach conversations, forums, press releases, reports, testimonies before committees, and even relationships with policymakers. In sum, these two approaches are based on different assumptions regarding information needs, the role of values, and beliefs about the democratic decision-making process. These differences, summarized in Table 14.3, can inform a professional’s choice about engaging in policymaking as an advocate or educator. Table 14.3  Comparing the Assumptions of the Advocacy and Education Approaches for Engaging Policymakers Assumption

Approach Advocacy

Education

Intent

To persuade

To inform

Information needs

Science is used to support the policy option personally deemed most desirable for families

Science is used to provide expert knowledge and build understanding of different points of view with the potential to contribute to consensus and compromise

Incomplete evidence does not stymy action

Recognizes the limitations of social science knowledge for identifying social problems or differentiating among alternatives

Role of values

Applies personal values to identify optimal policy responses

Avoids applying personal values or preferences; the value judgments are entrusted to policymakers and the people

Beliefs about democratic decisionmaking

Believes that the political process responds to individual and group pressure; Responds promptly to the urgency of the policymaking process

Believes that policymakers, if given good information, will make the best decisions most of the time; Trusts the democratic process to resolve political conflicts more effectively than any single leader or expert

336

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Defining Related Terms: Independent, Nonpartisan, and Social Justice The distinction between advocacy and education is often confounded by imprecise definitions of related terms such as independent, nonpartisan, and social justice. These terms are so widely used in the political lexicon that a shared meaning is assumed when none exists. Without a common definition, conflicts and misunderstandings can occur. Independent and Nonpartisan

Few would dispute that advocates have a clear and defined agenda and that they seek those specific studies and results that reinforce prior positions, principles, or political preferences. Yet some advocacy organizations still claim on their websites to be independent researchers or nonpartisan purveyors of information. As examples, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) described itself as a “nonpartisan” organization of state legislators. Similarly, the libertarian Cato Foundation, initially founded as the Charles Koch Foundation, says it conducts “independent, nonpartisan” research and provides “independent analysis on vital public policy issues.” The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities characterizes itself as a “nonpartisan research and policy institute.” What these websites make clear and what is obvious to policymakers is that claims of being independent or nonpartisan must be taken with a grain of salt. These organizations’ unusual take on the meaning of nonpartisan was explained to me in a curious way by the president of a statewide research organization that takes advocacy stances. The president explained that she considers her organization to be nonpartisan because they are willing to work with whichever political party supports the position they are taking at the time. Social Justice

Similarly, the distinctions between advocacy and education also have been confounded by calls from some that professionals have an ethical obligation to engage in social justice. For instance, Letiecq and Anderson (2017) described circumstances where scholars are called to activism, citing their work in Montana in the early 2000s on “anti-immigrant policymaking in the state.” The research team worked together with community organizers and members of the Mexican immigrant community to conduct a study to give voice to their lived experiences in Montana. Initially, they disseminated the study findings to local and state community agencies and nonprofits. Then when a voter referendum was placed on the Montana ballot to deny certain state services to immigrants, these scholars felt this action demanded advocacy to defeat a policy option they deemed socially unjust. In response, the researchers engaged in direct and grassroots lobbying efforts to defeat the referendum. For example, they wrote op-ed letters to newspapers encouraging voters to oppose the referendum, engaged in letter-writing campaigns urging legislators to back the opposition, and hosted protest rallies where they distributed fact sheets on their study findings. These scholars blended research and activism, arguing that the results of their

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

337

research ethically demanded that they actively advocate for social justice for immigrants. Despite all this effort, the referendum to deny benefits to immigrants eventually passed by a landslide. The researchers worked with an advocacy organization that challenged it in court and, in the end, it was blocked from taking effect. Similarly, other researchers worked on social justice for the immigrant community but used an education approach. In an ethnographic study of Chinese, Mexican, and Dominican immigrant parents, Yoshikawa and Ariel (2011) found that the children of these undocumented working parents had limited access to educational opportunities and faced significant risks to their health and socioemotional development. Yoshikawa shared the study with the New York Immigration Coalition and his results guided its lobbying efforts (Maton, 2017). The coalition’s lobbying resulted in funding from the New York City for education of undocumented parents, a first in the nation (Maton, 2017). Given Yoshikawa’s in-depth knowledge of the daily lives of undocumented parents, the coalition asked him to advise local sites about what outreach strategies might be effective to connect eligible families with available resources. He also wrote a report on his findings that were used by an advocacy organization to shape a series of 2014 executive actions taken by the Obama administration to expand options for undocumented parents (Maton, 2017). These case studies point out an important distinction that discussions have often overlooked. The question of whether to use advocacy or education often is framed as whether professionals should get involved in social justice. The real question is not whether to engage in social justice efforts, but rather how to do so. In both case studies, a study was conducted of the target population and the results were relayed to policymakers. However, in one case study, the researchers advocated against a statewide referendum limiting public services by writing op-ed opinions, lobbying legislators, and organizing protest rallies (Letiecq & Anderson, 2017). In the other case study, the researchers used their results to educate lobbying groups and intermediary organizations whose actions led to social change for an underserved population (Yoshikawa & Ariel, 2011).

The Perennial Question of Advocacy or Education: Looking to the Past Over the last century, the nature of scientific inquiry has evolved and the intellectual and political climate has changed. Yet one perennial question remains: How can specialized expertise be brought to bear on public policy decisions (Ferguson, 2015; Garrison et al., 2017; Smith, 1991)? Here we illustrate the advocacy and education approaches using two case studies from the turn of the 20th century. Embodied in these two examples are the philosophical fault lines that undergird the role science could and should play in the body politic. Lester Ward’s Dream of Laboratory-Driven Legislation

Akin to the advocacy approach, early pioneer Lester Ward envisioned a direct link of science to policy. Ward was a self-taught man who worked his way up to the chief

338

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

paleontologist post in the U.S. Geological Survey in 1892. Ward was so enamored with how the methods of science could be used for social and economic development that he coined the term “scientific lawmaking” (Commager, 1950). Ward “envisioned legislatures that would operate like laboratories, where laws would be enacted as a ‘series of exhaustive experiments’” (Smith, 1991, p. 32). Ward’s utopian vision of a symbiotic relationship between the laboratory and the legislature never became reality, yet his intellectual influence on science and politics is unmistakable. He was elected the first president of the American Sociological Association in 1907. His thinking also had a profound impact on the formation of the modern Democratic Party and the administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt (Commager, 1950; Smith, 1991). John Common’s Influence as an Advisor to Legislators

Akin to the education approach, John Commons envisioned the role of professionals as advisors to legislators, who were free to accept or reject their advice. Commons was an influential figure in Wisconsin policymaking at the turn of the 20th century. He was the principal architect of the nation’s first minimum wage and worker compensation laws. His close work with lawmakers became so well-known that Theodore Roosevelt asked to meet him when he addressed the Wisconsin legislature in 1903 (Stark, 1995). In contrast to Ward, Commons was adamant in his memoirs that his role was that of an advisor and educator to leaders, not an advocate: “I never initiated anything. I came only on request of legislators, of executives, or committees of the legislature” (Commons, 1934, p. 110). He believed that it was policymakers alone who could determine whether to use his advice by running it through the filters of their own experience and that of their constituents: The leaders alone had the long experience of success and defeat. It was they who took the risks of defeat and deserved the credit of success. If you furnished a worker-leader or a political leader with any material he could use, he alone could tell how much of it he could use, when and how, if it was to “get across” to his followers. Hence I always accepted philosophically what they rejected of my hard work, and stuck to them, nevertheless. They were leaders. I was an intellectual. (Commons, 1934, p. 88)

The Critical Choice of Advocacy or Education: Factoring in Context To get started down the road to a decision about whether to approach policymaking as an advocate or educator, we begin with the origins of contemporary thinking on this issue. Nye and McDonald (1979) argued that advocacy is never an appropriate

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

339

role for a researcher. We argue here that this view may be overly simplistic given the number of institutional settings in which research is produced, transmitted, vetted, and consumed. For example, those who conduct research studies may work in such settings as top research universities, evaluation firms, government agencies, or think tanks. Those who apply research findings may work in lawmaking bodies, executive agencies, government trade associations, advocacy groups, philanthropic foundations, or nonprofit organizations. All this variation in those who produce research and those who consume it suggests there may be no magic bullets, and no single optimal approach for a professional’s engagement in policymaking. We liken this choice about deciding which approach to take to Robert Frost’s classic poem about two roads that diverged in a wood and a traveler who was looking down both roads as far as he could. The traveler was uncertain about which path to take but doubted that he would ever come back to this crossroads again. As we embark on this journey of the optimal approach for engaging policymakers, we heed Frost’s challenge to travelers: Be open to the less traveled road because, in the end, this choice may make all the difference. To guide professionals who find themselves at this proverbial fork in the road, we propose a series of questions that can orient them to the complexities of crossing into another culture and the importance of considering the contexts in which engagement occurs. These pivotal touch points can inform decisions about whether professionals would be better served by traveling down the road of advocacy or of education. Perhaps the most important advice, as Frost suggests, is to first looking down the road as far as possible to decide which terrain offers a “better claim.” A careful analysis is called for in the complex world of policymaking where taking a wrong turn and arriving at a dead end is easy to do. Of course, being planful does not ensure that you will avoid detours or arrive at your destination, but it is likely to make the journey a bit more predictable and even pleasurable. Seven guiding questions are proposed that we think are fundamental considerations in decisions about the optimal approach for engaging policymakers. These questions derive from our community dissonance theory, which contends that research is underutilized in policymaking because researchers and policymakers come from different communities. Following the framework set out in our theory, we organize these questions according to the three key elements of any community—its inhabitants, institutions, and cultures (see Table 14.4). In considering each of these questions, we turn to the available empirical evidence. We also rely on our recent study of state legislators and our study of researchers who successfully engaged with policymakers around research, whom we refer to as exemplar communicators. These questions are proposed as a guide for professionals to decide on their own optimal path. Not every question will be relevant to every professional. Not every professional will answer every question in the same way. For some professionals, advocacy may be the optimal approach for reaching policy goals, whereas education may be the more suitable path for others.

340

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Table 14.4  Deciding on the Optimal Approach for Engaging Policymakers: Questions Guided by Community Dissonance Theory Guiding Questions Related to the Inhabitants of a Community 1. Does the optimal approach depend on my professional expertise and personal demeanor? 2. Does my approach determine my identity in the policy world? 3. Does my choice rest on my personal beliefs about objectivity and neutrality? Guiding Questions Related to Community Institutions 4. Does the decision depend on my professional position and my organization’s mission? Guiding Questions Related to Community Culture 5. Does my approach need to reflect what policymakers prefer in the target policy setting? 6. Do I need to choose between being an advocate or an educator? 7. Does the purpose of my involvement matter?

Guiding Questions Related to Community Inhabitants

We begin by examining considerations related to the inhabitants of a community. In this instance, these are questions that individuals need to ask themselves as they decide what approach to use in the policy community. Even though the questions are directed to the communities of the researcher, intermediary, or other professionals, the answer sometimes depends on understanding how the decision plays out in the policy community. Does the Optimal Approach Depend on My Professional Expertise and Personal Demeanor?

Yes. Professional preparation and personal demeanor matter. Professionals will need to begin with a little soul-searching about how well his or her professional preparation and personal knowledge, skills, and attitudes map onto the contours of the advocacy and education approaches. Being an advocate requires the type of person who can rise to the challenge of weighing competing or incomplete sources of information and still arrive at a decision about a single, optimal policy option. After deciding, advocates must believe strongly in the decision and rely on their personality and passion to convince others that it is absolutely the right thing to do. Advocates are willing to invest their time and effort because they believe policymakers can be convinced by persuasive arguments from those who care about the issue or who are affected by it. In contrast, being an educator requires a broad knowledge of issues, so one can be conversant on several diverse and (sometimes) obscure policy alternatives. Educators possess the ability to respectfully listen to views that diverge from their own, and refrain from privileging their own opinions over the opinions of others. Educators can facilitate an even-handed exploration of varying views on even the most controversial topics. Being

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

341

an educator requires not only possessing these pertinent skills but also deploying them with a deference befitting of public officials. Given the dispassionate demeanor that it takes to be an effective educator, the personal style of some professionals may be more suited to an advocate role. For instance, if one’s style is more confrontational and passionate, it can be hard to set aside personal preferences and to fairly describe positions that run counter to one’s own values or beliefs. For those who hold strong ideological views, it can be difficult to resist the temptation to use one’s knowledge to subtly (or not so subtly) influence a policy decision. Perhaps most difficult of all is turning over control of the outcome to policymakers knowing that they are free to make their own choice, even when it runs counter to scientific evidence. The decision about the optimal approach is shaped by an individual’s professional preparation, particularly their socialization in the scientific method. Being trained as a scientist is relevant to the decision in two ways that are contradictory to each other. First, some argue that approaching policymakers as an educator is more consistent with training as a scientist than advocacy approaches. Advocacy entails making a case on one side of an issue, whereas the scientific method calls for an even-handed exploration of facts on all sides of an issue. Training as a scientist requires being open to testing alternative explanations and willing to reject one’s own hypothesis. Scientists are socialized to be skeptical about untested assumptions and any proposals flowing from them. The scholar is cautious about going beyond what the data shows. On those rare occasions when the evidence is crystal clear, however, professional preparation as a scientist can make the use of the dispassionate education approach seem like an unnatural act. Why would a professional spend years in training about how to become a critical thinker on a specialized topic, and then turn the decision over to someone with less sophistication and expertise? The educator would explain it this way. The crux of the matter is that professionals must believe more deeply in democracy than they do in their own political ideas. In a democracy, policymaking is considered a deliberative process with decisions arrived at through public debate and compromise among those elected to represent diverse interests and views (Flinchbaugh, 1988; Obama, 2006). In a pluralistic society, there is “no single public interest and no optimal policy choice,” but rather multiple interests represented by policymakers with a range of political and value perspectives (Barrows, 1994, p. 3). The educator’s role is to provide policymakers with the best available evidence on the policy problem and potential responses, and then turn the ultimate decision over to them. According to UW-Madison Emeritus Professor Dave Riley, the educator refrains from making policy recommendations, which takes a real commitment to democratic decision-making: The most important attitude or belief is kind of a paradox. And that is, you get into this kind of work if you’re interested in policy. And you’re usually interested in policy because you have some strong ideas about it—you’re motivated. But in order to be successful at it, I think you have to have a stronger commitment to democracy than to

342

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

your own political beliefs. By that I mean, you have to be committed to the idea that you might tell them everything that your field knows and they might make a decision different than yours, because they have different values than you. They were elected and you weren’t, and you have to be okay with that. You have to say to yourself, “I did my job. I told them what our science knows. It’s not my job to make the decision. I’m happy that democracy works, even when it makes decisions other than my own.” So, it takes this real fundamental commitment to democracy, which is the opposite from a commitment to your own political ideas. Yet it’s your own political ideas that probably got you interested in the first place. That’s not easy. A lot of faculty cannot do that. A lot of faculty … only understand the advocate role. And I’m talking about something very different from the advocate role. I’m talking about a role where you don’t pretend that you are the one to make the decision. You’re just the fair broker of information who can work with either political party and tell them what we know. They get to make up their own minds. In fact, I like to think of democracy as being a form of government that ensures that each of us is allowed to make our own mistakes.

The education approach coincides with the underpinnings of a democratic system of governance in which there is no single source that is the ultimate authority and where the professional is not considered “all-wise.” Using the education approach takes both a sense of hubris about how well democracy works and a sense of humility about what research and researchers can contribute. Does My Approach Determine My Identity in the Policy World?

Yes. In the policy world, the choice to become an advocate or educator is like assuming an identity. Policymakers belong to political teams and, in an agenda-driven culture, they keep track of who has ideas that are consistent or inconsistent with their team’s ideology. Becoming an advocate or an educator brings an identity that has inherent rewards and risks. For advocates, chief among the rewards is its seductive “feel good” quality (E. Felts-Podoll, personal communication, August 18, 2000). Advocates experience the excitement of joining with other passionate souls who care deeply about the cause. Advocates are revered by their supporters for their commitment of time and treasure, with no guarantee it will pay off. They experience the thrill of persuading policymakers to do what they believe is the right thing and the exhilaration that comes if their cause becomes the law of the land. One risk for advocates is the questions that can arise in the policy world about their motives and the trustworthiness of their data. In our study, legislators questioned the independence of professors, citing what they perceived as a growing trend for their studies to be commissioned by interest groups. One Democrat raised the prospect that a researcher could be “a hired gun” and another Democrat expressed reservations about what he termed “Kissinger Academics,” who are “not really an academic … [but] an advocate” (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 421). Pielke (2007) refers to this as “stealth issue advocacy” where one claims to be clarifying or expanding options but really is using data to steer decisions in a desired direction.

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

343

Policymakers are accustomed to operating in an agenda-driven culture and instinctively examine the credibility of information. Credibility is determined less by the research methods and more by the reliability and reputation of the source. For data to be used in a culture where decisions are negotiated, sources must be convincing to allies and believable to adversaries (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020). One reward of being an educator is a certain mystique surrounding anyone who can remain dispassionate in the midst of the political fray, and provide “agenda-free” information in a culture where “agenda-driven” motivations are the mainstay. In fact, many politicians embroiled in partisan wars are thrown off their game by professionals who approach them with an air of neutrality. Yet, at other times, this mystique is marred by hostility that can erupt from all sides when educators place policy options on the table as a main course of action that some prefer be scrapped from the menu. For educators, one challenge is to keep the faith in an approach that is not widely understood or appreciated outside the policy world. The power of the education approach is often underestimated because its impacts can be harder to see and often are longer in coming. It can be exasperating to remain patient when a promising idea unexpectedly falls off the decision-making agenda, as can happen in the fluid, fast-paced policy process. Another challenge is developing the capacity to be self-rewarding, knowing full well that realizing the promise of research in policymaking is a long-term endeavor that may not be achieved in one’s lifetime and is seldom recognized by the academy (K. Bogenschneider, 2020; Scott et al., 2019). A legitimate question when deciding about advocacy or education is what have been the decisions of other professionals. In general, advocacy is more commonly used. However, 79 acclaimed psychologists who had experienced policy success at all levels of government were more likely to engage policymakers as educators than advocates (Maton, 2017). Similarly, in our study of researchers who had effectively engaged state and local policymakers, they attributed part of their success to approaching policymakers as educators rather than advocates (Friese & Bogenschneider, 2009). To illustrate how this choice affects one’s identity in the policy world, we turn to two examples of researchers, one who adopted the advocacy approach and one the education approach. Both received awards from the academic world, but they had different identities in the policy world. The advocacy approach is exemplified in the policy work of Professor Kelly Brownell, an endowed chair at Duke University, who was named by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the world’s 100 most influential persons and was recognized in 2012 by the American Psychological Association for applications of psychology. His policy work has focused on framing childhood obesity as a public health problem using a “persuasion-focused, advocacy-oriented approach” (Maton, 2017, p. 74). His method, which he calls “strategic science,” includes conducting studies to fill information gaps and advocating for a preferred policy response as needed. Brownell decided to advocate for the taxing of sugared beverages because of its potential to reduce sugar consumption and raise revenue for other public health initiatives

344

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

(Brownell, 2011). He began by selecting what he decided was the optimal policy response and followed up with specific efforts to influence policymakers’ decisions. For example, he wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times and coauthored two papers in the New England Journal of Medicine on the topic. A host of cities and countries have now passed or are considering taxes on sugared beverages. What undeniably positioned Brownell’s work in the advocacy camp is that he selected the policy option rather than turning the decision over to policymakers. Brownell has been faulted for the policy option that he pushed (B. Bogenschneider, 2017). For example, Brownell (2011) cites a long list of organizations that have called for reductions in the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Institute of Medicine, and the World Health Organization. What has been questioned, however, is not the importance of reducing sugar consumption but the wisdom of pursuing this goal with a new tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. This tax disproportionally disadvantages the poor, who cannot afford more expensive fruit juices or sports drinks and who already are taxed at high rates. Tax professionals have calculated the effective tax rates of low-income workers that take into account all federal and state taxes such as the threshold on Social Security taxes for the wealthy, wage taxes, property taxes (often included in high rents), sales taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, and fees for mandatory government services (B. Bogenschneider, 2020). In these mathematical calculations, workers in the bottom fifth of the income distribution pay effective tax rates of 27% compared to 9% for those in the top fifth of earners. Given this astounding differential, should a policy aimed at improving public health have such a disproportionate impact on the taxes of the lowest-income workers (B. Bogenschneider, 2020)? The education approach is exemplified by the late Edward Zigler, a professor emeritus at Yale University and recipient of the American Psychological Association’s highest award for Outstanding Lifetime Contributions to Psychology. Among his many contributions, Zigler served as one of the original planners of Head Start. He was appointed by President Nixon as the first director of the U.S. Office of Child Development and became chief of the U.S. Children’s Bureau. He had been trained in what he termed a “scientist’s science” in contrast to a “public science” (Zigler, 1998, p. 532). He had a traditional background in methodology, hypothesis testing, and theory building. Zigler had expected to be teaching college students in lecture halls and publishing research and theory in traditional scientific journals. Instead, his students were high-ranking policy officials who needed research distilled to bullet points. He found policymakers to be eager learners who called him “Professor Zigler” and referred to his meetings with them as “lectures.” He came to know them as dedicated public servants interested in what research could relay to help them reach better policy decisions. Zigler described many disappointments across his 44-year career and also many successes that he had a hand in. Zigler has been recognized for his many contributions

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

345

to the long-term sustainability of Head Start; the first set of truly enforceable quality standards for Head Start; his proposal for infant care that eventually emerged from Congress as the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act; and his role in establishing other innovative programs such as Home Start, the Child Development Associate program, and the Twenty-First Century Schools (Zigler & Styfco, 2002). When asked to reflect on his long policy career, his response was informative. He focused not on what research he conveyed to policymakers, but rather on how he did so: Thinking back, I attribute my success in having some influence over national social policies to my posture as an educator, not an advocate. As I learned over my time from planning Head Start to advising its administrators, developmentalists can accomplish much more by telling policymakers what we know and admitting what is not yet known, separating our facts from our opinions. I believe officials have listened to me over the years because they see me as a scholar, not as an advocate who has some other agenda. My only agenda, the one that has guided me throughout my career, is to serve the best interests of children and families. (Zigler & Styfco, 2002, p. 14)

Many who worked with Professor Zigler commended him for his ability and willingness to move beyond partisan politics (Kersting, 2003). However, he has been criticized for his decision to work in an applied position. He recalls one of his academic peers telling him, “You’d make a first-rate child psychologist if you would just give up this policy stuff” (Zigler et al., 2009). Policy engagement has a tarnished reputation for some in the academy (Scott et al., 2019). Does My Choice Rest on My Personal Beliefs About Objectivity and Neutrality?

Yes, it does. Advocacy is widely used by lobbyists and political activists, so fewer questions arise about its purpose and its potential for achieving political ends. Critics of the education approach, however, often question its basic assumptions—both the objectivity of research, no matter how precisely it is produced, and the political neutrality of policy education, no matter how dispassionately it is carried out. We address here three questions we are frequently asked in our training and technical assistance that touch on these concerns. First, is science value-free? Few would argue that science is wholly objective. To borrow a phrase from Nagel (1986), scientists are unable to climb out of their own mind. Yet Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) warn against jumping to the conclusion that science is wholly relative. We think it is dangerous to lapse into believing as do some people … that because all of science is value laden, it is all relative anyway. Science is unique among approaches to knowledge in that it is self-correcting. Through strong empirical research, good theories gain support and bad theories sow the seeds of their own destruction. (p. 1130)

346

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Because research is self-correcting, it is a form of evidence that is more likely to result in truth. Finding truth is what some policymakers, like former Wisconsin State Senator Carol Roessler, tell us they are seeking: How do I ever get information to make a good decision? How can I know what’s fact, what’s fiction? Who do I believe? I think one of the toughest things when a legislator comes in to serve is, “Where’s the truth?” And it’s hard to know where the truth is. You get truth from this direction, truth from that direction, and truth from somewhere else. And then somebody in your district has an opinion. And that’s the truth.

Even though policymakers may be unable to fully articulate it, this self-correcting feature of research may be one reason many highly value it (see Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019; Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020). Second, we are often asked in our training whether objective, bias-free policy education is ever possible. Of course not. Along the continuum of conducting research to its communication, there are ample opportunities to exercise discretion, such as the choice of topics to feature, the questions to address, the speakers to invite, the policy options to raise, and so forth (Bimber, 1996). Policy educators can never be totally objective, no matter how strongly they strive to be. Because complete objectivity is not humanly possible, critics question the legitimacy of even striving to be objective, which policy educators liken to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Educators do not reject the ideal of objectivity, as is fashionable in some intellectual circles, just as the ideal of justice is not abandoned because it cannot be perfectly attained (Glenn, 1993). In the policy culture where most information comes with a direction, efforts that conscientiously aim to be objective and unbiased are often respected for striving to rise above the politics (Barrows, 1994). Third, if education is as objective and unbiased as possible, does that mean it is a politically neutral act? No policy effort is ever politically neutral. Providing information on an issue, no matter how objectively it is done, will favor some groups over others. For example, even perfectly objective information on a tax referendum favors passage, because people who are informed are more apt to vote “yes” than those who are uninformed (Barrows, 1994). Policy education is inevitably more advantageous to individuals and groups who are less informed than to those who are more knowledgeable. In some situations, providing objective education on an issue builds understanding of different points of view; doing so can foster compromise, which can raise a new alternative not previously on the table that will be a political godsend to some and an anathema to others. Thus, policy educators strive for objectivity, fully realizing that it is never possible. And knowing that even if complete objectivity were possible, policy education is not a politically neutral act (Barrows, 1994).

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

347

Guiding Questions Related to Community Institutions

Community institutions influence the choice of which approach to adopt. For this question, we examine how the institutional location of researchers, intermediaries, or professionals affect their decisions about advocacy or education. Does the Decision Depend on My Professional Position and My Organization’s Mission?

Of course. The terms of your job description and your organization’s mission are unavoidable considerations in deciding whether to use the education or advocacy approach for engaging policymakers. Professionals inhabit diverse landscapes, with some working in institutions and holding jobs that clearly fall into the advocacy camp. For instance, professionals can be hired by advocacy organizations or by think tanks with an ideological bent. A professional at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or the conservative Heritage Foundation may find advocacy to be inescapable in a job where work needs to be designed, conducted, and interpreted through the filters of ideological or partisan priors. Even in organizations with a serious mission of independence and nonpartisanship, a professional may be hired as the point person responsible for advocating on behalf of the organization and its mission. Other professionals work in institutions and hold jobs that seem to fall more clearly into the education camp. Researchers are found in universities, some private and some public. Researchers in universities typically are known for the independence of their research as evidenced by its high standards, sophisticated methodology, and robust peer review. Other researchers are situated in think tanks, some that pride themselves on rigorous and agenda-free work. Similarly, researchers in evaluation firms often insist on the highest standards and employ the most rigorous experimental methods. Even within these broad categories of researchers, however, there are variations that may affect choices about advocacy or education. In universities, for example, one influential factor may be their funding source. Dave Riley, a former professor and Extension specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the decision regarding the approach for engaging policymakers was clear if you worked at a public land-grant university. Researchers in these institutions are supported by tax dollars, which Riley argues brings an implicit obligation to use the education approach: You have to be neutral. You better be able to talk to any politician who wants your advice and be able to communicate that to them, especially if you work for a public institution like I do. You are a public professor. That means you work for everybody in the public, not just those whose political beliefs you agree with … you have to have a willingness to do that.

When tax-supported employees ignore this implicit obligation and advocate for a specific position, it can backfire. Karen observed this firsthand when one of her Cooperative

348

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Extension colleagues, a community development educator, bungled a policy education program that he was conducting in his rural county on a controversial land use issue. A four-lane highway was being proposed that would shorten the drive to a nearby urban center, which was hoped might bolster the county’s depressed economy. However, it was strongly opposed by others who thought it would be detrimental to the agricultural economy, given that fertile fields would be paved under and some family farms would be torn asunder. Karen’s county colleague tried to approach the highway issue as an evenhanded educator, who laid out the various policy options and the potential consequences of each. However, his personal support for the highway project became obvious, which gave the clear impression that he was an advocate disguised as an educator. The next morning an irate farmer, whose family farm would be divided by the new highway, stormed into the office complaining that it was out-of-bounds for a tax-supported government employee to use his position to influence the decision. Before he left, the farmer vowed to eliminate the extension educator’s job, which proved to be more than an empty threat. When the extension educator retired, this farmer had secured enough political support from the county board to eliminate the position. It took more than a generation to restore it. We also heard of other circumstances where research funding overshadowed a researcher’s personal decision about advocacy or education. State legislators and key informants in our study characterized research funded by partisan groups as “bogus” research, “party” research, or “pseudoscience” (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 421). When a study is supported by funding from a source with a partisan reputation, the researcher automatically may be considered an advocate and the credibility of the findings called into question. A telling example emerged in one of our interviews in the office of a Democratic state senator. She brandished a brochure from an institute that prominently displayed its university affiliation. When the institute’s data diverged from other sources, she conducted extensive online searching and found the university institute was funded by the Koch brothers. When asked if this affects the reputation of universities, she said, “Oh my God, it certainly does with me”; she elaborated that her background in science compelled her to search for “truth with a Capital T” (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 421). Guiding Questions Related to Community Culture

The decision about the optimal approach for engagement involves many complex considerations regarding a community’s culture. Here we have one question that relates to policymaker preferences, one that relates to researcher purposes, and a third that is a hybrid that relates to incompatibilities between the research and policy cultures. Does My Approach Need to Reflect What Policymakers Prefer in the Target Policy Setting?

Yes, it does or at least it should. Policy settings where research is used are as diverse as the settings where research is produced. Research users include elected officials,

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

349

the leadership of executive agencies, civil service executive agency administrators and managers, and front-line service providers. And then there are the leaders and managers of local government bodies such as county boards, city councils, village halls, school boards, and so forth. Because the utilization of research is a function of the institutional context (Peterson, 2018), we will focus here on the contexts of elected lawmakers serving in Congress, state legislatures, and local government settings. We cite empirical evidence based on data from Congress and our study of state legislatures in two Midwestern states. The empirical evidence on the optimal approach for engaging policymakers in local government settings is sparse, so our discussion is accordingly more speculative. We begin with Congress and state legislatures. The decision about the optimal approach cannot be considered in isolation from the increasing partisanship and polarization at both the federal (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012; Peterson, 2018) and state levels of government (Shor & McCarty, 2011). According to boundary spanners who have worked at the state, federal, and international levels (Bednarek et al., 2018), this era of partisan politics calls for a nonpartisan style of communication, which maps more closely to the education than the advocacy approach. At first blush, it seems counterintuitive that nonpartisan information is needed in partisan policy settings. Yet we heard this in our interviews of elected policymakers themselves (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020; Bogenschneider, Day et al., 2019; Bogenschneider et al., 2021; Hird, 2005) and also from a wide swath of intermediaries and researchers who work closely with policymakers (Bednarek et al., 2018; K. Bogenschneider, 2020; Crowley et al., 2021; Day et al., 2019; Goodvin & Lee, 2017; Grisso & Steinberg, 2005). For example, in a study of state nonpartisan legislative service agencies, Hird (2005) surveyed 773 legislators in 19 states. Almost nine in ten legislators (88%) preferred facts and objective analysis with the political decisions being left to them—a preference about as popular as free beer or mom’s apple pie. A poverty researcher explained why nonpartisan information, like cream, rises to the top of policymakers’ preferences: Policymakers are desperate for honest brokers. That sounds funny because they have access on the web and internet to tons of data, but what they need is information, not just data and not just research reports. They really need people who can bring good information to them in a dispassionate way that does not look agenda-driven. If they smell an agenda, they will be instantly suspicious. Now sometimes that agenda will conform to their prior values and you may get a foot in the door, but that’s not serving them real well.

How can it be that nonpartisan information is highly valued in these partisan settings? Our interviews with policymakers provide a window into why this may be so (see Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020, p. 419). A Republican explained “We have so much access to information” with the Internet and advances in technology. Despite this glut of information, a Republican who was nominated by colleagues as the most extensive

350

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

research user in his state reported having little access to nonpartisan information. According to a Democrat, this makes it easy for “bad science to get into the system.” One of the biggest challenges that policymakers face, according to a Republican, is “knowing what you can believe and what is not factual.” Wisconsin Senator Luther Olsen explained to us that he welcomes information in line with his position on issues: The most useful information I get is stuff that agrees with what my position is. The best stuff is “Yep, Luther, you are right! This is the right thing to do, by God, and we got the information to prove it!”

Yet he was quick to point out the value of information that contradicts his positions: Once in a while, you find something on the other side that’s so strong that you flip your position. And that is really useful because I thought that I knew where I was going on this issue. We’re not talking those big issues; we’re talking small things. And then you find out, I really didn’t understand this whole thing or there’s some new information that is very valuable. “Boy, it’s a good thing I didn’t go down that road because I would really have looked sort of foolish.”

Beyond the value of research to an individual policymaker, it is also essential in a lawmaking institution. Getting the prized bipartisan support for your bill depends on convincing the other side of the believability of your data. So, research has this added layer of complexity to the way decisions are made in the policy culture in that your data must be viewed as believable and significant by political opponents. A telling example was given by a conservative Republican. He explained that he was reluctant to report that his data came from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), even though he was an active participant in the organization: I don’t think I would ever present ALEC research or data to get something done with folks on the other side of the aisle, because I just automatically know where that would go. I try to make sure that I provide something that’s credible for them, just as it’s credible on my side.

These studies seem to suggest that the nonpartisan approach of educators may be more appropriate when engaging elected policymakers in state and federal settings, especially when they are highly polarized. But is this same nonpartisan approach preferable in local policy settings? State legislators in our study provided some insights into this question by describing their previous experience working in local government. A Republican described local policymaking as being more team-oriented: “My local politics team was warm and friendly compared to coming into the legislature [where] it’s a very competitive dog-eat-dog world.” A Democrat emphasized that the “big” difference he saw was in atmosphere; at the local level, the whole atmosphere was focused on service, whereas at the state level, the focus was on getting reelected: Serving on the city council or school boards, etcetera, you don’t really care who gets the credit and blindly just try to work together to get to solutions. Here [at the

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

351

legislature] it’s dominated by the politics. It’s dominated by money. It’s all about the next election and the next fundraiser versus the local level—counties, cities, villages, towns, school boards [where] I really believe the vast majority is always about public service.

So, does this warmer, friendlier, more service-oriented atmosphere of local government shape the choice of advocacy versus education? It might. In his review of the successful policy efforts of acclaimed psychologists, Maton (2017) concludes that community-based practitioners may have greater freedom to contribute to advocacy efforts. The other evidence we are aware of reached a different conclusion. The Cooperative Extension Service has almost a century of experience working with towns, cities, schools, and counties on some of society’s most controversial issues including Social Security, rural economic development, agricultural runoff, child care availability, and land-use planning. Cooperative Extension has long operated using an education model developed by agricultural economists that we have been able to trace back at least 70 years. Yet it is difficult to disentangle whether other factors have influenced Cooperative Extension’s consistent use of the education approach. For example, Cooperative Extension is taxsupported, so conceivably its funding source may have influenced its choice of approach for engaging policymakers. Do I Need to Choose Between Being an Advocate or an Educator?

Probably, with only rare exceptions. Using one approach in one situation and another approach in other circumstances makes sense in the research culture but is unlikely to work in the policy culture. Researchers might be admired for their intellectual acuity if they can articulate a convincing argument for and also against a campus policy. However, researchers who have been effective in the policy culture attribute their success to their ability to maintain impartiality and avoid advocacy, which by definition is never impartial (Grisso & Steinberg, 2005). Switching back and forth between advocacy and education is untenable in the policy culture because of three professional norms. First, policymakers play on teams and they develop an identity as a card-carrying member of a political party. In partisan settings, it is standard practice to track who are friends and foes and to remember all things political. If you attempt to change teams, such as from advocacy to education, policymakers will remember the former team that you played on. In the future, policymakers will not forget your former advocacy and, accordingly, will treat any further information from you as suspect. Economist Paul Krugman started writing advocacy pieces for major public outlets on economic and political issues. His reputation as a liberal economist is now set in stone and he cannot go back. Second, this long-term memory is in keeping with another professional norm in the policy culture—a continual questioning of motives. Imagine, for example, that you write an op-ed advocating for a higher minimum wage; in the future, it will be difficult, most likely impossible, for you to change teams and become an educator on poverty policy,

352

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

who discusses minimum wage as one of the potential policy responses. Even if you try to make abundantly clear that you are an educator by the words you say, inhabitants of the policy culture will be instantly suspicious about whether an advocate is hiding underneath the lofty words. If policymakers get a whiff of an underlying agenda, even great oratory and all the charisma in the world will not be able to save you (Heath & Heath, 2007). To put this in academic terms, let’s say you write an op-ed criticizing the performance of Dell Computers. Then you are asked to write an even-handed Consumer Reports analysis on the performance of personal computers, including Dell and its competitors. How believable would you be? Would suspicions arise as to whether you are reporting the real data or whether you are “cooking” the numbers and massaging the message to validate your previous views (Smith, 1991)? Overcoming policymakers’ instinct to be suspicious of motives requires that there be “no confusion between research and advocacy” (Rabb & Winstead, 2003, p. 36). Credibility in the policy culture means “we must take care both in drawing the line between science and politics and then not crossing it” (Breckler, 2006, p. 22). Third, it is untenable to switch between education and advocacy given norms around the prime importance of values taken together with the limitations of research evidence. Research is seldom so comprehensive and definitive that it could serve with complete confidence as the sole determinant of a policy decision. In the policy culture, decisions depend not only on data but also on the interpretation of the meaning of data and the application of value judgments to arrive at the ultimate policy decisions. Perhaps an example can help clarify the limitations of science in the policy culture. Take, for instance, a school district facing questions about whether preschoolers are entering kindergarten ready to learn. In such situations, policymakers often look for fact-based data to determine whether school readiness is a problem. Imagine a scenario where a local school board commissions a study that finds one-fifth of 5-year-olds in the district are not school-ready. Policymakers and their constituents may have legitimate disagreements on whether this “fact” is correct. Conceivably, questions could arise on whether appropriate benchmarks of school readiness were used and how well researchers were able to measure them. Even if agreement is reached that one-fifth of 5-year-olds are not school-ready is indeed a “fact”, reasonable people could disagree about how to interpret this data. For example, is one-fifth of preschoolers enough to merit a response? And if there is agreement that a response is merited, the question remains about whether it warrants a public investment of tax dollars. Even in situations where there is agreement that tax dollars should be spent on school readiness, different value orientations may lead to different policy responses. Citizens can legitimately disagree about whether this is an issue that is best handled in the privacy of the family or whether there should be a broad-based community response. Would it be best to provide families with parent education to improve the school success of all children in the family? Or would it be better to fund broader public responses such as

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

353

a 4-year-old kindergarten that might reach more children in the community? Even with rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of parent education and 4-year-old kindergarten, these studies cannot provide value judgments about whether public- or private-oriented response is optimal and more in keeping with local priorities. For the majority of issues, advocates typically apply value judgments to interpret the data and select the optimal policy response (Barrows, 1994). These value judgments often position people on one side of a prominent political divide that arose in our study and others—whether youth and family problems are caused by individual characteristics or structural conditions (Bogenschneider et al., 2021; Crowley et al., 2019). Taking a position on what the cause of a problem is or whether the government should respond may inadvertently position one as more in line with the ideology of one political team over another. Switching from being a values-driven advocate to an agenda-free educator would raise questions of credibility. As an example, a Cooperative Extension educator in a rural, low-income county advocated for the use of federal funds to establish a local child care center. She thought this was a no-brainer because if her county did not get the funding, the taxes that local residents paid to the federal government would revert to another county. Yet, as typically happens, there was disagreement. Some residents believed it would be far better if children were cared for by parents at home. The Extension educator’s advocacy for child care centers made it literally impossible for her to later serve as an educator on alternative ways to provide child care for employed parents. Child care centers would be one alternative and, no matter how objective her presentation of the research, the community knew that she previously supported child care centers. Her previous advocacy would inadvertently raise questions about whether she now was fairly presenting the data or whether she was cherry-picking the research to support her previous position. To be accepted as a credible educator requires a nonpartisan reputation in a policy culture that has a long memory. Once you lose your credibility, according to nonpartisan fiscal analyst Robert Lang, “it can never come back” (cited in Walters, 2008, p. 46). In general, it is hard to move back and forth between advocacy and education. Yet on limited occasions, scientific evidence could fall overwhelmingly on one side of an issue (Barrows, 1994). Or there could be win-win situations when all interest groups would be better off with a specific policy choice (Price, 1989). On such occasions, advocacy for one becomes advocacy for all. However, these situations are rare. Does the Purpose of My Involvement Matter?

Yes, indeed. Advocacy may be the optimal approach for some efforts to engage policymakers. If the intent of a professional is to work solely and extensively with only one clientele, such as undocumented families, he or she may feel sufficiently informed to be able to identify and advocate for the policy options that would best represent their life experience and their value and belief systems. For professionals who have a particular policy option that they want to see enacted, advocacy is the approach most likely to achieve this purpose. Professionals also may turn to advocacy when they

354

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

believe there is no other way to ensure a proportional voice to the underrepresented and to secure a seat for them at the policy table where decisions affecting them are being made (Barrows, 1994). It can be tempting to conclude that advocacy is the only way to ensure representation. Yet our earlier discussion illustrates how Professor Yoshikawa and colleagues were able to use the education approach to successfully raise the voice of the underrepresented population of undocumented parents (Day et al., 2019; Yoshikawa, 2011; Yoshikawa & Ariel, 2011). The education approach is more likely to be effective for anyone who is looking to make a long-term commitment to engaging a wide swath of policymakers across a broad range of issues. In the policy culture, decisions typically are made through debate over dissenting positions, so issues do not usually rise on the public radar screen unless there are differences of opinion. Taking sides on an issue, as advocates do, can undermine future credibility with opposing interests. For example, the stance that an advocate takes on one issue can alienate those policymakers who worked in opposition to that position. On the next issue, the advocate estranges another group of political opponents. Each stance places them in opposition to more individuals or groups; over time, this could limit a person’s ability to build credibility and form political alliances on which successful policy work depends (Barrows, 1994). If the intent of a researcher or intermediary organization is to engage policymakers in ways that create bipartisan discourse and counter polarization, the education approach is better suited to developing the trust and confidence needed to work with policymakers of various values and political perspectives. Political observers contend that, in today’s contentious political environment, the most valuable contribution of professionals may not be generating new policy ideas, but rather building bridges across a diverse spectrum of views (Smith, 1991; Tseng, 2020). One way that professionals can build bridges is through convening forums for policymakers to engage in dialogue on policy problems and solutions outside the ideological and partisan environments that dominate their dayto-day legislative life (K. Bogenschneider, 2020; Smith, 1991). In the relationship-based culture of policymaking, we are surprised at how rare these opportunities are. The unique capacity of the educator to fill a convening role that reaches across rigid political boundaries is obvious in the experience of the nonpartisan Family Impact Seminars (see Chapter 13). The Seminars are an impartial arbiter who can bring together liberal and conservative legislators. If a liberal group sponsors a meeting or issues a report, only the liberal-leaning legislators pay attention. When a conservative group is the source, it is tracked only by card-carrying conservatives. The value of the Seminar discussion sessions was explained by a Democratic state senator: Because we’re able to engage in discussion on strictly a policy matter as opposed to sort of an ideological way, I think we’ve been able to discuss the issues in a more responsible way, and actually come to more responsible conclusions as a result.

Approaching policy work as an educator signals a willingness to help ensure the long-term effectiveness of policy engagement amidst the inevitable shifts in political

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

355

winds and changes in party control. For example, since the Family Impact Seminars began in Wisconsin in 1993, the governor’s office has changed party, and the majority in the Assembly and the Senate has shifted from one party to the other and back again. A real test for the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars was a 2010 forum that included a presentation on the controversial topic of taxes. Just two months before the Seminar, Wisconsin flipped from total Democratic control to total Republican control. Remarkably, the Seminar was well-attended, received high evaluations, and is favorably referenced by policymakers, Democrats, and Republicans alike, to this day.

The Choice of Approach in Research Organizations and Professional Societies Research organizations and professional societies often adopt an advocacy or education approach to achieve their policy purposes. These organizations often aspire to engage in policy work to demonstrate that their organization is relevant and that the research they produce can make important contributions to the pressing issues of the day. The choice these organizations make about their approach for engaging policymakers is complex and multilayered, given that it affects how the organization is perceived by policymakers and the public. They also may spill over to the reputations of the members who affiliate with them. We begin by reviewing the evidence on organizations’ approach for engaging policymakers, which is limited despite it being a perennial question throughout history. To supplement this limited literature, we interviewed seven luminaries who have thought long and hard about these issues in their roles as executive directors of professional societies, as leaders of policy engagement efforts in their societies, or as members of committees responsible for overseeing a society’s policy engagement efforts. We include here a research study and a real-life story that can shed some light on the fault lines regarding the decision of professional societies about advocacy or education. We begin with the experiences of one research organization that instituted both the advocacy and education approaches with varying degrees of success. We then turn to one empirical study that examined how the ideology of public policy think tanks can shape the receptivity of policymakers and the press to their research and analysis. We conclude with implications that can inform the decisions of research organizations and professional societies going forward. An Organization’s Transformation From Advocacy to Education

The experience of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WISTAX) began in the mid20th century. As an offshoot of a meeting of business leaders convened by Wisconsin Governor Philip F. La Follette, WISTAX was formed in 1932 to study taxation and spending. WISTAX was formed as an advocacy organization, so initially, it developed legislative proposals and organized local groups of county-based, dues-paying members to support their legislative agenda. After two years of operation, WISTAX found it

356

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

necessary to abandon its initial advocacy approach. The credibility of its reports was called into question when members of its county organizations took partisan stances in local politics and ran for elected office. In 1934, WISTAX reorganized and reincarnated itself under an education umbrella. After its initial foray into advocacy, WISTAX picked itself up, brushed off any remnants of its former political activism, and positioned itself as an authoritative voice for nonpartisan information on how the Wisconsin government works, taxes, and spends. Over the years, WISTAX has developed a reputation for conducting nonpartisan research and for providing policymakers and the public with accurate, agenda-free information. WISTAX has made a serious commitment to nonpartisanship as made clear on its website. WISTAX avoids affiliations with other organizations and does not engage in lobbying, endorse candidates for public office, take positions on issues, or advocate for specific causes. Policymakers’ Use of Expertise From Public Policy Think Tanks

Public policy think tanks provide another window into examining the advocacy or education approach to engaging policymakers. Think tanks have grown in number and variety, becoming increasingly diverse and more ideologically driven and marketoriented (Rich, 2001; Smith, 1991). Because they vary substantially in their motives and modes of operation, these information outlets comprise a natural experiment of sorts, with some that seek to impartially inform the policy process and others that strive to impose a political agenda. Andrew Rich (2001) conducted a study of a random sample of 66 public policy think tanks drawn from a sample of 200 nationally focused think tanks. He stratified them according to ideology (i.e., a conservative, liberal, centrist, and no identifiable ideology) and location (i.e., inside or outside Washington, DC). Overall, 61% were based in Washington, DC and the rest were situated elsewhere in the country. The think tanks were of all sizes and ideologies, with 30% that were centrist or of no identifiable ideology (e.g., the Brookings Institution), 29% conservative (e.g., the Heritage Foundation), and 17% liberal (e.g., the Council on Hemispheric Affairs). Market orientation was assessed by the background of the staff, the intended audience, and the amount and proportion of resources devoted to promotion and marketing. Among the many findings of Rich’s (2001) study, both congressional staff and journalists rated think tanks as more credible if they evidenced no identifiable ideology and were not market-oriented in comparison to their ideological and market-oriented counterparts. Moreover, policy actors themselves were able to accurately discern these ideological orientations. Think tanks that had a centrist or no identifiable ideology were more likely to be paired on congressional committees with others viewed as credible or authoritative, such as university researchers; in contrast, market-oriented think tanks testified more frequently with special interest groups. In an analysis of the think tanks invited to testify on congressional panels, this same pattern emerged of

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

357

think tanks appearing with like-minded counterparts; for instance, centrist think tanks were more likely to be paired with other centrist organizations, conservatives with other conservatives, and so forth. When policymakers or the media needed authoritative sources of expertise, organizations with a centrist or apparent absence of ideology were sought out. Congressional staff and journalists most often turned to sources that offered the most careful research and neutral analysis, particularly when the source was located close at hand. However, different sources were sought out when the purpose was to build political support for a given idea. For example, in staged congressional hearings or on the editorial pages of newspapers, more aggressive and ideological sources of expertise were tapped. Implications for Research Organizations and Professional Societies

In our consultations with professional societies, we have found decisions about the use of advocacy or education are often controversial among both the governing board and the membership. Sometimes the choice of approach for engaging policymaking within a single society has been conditional. For example, some societies use an education approach for engaging policymakers and an advocacy approach for trade-related interests such as professional licensure or certifications, government reimbursement for member services, and so forth. In our interviews and writing by other researchers (Ferguson, 2015), organizations adopt the education model for many of the same reasons that professionals do. The education approach is consistent with the professional socialization of scientists, reinforces the integrity of science, contributes to a long-term association with policymakers irrespective of shifting political dynamics, and so forth. The advocacy approach has consequences for organizations that may be less apparent but no less real in their effect. Two major types of consequences have been identified—one for organizations and one for science. When professional societies took advocacy stances, we heard stories of how this changed the nature of the organization in several ways. For example, when one professional society took some specific stands on a controversial issue, it resulted in infighting among their more radical members that interfered with constructive dialogue on this issue and others. In another professional society, taking political stances motivated members with strong political views to jockey for board positions and, when elected, polarized the organization even more. In another instance, the adoption of political stances precipitated large drops in membership among those who disagreed with the specifics of the positions, and also among those who worried that being a member could tarnish their nonpartisan reputation. Another set of potential consequences is whether advocacy could backfire and damage the credibility of science itself. In the words of experienced policy researchers Thomas Grisso and Laurence Steinberg, “Rarely does research provide evidence that a particular policy is right” (2005, p. 625). Recognizing this same limitation of science, Ferguson (2015) criticized the policy statements of psychological and other health and behavioral health organizations as being inaccurate, unclear, and driven more by opinion than

358

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

science. In particular, Ferguson questioned whether professional societies should take positions on moral issues that may fall beyond their field of practice or even outside the scope of science, such as the nuclear arms race and equating Zionism with racism: “Scholarly organizations … have consistently failed to distinguish, in their policy statements, between scientific ‘truths’ (which are few and far between) and policy positions that can be informed by, but not dictated by … science” (Ferguson, 2015, p. 535). Experience suggests that the political statements of professional societies have tended to lean in a liberal direction, which may call into question whether any research coming from the society can be trusted (Ferguson, 2015). Given these potential consequences for organizations and science, one policy expert advised that the decision about advocacy or education should begin with an analysis of costs and benefits. The risks should be weighed against the potential political benefits. Specifically, how likely is it that the organization’s positions will have an influence on the decisions of policymakers? Does the organization have the political muscle, will, and infrastructure to potentially affect the outcome of a specific vote? Can these organizations reliably deliver votes in the way politicians value? Is the risk to the organization’s reputation worth the potential gain?

Summary Building evidence-based family policy depends on knowing “what” research to communicate as well as “how” to approach policymakers on their turf. The real question is not whether to engage in social justice efforts, but rather how to do so. Robert Frost’s renowned words about coming to a fork in the road are an apt analogy for the decisions of professionals and professional societies about the optimal approach for engaging policymakers. As Frost forewarns, once an individual or an organization starts down the road of advocacy or education, it is not likely that they will “ever come back” this way again. Once an identity is established in the policy world, it may well stick for all future efforts. This chapter provided pivotal touchpoints that professionals and professional societies can use to tailor their decisions about the optimal policy approach to their own context. • Getting a handle on the optimal approach depends on context. To dissect the complexities of context, seven guiding questions identify individual, institutional, and cultural considerations that professionals can factor into their choice. • The advocacy approach is campaigning or lobbying for a specific policy option or political position for the purpose of persuading. The advocate believes that the policy process responds to prompt and strategic pressure from those interested in and affected by the issue. • The education approach provides nonpartisan information that clarifies the potential consequences of various policy alternatives with the intent of informing. The educator trusts the democratic system of governance and believes that policymakers, when given good information, will make the right decision most of the time.

HOW TO APPROACH POLICYMAKERS

359

• The optimal approach for engaging policymakers depends on individual considerations, such as one’s professional expertise and personal demeanor, preferred identity, and personal belief system. For advocates, one reward is the thrill of persuading policymakers to do what they believe is the right thing. For educators, one reward is the mystique surrounding anyone who can remain dispassionate in the midst of the political fray and provide agenda-free information in a culture where agenda-driven motivations are the mainstay. • The optimal approach for engaging policymakers depends on institutional location, such as one’s professional position and organizational mission. Some professionals work in institutions and hold jobs that position them squarely in the advocacy camp. Professionals can be found in advocacy organizations and in think tanks with an ideological bent. Other professionals work in institutions that pride themselves on rigorous and agenda-free information. Professionals can be employed in taxsupported positions where they are expected to work on behalf of all policymakers and everybody in the public. • In general, advocacy is the road more often traveled by professionals, such as lobbyists and political activists. However, more researchers have opted for the deliberately dispassionate education approach which may be a more natural choice given their training in the scientific method of making an even-handed consideration of facts on all sides of an issue. The education approach seems best aligned with those seeking long-term engagement with policymakers and among those desiring to build bipartisan discourse across opposing parties and perspectives. • Policy educators strive for objectivity, fully realizing that it is never possible. And knowing that even if complete objectivity were possible, policy education is not a politically neutral act. • Some professional societies use an education approach in their engagement with policymakers and an advocacy approach for trade-related interests such as professional licensure or certifications, government reimbursement for member services, and so forth.

These thoughts about approaching policymakers as advocates or educators are not meant to be the final word. They are proposed not only with a sense of humility but also with some confidence. Our experiences largely have been consistent with the empirical literature, with the information preferences of policymakers and with the best practices of effective intermediaries. Yet we continue to believe that this critical issue of approach requires ongoing scrutiny and reflection if science is to enter a new era of building evidence-based policy. Author’s Note: This chapter has been adapted by the authors from the version published in Evidence-Based Policymaking: Envisioning a New Era of Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed.) (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021).

15

361

CHAPTER 15 GO FORTH WITH HOPE TO MAKE FAMILIES MATTER IN POLICYMAKING

Designed by Jenn Seubert, Family Impact Institute

It may be easy to say—when it seems like it’s more about the politics than the policy— … Why even bother? But that’s a real mistake for a couple of reasons … Occasionally, you might win one … Politics … has enough variables in it that you just never know what’s going to work. (Democratic legislator) The greatest thing about being in the legislature is that you never lose forever. Even the most hotly contested issues have a way of coming back … If there’s a basis for moving forward, the legislature will often find a way. So, you don’t ever want to stop using the research even if it’s not effective in the moment. (Nonpartisan legislative analyst)

• What darkness looms on the family policy horizon? • Has a political pessimism taken hold that engaging policymakers is a waste of time and effort? • Can political hope be inspired by success stories, like those of the Family Impact Seminars, that have contributed to policies that benefit countless families and children? • What can we learn from researchers, theologians, naturalists, policymakers, and novelists about political hope?

This entire book can be summed up in one sentence. It is possible to build better public policy for families. This hopeful message comes from a career of studying, teaching, and doing family policy. As this book goes to press, many unresolved policy issues remain. Going forth, how much hope is there for the future of family policies in the United States? I hold onto hope even though darkness looms on the horizon. • In Congress, policymakers are currently debating budget cuts in two programs that long have lifted the oldest among us out of poverty—Medicare and Social Security. • The highest poverty rates in the United States occur in the youngest among us. Children experience higher rates of poverty in the United States than in other developed nations (Filgueira & Rossel, 2020). • Since the 1970s, income inequality in the United States has continued to grow. Inequality is more pronounced among racially and ethnically diverse families and is twice as large in families raising children (Bhutta et al., 2020; Cooper & Pugh, 2020). DOI: 10.4324/9781003311577-19

362

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

• Today’s partisan divide in political values between Democrats and Republicans surpasses differences by age, education, gender, race/ethnicity, and religion (Carlin & Love, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2019a). The more polarized political parties are, the bigger the gap in trust. Mistrust stifles communication and sidelines the negotiation and compromise that is at the very heart of the American democratic system (Bogenschneider et al., 2022; Carlin & Love, 2016; Leonhardt, 2022; McCoy et al., 2018). • Americans increasingly believe that democracy and our democratic institutions are at risk. Both 69% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats agree that democracy is in “danger of collapse” (Leonhardt, 2022; Quinnipiac University Poll, 2022).

Any one of these perils alone is a reason for political pessimism. And political pessimism deepens when one considers the complex interconnections of each peril with the others. A single peril can seldom be successfully solved in its entirety on its own. Naturalist Jane Goodall pointed out the symbiotic relationship among climate problems, chimpanzee problems, and people problems: If you are living in crippling poverty, you will cut down the last tree to grow food. Or fish the last fish because you’re desperate to feed your family. In an urban area, you will buy the cheapest food—you do not have the luxury of choosing a more ethically produced product. (Goodall & Abrams, 2021, p. 59)

Similarly, income inequality and partisan polarization are inextricably linked. Scientists have found that when income inequality rises, it causes an increase in polarization (Voorheis et al., 2015). Polarization, in turn, perpetuates the gridlock that impedes the capacity of public policy to adapt to changing economic and social conditions (Barber & McCarty, 2013). Given so many perils and so much darkness, it is easy to descend into helplessness and hopelessness. Rorty (1999) warns that political pessimism is one of the greatest threats of our time, perhaps even greater than global conflicts, melting icecaps, and rising income inequality. A lack of political hope exacerbates these dangers and others. Perhaps most concerning, a form of political pessimism has taken hold among professionals that engaging policymakers is a waste of their time and effort (Ward, 2008). If left unchecked, this pessimism can morph into disdain for the political process and disparagement of those involved in it (Bogenschneider, Corbett et al., 2019). Yet Rorty sees a ray of light in the darkness with his perspective that “a depressing present does not preclude a hopeful future” (Ward, 2008, p. 304). Going forward, I profess a message of hope for family policy with utmost sincerity. Am I an eternal optimist about the prospect that public policy could be better for families? I like to think of myself as a wide-eyed optimist—a person who chooses hope with both eyes wide open to the potential perils and pitfalls. A person of hope takes all the perils into account but is not paralyzed or dispirited by them (Goodall & Abrams, 2021). What is hope anyway? Hope is not a state of mind nor a feeling that one wills into being. Hope is not a “head trip” or a “heart trip.” It’s a “body trip” that takes action for the sake of new possibilities (Brueggemann, 2018, p. x; see Table 15.1) According to climate

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

363

Table 15.1  What Hope Is and Is Not • Hope is not a state of mind or a feeling that one wills into being. • Hope is not a “head trip” or a “heart trip”; it’s a “body trip that takes action for the sake of new possibilities. (Brueggemann, 2018, p. x). • A person of hope is a person of action who takes on the perils, no matter how powerful or perplexing or persistent.

activist Greta Thunberg (Halliday, 2022): “Hope is not something that is given to you. It is something you have to earn, to create.” A person of hope is a person of action who takes on the perils, no matter how powerful or perplexing or persistent. For me, hope has been inspired by people who have acted with great competence and commitment to building better public policy for families. Through my work on the Family Impact Seminars for the last 25 years, I have come to know dozens of policymakers who are very research-minded and dozens of researchers who are very policy-minded. I know countless intermediaries committed to connecting these researchminded policymakers and policy-minded researchers. In this chapter, I begin with inspiring stories of how the Family Impact Seminars have made a difference for families. I also reach beyond the policy domain to what we can learn from other domains about creating hope. Hope has been a predominant theme in the thinking and writing of researchers, theologians, naturalists, policymakers, and novelists. Without further ado, let’s begin this journey on the road to creating political hope.

Political Hope Inspired by the Family Impact Seminars The Seminars are a time-tested model of communicating research to policymakers that has operated in a couple of dozen states across the country. As detailed in Chapter 13, the Seminars are a series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports that communicate rigorous, nonpartisan research to state legislators, legislative staff, Governor’s office representatives, legislative service agency analysts, and state agency officials. Chapter 13 describes several impacts of the Seminars that range from enlightening policymakers’ understanding of issues to building relationships among researchers and policymakers to influencing policies and the policymaking process. Here I overview three stories from three states where Seminar research directly contributed to the design and enactment of family policies. The Contribution of the Nebraska Family Impact Seminars to Providing Health Insurance for Children

Seminar planning began by interviewing legislators for their advice about pressing policy issues that would benefit from research evidence. At the time, Nebraska did not have a

364

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

children’s health insurance program, so the state legislature was gearing up to consider whether one was needed. A seminar was convened on children’s health insurance and speakers were recruited who could address the questions state legislators were facing. A senior scientist of the New York Academy of Medicine discussed the links between health insurance status and children’s developmental outcomes. A senior researcher from the Urban Institute overviewed the five-year track record of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and its implications for families and public policy. A professor from the Kansas Health Institute examined the effect of state policies on children’s health insurance status. After the seminar, the leader of Nebraska’s unicameral legislature called the Family Impact Seminars and asked if they would deliver the Seminar materials to his office. He needed them right away to prepare for a vote the next day on a children’s health insurance bill. The bill passed and, in 2018, over 59,000 children were covered by the program (National Academy for State Health Policy, 2019). Did the Seminar cause this bill to pass? Probably not. The Seminars cannot claim to have been the cause of such a complex, multiply determined policy decision. However, the Seminars may have contributed to the design of the bill and its passage. The Contribution of the Oregon Family Impact Seminars to Providing Tax Credits for Low-Income Working Families

Oregon’s first Family Impact Seminar on “Helping Families Help Themselves” was conducted early in the 2001 legislative session in conjunction with an Oregon House Revenue Committee. Participants heard a 60-minute presentation and received a briefing report on the effectiveness of tax credits and other policy options for the working poor. In a follow-up discussion session, the speaker met with top personnel from the Legislative Revenue Office, legislative staff, and representatives of key advocacy groups. The Seminar was attended by 64 members of the public but only six of the 90 legislators in the Oregon State Legislature. Even though attendance was small, the Seminars had a large effect on one state legislator, the Republican chair of the House Revenue Committee. This Republican joined with a Democrat to introduce HB 2716, a bill to establish refundable child care tax credits for low-income working families. Before the session adjourned, the bill was passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by a Democratic governor. Under the law, families who paid for child care received 40% of their costs as a refundable child care tax credit. Previously, the credit could only be taken as a deduction on a family’s state income taxes, which limited its reach to only those earning enough income to pay taxes. In 2018, Oregon’s child care tax credit returned $30.5 million to 27,760 working families with an average benefit of $1,100 (Legislative Revenue Office, 2021). The chair of the House Revenue Committee credited the Family Impact Seminars for making all the difference in crafting a bill that could be passed. In his words, the Seminar also “raised the level of the conversation and helped us keep tax credits in the forefront.”

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

365

The story did not end there. In 2015, Oregon legislators requested a seminar on twogeneration approaches to poverty, which included evidence that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is one of the most effective public policies for lifting families out of poverty. Following the seminar, Oregon legislators revised their existing law to become the first state in the nation to allocate a greater percentage of the EITC to families with children under 3 years of age. In 2017, the tax credit was claimed by 265,000 low-income parents with an average refund of $2,130 (State of Oregon News Room, 2018). The Contribution of the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars to Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Seniors

Prescription drugs costs for seniors were rising in Wisconsin. The state did not have a prescription drug plan and legislators were gearing up to decide whether they needed one and what it should be. In response, Wisconsin planned two Family Impact Seminar on prescription drugs. Four highly regarded researchers were featured from the University of Wisconsin, the University of Maryland, and the University of Minnesota; a policy analyst from Pennsylvania that directed the nation’s largest state prescription drug program; and a health care director from the U.S. General Accounting Office. (The briefing reports and audios of the presentations for both seminars are available at the Resource Center (https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/ family-impact-institute/). The first Seminar attracted 68 participants including 15 legislators and 22 legislative aides with the second seminar attracting 56 participants including 13 legislators and 11 legislative aides. A follow-up discussion session on prescription drugs was attended by 11 people, including the three highest-ranking, executive agency officials on health care—the state secretary of Health and Family Services, the administrator of the Division of Health Care Financing, and the director of the Medicaid and Budget Bureau. This meeting began with the state secretary stating that he had read the entire 34-page briefing report from cover to cover and had follow-up questions for the speakers. The Seminars provided a concrete example of how practical research can be in the policy world. In phone interviews two months after the seminars, 11 legislators (55% response rate) reported how they had used the Seminar information. • Every legislator (100%) used the information to evaluate legislation (evidence that relevant research can be practical), • Over 8 in 10 legislators (81%) incorporated the information into their speeches or presentation (our words became their words), • Almost two-thirds of legislators (64%) shared the information with colleagues (passing a law requires persuading others to vote with you), • Over one-fourth of legislators (27%) contacted researchers with questions (interest in evidence-based policy is more than empty words), and • Two legislators used the information to draft new bills (research directly shaped legislation).

366

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

A Republican legislator, who served on the Assembly Health Committee, described the usefulness of Seminar information as the Legislature debated various prescription drug proposals: We were looking at one proposal that was going to cost a million bucks. Well, I think it was like 20 bucks a person. That’s nothing …. [The Seminars] had experts come in and talk to us and tell us what other states were doing, what it cost … So, that helped me as a legislator sort of working on the fringes of that thing saying “Well, if you’re going to do it, you have to spend enough money to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, don’t do it.” And realizing if you start it … it’s going to cost a heck of a lot more in a couple years than you ever dreamed. So don’t go with the illusion that you spend $14 million today and in 3 years, it’ll be $14 million. It will be a lot more. And guess what? They were right.

In the end, the legislature passed Wisconsin’s first prescription drug law. Senior Care included four features of other states’ prescription drug laws that were discussed by the Seminar speakers. In 2020, the law benefitted over 100,000 seniors (Appleby, 2020). The benefit of the Seminar also extended beyond the policy world to a breakthrough in the political pessimism that pervades the research world. A professor who participated in the seminar planning and execution said it was the best experience of his pre-tenure years at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Seeding of Hope by the Family Impact Seminars

It is hard not to be hopeful when a public policy incorporates research from a Family Impact Seminar that benefits so many children without health insurance, families living in poverty, and seniors struggling to cover prescription drug costs. Of course, the Seminars are not this influential every time. There were times when a speaker missed the mark. There were times when the politics changed between the time the topic was identified and the seminar materialized. There was the time a bomb scare forced the evacuation of the state Capitol. As a person of hope, I try not to let these discouraging times faze me. Instead, I try to factor in what I learned for future Seminars. I find that success, no matter how small or infrequent, is seductive in seeding hope that a Family Impact Seminar could happen again on the right topic with the right information at the right time. For further information on Family Impact Seminar successes, several articles have been published by my colleagues on children’s health insurance (Wilcox et al., 2005); EITC, employer purchasing pools, and rent control (Chapter 8 of Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2021); positioning states for the jobs of the future (Bogenschneider et al., 2017); and two-generation approaches to reduce poverty (Tomayko et al., 2019). Also, several Family Impact Seminar briefing reports were published on foster care, homelessness, hunger, online sexual predators, and unemployment (Hines & Bogenschneider, 2013). Beyond the hope inspired by these Seminar examples, let’s now look more broadly at what we can learn from researchers, theologians, naturalists, policymakers, and novelists

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

367

Table 15.2  Learning How to Create Political Hope from Researchers, Theologians, Naturalists, Policymakers, and Novelists Source

Advice About Creating Political Hope

The Family Impact Seminars

The Seminars seed hope by benefiting children without health insurance, families living in poverty, seniors struggling to cover prescription drug costs, and so forth.

Researchers

Recent studies of hope reveal its power in achieving individual and collective success.

Theologians

People of hope name what is wrong with the world, yet still are motivated to serve others, even when the outcomes are uncertain and may take time to achieve.

Naturalists

Just as resilient creatures adapt during dark times, policymakers may be more open to new ideas during dark times.

Policymakers

Evidence-based policymaking is flourishing; to make policy change takes anger, imagination, and optimism.

Novelists

Success against all odds need not depend on being the strongest nor the smartest nor the most talented (J. R. Tolkien in Lords of the Rings, 1986).

about creating political hope. What light can be shed by their thinking on how we can go forth with hope on the causes we care about? Their advice is discussed in the pages that follow and summarized in Table 15.2.

What We Can Learn From Researchers About Political Hope Every generation thinks that they are living through the worst of times. It’s easy to fall into the trap that there has never been a time in our history with perils so profound, perplexing, and persistent (Meacham, 2018). This idea of living in a period of unprecedented siege ignores the observations of long-time political observers that the United States has never been a perfect union, but still has shown a “remarkable capacity for self-correction and renewal” (Dionne, 2004, p. 27; Reich, 2018). Recent research explains how hope may be one factor that has contributed to political renewal. The power of hope has been verified by science. The conclusion of over 2,000 published studies is that hope is more than optimism, wishful thinking, or self-confidence. Hope is the actions people take that are associated with achieving short- and long-term outcomes in life. A person with high hopes has goals, the motivation to find pathways to pursue their goals, and the willpower to overcome obstacles. Individual hope predicts an individual’s success. And of relevance to policy, collective hope predicts a community’s success. Collective hope requires shared goals and agreed-upon strategies that are carried out with a unified mental focus that can overcome obstacles (Gwinn & Hellman, 2022).

368

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Law Professor Amy Chua finds hope in people. She has observed a noticeable shift in ordinary Americans wanting to understand one another as human beings, regardless of how they voted in the last election: Nevertheless, if you look beyond the headlines, and listen past the loudest partisans, you’ll find something quite remarkable. All over the country, ordinary Americans are making heartfelt efforts to “reach across the aisle,” “understand the other side,” and “empathize with each other’s humanity”. This may all seem pie-in-the-sky—or like a BandAid for bullet wounds—but a prodigious body of evidence shows that when individuals from different groups actually get to know one another as human beings, tremendous progress can be made. (2018, p. 198)

As one example, Chua points out the rapid rise in acceptance of same-sex marriage in the United States. As recently as 1988, only about one in ten Americans (11%) expressed support for same-sex marriage, which has risen to six in ten today (Pew Research Center, 2019b). Chief among the factors that have contributed to this seismic shift is knowing someone who is gay. In 1985, only about one in four (24%) Americans reported having a gay relative, friend, or coworker. In 2016, nearly nine in ten Americans (87%) reported knowing someone who is gay (Chua, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2016). Psychology Professor Steven Pinker (2018) finds political hope in the decisions of policymakers. He makes an observation surprising to many—that evidence-based policy is flourishing. Policymakers are incorporating research evidence into the design of many public policies that are achieving more social benefits at less cost. Pinker provides countless examples of how ideas and our collective ingenuity have successfully dealt with so many daunting societal problems. He then asks (and answers) his own question about how reasonable it is to hope for continuing progress in the future: I can present this optimistic vision without blushing because it is not a naïve reverie or sunny aspiration. It’s the view of the future that is most grounded in historical reality, the one with the cold, hard facts on its side. It depends only on the possibility that what has already happened will continue to happen. As Thomas Macaulay reflected in 1830: On what principle is it, that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us? (2018, p. 327)

What We Can Learn From Theologians About Political Hope Theology speaks to human hope in a way that can inform political hope. For theologian Douglas John Hall, hope begins with realism. In the Anglo-Saxon societies of the West, success stories like those of the Seminars mentioned earlier, are often viewed with suspicion and thought to be believed only by the “naïve or the willfully uniformed” (2005, p. 72).

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

369

Theologians warn that hope is no more than “happy talk” if it minimizes the troubles underlying most successes. Becoming a person of hope entails “taking in the negative” without being “wholly debilitated” by it (Hall, 2005, p. 57). Hall contends that hopeful people must keep “their eyes wide open” (2005, p. 72) with no need to sugar coat or lie about anything the eye can identify (Hall, 1998). Real hope names what is wrong with the world and has the courage to assume responsibility for making it right. Cheap hope is a thinly veiled excuse for doing nothing and avoiding the hard work, the planning, and the inevitable self-doubt that comes with taking action. Even when facing doubt and uncertainty, a hopeful person is motivated by the call to serve others, even in small ways that can seem minor. Yet many small actions on several fronts can combine into something significant (Hall, 1998). Theologians also point out pitfalls of hope in “winner” societies like the United States that want an “instant” resolution to everything. The natural tendency of a winner society is to think positive, to eliminate the negative, and to bury the ambiguous. This discomfort with ambiguity fuels a desire for closure. Closure can be problematic in an iterative process like policymaking that is not structured to produce instant outcomes. In a democracy, decision-making is a negotiated process where no single person wields a disproportionate influence on the outcome and where political consensus can take time to achieve (Stone, 2012). The search for an instant resolution can lead to the unrelenting desire to “do something” to get it over with. This desire to do anything can be dangerous when those in power hold extreme and destructive ideologies. The Nazis and Marxists-Leninists are prime examples (Hall, 2005). Theologians advise taking a long-term perspective, which maps well onto the deliberative nature of political hope in a democracy. As eloquently stated by Reinhold Niebuhr, “Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history” (2008, p. 63).

What We Can Learn From Naturalists About Political Hope Despite all the harm that has been inflicted on the planet, Goodall holds onto hope that policymakers may be able to address the politically contentious issue of climate change. Goodall believes there still is a window of opportunity, if we but seize it, to slow down climate change and heal the planet (Goodall & Abrams, 2021). Goodall remains hopeful because we do not yet know all that nature can teach us. She frequently refers to the thinking of Albert Einstein, “The harmony of natural law … reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant

370

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

reflection” (2023, p. 22). Goodall also describes how nature can be a source of resilience that can create hope: There’s a kind of built-in resilience—as when spring brings forth leaves after a bitter winter of snow and ice, or the desert blooms after even a tiny amount of rain falls. And there are seeds that can germinate after lying dormant for many years. They contain that tiny spark of life just waiting for the right conditions to release its power. (Goodall & Abrams, 2021, p. 80)

Just as a seed might remain dormant for years, a political idea may require time for fertilization and germination before it bears fruit. In her recent book on hope, Goodall explains that just as humans have worked to protect the well-being of nature, nature has served to protect human well-being (Goodall & Abrams, 2021). Following the death of her husband, Goodall explained that nature helped restore her hope during a time of hopelessness. One thing that helped her through the grieving process was the forest. The forest brought her a sense of peace and a reminder of the cycle of life and death. She also was comforted by the companionship of her dog, who slept on her bed each night. Goodall draws strength from the strong will of animals to live. She mentioned, in particular, the resilience of rats and cockroaches. She claims that we can learn from these resilient creatures how to take advantage of opportunities and adapt to one’s environment. Rats and cockroaches have done this so well that they have spread across the world. In the animal and plant species, it is times of disaster or danger when the horizon seems darkest that have brought forth the most adaptation and resilience The same may be said of adaptation in the human species: “Bad times make policy makers open to new ideas” (COSSA, 2012). During bad times, it is nature itself that can be the source of serenity. In Goodall’s words: “There’s lot of research proving this, but …. I need time in nature—even if it’s just sitting under a tree or walking in these woods or hearing a bird’s song—to give me peace of mind in a crazy world” (Goodall & Abrams, 2021, p. 104). On those days when she feels depressed, Goodall also draws hope from the human inhabitants of the planet. She reflects on the courageous actions of people, who have taken steps large and small and, in so doing, have inspired others. In her words, “Hope is contagious” (Goodall & Abrams, 2021, p. xiv).

What We Can Learn From Policymakers About Political Hope What can be learned about hope from policymakers? What specific advice can they offer from the vantage point of being inside the political arena? Think for a moment about the burdens elected officials face and the fortitude it takes to confront them: I doubt if it would be possible to overestimate the tremendous burden felt today by persons in public office when they are conscientious and sincere. So many perils to

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

371

be averted, so many different historical exigencies to be planned for, and so far in advance, and so many forces at work against concerted and well-meaning human effort to ensure the triumph of the good. (Hall, 1998, p. 95)

Yet policymakers and those who work closely with them express hope, as illustrated in the quotes at the beginning of this chapter. Undoubtedly, there are many reasons for this hopefulness. One reason may be the inner fortitude that it takes to get elected, according to a long-time legislative analyst in our study: One thing, you’re getting $50,000 …. And even if you get some per diem and stuff, you’re not getting rich …. Boy, you’re campaigning all the time, knocking on doors …. And the other thing, with all the social media and stuff, everybody checks everything in your background. I mean any little thing that you did when you were in high school, “Boom, it just blows up!” Who wants to put their families and themselves through that?

Policymakers likely would not run for office without a healthy dose of hope that they could get elected and that, if elected, they could make a difference. Hope was tied to action by Eleanor Roosevelt, who served as First Lady of the United States from 1933 to 1945: Surely, in the light of history, it is more intelligent to hope rather than to fear, to try rather than not to try. For one thing we know beyond all doubt: Nothing has ever been achieved by the person who says, ‘It can’t be done’. (1960, p. 168)

Contemporary activists, like Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, also tie hope to action. Navalny was described as being a hopeful person by one of the producers of the Academy-Award winning documentary on his poisoning: “Navalny is someone who is filled with hope. I think it is hope that keeps him …. going, hope for a better future, hope and action together, that’s what he believes in” (Washington Post Live, 2023). Debate continues about whether we can count on policymakers to act on these lofty words. Take, for instance, the reservations expressed by environmental activist Greta Thunberg at the 2019 World Economic Forum: Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act … I want you to act as if our house is on fire. (Thunberg, 2019)

When Jane Goodall was asked about Thunberg’s repudiation of hope, she responded, “Our house is on fire. But if we don’t have hope that we can put the fire out, we will give up. It’s not hope or fear or anger. We need them all” (Goodall & Abrams, 2021, p. 127).

372

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

Similar advice was offered by someone who speaks, not from the sidelines but from inside the political arena. Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin served as an ambassador to Switzerland and was the first woman in the United States ever to be elected three times as governor. Based on her years of experience, Kunin (2012) offered specific advice about the attributes it takes to advance public policy. To make policy change takes anger, imagination, and optimism. All three of these attributes were apparent in the family policy activists described in Chapter 1. Anger

Policy activism often starts with a healthy “dose” of anger (Kunin, 2012, p. 15). Activism begins when you find yourself saying, “This isn’t right. Something ought to be done about it.” As detailed in Chapter 1, activists in Hong Kong organized rallies and sit-ins when a new civics education curriculum required controversial components, such as praising the Communist Party. The Black Lives Matter movement first began in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who was accused of the murder of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager who was returning from a walk to a convenience store. The movement for independent living began when paraplegic Ed Roberts was denied a high school diploma because he had failed to complete the requirements for driver training and physical education. Kunin (2012) cautions that the level of anger must be “just right” (p. 6). With too much anger, one turns to violence, believing that the only real alternative is destroying the system. With too little anger, one can sink into despair and hopelessness, believing that nothing can be done. What serves to spark the right amount of anger? In studies, thinking about politics and civic engagement takes shape during the teenage years. One example of the development of political consciousness is when racial/ethnic minority youth experience an incident of prejudice. Being discriminated against appeared to elevate the importance that youth attached to civic participation, perhaps because it made clear the connection between the personal and the political (Flanagan, 2013). Imagination

To accomplish change, you must imagine it (Kunin, 2012). Several activists who imagined change were described in Chapter 1. In 1951, it was a 16-year-old student who envisioned a world in which Black and White children were educated together in the same classroom. In 1975, a dream that Ed Roberts once had came true when Governor Jerry Brown appointed him head of California’s Department of Rehabilitation, the first person with a disability to ever lead the agency. In 1991, a university student had the imagination to conceive of a campus and a city that banned smoking in public restaurants. His imagination inspired others to envision a smoking ban that eventually extended to all public places in every corner of his state. Building family policy requires imagining a different world for families than exists today. As described in Chapter 3, can you imagine the United States providing one year of

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

373

universal, free preschool education as exists in 37 of the 38 advanced nations that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Can you envision the United States providing 17.3 weeks of paid family leave, which is the average in 37 of the 38 most advanced nations in the world? Can you dream of a time when families in the United States know that child care for their first baby will cost no more than 3% of their income, as currently exists in Sweden? In Kunin’s memorable words, we need to take responsibility for turning our “daydreams” into the “American dream” (2012, p. 255). Our responsibility to elevate the needs of families looms large. Families engrossed in the day-to-day grind of balancing work and family commitments may not have the time or energy for daydreaming about how their lives could be different (Kunin, 2012). Those perilously positioned on the periphery of society have the least power and the most need for someone to speak out on their behalf. Of relevance to family policy, people’s ability to imagine change was shaped by their own families. Youth were far more likely to trust other people and to imagine participating in a democratic society if their families embraced and empathized with these ideals. Family values on social trust and civic participation appear to be passed down from one generation to the next (Flanagan, 2013). Optimism

Policy change requires optimism. “If we believe that our words and our actions will make a difference, we will find the strength to speak and to act (Kunin, 2012, p. 16). For example, most political pundits were sure that protesting against powerful forces to end collective bargaining in Wisconsin was a fool’s mission but not the students (Nichols, 2012). One week after the first student rally, over 100,000 people joined the protests at the state Capitol that eventually reached every state in the nation. A mother in Canada had the courage to refuse to participate in the Census until the federal government recognized the unpaid labor that parents provided to their children and families. Her refusal put her at risk of fines or jail time. Despite how hard it is, Kunin (2012) advises that we cling to optimism and not be conquered by despair and desperation. Speaking from years of political experience: “The hardest time to create change may be the best time to create change because the need for it is clear” (p. 256).

What We Can Learn From Novelists About Political Hope For me, bringing to mind the policymakers I know and the stories of Family Impact Seminar successes bring hope. I have been inspired by private philanthropists like Phyllis M. Northway and her husband, Don, who believed enough in the Seminars to

374

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

invest their personal savings in an endowment to support them. Readers without these sources of inspiration may need to turn to novels for a story to inspire them. One of my favorite stories of hope was also a favorite of naturalist Jane Goodall—Lord of the Rings by J. R. Tolkien (1986). In the Middle Earth, as today, there was plenty of darkness and uncertainty on the horizon. There were perils everywhere—armies of orcs on the ground, Black Riders in the skies, giant spiders in the mountain passes, and the penetrating eye of Sauron that few could endure. The Fellowship of the Ring made plans for how to destroy the “One Ring” that could rule them all, so it did not fall into the hands of the Dark Lord. They chose two small hobbits from the Shire to carry the ring to the Mount of Doom in Mordor where it could be destroyed. The hobbits were not the strongest members of the Fellowship. They were not the smartest. They were not the most talented. But they had big hearts committed to a common cause and stout souls that could resist being corrupted by the allure of power or fame. They could be trusted to pursue the mission, whatever setbacks might befall them. Importantly, they did not act alone. They were guided by the Fellowship of the Ring, which was led by the wizard, Gandalf the Great. They benefited from the talents brought to bear by their comrades—the eagles, the Ents, the Elves, and even by Gollum who wanted “The Precious” for his own. Like Frodo and Sam, people of hope must unite and act with courage in their time. In the wise words of a wizard: “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. ”So do I,” said Gandalf, so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. (J. R. Tolkien, 1986, p. 51)

The lesson from this story from Middle Earth remains relevant today. Time will tell whether Lord of the Rings was right that engaging successfully against all odds need not depend on being the strongest nor the smartest nor the most talented. Experiential evidence is emerging from a cadre of “humble hobbits” who have stepped up in their time to enter the policy arena. Think of Greta Thunberg, the courageous Swedish activist who at age 15 sat outside the Swedish parliament with a sign that said “School Strike for Climate.” Think of Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan, who was shot in the head by the Taliban for her activism. Undaunted, she continued her advocacy for girl’s right to an education, and eventually became the youngest person ever to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Summary Political pessimism is one of the greatest threats of our time, perhaps even greater than global conflicts, melting icecaps, and rising income inequality. A lack of political hope exacerbates these dangers and others, and breeds pessimism among professionals that engaging policymakers is worthy of their time and effort. This chapter addresses how people of action can create political hope by taking on the perils, no matter how powerful or perplexing or persistent. The successes of the Family Impact Seminars illustrate that

GO FORTH WITH HOPE

375

much can be gained by bringing researchers and policymakers together to consider new evidence-based approaches to public policy. The thinking and writing of researchers, theologians, naturalists, policymakers, and novelists shed light on how we can bring hope to the policy causes we care about. • Researchers observe reasons for hope in studies of its effectiveness in the actions of people and of policymakers. Ordinary Americans are reaching across the political divide to come to better know and understand those who voted differently than they did in the last election. Policymakers too are coming together around common causes. Evidence-based policy is flourishing. More social benefits are being achieved with fewer tax dollars being spent. • Theologians warn that hope is no more than “happy” talk if it emphasizes only the positive and minimizes the troubles underlying most successes. Real hope names what is wrong with the world. Real hope acts on behalf of others, even when the outcomes are ambiguous, uncertain, and can take time to achieve. • Naturalists find nature to be a source of resilience that can create hope and also restore hope during times of hopelessness. Just as resilient creatures adapt during dark times, policymakers may be more open to new ideas during dark times. • Policymakers offer specific advice that making policy change takes anger, imagination, and optimism, all three. It takes the right amount of anger that something can be done. It takes imagining a different world for families than exists today. It takes clinging to optimism even during times of despair and desperation. • Novelists provide captivating tales of heroes who succeed against all odds without being the strongest or the smartest or the most talented. What people of hope need is a big heart and a stout soul. People of hope can be humble hobbits who act in their time with a single-minded commitment to the cause and without being corrupted by thoughts of power or fame.

I close with words of a politician that are so inspiring to me that I carry them along to every Family Impact Seminar and every policy presentation. These words were part of a speech given by one of my heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, who was the 26th President of the United States. When Roosevelt first uttered these words in 1910, they struck such a chord that they were reprinted in a pocket-book edition that sold 5,000 copies in five days: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. (Morris, 2010, p. 47)

376

H O W P R O F E S S I O N A L S C A N M A K E FA M I L I E S M AT T E R I N P O L I C Y M A K I N G

This book ends with a challenge to the reader using the familiar words of T. S. Eliot (n.d.): What we call the beginning is often the end. To make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.

Go forth with hope to write the new story of family policy! Let’s join together in the cause of our time—pursuing new possibilities for families in all their diversity across the lifespan.

377

REFERENCES A conversation with Richard Sennett. (1981, April 27). You cannot ever make people enjoy being ruled. U.S. News & World Report, 79. Abare, R. (2019, May 8). Three persistent myths about school integration, 65 years after Brown v. Board. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/ three-persistent-myths-about-school-integration-65-years-after-brown-v-board Abbott, P., & D’Ambruoso, L. (2018, December 7). Challenges and opportunities for increased policy recognition of family and child health and wellbeing within the USA and internationally. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3297663 Abramowitz, J. (2016). Saying, “I don’t”: The effect of the affordable care act young adult provision on marriage. The Journal of Human Resources, 51(4), 933–960. http://www. jstor.org/stable/26449879 Adams, B. (1995, Fall). Building a new political environment. The Kettering Review, 16–21. Adema, W., Clarke, C., & Thévenon, O. (2020). Family policies and family outcomes in OECD countries. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 193–217). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_9 Aerts, E., Marx, I., & Parolin, Z. (2022). Income support policies for single parents in Europe and the United States: What works best? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 55–76. https://doi. org/10.1177/00027162221120448 Aguirre, M. S. (2006). Marriage and the family in economic theory and policy. Ave Maria Law Review, 435. Albaek, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making. Policy Sciences, 28, 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000821 Alberts, M., Cadigan, K., & Benning, S. (2010). Policymaking through an ecological and family impact lens. In Evidence-informed policymaking: Improving accountability and outcomes for children, youth, and families, 2010 Minnesota Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report, pp. 2–3. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/ research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/ Aldous, J., & Dumon, W. (1990). Family policy in the 1980s: Controversy and consensus. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1136–1151. Aldous, J., Dumon, W., & Johnson, K. (1980). The politics and programs of family policy: United States and European perspectives. University of Notre Dame Press/Leuven University Press. Allen, K. R., & Henderson, A. C. (2022). Family theorizing for social justice: A critical praxis. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(3), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12450 Alstott, A. L. (2013). Updating the welfare state: Marriage, the income tax, and social security in the age of individualism. Tax Law Review, 66, 695–760. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737. 2010.00723.x Amato, P. R. (2015, Winter). Diversity, ideology, and family science. Family Focus. National Council on Family Relations. https://www.ncfr.org/system/files/2017-08/winter_2015_ report_news_0.pdf American Bar Association. (2022, October 21). IRS finalizes rule fixing the “family glitch” for ACA health insurance coverage. ABA. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/

378

REFERENCES

health_law/section-news/2022/october/irs-finalizes-rule-fixing-the-family-glitch/#:~: text=The%20final%20rule%20eliminates%20the,the%20cost%20of%20the%20employee American Medical Association. (2010). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Overview of major provisions relating to coverage. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjmod3Mwbe CAxWCJ0QIHUirCIsQFnoECB4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ama-assn.org%2Fm edia%2F7221%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw1-ajrUjVRc2tqwEhKqnP97&opi=89978449 American Rescue Plan. (n.d.). Administration for children and families. Retrieved April 28, 2022, from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/american-rescue-plan Anderson, E. (1995). Family policy. In D. Levinson (Ed.), The encyclopedia of marriage and the family (pp. 269–275). Macmillan. Anderson, E. A. (2019). Family policy: Rooted in inequities, striving for social justice. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12320 Anderson, C., & Bogenschneider, K. (2007). A policymaker’s guide to effective juvenile justice programs: How important are family approaches? In K. Bogenschneider & H. Normandin (Eds.), Cost-effective approaches in juvenile and adult corrections: What works? What doesn’t? Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report No. 25, pp. 25–33. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/ family-impact-institute/ Andrews, E., & Roque, L. (2023, January). Despite surge in organizing, union membership rates dropped in 2022. CLASP. https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/ union-density-membership-data-2022 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2022, August 8). 2022 kids count data book: 2022 state trends in child well-being. Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://www.aecf.org/ resources/2022-kids-count-data-book Aos, S. (2007). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce criminal justice costs and crime rates. In K. Bogenschneider & H. Normandin (Eds.), Cost-effective approaches in juvenile and adult corrections: What works? What doesn’t? Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar Briefing Report No. 25, pp. 13–23. at the https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/ what-we-do/research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/ Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidenced-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Appleby, P. (2020, November 2). SeniorCare advisory committee & public meeting. [Powerpoint]. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. https://dhs.wisconsin.gov/ seniorcare/presentation-2nov2020.pdf Ascend (2016, October 12). Whole family approaches: A global conversation. Aspen Institute. https://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/whole-family-approaches-a-global-conversation/ Asen, E. (2021, February 24). Insights into the tax systems of Scandinavian countries. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/scandinavian-countries-taxes-2021/ Atkinson, J. (2011, December 1). The rights of grandparents. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/senior_lawyers/publications/voice_of_experience/ 2011/winter/the-rights-of-grandparents/ Ayatollah Khamenei Announces General Policies on Family. (2016, September 3). Khamenei.ir. https://english.khamenei.ir/news/4132/Ayatollah-Khamenei-Announces-GeneralPolicies-on-Family Azevdo-McCaffrey & Safawi, A., (2022, Jan. 12). To promote equity, state should invest more TANF dollars in basic assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://www.cbpp.org/research/income-security/ to-promote-equity-states-should-invest-more-tanf-dollars-in-basic

REFERENCES

379

Badger, E., & Cain Miller, C. (2018, June 24). Americans love families. American policies don’t. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/upshot/americans-love-familiesamerican-policies-dont.html Bakst, D. (2018, April 16). What you should know about who receives farm subsidies. Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/what-you-shouldknow-about-who-receives-farm-subsidies Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. Barber, C. E. (2013). Viewing the national family caregiver support program through the family impact lens. Family Science Review, 18(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.26536/ FSR.2013.18.01.05 Barber, E. (2014, November 27). Hong Kong student leader Joshua Wong charged with obstruction. Time. https://time.com/3608696/occupy-hong-kong-joshua-wong-mongkok-obstruction/ Barber, M., & McCarty, N. (2013). Causes and consequences of polarization. In J. Mansbridge & C. J. Martin (Eds.), Negotiating agreement in politics: Report of the task force on negotiating agreement in politics (pp. 19–53). American Political Science Association. Barrows, R. (1994). Public policy education. North Central Regional Extension Publications. Bartik, T. (2006). The economic development benefits of universal preschool education compared to traditional economic development programs. W. E. Upjohn Institute. Bartova, A., Otto, A., & Van Lancker, W. (2022). Making parental leave policies work for single mothers: Lessons from Europe. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00027162221134445 Barzallo, D. P., Hernandez, R., Brach, M., & Gemperli, A. (2022). The economic value of long-term family caregiving. The situation of caregivers of persons with spinal cord injury in Switzerland. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30, e2297–e2307. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13668 Bayme, S. (1991). A new synthesis on family policy? Family Affairs, 4(1–2), 14. 14. Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., Hart, D., Mannix, H., McGreavy, B., Parris, A., Posner, S., Robinson, C., Ryan, M., & Leith, P. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science-policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9 Begall, K., & Van der Lippe, T. (2020). The educational gradient in company-level family policies. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 575–602). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03054618-2_22 Belkin, L. (2000, July 23). The backlash against children. New York Times Magazine, pp. 30–35, 42, 56, 60-62. Bellah, R. N. (1990). The invasion of the money world. In D. Blankenhorn, S. Bayme, & J. B. Elshtain (Eds.), Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment to the American family (pp. 227–236). Family Service America. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. University of California Press. (Original work published 1985) Bengtson, V., & Boss, P. (2000). What living longer means to families. In A. Showalter-Loch (Ed.), Public policy through a family lens: Sustaining families in the 21st century (pp. 16–18). National Council on Family Relations.

380

REFERENCES

Berger, L. M., & Carlson, M. J. (2020). Family policy and complex contemporary families: A decade in review and implications for the next decade of research and policy practice. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 478–507. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/ jomf.12650 Berlin, G. L. (2007, May). Investing in parents to invest in children. Presentation at the National Summit on America’s Children, MDRC. Berlin, G. L. (2008). Poverty and philanthropy: Strategies for change. MDRC. Berry, W. (1972). A continuous harmony: Essays cultural and agricultural. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. Bhutta, N., Chang, A. C., Dettling, L. J., & Hsu, J. W. (2020). Disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity in the 2019 survey of consumer finances. FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.2797 Bianchi, S. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-3737.2010.00726.x Bimber, B. (1996). The politics of expertise in Congress: The rise and fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. State University of New York Press. Black Lives Matter. (n.d.). Herstory. Black Lives Matter. https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/ Black, K., & Lobo, M. (2008). A conceptual review of family resilience factors. Journal of Family Nursing, 14(1), 33–55. Blankenhorn, D. (1988a). Cosby for president? Family Affairs, 1(1), 1–6. Blankenhorn, D. (1988b). What are “family values” anyway? Family Affairs, 1(2), 6. Blankenhorn, D. (1990). American family dilemmas. In D. Blankenhorn, S. Bayme, & J. Elshtain (Eds.), Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment to the American family (pp. 3–25). Family Service America. Bleijenbergh, I., Bussemaker, J., & de Bruijn, J. (2006). Trading well-being for economic efficiency: The 1990 shift in EU childcare policies. In L. Hass & S. K. Wisensale (Eds.), Families and social policy: National and international perspectives (pp. 315–338). The Haworth Press, Inc. Boesak, A. A. (2015). Comfort and protest: The apocalypse of John from a South African perspective. Wipf and Stock. Bogenschneider, B. (2015). Income inequality and regressive taxation in the United States. Interdisciplinary Journal of Economics and Business Law, 8)(19), 8–28. Bogenschneider, B. N. (2017). A “fool” and his sugar-sweetened beverage are soon taxed. Liverpool Law Review, 38, 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-017-9199-1 Bogenschneider, B. N. (2020). How America was tricked on tax policy: Secrets and undisclosed practices. Anthem Press. Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relations, 45, 127–138. Bogenschneider, K. (1997). Parental involvement in adolescent schooling: A proximal process with transcontextual validity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 718–733. Bogenschneider, K. (2000). Has family policy come of age? A decade review of the state of U.S. family policy in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1136–1159. Bogenschneider, K. (2014). Family policy matters: How policymaking affects families and what professionals can do. Routledge. Bogenschneider, K. (2015). Invited Commentary: The research evidence policymakers need to build better public policy for children of incarcerated parents. In J. Poelhmann-Tynan (Ed.), Children’s contact with incarcerated parents: Implications for

REFERENCES

381

policy and intervention, (pp. 93–113). American Psychological Association. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-16625-4_6 Bogenschneider, K. (2020). Positioning universities as honest knowledge brokers: Best practices for communicating research to policymakers. Family Relations, 67(3), 628–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12339 Bogenschneider, K. (2021). The field of family policy rests on the visionary shoulders of vice president Walter Mondale. NCFR Report. Bogenschneider, B., & Bogenschneider, K. (2016). An evidence-based approach to family in tax policy. Gonzaga Law Review, 51(2), 283–327. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2791940 Bogenschneider, K., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2020). Empirical evidence from state legislators: How, when, and who uses research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000232 Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. (2010). Family policy: Becoming a field of inquiry and subfield of social policy. [Invited family policy decade review]. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00730.x Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. (2021). Evidence-based policymaking: Envisioning a new era of research, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge Books, Taylor & Francis Group. Bogenschneider, K., Corbett, T. J., & Parrott, E. (2019). Realizing the promise of research in policymaking: Theoretical guidance grounded in policymaker perspectives. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12310 Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2021). A window into youth and family policy: State policymaker views on polarization and research utilization. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000681 Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2022). When policymakers are asked: Why and how polarization varies across states. Online first publication. Political Research Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221113777 Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Parrott, E. (2019). Revisiting theory on research use: Turning to policymakers for fresh insights. American Psychologist, 74(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000460 Bogenschneider, K., & Gross, E. (2004). From ivory tower to state house: How youth theory can inform youth policy making. Family Relations, 53, 21–26. Bogenschneider, K., & Little, O. (2012, November). Advancing the family impact lens with policymakers and professionals. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting, Phoenix, AZ. Bogenschneider, K., Little, O. M., & Johnson, K. (2013). Policymakers’ use of social science research: Looking within and across policy actors. Journal of Marriage and Family 75, 263–275. doi:10.1111/jomf.12009 Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., & Cadigan, K. (2012a) The family impact handbook: How to view policy and practice through the family impact lens. Family Impact Institute. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2023/04/The-Family-Impact-Handbook-How-to-View-Policy-and-Program-Throughthe-Family-Impact-Lens.pdf Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S. & Cadigan, K. (2012b) The family impact rationale: An evidence base for the family impact lens. Family Impact Institute. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/The-Family-ImpactRationale-An-Evidence-Base-for-the-Family-Impact-Lens.pdf Bogenschneider, K., Little, O., Ooms, T., Benning, S., Cadigan, K., & Corbett, T. (2012). The family impact lens: A family-focused, evidence-informed approach to policy and practice. Family Relations. 61, 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729. 2012.00704.x

382

REFERENCES

Bogenschneider, K., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2019). Fast-forward to the next frontier of family policy. [Co-editor introduction to special issue on family policy.] Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12322 Bogenschneider, K., & Pallock, L. (2008). Responsiveness in parent/adolescent relationships: Are influences conditional? Does the reporter matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1015–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00543.x Bogenschneider, K., Shager, H., Little, O., & Eddy, S. (2017). Connecting research and policy: The story of a Wisconsin family impact seminar on jobs. In J. Owen & A. Larson (Eds.), Researcher – Policymaker collaboration: Strategies for launching and sustaining successful partnerships (pp. 102–120). Routledge Books, Taylor and Francis Group. Bogenschneider, K., Young, R., Melli, M., & Fleming, M. (1993). Building policies that put families first: A Wisconsin perspective (Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report No. 1). https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/ research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/ Boorstin, D. J. (1985). The discoverer’s: A history of man’s search to know his world and himself. Random House. Boushey, H. (2011). The role of the government in work-family conflict. The Future of Children, 21(2), 63–190. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ944937.pdf Boushey, H. (2016). Finding time: The economics of work-life conflict. Harvard University Press. Bowling Today. (2021). BowlingSeriously.com. https://www.bowlingseriously.com/bowlingtoday.html Boyd-Franklin, N. (2003). Race, class, and poverty. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 260–279). Guilford Press. Braiker, B. (2003, May 22). Q & A: His brother’s keeper. Newsweek. https://www. newsweek.com/qampa-his-brothers-keeper-137399 Bramanti, D. (2013). Tackling adolescent substance abuse: Lombardy’s project as an example of LifeSkills training. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(3), 19–44. Braveman, P. A., Arkin, E., Proctor, D., Kauh, T., & Holm, N. (2022, February). Systemic and structural racism: Definitions, examples, health damages, and approaches to dismantling. Health Affairs, 41(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394 Braver Angels. (2021, June 27). Braver Angels goes to Washington, testifies at hearing to Depolarize Congress. https://braverangels.org/braver-angels-goes-to-washingtontestifies-at-hearing-to-depolarize-congress/ Breckler, S. J. (2006). Crossing the line. Monitor on Psychology, 37(11), 22. Bredehoft, D. J. (2009). The framework for life span family life education revisited and revised. In M. J. Walcheski & D. J. Bredehoft (Eds.), Family life education: Integrating theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–10). National Council on Family Relations. Brito, N. H., Werchan, D., Brandes-Aitken, A., Yoshikawa, H., Greaves, A., & Zhang, M. (2022). Paid maternal leave is associated with infant brain function at 3 months of age. Child Development, 93(4), 1030–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13765 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986, May). A generation in jeopardy: America’s hidden family policy. Testimony presented at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on a resolution to establish a Select Committee on Families, Youth and Children, Washington, DC. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Weiss, H. B. (1983). Beyond policies without people: An ecological perspective on child and family policy. In E. F. Zigler, S. L. Kagan, & E. Klugman (Eds.), Children, families, and government: Perspectives on American social policy (pp. 393–414). Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

383

Brooks, A. (2016) Markets and the poor. [Presentation.] New Perspective Seminar Series, Institute for Research on Poverty, Madison, Wisconsin. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=XAl6hkYi3c4 Brooks, A. C. (2019). Love your enemies: How decent people can save America from the culture of contempt. Broadside Books. Brooks, D. (2020, March). The nuclear family was a mistake. Atlantic. https://www.the atlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/ Brown, T. L. (2018, August 24). Celebrate women’s suffrage, but don’t whitewash the movement’s racism. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/celebratewomens-suffrage-dont-whitewash-movements-racism Brown, J. D., Barrett, K., Ireys, H. T., Allen, K., Pires, S. A., & Blau, G. (2010). Family-driven youth-guided practices in residential treatment: Findings from a national survey of residential treatment facilities. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 27, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2010.500137 Browne, W. P. (1999). Studying interests and policy from the inside. Policy Studies Journal, 27(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1999.tb01953.x Brownell, K. (2011, October 24). Meet big soda—as bad as big tobacco: The beverage industry is resorting to dirty tactics to prevent taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks. Time. https://ideas.time.com/2011/10/24/meet-big-soda-as-bad-as-big-tobacco/ Brown, S., Roy, R., & Klerman, J. A. (2020). Leave experiences of low-wage workers. U.S. Department of Labor, Chief Evaluation Office, Abt Associates. https://www.dol.gov/ sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/WHD_FMLA_LowWageWorkers_January 2021.pdf Browning, D. S., & Rodriguez, G. G. (2002). Reweaving the social tapestry: Toward a public philosophy and policy for families. W. W. Norton & Company. Brueggemann, W. (2018). A gospel of hope. WestMinster John Knox Press. Buchanan, L., Bui, Q., & Patel, J. K. (2020, July 3). Black Lives Matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/ 07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What’s happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27, 483–498. Bureau of Family Health, PA Department of Health. (2011). Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Program: Program report on screening and follow-up for 2009 births. Author. Burke, E. (1968). Reflections on the Revolution in France. Penguin. Burton, L. M., Bonilla-Silva, E., Ray, V., Buckelew, E., & Freeman, H. (2010). Critical race theories, colorism, and the decade’s research on families of color. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00712.x Butterfield, A. K., Rocha, C. J., & Butterfield, W. H. (2010). The dynamics of family policy. Lyceum Books. Cabrera, N., Deming, D., de Rugy, V., Gennetian, L. A., Haskins, R., Matthew, D. B., Reeves, R. V., Sawhill, I. V., Schanzenbach, D. W., Simon, K., Stevens, K. B., Strain, M. R., Streeter, R., Sullivan, J., Wilcox, W. B., & Bauer, L. (2022, February 8). Rebalancing: Children first. A report of the AEI-Brookings working group on childhood in the United States. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ES_20220228_ Rebalancing_Children_First.pdf Cairns, R. B. (1983). The emergence of developmental psychology. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 41–102). Wiley. Cameron, D. (2011, August 15). Full transcript: David Cameron: Speech on the fight-back after the riots. New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2011/08/societyfight-work-rights

384

REFERENCES

Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2017, June 21). Economic briefs- Summer 2017. https://cupe.ca/economic-briefs-summer-2017 Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2022, September 28). Sector profile: Child care. https://cupe.ca/sector-profile-child-care Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470. Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. L. (2016). Political competition partisanship and interpersonal trust in electoral democracies. British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 115–139. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000526 Carlson, A. (2001). Theodore Roosevelt’s new politics of the American family. Family in America, 15(10), 1–8. Carlson, A. (2002a). Hyphenates, hausfraus, and baby-saving: The peculiar legacy of German-America. Family in America, 16(1–2), 1–20. Carlson, A. (2002b). “Sanctif[ying] the traditional family”: The New Deal and national solidarity. Family in America, 16(5), 1–12. Carr, D., & Utz, R. L. (2020). Families in later life: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12609 Carrà, E. (2013). “Putting family first”: A sociological analysis of Doherty’s citizen professionalism and participatory approaches. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(3), 127–146. Carrà, E. (2017). Family associations as social capital for families and society. Socialine˙ Teorija, Empirija, Politika Ir Praktika, 14, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.15388/STEPP.2017. 14.10413 Carroll, A. E. (2014, December 29). Health law helped adults. Now, what about children? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/upshot/health-law-helpedadults-now-what-about-children.html Carter-Long, L. (2013, January 23). Disability activist Ed Roberts on “60 Minutes” with Harry Reasoner. [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxidR5SZXxA Casseman, B., & DePillis, L. (2023, Sept. 12). Poverty rates soared in 2022 as aid ended and prices rose. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/business/ economy/income-poverty-health-insurance.html Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2023, April 28). Policy basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit. Retrieved July 31, 2023 from https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ the-earned-income-tax-credit Center for Independent Living – Berkeley. (2018, January 10). Ed Roberts: "About Ed" from Ed Roberts Day 2018 [Video.] Youtube. https://youtu.be/KMYDoCr5lEg Center for the Study of Social Policy. (2008). Policy matters—2008 data update: Twenty state policies to enhance states’ prosperity and create bright futures for America’s children, families and communities. https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED536816/page/n5/mode/2up Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2007). A science-based framework for early childhood policy. Author. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, May 16). Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved on April 7, 2023 from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/ about.html Chamberlain, P., Moreland, S., & Reid, K. (1992). Enhanced services and stipends for foster parents: Effects on retention rates and outcomes for children. Child Welfare, 71, 387–401. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1991). Using a specialized foster care community treatment model for children and adolescents leaving the state mental hospital. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 266–276.

REFERENCES

385

Chan, M., Cheung, F., Lau, C., & Ma, T. F. (2021). Global trends in cross-cultural endorsement of social mobility: Evidence from 167 countries. American Psychologist, 76(6), 917–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000865 Chase-Lansdale, L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2014). Two-generation programs in the twenty-first century. The Future of Children, 24(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2014.0003 Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Schulz, A. J. (2022). The return of race science and why it matters for family science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(3), 442–462. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12472 Cheal, D. (1991). Family and the state of theory. University of Toronto Press. Cherlin, A. (2020a, February 12). David Brooks is urging us to go forward, not backward. Institute for Family Studies. https://ifstudies.org/blog/david-brooks-is-urging-us-togo-forward-not-backward Cherlin, A. (2020b). Degrees of change: An assessment of the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12605 Cherlin, A. J. (1997). What’s most important in a family textbook? Family Relations, 46, 209–211. Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. Alfred A. Knopf. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2010.00710.x Cherlin, A. J. (2019). Family policy today. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12315 Child Care Aware of America. (2021). Price of care: 2021 child care affordability analysis. https://info.childcareaware.org/hubfs/Child%20Care%20Affordability%20Analysis% 202021.pdf Chua, A. (2018). Political tribes: Group instinct and the fate of nations. Penguin Press. Chung, H. (2020). Company-level family policies: Who has access to it and what are some of its outcomes? In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 535–573). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_21 Clyde, T., & Hawkins, A. J. (2020). The “negative space” of premarital education: Policy efforts to meet the need. In T. G. Futris (Ed.), Family focus: Contouring family science’s negative spaces (pp. F9–F10). National Council on Family Relations. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2011). HHS’s Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home visiting program: Which program models identified by HHS as “evidencebased” are most likely to produce important improvements in the lives of children and parents? http://www.coalition4evidence.org/wp-content/uploads/Review-of-8-hvmodels-Aug-2011-FINAL.pdf Coalition of Family Organizations. (1988). Open letter to presidential candidates and public officials. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/ family-impact-institute/ Coalition of Family Organizations. (1989). Questions and answers about family-centered policymaking: A supplement to the open letter to presidential candidates and public officials. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/ family-impact-institute/ Coleman, M. (1993). Family research: A basis for survey design. In G. E. Hendershot & F. B. LeClere (Eds.), Family health: From data to policy (pp. 107–109). National Council on Family Relations. Collins, L. (2017, May 5). Emmanuel Macron and the modern family. New Yorker. https:// www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/emmanuel-macron-and-the-modernfamily

386

REFERENCES

Commager, H. S. (1950). The American mind: An interpretation of American thought and character since the 1880s. Yale University Press. Commons, J. R. (1934). Myself. The MacMillan Company. Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x Congressional Record. (2017, December 18). Recognize, assist, include, support, and engage family caregivers act of 2017; Congressional record vol. 163, No. 206. Retrieved on April 19, 2023 from https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/ volume-163/issue-206/house-section/article/H10148-11 Congressional Research Service. (2019, March 4). The first step act of 2018: An overview. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45558 Congressional Research Service. (2022, January 24). The expanded childless EITC and marriage penalties. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11843 Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J.-L., & Tremblay, E. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature, The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x Cooper, M., & Pugh, A. J. (2020). Families across the income spectrum: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12623 Cooper-White, P. (2022). The psychology of Christian nationalism: Why people are drawn in and how to talk across the divide. Fortress Press. Corbett, T. (1993). Child poverty and welfare reform: Progress or paralysis? Focus, 15(1), 1–46. Corbett, T. (2021). A wayward academic: Reflections from the policy trenches. Papertown Digital Solutions. Corbett, T., Burkett-Simms, C., Crandall, L., Howard, D., Le, N., Powers, P., Rabb, J., Rogers, J. J., Sells, S., Semmons, A., Snell, T., Titus-Cunningham, S., & Wulf, K. (1998). The Midwest welfare peer assistance network: Leading the nation beyond welfare reform. University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty. COSSA. (2012, December 10). Colloquium: The use and non-use of social/behavioral science research: An NRC report and a panel of examples. COSSA Washington Update, 31(22). Couch, K. A., Reznik, G. L., Tamborini, C. R., & Iams, H. M. (2017). The distributional impact of social security policy options. Research on Aging, 39(1), 135–165. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0164027516656140 Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2019a). Changing families: A preventive intervention perspective. Family Relations, 68(3), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12359 Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2019b). Enhancing parenting effectiveness, fathers’ involvement, couple relationship quality, and children’s development: Breaking down silos in family policy making and service delivery. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12301 Cox, A. (2015). Fresh air funds and functional families: The enduring politics of race, family and place in juvenile justice reform. Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 554–570. CQ Transcripts Wire. (2008, August 29). McCain Introduces Palin as Running Mate. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/ 08/29/AR2008082901882.html

REFERENCES

387

Crittenden, A. (2001). The price of motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued. Henry Holt. Crosnoe, R., & Cavanagh, S. E. (2010). Families with children and adolescents: A review, critique, and future agenda. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 594–611. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00720.x Crowley, D. M., Scott, J. T., Long, E. C., Green, L., Israel, A., Supplee, L., Jordan, E., Oliver, K., Guillot-Wright, S., Gay, B., Storace, R., Torres-Mackie, N., Murphy, Y., Donnay, S., Reardanz, J., Smith, R., McGuire, K., Baker, E., Antonopoulos, A., … Giray, C. (2021). Lawmakers’ use of scientific evidence can be improved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(9), e2012955118. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012955118 Crowley, M., Supplee, L., Scott, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2019). The role of psychology in evidence-based policymaking: Mapping opportunities for strategic investment in poverty reduction. American Psychologist, 74(6), 685–697. https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.1037/amp0000466 Daly, K. J. (2001). Deconstructing family time: From ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001. 00283.x Daly, M. (2020). Conceptualizing and analyzing family policy and how it is changing. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 25–41). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_2 Darling, C. A., Cassidy, D., & Rehm, M. (2019). The foundations of family life education model: Understanding the field. Family Relations, 69(3), 427–441. https://doi. org/10.1111/fare.12372 Daskaloudi, N. (2020, August 4). Childcare reforms in Chile: What’s being done. The Borgen Project. https://borgenproject.org/childcare-reforms-in-chile/ Dawson, V. (2015, March 13). Ed Roberts’ wheelchair records a story of obstacles overcome. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ ed-roberts-wheelchair-records-story-obstacles-overcome-180954531/ Day, E., MacDermid Wadsworth, S., Bogenschneider, K., & Thomas-Miller, J. (2019). When university researchers connect with policy: A framework for whether, when, and how to engage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jftr.12306 De Luca & Partners. (2022, June 3). Italy’s family act: New rules. SHRM. https://www.shrm. org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/italy-familyleave-law.aspx DeLoe, R. L. (2023, February 10). Custody and grandparents’ rights: Here’s what you need to know. LegalZoom. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/custody-and-grandparentsrights-heres-what-you-need-to-know Denker, A. (2022). Red state Christians: A journey into white Christian nationalism and the wreckage it leaves behind. Broadleaf Books. DeParle, J. (2012, July 14). Two classes, divided by ‘I do.’ The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html Dew, J., & Wilcox, W. B. (2012). Give and you shall receive? Generosity, sacrifice and marital quality. IFFD Paper No. 12. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1970016 Diamond, L. M., Alley, J., Dickenson, J., & Blair, K. L. (2020). Who counts as sexually fluid? Comparing four different types of sexual fluidity in women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(7), 2389–2403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01565-1 Dionne, E. J. (2004). Why Americans hate politics. Simon & Schuster.

388

REFERENCES

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764. Dodge, K. A. (2008). Framing public policy and prevention of chronic violence in American youths. American Psychologist, 63, 573–590. Doherty, W. J. (1995). Soul searching: Why psychotherapy must promote moral responsibility. Basic Books. Doherty, W. J. (1999). Postmodernism and family theory. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 205–217). Plenum. Doherty, W. J. (2001). Take back your marriage: Sticking together in a world that pulls us apart. Guilford Press. Doherty, W. J. (2019). Influencing policy through relationships with legislators. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11, 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12323 Doherty, W. J. (2021a). A family professional tackles political depolarization. NCFR Family Focus, FF87, F1–F2. F12. Doherty, W. J. (2021b). Doherty testifies before U.S. congress on depolarization. Transcript. National Council on Family Relations. https://www.ncfr.org/news/doherty-testifies-uscongress-depolarization Doherty, W. J., & Baird, M. A. (1983). Family therapy and family medicine: Toward the primary care of families. Guilford Press. DomesticShelters.org. (2016, January 27). Escaping with older kids: Fleeing abuse with adolescents and teenagers has unique challenges. https://www.domesticshelters.org/ articles/escaping-violence/escaping-with-older-kids Donald, M. H. (1996, Autumn). The billions of dollars that made things worse. City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/html/billions-dollars-made-things-worse-12159.html Donati, P. (2011). Relational sociology: A new paradigm for the social sciences. Routledge. Donati, P. (2012). Family policy: A relational approach. FrancoAngeli. Dubner, S. (2020, Feburary 12). Policymaking is not a science (yet). Freakonomics [Audio Podcast]. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/policymaking-is-not-a-science-yet-ep-405/ Duffin, E. (2022, September 30). U.S. - seniors as a percentage of the population 1950-2050. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/457822/share-of-old-age-population-inthe-total-us-population/ Dumitru, O. (2022, August 15). Half of Americans say they have donated money to charity in the past year. YouGovAmerica. https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/articlesreports/2022/08/15/half-americans-donate-money-charity-past-year-poll Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2002). Economics and parenting. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 437–450. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2007). Meta-analysis of family-centered helpgiving practices research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20176 Dykstra, P. A., & Djundeva, M. (2020). Policies for later-life families in a comparative European perspective. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 331–367). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-54618-2_14 Eastman, M. (1996). Myths of marriage and the family. In D. Popenoe, J. B. Elshtain, & D. Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep: Decline and renewal of marriage in America (pp. 35–68). Rowman & Littlefield. Eaton, A. A., Grzanka, P. R., Schlehofer, M. M., & Silka, L. (2021). Public psychology: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1209–1216. https://doi. org/10.1037/amp0000933

REFERENCES

389

Eatough, M. (2017). Foster care privatization: How an increasingly popular public policy leads to increased levels of abuse and neglect. Sigma: Journal of Political and International Studies, 34(6). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sigma/vol34/iss1/6 Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R. Jr., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.240 Eddy, S. (2012). Developing an early childhood and education program: Implications from a family impact analysis of the Child-Parent Center Program (Family Impact Analyses Series). https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/ family-impact-institute/ Edin, K., Kefalas, M., & Furstenberg, F. (2011, October). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press. Edin, K., & Nelson, T. J. (2013). Doing the best I can: Fatherhood in the inner city. University of California Press. Edin, K., Nelson, T. J., Butler, R., & Francis, R. (2019). Taking care of mine: Can child support become a family-building institution? Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12324 Edsall, T. B. (2016, April 27). How the other fifth lives. New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/campaign-stops/how-the-other-fifth-lives.html Eggers, W. D., & O’Leary, J. (2009). If we can put a man on the moon: Getting big things done in government. Harvard Business Press. Einstein, A. (2023). The world as I see it. Zinc Read. Eliot, T.S. (n.d.) Little Gidding. Retrieved on April 18, 2023 from http://www.columbia.edu/ itc/history/winter/w3206/edit/tseliotlittlegidding.html Elliott, J. M. (1995, March 16). Edward V. Roberts, 56, Champion of the Disabled. New York Times, B13. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/16/obituaries/edward-v-roberts56-champion-of-the-disabled.html Elrod, L. D., & Spector, R. G. (2012). A review of the year in family law: Numbers of disputes increase. Family Law Quarterly, 45, 443–489. Elrod, L. D. H., & Spector, R. G. (2015). A review of the year in the family law 2013-2014: Same-sex couples attain rights to marry and parent. Family Law Quarterly, 48(4). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3009334 Elshtain, J. B. (1995). Democracy on trial. Basic Books. Elstrom, D., Miyazaki, E., & Yamonobe, Y. (2022, February 11). The devil you know: Gender inequality in Japan. Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/en/flair-collection/flair-japan-2022/ gender-inequality Englund, M. M., Levy, A. K., Hyson, D. M., & Sroufe, L. A. (2000). Adolescent social competence: Effectiveness in a group setting. Child Development, 71, 1049–1060. Engster, D., & Olofsdotter Stensöta, H. (2011). Do family policy regimes matter for children’s well-being? Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(1), 82–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxr006 Eshleman, R. (1991). The family: An introduction. Allyn & Bacon. Etzioni, A. (1992). The responsive communitarian platform: Rights and responsibilities. The Responsive Community, 2(2), 4–20. Ezra Klein Show. (2021, November 2). The life-altering differences between white and Black debt. Transcript. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/opinion/ ezra-klein-podcast-louise-seamster.html

390REFERENCES

Fabina, J. (2021, April 29). Despite pandemic challenges, 2020 election had largest increase in voting between presidential elections on record. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on June 1, 2021 from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/ record-high-turnout-in-2020-general-election.html Fandlund, P. (2023, January 3). Opinion: Tony Evers sees Wisconsin’s politics of resentment declining. Cap Times. https://captimes.com/opinion/paul-fanlund/opinion-tonyevers-sees-wisconsin-s-politics-of-resentment-declining/article_1afea948-bc6d-5b74876b-f9da776d9a40.html Featherstone, J. (1979). Family matters. Harvard Educational Review, 49, 20–52. Federal Register. (2016, November 2). Family violence prevention and services programs; Final rule. Federal Register Online Government Publishing Office, 81(212), 76446–76480. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-02/html/2016-26063.htm Fenno, R. F. Jr (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Little, Brown and Company. Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Everybody knows psychology is not a real science: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70(6), 527–542. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0039405 Few-Demo, A. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12039 Filgueira, F., & Rossel, C. (2020). Family policies across the globe. Policies for later-life families in a comparative European perspective. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 219–247). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_10 Fiorina, M. P. (2013). America’s polarized politics: Causes and solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 852–859. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592713001485. Flanagan, C. A. (2013). Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Harvard University Press. Fleisher, R., & Bond, J. R. (2004). The shrinking middle in the US congress. British Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123404000122. Fleming, A. (2019, May 6). Table for one: how eating alone is radically changing our diets. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/06/table-for-onehow-eating-alone-changing-our-diets Flinchbaugh, B. (1988). Two worms: The importance of facts, myth, and values in public policy. Education for public decisions (Working with Our Publics: Module 6). North Carolina Agriculture Extension Service and the Department of Adult and Community College Education. Flinchbaugh, B. L. (1985). Course outline. Public policy education. Minnesota Extension Summer School. Folbre, N. (2008). Valuing children: Rethinking the economics of the family. Harvard University Press. Foley, R. J. (2015, January 21). Racial-impact law has modest effect in Iowa. Des Moines Register. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/21/racialimpact-law-effect-iowa-legislature/22138465/ Food Research and Action Center. (2020). FRAC facts: SNAP strengths. Retrieved on March 17 from https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/FRAC-Facts-SNAP-Strengths_FNL.pdf Forum for Youth Investment. (n.d.). Aligning people: Best practices discussed at our children’s cabinet summits. Retrieved May 10, 2021, from https://forumfyi.org/ccn/ aligning-people/

REFERENCES

391

Fossum, S., & Lobosco, K. (2022, October 28). Biden predicts student loan borrowers will start getting relief in weeks, despite court challenge. ABC11. https://abc11.com/ student-loan-relief-forgiveness-debt-biden-administration/12391146/ Fournier, R. (2001, August 4). Bush vows to focus on the family. Wisconsin State Journal, A1. Fraenkel, P. (2003). Contemporary two-parent families: Navigating work and family challenges. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 61–95). Guilford Press. FrameWorks Institute. (2002). Framing public issues. Author. FrameWorks UK. (2020, May 8). Topic #9: Talking about what young people need during the pandemic. FrameWorks Institute. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/article/ topic-9-talking-about-what-young-people-need-during-the-pandemic/ Friedman, T. L. (2022, February 8). America 2022: Where everyone has rights and no one has responsibilities. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/opinion/ spotify-joe-rogan-covid-free-speech.html Friedman, T. L. (2022, February 9). Friedman: We’re living in an age where everyone has rights and no responsibilities. [Video]. Morning Joe, MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/morningjoe/watch/thomas-friedman-we-re-living-in-an-age-where-everyone-has-rights-and-no-res ponsibilities-132771397982 Friese, B., & Bogenschneider, K. (2009). The voice of experience: How social scientists bring research to bear on family policymaking. Family Relations, 58, 229–243. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00549.x Funk, C., Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2020). Science and scientists held in high esteem across global publics. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/ science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/ Furstenberg, F. (2019). Family change in global perspective: How and why family systems change. Family Relations, 68, 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12361 Furstenberg, F. (2020). Kinship reconsidered: Research on a neglected topic. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12628 Furstenberg, F. F. Jr., & Condran, G. A. (1988). Family change and adolescent well-being: A reexamination of U.S. trends. In A. J. Cherlin (Ed.), The changing American family and public policy (pp. 117–155). Urban Institute Press. Gabovitch, E. M., & Curtin, C. (2009). Family-centered care for children with autism spectrum disorders: A review. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 469–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01494920903050755 Gallagher, J. J. (1990). Emergence of policy studies and policy institutes. American Psychologist, 45, 1316–1318. Galston, W. A. (2014, September 23). Declining optimism among the Obama coalition. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2014/09/23/declining-optimismamong-the-obama-coalition/ Gamoran, A. (2018). Evidence-based policy in the real world: A cautionary view. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 678(1), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218770138 GAO. (2022, June 29). Stimulus checks: Direct payments to individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/ products/gao-22-106044 García Coll, C. T. (2001). Cultural influences on children and families’ well-being. In A. Thornton (Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs (244-261). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Garrison, E. G., DeLeon, P. H., & Smedley, B. D. (2017). Psychology, public policy, and advocacy: Past, present, and future. American Psychologist, 72(8), 737–752. https:// doi.org/10.1037/amp0000209

392

REFERENCES

Gates, H. L. Jr. (2004, August 1). Breaking the silence [Op-ed]. The New York Times, Sec. 4, p. 11. General Assembly Economic and Social Council. (2010, November 29). Follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the international year of the family and beyond. United Nations. Georgetown/On Faith. (2012, July 11). Mitt Romney: Strong traditional family structure will solve economic inequalities. Washington Post. Retrieved on July 11, 2012 from http:// www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/mitt-romney-strong-traditionalfamily-structure-will-solve-economic-inequalities/2012/07/11/gJQAP4qRdW_blog.html Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56, 803–813. Giannarelli, L., Wheaton, L., & Acs, G. (2020, July 6). 2020 Poverty projections: Initial US policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic effects is projected to blunt the rise in annual poverty. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/ 2020-poverty-projections Giele, J. Z. (1996). Decline of the family: Conservative, liberal, and feminist views. In D. Popenoe, J. B. Elshtain, & D. Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep: Decline and renewal of marriage in America (pp. 271–290). Rowman & Littlefield. Glendon, M. A. (1992). The second national communitarian teach-in. The Responsive Community, 2(3), 54–58. Glenn, N. D. (1993). A plea for objective assessment of the notion of family decline. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 542–544. Glick, J. E. (2010). Connecting complex processes: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 498–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2010.00715.x Goeas, E., & Lake, C. (2023, March 22). Poll finds strong bipartisan support for pro-family policies. Spotlight on Poverty & Opportunity. https://spotlightonpoverty.org/spotlightexclusives/poll-finds-strong-bipartisan-support-for-pro-family-policies/ Goldstein, D. (2022, December 16). Can child care be a big business? Private equity thinks so. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/us/child-care-centersprivate-equity.html Goodall, J., & Abrams, D. (2021). The book of hope: A survival guide for trying times. Celadon Books. Goodvin, R., & Lee, S. C. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of evidence-based policymaking: Observations from a nonpartisan legislative policy research institute. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 490–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000145 Gordon, L. (1992). Social insurance and public assistance: The influence of gender in welfare thought in the United States, 1890-1935. American Historical Review, 97, 19–54. Gordon, L. (1994). Pitied but not entitled. Free Press. Gormley, W. T. (2011). From science to policy in early childhood education. Science, 333(6045), 978–981. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206150 Gormley, W. T. (2012). Voices for children: Rhetoric and public policy. Brookings Institution Press. Gornick, J. C., Maldonado, L. C., & Sheely, A. (2022a). Effective policies for single-parent families and prospects for policy reforms in the United States: Concluding reflections. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221133682 Gornick, J. C., Maldonado, L. C., & Sheely, A. (2022b). Single-parent families and public policy in high-income countries: Introduction to the volume. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00027162221133250

REFERENCES

393

Graham, N. (2008). Obama’s father’s day speech urges Black fathers to be more engaged in raising their children. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obamasfathers-day-speech_n_107220 Gramlich, J. (2017, August 24). Jury duty is rare, but most Americans see it as part of good citizenship. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/24/ jury-duty-is-rare-but-most-americans-see-it-as-part-of-good-citizenship/ Greder, K., Brotherson, M. J., & Garasky, S. (2004). Listening to the voices of marginalized families. In C. L. Anderson (Ed.), Family and community policy: Strategies for civic engagement (pp. 95–122). American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. Greenhalgh, J., & Simmons-Duffin, S. (2022, August 31). Life expectancy in the U.S. continues to drop, driven by COVID-19. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/healthshots/2022/08/31/1120192583/life-expectancy-in-the-u-s-continues-to-drop-drivenby-covid-19 Grisso, T., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Between a rock and soft place: Developmental research and the child advocacy process. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3404_4 Grzywacz, J. G., & Middlemiss, W. (2017). Looking backward, around, and forward: Family science has always been translational science. Family Relations, 66(4), 547–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12280 Guither, H. D., Edelman, M. A., & Yoho, C. B. (1991). Making your views count on public policy issues (NCR Extension Publication 389). North Central Regional Extension Publications. Guo, K. (2022). A systematic review of research on immigrant parenting of young children in the 21st century (2000–2020). Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(4), 620–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12485 Gupta, A. H. (2022, June 29). The voices of men affected by abortion. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/well/family/men-abortion-roe-v-wade.html Guttmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2010). The mindsets of political compromise. Perspectives in Politics, 8(4), 1125–1143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710003270. Guzzo, K. B., & Hayford, S. R. (2020). Pathways to parenthood in social and family contexts: Decade in review, 2020. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 117–144.. Gwinn, C., & Hellman, C. (2022). Hope Rising: How the science of hope can change your life. Morgan James Publishing. H. R. 1464—112th Congress: North Korean Refugee Adoption Act of 2012. (2011). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ 112/hr1464 H. R. 1627—112th Congress: Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012. (2011). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http:// www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1627 H. R. 2883—112th Congress: Child and family services improvement and innovation act. (2011-2012). Retrieved on April 19, 2023 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/112thcongress/house-bill/2883 H. R. 2997—111th Congress: Agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies appropriations act, 2010. (2009). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2997 H. R. 3081—111th Congress: Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. (2009). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3081 H. R. 4872—111th Congress: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. (2010). In Thomas.loc.gov [Library of Congress database]. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/ files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers/ health-care-and-education-reconciliation-act-of-2010.pdf

394REFERENCES

H. R. 6063—112th Congress: Child protection act of 2012. (2012). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6063 H. R. 6655—112th Congress: protect our kids act of 2012. (2012). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6655 Hahn, A. J. (1994). Innovations in public policy. In S. A. Halbrook & T. E. Grace (Eds.), Increasing understanding of public problems and policies (pp. 85–92). The Farm Foundation. Hahn, H., Lou, C., Isaacs, J. B., Lauderback, E., Daly, H., & Steurle, C. E. (2021). Kids’ share 2021. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/105064/ kids-share-2021-report-on-federal-expenditures-on-children-through-2020-and-futureprojections.pdf Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage Books. Haidt, J., & Hetherington, M. J. (2012, September 17). Look how far we’ve come apart. The New York Times. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/look-how-farweve-come-apart/ Haight, S. (2020, December 1). Parents’ voices 2020: Focus group findings. Ascend Aspen Institute. https://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/parents-voices-2020-focus-group-findings/ Hall, D. J. (1998). Why Christian? For those on the edge of faith. Fortress Press. Hall, D. J. (2005). Bound and free: A theologian’s journey. Fortress Press. Halliday, J. (2022, June 25). Greta Thunberg makes surprise appearance at Glastonbury festival. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/25/gretathunberg-makes-surprise-appearance-at-glastonbury-festival Hamilton, L., Roll, S., Despard, M., Maag, E., Chun, Y., Brugger, L., & Gristein-Weiss, M. (2022, April). The impacts of the 2021 expanded child tax credit on family employment, nutrition, and financial well-being: Findings from the social policy institute’s child tax credit panel (Wave 2). Global Economy and Development at Brookings. https://www. brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Child-Tax-Credit-Report-Final_Updated.pdf Harkness, S. (2022). Single mothers’ income in twelve rich countries: Differences in disadvantage across the distribution. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221120758 Harris, B. H., & Kearney, M. S. (2014). The unequal burden of crime and incarceration on America’s poor. Brookings Institution. Hartman, H. (1981). The family as a locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 6, 366–394. Haskins, R. (2015). The family is here to stay- or not. The Future of Children, 25(2), 129–150. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079403.pdf Haskins, R., Paxson, C., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009, Fall). Social science rising: A tale of evidence shaping public policy. The Future of Children Policy Brief. https:// futureofchildren.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2411/files/media/preventing_child_ maltreatment_19_02_policybrief_1.pdf Hauser, R. M., Brown, B. V., & Prosser, W. R. (1997). Indicators of children’s well-being. Russell Sage. Havas, E. (1995). The family as ideology. Social Policy & Administration, 29(1), 1–9. Haveman, R., Blank, R., Moffitt, R., Smeeding, T., & Wallace, G. (2015). The war on poverty: Measurement, trends, and policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 593–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21846 Hawkins, A. J. (2019). Theory illuminating practice: One researcher’s journey through the strange new world of policy change. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12307

REFERENCES

395

Hawkins, A. J., Higginbotham, B. J., & Hatch, D. J. (2015). Can media campaigns increase participation in premarital education? The case of the Utah healthy marriages initiative. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, (15)1, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691. 2014.952473 Hawkins, A., & Ooms, T. (2012). Can marriage and relationship education be an effective policy tool to help low income couples form and sustain healthy marriages and relationships? A review of lessons learned. Marriage and Family Review, 48, 524–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2012.677751 Hayashi, R. (2016). Long-term care of older persons in Japan. United Nations ESCAP. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/SDD%20Working%20Paper%20 Ageing%20Long%20Term%20Care%20Japan%20v1-3%20FINAL.pdf HCCH (2022a, October 18). 34: Convention of 19 October 1996 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. Retrieved on March 17, 2023 from https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table HCCH (2022b, November 14). 33: Convention of 29 May 1993 on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption. Retrieved on March 17, 2023 from https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table HCCH (2023, February 17). 38: Convention of 23 November 2007 on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance. Retrieved on March 17, 2023 from https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table Head, B. W. (2015). Relationships between policy academics and public servants: Learning at a distance? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(1), 5–12. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8500.12133 Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. Random House. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900–1902. Hellstrom, T. (n.d.). Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve. Retrieved August 1, 2023, from https://travishellstrom.com/articles/be-great Hengstebeck, N. D. (2021, May 7). Why the White House needs a child and family policy council. Scholars Strategy Network. https://scholars.org/contribution/ why-white-house-needs-child-and-family-policy Henig, J. R. (2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons for an informed democracy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328525 Henig, J. R. (2017, February 13). Politics and the use of research evidence. [Keynote presentation.] William T. Grant 2017 Conference on Advancing the Use of Research Evidence, Washington, DC. Henry Clay: A Featured Biography. (n.d.) United States Senate. Retrieved April 10, 2023 from https://www.senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_Clay.htm Hersh, E. (2020, January 20). College-educated voters are ruining American politics. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/ political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/ Hewlett, S. A., & West, C. (1998). The war against parents: What we can do for America’s beleaguered moms and dads. Houghton-Mifflin. Heymann, J., & Sprague, A. (2016, May 13). Does paid leave harm U.S. competitiveness? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/05/13/ is-donald-trump-right-about-paid-family-leave/ Lina Hidalgo: Harris County Judge. (n.d.) Harris County Texas. Accessed on April 8, 2023 from https://cjo.harriscountytx.gov/about

396REFERENCES

HighScope. (n.d.) Perry Preschool Study. https://highscope.org/perry-preschool-project/ Hill, L., & Artiga, S. (2022, August 22). COVID-19 cases and deaths by race/ethnicity: Current data and changes over time. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/ covid-19-cases-and-deaths-by-race-ethnicity-current-data-and-changes-over-time/ Hines, D. A., & Bogenschneider, K. (2013). Introduction to the special issue: Communicating research to policymakers—Briefing report chapters from the Massachusetts family impact seminars on youth at risk. New England Journal of Public Policy. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol25/iss1/3 Hirao, K. (2022). Invisible heart for invisible hand. Sophia University SDGs & Sustainability. https://sophia-sdgs.jp/en/efforts/1979/ Hird, J. A. (2005). Power, knowledge, and politics: Policy analysis in the states. Georgetown University Press. Hirshorn, B. A., & Settersten, R. A. (2013). Civic involvement across the life course: Moving beyond age-based assumptions. Advances in Life Course Research, 18(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2013.05.001 History.com Editors. (2017, June 28). The early gay rights movement. History.com. https:// history.com/topics/gay-rights/history-of-gay-rights History.com Editors (2021a). Slavery in America. History.com. https://www.history.com/ topics/black-history/slavery#when-did-slavery-start History.com Editors. (2021b, October 29). Japanese internment camps. History.com https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life: Notes from home and work. University of California Press. Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. Metropolitan Books. Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The outsourced self: Intimate life in market times. Metropolitan Books. Ho, K., Grundy, T., & Creery, J. (2021, July 30). Hong Kong bans Joshua Wong and 11 other pro-democracy figures from legislative election. Hong Kong Free Press. https:// hongkongfp.com/2020/07/30/breaking-hong-kong-bans-8-pro-democracy-figuresfrom-legislative-election/ Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness. (n.d.) Models eligible for maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting (MIECHV) funding. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved on April 9, 2023 from https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/HRSA-ModelsEligible-MIECHV-Grantees Hong Kong Free Press. (2020, July 30). Hong Kong bans Joshua Wong and 11 other pro-democracy figures from legislative election. https://hongkongfp.com/2020/07 /30/breaking-hong-kong-bans-8-pro-democracy-figures-from-legislative-election/ Hong Kong’s Joshua Wong backs BLM, risks wrath of US conservatives. (2020, June 2). OnePacificNews. https://www.onepacificnews.com/2020/06/03/hong-kongs-joshuawong-supports-blm-could-lose-support-of-us-conservatives/ Hong Kong’s Joshua Wong handed more jail time. (2021, May 6). DW. https://www.dw. com/en/hong-kong-joshua-wong-sentenced-to-10-more-months/a-57442759 Hook, J. L., & Li, M. (2020). Gendered tradeoffs. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 249–266). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_11 Hoppock, J. (2008, November 3). Emotional Obama pays tribute to grandmother. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/full-transcript-sen-barack-obamasvictory-speech/story?id=6181477

REFERENCES

397

Horowitz, J. M. (2021, September 27). Support for Black Lives Matter declined after George Floyd protests, but has remained unchanged since. Pew Research Center. https://www. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-aftergeorge-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/ Hudson, A. (2020). Bowling alone at twenty. National Affairs. https://www.nationalaffairs. com/publications/detail/bowling-alone-at-twenty Huemmert, S. (1995, October). Implementation of family policy impact assessment in Alberta. Paper presented at the Expert Meeting on Family Impact, Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven. Humphrey, H. H. (1977, November 1). Congressional record, 123, 37287. In S. Platt (1989), Respectfully quoted: A dictionary of quotations requested from the congressional research service. Library of Congress. Huston, A. C. (2008). From research to policy and back. Child Development, 79, 1–12. Internal Revenue Services (2013). Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010: Information center. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/ drum-major-instinct IRS. (n.d.) Education credits—AOTC and LLC. Retrieved June 9, 2022 from https://www. irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/education-credits-aotc-llc Italy - maternity and paternity leave allowance. (n.d.) European Commission. https://ec. europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1116&langId=en&intPageId=4618 Italy parental leave 2022: new rules for allowances. (2022, August 18). Idealista. https:// www.idealista.it/en/news/financial-advice-italy/2022/08/15/151715-italy-parentalleave-2022-new-rules-for-allowances Jackson, M. I., & Schneider, D. (2022). Public investments and class gaps in parents’ developmental expenditures. American Sociological Review, 87(1), 105–142. https:// doi.org/10.1177/00031224211069975 Jacobs, F. H. (1994). Child and family policy: Framing the issues. In F. H. Jacobs & M. W. Davies (Eds.), More than kissing babies? Current child and family policy in the United States (pp. 9–36). Auburn House. Jarvie, J. (2018, May 11). Here’s how the poor people’s campaign aims to finish what MLK started. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-poor-peoplescampaign-2018-story.html Jenson, J. (2020). Beyond the national: How the EU, OECD, and World Bank do family policy. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 45–68). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_3 Jones, N., Marks, R., Rameriz, R., & Ríos-Vargas, M. (2021, August 12). 2020 Census illuminates racial and ethnic composition of the country. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved on September 1, 2021, from https://www.census.gov/library/ stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-populationmuch-more-multiracial.html Jung, J., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Berger, W. J., Holman, B., & Kovaka, K., (2019). A multidisciplinary understanding of polarization, American Psychologist, 74(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000450 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Kalambokidis, L., & Bipes, T. (2008). Building Extension’s public values: Presenter’s guide. University of Minnesota Extension. Kamerman, S. B. (1977). Public policy and the family: A new strategy for women as wives and mothers. In J. R. Chapman & M. Gates (Eds.), Women into wives: The legal and economic impact of marriage (pp. 195–214). Sage.

398

REFERENCES

Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1978). Families and the idea of family policy. In S. B. Kamerman & A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Family policy: Government and families in fourteen countries (pp. 1–16). Columbia University Press. Karni, A. (2022, November 16). Same-sex marriage rights bill clears a crucial senate hurdle. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/us/politics/same-sex-marriagebill-senate.html Kaufman, I. (1993). Family research in state and local policy making. In G. E. Hendershot & F. B. LeClere (Eds.), Family health: From data to policy (pp. 113–115). National Council on Family Relations. Kearney, M. S., & Haskins, R. (2020). How cultural factors shape children’s economic outcomes. The Future of Children, 30(1), 1–6. Kemple, J. J., & Willner, C. J. (2008). Career academies: Long-term impacts on labor market outcomes, educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood. MDRC. http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_50.pdf Kendall-Taylor, N., & Levitt, P. (2017, May 17). Beyond hat in hand: Science advocacy is foundational for policy decisions. Neuron, 94(4), 708–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. neuron.2017.04.039 Kenley, L. (2019). Commentary. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 154–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12318 Kennedy, J. F. (2006). Profiles in courage. HarperCollins. (Original work published 1956) Kersting, K. (2003). A life’s work in developmental psychology. Monitor on Psychology, 34(6), 38. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from www.apa.org/monitor/jun03/lifeswork.html KIDS COUNT. (2022, March 28). 41.5 million people received SNAP (food stamps) in 2021, up nearly 6 million from 2019. Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://datacenter. kidscount.org/updates/show/296-snap-in-2021 Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 778–867). McGraw-Hill. The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research Institute. (n.d.). February 4, 1968: “The Drum Major Instinct.” https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/drum-major-instinct Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman. King, L. Y., & Mancini, K. L. (2014). Family impact analysis in Hong Kong: A proposed framework. The Hong Kong Council of Social Service. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/316190308_Family_impact_analysis_in_Hong_Kong_A_Proposed_ Framework Klein, E. (2014, July 9). Birth control saves money. Lots of it. Vox. https://www.vox.com/ 2014/7/9/5883687/birth-control-saves-money-lots-of-it Klein, E. (2021, March 4). Biden is the anti-Trump, and it’s working. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/opinion/biden-american-rescue-plan.html Klein, E. (2022, January 9). Steve Bannon is on to something. New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/opinion/trump-bannon-trumpism-democracy.html Klein, R. (2012, May 9). President Obama affirms his support for same sex marriage. Good Morning America. http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-obama-affirmshis-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html Klein, T., & Nauck, B. (2005). Families in Germany. In B. N. Adams & J. Trost (Eds.), Handbook of world families (pp. 283–312). Sage. Know Your Value Staff. (2022, May 23). The first woman to lead the European Commission has a message for young women. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com/know-your-value/ career-growth/ursula-von-der-leyen-chatted-mika-brzezinski-global-citizen-nown1295636

REFERENCES

399

Knox, V., Cowan, P. A., Pape Cowan, C., & Bildner, E. (2011). Policies that strengthen fatherhood and family relationships: What do we know and what do we need to know? ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635, 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210394769 Kochhar, R., & Cilluffo, A. (2018, July 12). Key findings on the rise in income inequality within America’s racial and ethnic groups. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2018/07/12/key-findings-on-the-rise-in-income-inequality-within-americasracial-and-ethnic-groups/ Kornhauser, M. (1993). Love, money, and the IRS: Family, income-sharing, and the joint income tax return. Hastings Law Journal, 45(1), 63–111. Kourgiantakis, T., Ashcroft, R., Mohamud, F., Fearing, G., & Sanders, J. (2021). Familyfocused practices in addictions: A scoping review. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 21(1), 18–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2020.1870287 Koven, S., & Michel, S. (1993). Mothers of a new world. Routledge. Krehbiel, K. (1992). Information and legislative organization. The University of Michigan Press. Krysan, M., Moore, K. A., & Zill, N. (1990a). Identifying successful families: An overview of constructs and selected measures. Child Trends. Krysan, M., Moore, K. A., & Zill, N. (1990b). Research on successful families. ASPE. http:// aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/Reports/ressucfa.htm Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem behaviors. The American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 457–465. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.457 Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., & Whiteside, H. O. (2003). Family-based interventions for substance abuse prevention. Substance Use and Misuse, 38, 1759–1789. Kunin, M. M. (2012). The new feminist agenda: Defining the next revolution for women, work, and family. Chelsea Green Publishing. Ladd-Taylor, M. (1993). “My work came out of agony and grief”: Mothers and the making of the Sheppard-Towner Act. In S. Koven & S. Michel (Eds.), Mothers of a new world (pp. 321–342). Routledge. Lai, C. (2018, February 2). Group of US lawmakers nominate Hong Kong’s umbrella movement for Nobel Peace Prize. Hong Kong Free Press. https://hongkongfp.com/ 2018/02/01/group-us-lawmakers-nominate-hong-kongs-umbrella-movement-nobelpeace-prize/ LaJoie, T. (2020, June). When marriage doesn’t pay: Analysis and options for addressing marriage and second-earner penalties. Tax Foundation, 715. https://files.taxfoundation. org/20200622174134/When-Marriage-Doesnt-Pay-Analysis-and-Options-for-AddressingMarriage-and-Second-Earner-Penalties.pdf Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate— the essential guide for progressives. Chelsea Green Publishing. Laracy, M. (2013, October 13). Creating the political will to reduce poverty and promote opportunity. [Presentation] Institute for Research on Poverty, UW-Madison, Madison, WI. Lasch, C. (1977). Haven in a heartless world: The family besieged. Norton. Leadbeater, B. J., Schellenbach, C. J., Maton, K. I., & Dodgen, D. W. (2004). Research and policy for building strengths: Processes and contexts of individual, family, and community development. In K. I. Maton, C. J. Schellenbach, B. J. Leadbeater, & A. L. Solarz (Eds.), Investing in children, youth, families, and communities (pp. 13–30). American Psychological Association.

400REFERENCES

Lee, W. K. (2012). A family perspective on after-school programs (Family Impact Analyses Series). https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/ family-impact-institute/ Lee, D., & McLanahan, S. (2015). Family structure transitions and child development: Instability, selection, and population heterogeneity. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 738–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415592129 Legislative Revenue Office. (2021, January). Tax credit review: 2021 session (pursuant to 2013 HB 2002). Research report #2-21. State of Oregon. https://www. oregonlegislature.gov/lro/Documents/Tax%20Credit%20Report%202021%20 updated%203_9.pdf Leonhardt, D. (2022, September 17). ‘A crisis coming’: The twin threats to American democracy. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/americandemocracy-threats.html Lesthaeghe, R. (1995). The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation. In K. O. Mason & A. M. Jensen (Eds.), Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp. 17–82). Clarendon. Letiecq, T. L., & Anderson, E. A. (2017). From education to advocacy and activism: Alternative approaches for translating family science to policy. Family Relations, 66(4), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12274 Levin, B. R. (2003, November). Improving research–policy relationships: Lessons from the case of literacy. Paper prepared for the OISE/UT International Literacy Conference: Literacy Policies for the Schools We Need, Toronto, Canada. Levin, B. R. (2005). Governing education. University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1952) Levitt, P. (2014). Toxic stress and its impact on early learning and health: Building a formula for human capital development. In K. Bogenschneider & O. Little (Eds.), The science of early brain development: A foundation for the success of our children and the state economy (pp. 9–21). Family Impact Seminar. https://evidence2impact.psu. edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/ Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere Christianity: Comprising the case for Christianity, Christian behavior, and beyond personality. Touchstone Books. Lewis, C. S. (1996). Mere Christianity: Comprising the case for Christianity, Christian behavior, and beyond personality. Macmillan Publishing Company. Lewis, J., & Jones, B. (2012). Across that bridge. Hyperion. Lin, I. F., Brown, S. L., & Hammersmith, A. M. (2017). Marital biography, social security receipt, and poverty. Research on Aging, 39(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0164027516656139 Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The policymaking process. Prentice Hall. Lindenmeyer, K. (1997). A right to childhood. University of Illinois Press. Linsky, M. (2011, January). Counter cultures. State Legislatures, 20-21. Liptak, A. (2023, June 20). Supreme court rejects Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/us/student-loan-forgivenesssupreme-court-biden.html. Loewenberg, G. (2007). Paradoxes of legislatures. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 136(3), 56–66. Lohmann, B. (2013, April 29). Rights fight: Lessons in courage at the old Farmville schoolhouse. Richmond Times Dispatch. http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/ columnists-blogs/bill-lohmann/lessons-in-courage-at-the-old-farmville-schoolhouse/ article_3f527de3-edb3-5fdf-b2af-8e4a39b30a96.html

REFERENCES

401

Longman, P. (2004). The empty cradle: How falling birthrates threaten world prosperity and what to do about it. Basic Books. Longman, P., & Gray, D. (2008). A family-based social contract. https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e. cloudfront.net/documents/family-based-social.pdf Luna, J. A. (2021, October 27). The toxic effects of branding your workplace a “family”. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/10/the-toxic-effects-of-branding-yourworkplace-a-family Lupia, A. (2000). Evaluating political science research: Information for buyers and sellers. PS: Political Science & Politics, 33(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/420770 Lupia, A. (2017). Now is the time: How to increase the value of social science. Social Research 84(3), 669–694. http://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2017.0041 Macedo, S., Alex-Assensoh, Y., Berry, J. M., Brintnall, M., Campbell, D. E., Fraga, L. R., Fung, A., Galston, W. A., Karpowitz, C. F., Levi, M., Levinson, M., Lipsitz, K., Niemi, R. G., Putnam, R. D., Rahn, W. M., Reeves, K., Reich, B., Rodgers, R. R., Swanstrom, T., & Cramer Walsh, K. (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation and what we can do about it. Brookings Institution Press. Maestri, V., Vaalavuo, M., & Bontout, O. (2016). The efficiency and effectiveness of social protection systems over the life course. In European Commission (ed.), Employment and social developments in Europe 2015 (pp. 275–312.) Publications Office of the European Union. Magnuson, K., & Schindler, H. (2019). Supporting children’s early development by building caregivers’ capacities and skills: A theoretical approach informed by new neuroscience research. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jftr.12319 Maguire, M. C. (1999). Treating the dyad as the unit of analysis: A primer on three analytic approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 213–223. Mahatmya, D., & Gring-Pemble, L. M. (2014). DREAMers and their families: A family impact analysis of the DREAM Act and implications for family well-being. Journal of Family Studies, 20(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2014.20.1.79 Manning, L. (2022, March 1). While there is appetite for bipartisanship, voters are pessimistic about the amount of bipartisan legislation passed by Congress. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/while-there-is-appetitefor-bipartisanship-voters-are-pessimistic-about-the-amount-of-bipartisan-legislationpassed-by-congress/ Manning, W., Joyner, K., Hemez, P., & Cupka, C. (2017). Measuring cohabitation in national surveys. https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/ NCFMR/documents/PAA/manning-joyner-hemez-cupka-paa-poster-2017.pdf Margolis, K. L., Fosco, G. M., & Stormshak, E. A. (2016). Circle of care: Extending beyond primary caregivers to examine collaborative caretaking in adolescent development. Journal of Family Issues, 37(9), 1179–1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14536565 Marriage Friendly Therapists. (n.d.) The National Registry of Marriage Friendly Therapists. https://www.marriagefriendlytherapists.com/ Marsh, J. (2004). Reflections of a former editor. The Responsive Community, 14(2–3), 18–19. 19. Marsh, J. R. (2011, May 4). Highlights of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 [Blog post]. https://www.childlaw.us/highlights_of_the_capta_reauth/ Marshall, W., & Sawhill, I. V. (2004). Progressive family policy in the twenty-first century. In D. P. Moynihan, T. M. Smeeding, & L. Rainwater (Eds.), The future of the family (pp. 198–230). Russell Sage Foundation.

402

REFERENCES

Mason, M. A., Carnochan, S., & Fine, M. A. (2004). Family law for changing families in the new millennium. In M. Coleman & L. H. Ganong (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 432–450). Sage. Maton, K. I. (2017). Influencing social policy: Applied psychology serving the public interest. Oxford University Press. Matos, K., Galinsky, E., & Bond, J. T. (2017). 2016 National study of employers. Society for Human Resource Management. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ow8usu72/production/d73a 7246cc3a3fef4ad2ece1e3d5aa4eaec2f263.pdf Matthews, D. R., & Stimson, J. A. (1975). Yeas and nays: Normal decision-making in the U.S. House of Representatives. John Wiley & Sons. Mayer, S., Kalil, A., & Michelini, M. (2021, May 27). It’s about time- the best ways public policy can support parents. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/ white-house/555687-its-about-time-the-best-ways-public-policy-can-support-parents/ Mayhew, D. R. (2011). Theorizing about Congress. In E. Schickler & F. E. Lee (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the American Congress (pp. 875–893). Oxford University Press. Maynard, R. A. (2006). Presidential address: Evidence-based decision making: What will it take for the decision makers to care? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20169 Mayne, R., Green, D., Guijt, I., Walsh, M., English, R., & Cairney, P. (2018). Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience. Palgrave Communication, 4(122), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0176-7 Mazuzan, G. T. (1994, July 15). The National Science Foundation: A brief history. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/nsf8816.jsp McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Science 62(1): 16–42. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000276421 8759576 McGarry, K. (2013). The safety net for the elderly. In M. J. Bailey & S. Danziger, (Eds.), Legacies of the war on poverty. Russell Sage Foundation. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.7758/9781610448147 McGhee, H., & Poo, A. (2021, December 7). Transcript: Heather McGhee interviews Ai-jen Poo for ‘The Ezra Klein Show’. The Ezra Klein Show, New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2021/12/07/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-podcast-ai-jen-poo.html McGoldrick, M. (2003). Culture: A challenge to concepts of normality. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 235–259). Guilford Press. McGurk, H. (1994, December). Director’s report. Family Matters, 39, 2. McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1353/ dem.2004.0033 McLanahan, S. (2009). Fragile families and the reproduction of poverty. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 111–131. McNeil Smith, S. (2022). Invited commentary on the “Race and Well-Being” section of the Transformative Family Scholarship Special Issue. Family Relations, 71, 2066–2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12795 Meacham, J. (2018). The soul of America: The battle for our better angels. Random House. Medicaid.gov. (n.d.). Reports & evaluations. Retrieved on March 17, 2023 from https:// www.medicaid.gov/chip/reports-evaluations/index.html Melnick, R. S. (2005). Welfare policies and the strategy of rights. Paper presented at the Making the Politics of Poverty and Inequality: How Public Priorities Are Reshaping

REFERENCES

403

American Democracy conference, Institute for Research on Poverty, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Melvin, T. (n.d). How a bill becomes a law. The Wisconsin Legislature. Mencimer, S. (2014, March/April). What if everything you knew about poverty was wrong? Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/kathryn-edin-povertyresearch-fatherhood/ Meyer, D. D. (2008). The constitutionalization of family law. Family Law Quarterly, 42(3), 529–572. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25740672 Migration Policy Institute. (2022, January 19). Biden has taken nearly 300 executive actions on immigration in his first year, outpacing Trump. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/ news/biden-executive-actions-immigration-first-year Mihalec-Adkins, B. P., & Shlafer, R. (2022, November 22). The role of policy in shaping and addressing the consequences of parental incarceration for child development in the United States. Social Policy Report, 35(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/sop2.25 Miller, C. C. (2021, October 25). The world ‘has found a way to do this’: The U.S. lags on paid leave. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/upshot/paid-leavedemocrats.html Miller, K. L. (2022, October 17). Developing the science of science communication. Morgridge Institute for Research. https://morgridge.org/story/developing-thescience-of-science-communication/ Miller, I. W., Ryan, C. E., Keitner, G. I., Bishop, D. S., & Epstein, N. B. (2000). The McMaster approach to families: Theory, assessment, treatment and research. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 168–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00145 Mills, J., & Bogenschneider, K. (2001). Can communities assess support for preventing adolescent alcohol and other drug use? Reliability and validity of a community assessment inventory. Family Relations, 50, 355–375. Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Georgetown University Press. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press. Moen, P. (2010, Winter). Between the career mystique and reality: Minding the gap. Family Focus, F18–F19. Moen, P., & Jull, P. M. M. (1995). Informing family policies: The uses of social research. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16, 79–107. Moen, P., & Schorr, A. L. (1987). Families and social policy. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 795–813). Plenum. Moffitt, R. A. (2015). The deserving poor, the family, and the U.S. welfare system. Demography, 52(3), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0395-0 Moffitt, T. E. (1993) Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review. 100(4), 674–701. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 Moncrief, G. F. & Squire, P. (2021). Why states matter: An introduction to state politics (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Monroe, P. A. (1995). Family policy: Introduction to the special collection. Family Relations, 44, 3–4. Monthly Labor Review. (2022, March). Telework during the COVID-19 pandemic: Estimates using the 2021 business response survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/telework-during-the-covid-19pandemic.htm Moore, K. A., Chalk, R., Vandivere, S., & Scarpa, J. (2003). Measuring family strengths. Indicators, 2(3), 71–104.

404

REFERENCES

Morales, F. (2007, March). Children on the desktop of policy makers: The case of Chile. Paper prepared for the SRCD Biennial Meeting, Boston, MA. Moreau, J. (2020, June 1). Gay marriage generated $3.8B over 5 years, study finds. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gay-marriage-generated-3-8bover-5-years-study-finds-n1221211 Morris, E. (2010). Colonel Roosevelt. Random House. Mosle, A., & Sims, M. (2021). State of the field: Two-generation approaches to family wellbeing. ASCEND The Aspen Institute. https://ascend-resources.aspeninstitute.org/ wp-content/uploads/2021/06/State_Of_The_Field_2Gen_Ascend.pdf Moss, K., Dawson, L., Long, M., Kates, J., Musumeci, M., Cubanski, J., & Pollitz, K. (2020, March 23). The families first coronavirus response act: Summary of key provisions. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/thefamilies-first-coronavirus-response-act-summary-of-key-provisions/ Moss, K., Wexler, A., Dawson, L., Long, M., Kates, J., Cubanski, J., Musumeci, M., Freed, M., Ramaswamy, A., Ranji, U., & Pollitz, K. (2020, April 9). The coronavirus aid, relief, and economic securities act: Summary of key healthy provisions. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-coronavirus-aidrelief-and-economic-security-act-summary-of-key-health-provisions/ Moynihan, D. P. (1941). Foreword to the paperback edition. In Nation and family: The Swedish experiment in democratic family and population policy (pp. vi–vii). Harper. Moynihan, D. P. (1986). Family and nation: The Swedish experiment in democratic family and population policy. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Murray, C. (2012). Coming apart: The state of white America, 1960-2010. Crown Forum. Musumeci, M., Chidambaram, P., & O’Malley Watts, M. (2019, June 14). Medical financial eligibility for seniors and people with disabilities: Findings from a 50-state survey. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/report-section/medicaid-financial-eligibility-forseniors-and-people-with-disabilities-findings-from-a-50-state-survey-issue-brief/#:~: text=Introduction,are%20age%2065%20or%20older Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press. Nalani, A., Yoshikawa, H., & Carter, P. L. (2021). Social science–based pathways to reduce social inequality in youth outcomes and opportunities at scale. Socius, 7, 1–17. https:// doi.org/10.1177/23780231211020236 Nandi, A., Jahagirdar, D., Dimitris, M. C., Labrecque, J. A., Strumpf, E. C., Kaufman, J. S., Vincent, I., Atabay, E., Harper, S., Earle, A., & Heymann, S. J. (2018). The impact of parental and medical leave policies on socioeconomic and health outcomes in OECD countries: A systematic review of the empirical literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 96(3), 434–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12340 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). A roadmap to reducing child poverty. (G. Duncan & S. Le Menestrel, Eds.). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25246 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Understanding the well-being of LGBTQI+ populations. (C. J. Patterson, M-J. Sepúlveda, & J. White, Eds.). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25877 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Families caring for an aging America. (R. Schulz & J. Eden, Eds.). The National Academies Press. https:// doi.org/10.17226/23606. National Academy for State Health Policy. (2019). Nebraska CHIP fact sheet. www.nashp. org/nebraska-chip-fact-sheet/

REFERENCES

405

National Archives. (n.d.) Milestone Documents: Emancipation Proclamation. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipationproclamation National Conference of State Legislatures. (n.d.). Trust for representative democracy quotes. https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Civics/TFK_inTime_TeacherGuide.pdf National Human Services Assembly. (2009). Through a new lens: Toward a fundamental reframing of “the client.” https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/study/2008/special_ committee_on_strengthening_wisconsin_families/103_august_13_2009_meeting/ throughanewlensfinal Nelson, S. R., Leffler, J. C., & Hansen, B. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Retrieved from https://educationnorthwest. org/sites/default/files/toward-a-research-agenda.pdf New York Times. (1977, April 17). Disabled in San Francisco vow to continue sit-in. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1977/04/17/archives/disabled-in-san-franciscovow-to-continue-sitin.html Newman, R., & Vincent, T. (1996). Introduction: Balancing expertise with practical realities. In R. P. Lorion, I. Iscoe, P. H. DeLeon, & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Psychology and public policy: Balancing public service and professional need (pp. 203–206). American Psychological Association. Nichols, J. (2011, March 2-8). The spirit of democracy is abroad in the land. Cap Times. Nichols, J. (2012). Uprising: How Wisconsin renewed the politics of protest, from Madison to Wall Street. Nation Books. Niebuhr, R. (2008). The irony of American history. University of Chicago Press. Nieuwenhuis, R. (2020). Family policy: Neglected determinant of vertical income inequality. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 657–681). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03054618-2_25 Nieuwenhuis, R., & Van Lancker, W. (2020). Introduction: A multilevel perspective on family policy. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 3–24). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_1 Nippon.com. (2022, October 5). Japan continues to gray: Baby boomers reach 75. https:// www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01446/ No Kidding. (n.d.) The International Social and Networking Club for childfree couples and singles. http://www.nokidding.net/ Nomaguchi, K., & Milkie, M. A. (2020). Parenthood and well-being: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12646 Normandin, H., & Bogenschneider, K. (Eds.). (2005, October). Medicaid: Who benefits, how expensive is it, and what are states doing to control costs? Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report No. 22. https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/whatwe-do/research-translation-platform/family-impact-institute/ Nouwen, H. J. M. (1992). Life of the beloved: Spiritual living in a secular world. The Crossroad Publishing Company. Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press. Nye, F. I., & McDonald, G. W. (1979). Family policy research: Emergent models and some theoretical issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 473–485. Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. Three Rivers Press. Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New York: Crown.

406REFERENCES

Obama, B. (2009, May 17). Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame. Transcript. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17text-obama.html Obama, B. (2009, September 9). Obama’s health care speech to Congress. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text. html?pagewanted=all Obama, B. (2010, May 16). To the class of 2010. Wisconsin State Journal Parade, 4–5. Obama, B. (2013, December 4). Remarks by the President on economic mobility. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility Obama, B. (2015, March 7). Remarks by the President at the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/07/remarks-president-50thanniversary-selma-montgomery-marches Obama, B. (2020). The promised land. Crown. Obama, M. (2022). The light we carry: Overcoming in uncertain times. Crown. Odasso, L., & Geoffrion, K. (2023). Doing family online: (In)formal knowledge circulation, information-seeking practices, and support communities. Family Relations, 72(2), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12865 OECD. (2015). The efficiency and effectiveness of social protection over the life course. https://one.oecd.org/document/DELSA/ELSA/WP1(2013)7/en/pdf OECD. (2018a, May 14). Family-friendly policies a key driver of economic growth. Retrieved on December 18, 2022 from https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/family-friendly-policiesa-key-driver-of-economic-growth.htm OECD (2018b, May 14). Is the last mile the longest? Economic gains from gender equality in Nordic countries. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300040-en Office of Early Childhood Development. (2020, July 31). Head Start. Administration for Children & Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/early-learning/head-start Office of Head Start. (2022, October 31). Head Start Services. Administration for Children & Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/head-start Ogden, L. E. (2019, April 10). Working mothers face a ‘wall’ of bias—but there are ways to push back. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/working-mothers-facewall-bias-there-are-ways-push-back Olavarria, M., Beaulac, J., Bélanger, A., Young, M., & Aubry, T. (2009). Organizational cultural competence in community health and social service organizations: How to conduct a self-assessment. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 16(4), 140–50. Olds, D., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., … Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 637–643. Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D.,. … Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238–1244. Oliva-Moreno, J., Trapero-Bertran, M., Peña-Longobardo, L. M., & Del Pozo-Rubio, R. (2017). The valuation of informal care in cost-of-illness studies: A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics, 35(3), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0468-y Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvaer, S. (2014). New directions in evidence-based policy research: A critical analysis of the literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12(34). www.health-policy-systems.com/content/12/1/34

REFERENCES

407

Olson, R. (2018). Don’t be such a scientist: Talking substance in an age of style. Island Press. Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 514–547). Guilford Press. Ooms, T. (1984). The necessity of a family perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 5, 160–181. Ooms, T. (1990). Families and government: Implementing a family perspective in public policy. Social Thought, 16, 61–78. Ooms, T. (1995, October). Taking families seriously: Family impact analysis as an essential policy tool. Paper presented at the Expert Meeting on Family Impact, Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven. Ooms, T. (1998). Towards more perfect unions: Putting marriage on the public agenda. Family Impact Seminar. Ooms, T. (2006). Foreword. In K. Bogenschneider (Ed.), Family policy matters: How policymaking affects families and what professionals can do (2nd ed., pp. ix–xii). Lawrence Erlbaum. Ooms, T. (2019). The evolution of family policy: Lessons learned, challenges, and hopes for the future. Journal of Marriage and Family, 11(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jftr.12316 Ooms, T., & Preister, S. (1988). A strategy for strengthening families: Using family criteria in policymaking and program evaluation. AAMFT Research and Education Foundation. Orthner, D. K. (1990). The family in transition. In D. Blankenhorn, S. Bayme, & J. B. Elshtain (Eds.), Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment to the American family (pp. 93–118). Family Services America. Paid family leave across OECD countries. (2022, March 1). Bipartisan Policy Center. Retrieved January 1, 2023 from https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/paid-familyleave-across-oecd-countries/ Palmer, P. J. (1980). The promise of paradox; A celebration of contradictions in the Christian life. Ave Maria Press. Papp, L. (2004). Capturing the interplay among within- and between-person processes using multilevel modeling techniques. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 11(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appsy.2004.09.002 Parolin, Z., & Lee, E. K. (2022). Economic precarity among single parents in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221122682 Parrott, E. (2017). Building political participation: The role of family policy and political science courses. Journal of Political Science Education 13(4), 404–425. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15512169.2017.1350862 Patterson, J. M. (2002). Understanding family resilience. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10019 Patterson, C. J., Farr, R. H., & Goldberg, A. E. (2021, October). LGBTQ+ parents and their children. National Council on Family Relations Policy Brief, 6(3), 3–8. https://www.ncfr. org/policy/research-and-policy-briefs/lgbtq-parents-and-their-children Pember, M. A. (2019, March 8). Death by civilization. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic. com/education/archive/2019/03/traumatic-legacy-indian-boarding-schools/584293/ Petersen, T., Penner, A. M., & Høgsnes, G. (2014). From motherhood penalties to husband premia: The new challenge for gender equality and family policy, lessons from Norway. American Journal of Sociology, 119(5), 1434–1472. https://doi.org/10.1086/674571 Peterson, E. H. (1985). Where your treasure is: Psalms that summon you from self to community. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

408REFERENCES

Peterson, M. A. (2018). In the shadow of politics: The pathways of research evidence to health policy making. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 43(3), 342–376. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-4366136 Pew Research Center. (2016, September 28). 5. Vast majority of Americans know someone who is gay, fewer know someone who is transgender. https://www.pewresearch.org/ religion/2016/09/28/5-vast-majority-of-americans-know-someone-who-is-gay-fewerknow-someone-who-is-transgender/ Pew Research Center. (2017a, May 3). Public trust in government remains near historic lows as partisan attitudes shift. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/05/03/ public-trust-in-government-remains-near-historic-lows-as-partisan-attitudes-shift/ Pew Research Center. (2017b, October 24). 3. Views of life in the country today, U.S. global standing. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/24/3-views-of-life-inthe-country-today-u-s-global-standing/ Pew Research Center. (2019a, October 10). Partisan antipathy: More intense, more personal. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/partisan-antipathy-more-intensemore-personal/ Pew Research Center. (2019b, December 17). 5. Gender, family and marriage, same-sex marriage and religion. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/5-genderfamily-and-marriage-same-sex-marriage-and-religion/ Pew Research Center. (2020, September 14). Americans’ views of government: Low trust, but some positive performance ratings. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/ 09/14/americans-views-of-government-low-trust-but-some-positive-performanceratings/ Pew Research Center. (2021, November 18). What makes life meaningful: Views from 17 advanced economies. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/11/18/whatmakes-life-meaningful-views-from-17-advanced-economies/ Pew Research Center. (2021, November 22). Both Republicans and Democrats prioritize family, but they differ over other sources of meaning in life. https://www.pewresearch. org/fact-tank/2021/11/22/both-republicans-and-democrats-prioritize-family-but-theydiffer-over-other-sources-of-meaning-in-life/ Pew Research Center. (2022, June 6). Public trust in government: 1958-2022. https://www. pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/ Pielke, R. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press. Pineau, M. G., L’Hôte, E., Davis, C., & Volmert, A. (2018). Beyond caring: Mapping the gaps between expert, public, practitioner, and policymaker understandings of family, school, and community engagement. FrameWorks Institute. https://famengage.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NAFSCE-Map-the-Gaps-Final-Ju.pdf Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Viking. Poehlmann-Tynan, J., & Turney, K. (2021). A developmental perspective on children with incarcerated parents. Child Development Perspectives, 15(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cdep.12392 Politico Staff. (2012, August 30). Marco Rubio’s RNC speech. Politico. http://www.politico. com/news/stories/0812/80493.html Popenoe, D. (1990). Family decline in America. In D. Blankenhorn, S. Bayme, & J. B. Elshtain (Eds.), Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment to the American family (pp. 39–51). Family Service America.

REFERENCES

409

Popenoe, D. (1992, December 26). The controversial truth: Two-parent families are better. New York Times, 1, 21. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/26/opinion/the-controversialtruth-twoparent-families-are-better.html Popenoe, D. (1993). The national family wars. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 553–555. Porter, N., & Sano, Y. (2009). Father involvement in Japanese families. Family Focus, F13, F15. Poushter, J., & Fetterolf, J. (2019, April 22). A changing world: Global views on diversity, gender equality, family life and the importance of religion. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/22/a-changing-world-global-views-ondiversity-gender-equality-family-life-and-the-importance-of-religion/ Powell, J. A. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society. Indiana University Press. Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center. (2022). Prenatal-to-3 policy clearinghouse evidence review: Reduced administrative burden for SNAP (ER 02C.1022). Peabody College of Education and Human Development. http://pn3policy.org/policy-clearinghouse/reducedadministrative-burden-for-snap Price, J. (2014). Coming of age. On Wisconsin, 36–41. Price, R. H. (1989). Bearing witness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00931004 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Quinnipiac University Poll. (2022, August 31). Biden’s approval rating surges after hitting low mark in July, Quinnipiac University national poll finds; half of Americans say Trump should be prosecuted on criminal charges over his handling of classified documents. Quinnipiac University. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3854 Rabb, J., & Winstead, D. (2003). Perspectives of the ultimate consumers: Policymakers and program managers. In M. C. Lennon & T. Corbett (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 21–38). Urban Institute. Rainie, L., & Perrin, A. (2019, July 22). Key findings about Americans’ declining trust in government and each other. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2019/07/22/key-findings-about-americans-declining-trust-in-government-andeach-other/ Raleigh, E. (2017). Selling transracial adoption: Families, markets, and the color line. Temple University Press. Raley, R., & Sweeney, M. M. (2020). Divorce, repartnering, and stepfamilies: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf. 12651 Rapp, R. (1978). Family and class in contemporary America: Notes toward an understanding of ideology. Science and Society, 42, 278–300. Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00896357 Razavi, S. (2020). What does the UN have to say about family policy? Reflections on the ILO, UNICEF, and UN women. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03054618-2_5 Reeves, R. (2017). Dream hoarders: How the American upper middle class is leaving everyone else in the dust, why that is a problem, and what to do about it. Brookings Institution Press.

410REFERENCES

Reeves, R. (2019). Where’s the glue? Policies to close the family gap. Brookings. https:// www.brookings.edu/research/wheres-the-glue-policies-to-close-the-family-gap-2/ Reeves, R. R., & Howard, K. (2013, September 8). The parenting gap. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/09-parenting-gapsocial-mobility-wellbeing-reeves.pdf Regan, M. C. Jr. (1996). Postmodern family law: Toward a new model of status. In D. Popenoe, J. B. Elshtain, & D. Blankenhorn (Eds.), Promises to keep: Decline and renewal of marriage in America (pp. 157–185). Rowman & Littlefield. Reich, R. B. (2018). The common good. Alfred A. Knopf. Reinhard, S., Feinberg, L. F., Houser, A., Choula, R., & Evans, M. (2019, November 14). Valuing the invaluable 2019 update: Charting a path forward. AARP Public Policy Institute. https://digirepo.nlm.nih.gov/master/borndig/101767885/valuing-theinvaluable-2019-update-charting-a-path-forward.doi.10.26419-2Fppi.00082.001.pdf Reinke, J., & Walcheski, W. (2015). Introduction. Family life education: The practice of family science. In J. Walcheski & J. S. Reinke (Eds.), Family life education: The practice of family science (pp. vii–xii). National Council on Family Relations. https://www.ncfr. org/sites/default/files/2017-07/FLE%20FS%20Final%20PDF%20Review%20copy.pdf Reno, V. P., Graetz, M. J., Apfel, K. S., Lavery, J., & Hill, C. (Eds.). (2005). Uncharted waters: Paying benefits from individual accounts in federal retirement policy (Study Panel Final Report). National Academy of Social Insurance. Respite Care. (n.d.) Medicare Interactive. Retrieved on April 14, 2023 from https://www. medicareinteractive.org/get-answers/medicare-covered-services/limited-medicarecoverage-long-term-care-services/respite-care Reuters Staff. (2019, September 9). My town is the new Cold War’s Berlin - Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protestsgermany-idUKKCN1VU0OI Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S. R., Mondi, C. F., & Giovanelli, A. (2019). Reducing poverty and inequality through preschool-to-third-grade prevention services. The American Psychologist, 74(6), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000537 Reynolds, A. J., & Temple, J. A. (2005). Priorities for a new century of early childhood programs. Infants and Young Children, 18, 104–118. Ribar, D. C. (2015). Why marriage matters for child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 25(2), 11–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43581970 Rice, R. M. (1977). American family policy: Content and context. Family Service America. Rich, A. (2001). The politics of expertise in Congress and the news media. Social Science Quarterly, 82(3), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/0038-4941.00044 Richardson, D. (2018). Key findings on families, family policy and the sustainable development goals: Synthesis report. UNICEF Office of Research- Innocenti. https://www.unicef-irc. org/publications/pdf/Families_and_SDGs_Synthesis_Report.pdf Richardson, D. (2021) SDGs & families presentation. [Presentation]. International Federation for Family Development. https://iffd.org/sdgs-families-global-research-project/ Richardson, H. C. (2023, January 28). Letters from an American. https://heathercoxrichardson. substack.com/p/january-28-2023 Richmond, T. (2022, February 3). Israel punishes officers in death of man, 78. Wisconsin State Journal, A4. Riley, D. (1997). Using local research to change 100 communities for children and families. American Psychologist, 52, 424–433. Rist, R. C. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–558). Sage.

REFERENCES

411

Rivlin, A. (2006). Is America too polarized to make public policy? Conference presentation. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 2006 Conference, Madison, WI. Roberts, E. (1977). On disability rights: Highlights from speeches by Ed Roberts. COMMONLIT. Retrieved on March 20, 2022 from https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/on-disabilityrights-highlights-from-speeches-by-ed-roberts Robinson, L. (2022, February 3). Bill to strip Wisconsin inmates of parental rights draws forceful rebuke. Wisconsin State Journal. https://madison.com/news/local/govt-andpolitics/absolutely-chilling-bill-to-strip-wisconsin-inmates-of-parental-rights-drawsforceful-rebuke/article_10c42477-bf92-5864-a031-d0431f0fce87.html Roosevelt, E. (1960). You learn by living: Eleven keys for a more fulfilling life. The Westminster Press. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. Penguin. Roselius, K., Tippens, J. A., Kohel, K., & Padasas, I. (2020). More than an afterthought: Importance of family in U.S. refugee resettlement. NCFR Family Focus, FF84, F1-2–F13. Rosenberg, A. A., & Limber, S. P. (1996). The contributions of social science to family policy. Journal of Social Issues, 52(3), 1–9. Rosinsky, K., Williams, S. C., Fischer, M., & Haas, M. (2021, March). Child welfare financing SFY 2018: A survey of federal, state, and local expenditures. Child Trends. https:// cms.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ChildWelfareFinancingReport_ ChildTrends_March2021.pdf Ross, R., & Staines, G. L. (1972). The politics of analyzing social problems. Social Problems, 20, 18–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/799497 Ruhm, C. J. (2011). Policies to assist parents with young children. The Future of Children, 21(2), 37–68. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202345/ Russon, J. M., Allen, K. R., Few-Demo, A. L., & Pease, J. C. (2022). Using critical family theorizing and intersectional feminist praxis to navigate reflexive conversations on race and power in academic settings. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(3), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12471 S. 3199—111th Congress: Early hearing detection and intervention act of 2010. (2010). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ bills/111/s3199 S. 179—114th Congress: Justice for victims of trafficking act of 2015. (2015-2016). Retrieved on April 19, 2023 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/178 S. 1963—111th Congress: Caregivers and veterans omnibus health services act of 2010. (2009). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ bills/111/s1963 S. 3036—111th Congress: National Alzheimer’s project act. (2010). In GovTrack.us [Database of federal legislation]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3036 S. 3307—111th Congress: Healthy, hunger-free kids act of 2010. (2009-2010). Retrieved on April 19, 2023 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/3307 Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.) (1993). Policy change and learning, an advocacy coalition approach. Westview. Sandstrom, A., & Alper, B. (2019, February 22). Americans with higher education and income are more likely to be involved in community groups. Pew Research Center. https:// www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/22/americans-with-higher-education-andincome-are-more-likely-to-be-involved-in-community-groups/ Santorum, R. (2017, August 5). Santorum: How to get family policy right for working families. The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/345388santorum-how-to-get-family-policy-right-for-working/

412REFERENCES

Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A. Jr. (2007, February). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001 Sassler, S., & Lichter, D. T. (2020). Cohabitation and marriage: Complexity and diversity in union-formation patterns. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 35–61. https://doi. org/10.1111/jomf.12617 Sawhill, I. V. (1992). Young children and families. In H. J. Aaron & C. L. Schultze (Eds.), Setting domestic policy: What can government do?(pp. 147–184). Brookings Institute. Sawhill, I. V. (2014). Generation unbound: Drifting into sex and parenthood without marriage. Brookings Institution Press. Sawhill, I. V. (2022). Single parents in high-income countries: What the United States can learn from others. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 702(1), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221123446 Sawhill, I. V., & Karpilow, Q. (2015). How much could we improve children’s life chances by intervening early and often? CCF Brief #54. Center on Children and Families at BROOKINGS. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/improve_ child_life_chances_interventions_sawhill.pdf Scaffidi, A., & Stroppa, B. E. (2022, September 13). Italy: Family-friendly changes to labor law. WTW. https://www.wtwco.com/en-AU/insights/2022/09/italy-family-friendlychanges-to-labor-law Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Schmalzbauer, L. (2010, Winter). Migration, separation and family survival. Family Focus, F14–F15. Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. Basic Books. Schroeder, P. (1989). Champion of the great American family. Random House. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 40: Summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. HighScope Press. http://www.highscope.org/file/Research/ PerryProject/specialsummary_rev2011_02_2.pdf Scott, J. T., Larson, J. C., Buckingham, S. L., Maton, K. I., & Crowley, D. M. (2019). Bridging the research-policy divide: Pathways to engagement and skill development. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(4), 434–441. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ort0000389 Seaberg, J. R. (1990). Family policy revisited: Are we there yet? Social Work, 35, 548–554. Seitz, V. (1979). Psychology and social policy for children: Introduction to the section, American Psychologist, 34(10), 1007–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.1007 Seltzer, J. A. (2019). Family change and changing family demography. Demography, 56(2), 405–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00766-6 Senate Committee on Finance. (2010). Summary of the Reid Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010. http://www.finance.senate. gov/legislation/download/?id=5598822b-8892-4445-b43a-4da7f0b991a0 Services Australia. (n.d.). Support for grandparent carers. Retrieved on January 12, 2023 from https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/support-for-grandparent-carers?context=22151 Settersten, R. A. Jr, Bernardi, L., Härkönen, J., Antonucci, T. C., Dykstra, P. A., Heckhausen, J., Kuh, D., Mayer, K. U., Moen, P., Mortimer, J. T., Mulder, C. H., Smeeding, T. M., van der Lippe, T., Hagestad, G. O., Kohli, M., Levy, R., Schoon, I., & Thomson, E. (2020). Understanding the effects of Covid-19 through a life course lens. Advances in Life Course Research, 45, 100360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2020.100360

REFERENCES

413

Shay, K. (2022, October 19). Why don’t homeless people use shelters. Soapboxie. Retrieved on April 10, 2023 from https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/why_homeless_people_ avoid_shelters Shlafer, R. J., Loper, A. B., & Schillmoeller, L. (2015). Introduction and literature review: Is parent–child contact during parental incarceration beneficial? In J. PoehlmannTynan (Ed.), Childrens contact with incarcerated parents: Implications for policy and intervention (pp. 1–21). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-16625-4_1 Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71, 181–187. Shoot, B. (2017, November 9). The 1977 disability rights protest that broke records and changed laws. Atlas Obscura. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/504-sit-in-sanfrancisco-1977-disability-rights-advocacy Shor, B., & McCarty, N. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055411000153 Shore, M. F. (1979). Legislation, advocacy, and the rights of children and youth. American Psychologist, 34(10), 1017–1019. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.1017 Sileo, A. (2022, May 11). Demographic data helps Colorado lawmakers assess potential disparate impact of proposals. Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/ ja/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/05/11/demographic-data-helps-coloradolawmakers-assess-potential-disparate-impact-of-proposals Sklar, K. K. (1993). The historical foundations of women’s power in the creation of the American welfare state, 1840-1930. In S. Koven & S. Michel (Eds.), Mothers of a new world (pp. 321–342). Routledge. Skocpol, T. (1995). Social policy in the United States: Future possibilities in historical perspective. Princeton University Press. Skocpol, T. (1996, November). The missing middle: Working parents in U.S. democracy and social policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Kansas City, MO. Skocpol, T. (1997). A partnership with American families. In S. B. Greenberg & T. Skocpol (Eds.), The new majority: Toward a popular progressive politics (pp. 104–129). Yale University Press. Skocpol, T., & Dickert, J. (2001). Speaking for families and children in a changing civic America. In C. J. De Vita & R. Mosher-Williams (Eds.), Who speaks for America’s children (pp. 137–164). Urban Institute Press. Skolnick, A. (1997). A reply to Glenn: The battle of the textbooks: Bringing in the culture war. Family Relations, 46, 219–222. Small, S. A., Cooney, S. M., & O’Connor, C. (2009). Evidence-based program improvement: Using principles of effectiveness to enhance the quality and impact of family-based prevention programs. Family Relations, 58, 1–13. Smeeding, T. M. (2016). Gates, gaps, and intergenerational mobility: The importance of an even start. In: I. Kirsch & H. Braun (Eds.), The dynamics of opportunity in America (pp.255–295). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25991-8_8 Smith, A. (2013, April 25). Civic engagement in the digital age. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/04/25/ civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/ Smith, D. E. (1993). The standard North American family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50–65.

414

REFERENCES

Smith, J. A. (1991). The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. The Free Press. Smith, S. (2015, December 11). Patriotic, honest and selfish: How Americans describe… Americans. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/11/ patriotic-honest-and-selfish-how-americans-describe-americans/ Smock, P. J., & Schwartz, C. R. (2020). The demography of families: A review of patterns and changes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12612 Snyder, T. (2017). On tyranny: Twenty lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books. Sohn, H. (2015). Health insurance and risk of divorce: Does having your own insurance matter?. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 982–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12195 Soto-Boykin, X., Meek, S., & Iruka, I. U. (2022). Advancing equity through Head Start’s Program information report. Arizona State University, Center for Child and Family Success, Children’s Equity Project. https://childandfamilysuccess.asu.edu/sites/default/files/ 2022-04/equity-HS-data-041522.pdf Sroufe, L. A. (1988). The role of infant-caregiver attachment in development. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 18–38). Erlbaum. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. Guilford Press. Stacey, J. (1993). Good riddance to “the family”: A response to David Popenoe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(3), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.2307/353335 Stack, M. K. (2019, October 23). Joshua Wong’s long campaign for the future of Hong Kong. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/joshua-wongs-longcampaign-for-the-future-of-hong-kong Stage, S. (1997). Ellen Richards and the social significance of the home economics movement. In S. Stage & V. B. Vincenti (Eds.), Rethinking home economics (pp. 17–33). Cornell University Press. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). (n.d.). Justia U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme. justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/645/ Stark, J. (1995). The Wisconsin Idea: The university’s service to the state. In State of Wisconsin 1995–1996 blue book (pp. 101–179). Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau. State of Oregon News Room. (2018, January 25). Oregonians who have low or moderate incomes can get a larger tax refund with the earned income tax credit. Oregon.gov. Retrieved on April 11, 2023 from www.oregon.gov/newsroom/pages/NewsDetail. aspx?newsid=2542 Statista Research Department. (2023, February 3). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults in the U.S.- statistics and facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/ 8276/impact-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-on-older-adults-in-the-us/#topicOverview Steed, H., Stratford, B., & Gabriel, A. (2021, October 6). Only 17 states and DC report LGBTQ-inclusive sex-ed curricula in at least half of schools, despite recent increases. ChildTrends. https://www.childtrends.org/blog/only-17-states-and-dc-report-lgbtqinclusive-sex-ed-curricula-in-at-least-half-of-schools-despite-recent-increases Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. Simon & Schuster. Steiner, G. Y. (1981). The futility of family policy. Brookings Institute. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). E pluribus unum. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1129–1130. Steuerle, C. E. (2021, August 3). Biden’s expanded EITC adds significant marriage penalties. Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/bidens-expanded-eitcadds-significant-marriage-penalties

REFERENCES

415

Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton. Strach, P. (2006). The politics of family. Polity, 38, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave. polity.2300033 Strach, P. (2007). All in the family: The private roots of American public policy. Stanford University Press. Stuart, A. (2019). Annual privatization report: State government. Reason Foundation. https:// reason.org/wp-content/uploads/annual-privatization-report-2019-state-government.pdf Study: Here’s the real reason for America’s racial wealth gap. (2017, February 10). Urbanparrhesia. https://www.urbanparrhesia.com/2017/02/10/study-heres-the-realreason-for-americas-racial-wealth-gap/ Suárez-Orozco, C., Yoshikawa, H., Abo-Zena, M., & Marks, A. (2015). 5. The shadow of undocumented status. In C. Suárez-Orozco, M. Abo-Zena & A. Marks (Ed.), Transitions: The development of children of immigrants (pp. 97–118). New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814770948.003.0011 Sweden: Parenthood and employment. (n.d.). Familyandjob.cz. Retrieved January 12, 2023 from https://familyandjob.eu/childcare-in-europe/sweden/ Taylor, B. B. (2001, June 6). Learned ignorance. The Christian century. https://www. christiancentury.org/article/learned-ignorance The Center on Congress at Indiana University. (2006). Understanding Congress: A citizen’s guide. http://docs.bell.lib.in.us/U.S.%20History/understanding%20congress%20a%20 citizens%20guide.pdf The Wheeler Report. (2014, June 11). http://www.thewheelerreport.com/ TheSanjayPuri. (2011, February 22). Superna Kalle Discusses the Importance of Family in Indian Culture. [Video.] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7henAjWAck Thompson, D. (2022, May 11). The forgotten stage of human progress. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/05/human-progress-inventioneureka-myth/629811/ Thompson, R. A. (2008). Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd ed., pp. 348–365). Guilford Press. Thompson, T., & Bennett, W. J. (1997). The good news about welfare reform: Wisconsin’s success story [transcript] (Heritage Lecture No. 593). Heritage Foundation. Thomson, D., Guzman, L., & Ryberg, R. (2021, September 17). Federal stimulus payments kept more than 2 million Latino and Black children out of poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/blog/ federal-stimulus-payments-kept-more-than-2-million-latino-and-black-children-out-ofpoverty-during-the-covid-19-pandemic Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades in trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009–1037. Thunberg, G. (2019, January 25). ‘Our house is on fire’: Greta Thunberg, 16, urges leaders to act on climate. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/ our-house-is-on-fire-greta-thunberg16-urges-leaders-to-act-on-climate Tocqueville, A. (1945). Democracy in America (Vol. 2). Vintage Books. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1986). The fellowship of the ring. Turtleback School. Library Binding Edition. William Morrow HarperCollins. Tomayko, E. J., Godlewski, B., Bowman, S., Settersten, R. A. Jr, Weber, R. B., & Krahn, G. (2019). Leveraging public health research to inform state legislative policy that promotes health for children and families. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 23(6), 733–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-02708-x

416REFERENCES

Tough, P. (2012, August 15). What does Obama really believe in? New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/obama-poverty.html Trask, B. S. (2022, March). Migration, urbanization, and the family dimension. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Division for Inclusive Social Development, Focal Point on the Family. https://www.un.org/development/ desa/family/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/04/Migration-Urbanization-and-theFamily-Dimension-by-Bahira-Trask.pdf Trattner, W. I. (1999). Poor law to welfare state. Free Press. Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2005). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Urban Institute. Treas, J., Lui, J., & Gubernskaya, Z. (2014). Attitudes on marriage and new relationships: Cross-national evidence on the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Demographic Research, 30, 1495–1526. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.54 Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Salazar, J. M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 366–383. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022022193243006 Trost, J. (1993). Family from a dyadic perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 92–104. Trzcinski, E. (1995). An ecological perspective on family policy: A conceptual and philosophical framework. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 16, 7–33. Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. SRCD Social Policy Report, 26(2), 3–16. Tseng, V. (2020, April 24). Transforming evidence for policy in the wake of COVID-19. William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/vivians-voice-meetingthis-moment. Tseng, V. (2021). Foreword. In K. Bogenschneider & T. J. Corbett (Eds.), Evidence-based policymaking: Envisioning a new era of theory, research, and practice (pp. xx–xxii). Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. Tseng, V. (2022). Research on research use: Building theory, empirical evidence, and a global field. William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/03/Tseng_WTG-Digest-7.pdf Tseng, V., Bednarek, A., & Faccer, K. (2022). How can funders promote the use of research? Three converging views on relational research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01157-w Tubbesing, C. (1998). The dual personality of federalism. State Legislatures, 24(4), 14–19. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget. (n.d.). Stages of the Congressional budget process. http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/stages.htm U.S. Census Bureau. (2020) Children with grandparents by presence of parents, sex, and selected characteristics: 2020. [Data set.] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/ demo/tables/families/2020/cps-2020/tabc4-all.xls U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2021, November 12). Policy Alert. Subject: Employment authorization for certain H-4, E, and L nonimmigrant dependent spouses. PA-2021-25. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ files/document/policy-manual-updates/20211112-EmploymentAuthorization.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2023, March 10). WIC data tables. Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved on March 17, 2023 from https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Education Stabilization Fund. Retrieved on March 17, 2023 from https://covid-relief-data.ed.gov/ Uhlenberg, P., & Eggebeen, D. (1986). The declining well-being of American adolescents. The Public Interest, 82, 25–38.

REFERENCES

417

UNESCO. (2022, November 18). UNESCO member states commit to invest at least 10% of education budget on early childhood education. https://www.unesco.org/en/ articles/unesco-member-states-commit-invest-least-10-education-budget-earlychildhood-education UNICEF and ILO. (2019, February). Towards universal social protection for children: Achieving SDG 1.3. https://www.unicef.org/media/49401/file/Towards%20universal% 20social%20protection%20for%20children.pdf United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2020). World Population Ageing 2019. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/development/ desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Report.pdf University of Pittsburg (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on family caregivers: A community survey from the University of Pittsburgh. Office of University Communication and Marketing. https://ucsur.pitt.edu/files/center/covid19_cg/COVID19_Full_Report_Final.pdf Unrau, Y. A. (1993). Expanding the role of program evaluation in social welfare policy analysis. Evaluation Review, 17, 653–662. USA.gov. (n.d.). Branches of the U.S. government. https://www.usa.gov/branches-ofgovernment van Eeden-Moorefield, B., & Shih, K. (2022). Introduction to the special issue on theorizing families, anti-racism, and social justice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12477 Van Hook, J., & Glick, J. E. (2020). Spanning borders, cultures, and generations: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12621 Van Lancker, W., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2020). Conclusion: The next decade of family policy research. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 683–706). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54618-2_26 Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013, October). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8. MRDC. https://www. mdrc.org/sites/default/files/The_Impact_of_Family_Imvolvement_ES.pdf Vandenbroeck, M. (2020). Early childhood care and education policies that make a difference. In: R. Nieuwenhuis & W. Van Lancker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of family policy (pp. 169–191). Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03054618-2_8 VanLandingham, G. (2020). Evidence-informed governance: Towards a more holistic approach to performance reform. International Journal of Policy Studies, 11(1), 47–62. Voorheis, J., McCarty, N., & Shor, B. (2015, August 21). Unequal incomes, ideology and gridlock: How rising inequality increases political polarization. SSRN. https://doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2649215 Votinius, J. J. (2020). Collective bargaining for working parents in Sweden and its interaction with the statutory benefit system. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 36(3), 367–386. Walch, T. (2022, June 17). Latter-day Saint apostle calls New York interfaith group a model in its influence for good. Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/6/16/ 23170292/byu-latter-day-saint-elder-quentin-l-cook-calls-new-york-interfaith-group-amodel-religious-liberty Walker, D. (2018, November/December). Old money/new order: American philanthropies and the defense of liberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 97(6), 158–167. https://www. jstor.org/stable/e26797923 Wallace, D. F. (2005). This is water by David Foster Wallace (full transcript and audio). Farnam Street Media Inc. https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/

418

REFERENCES

Walsh, F. (2016a). Applying a family resilience framework in training, practice, and research: Mastering the art of the possible. Family Process, 55(4), 616–632. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/famp.12260 Walsh, F. (2016b). Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/174056 29.2016.1154035 Walter, I., Nutley, S., & Davies, H. (2005). What works to promote evidence-based practice? A cross-sector review. Evidence and Policy, 1(3), 335–363. Walters, S. (2008, July–August). Adding it up. State Legislatures, 45–47. Ward, I. (2008). Bricolage and low cunning: Rorty on pragmatism, politics and poetic justice. Legal Studies, 28(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2008.00088.x Washington Post Live. (2023, January 31). Transcript: “Navalny”: A conversation with Maria Pevchikh and Odessa Rae. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost. com/washington-post-live/2023/01/31/transcript-navalny-conversation-with-mariapevchikh-odessa-rae/ Wear, M. (2014, October 1). The American family is making a comeback. Atlantic. https:// www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-family-is-making-a-comeback/380956/ Weimer, D. L. (2009). Making education research more policy analytic. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 93–100). Routledge. Weinstein, P., & Patten, B. (2016, April). The price of paying taxes II: How paid tax preparer fees are diminishing the earned income tax credit (EITC). Progressive Policy Institute. https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016.04-Weinstein_ Patten_The-Price-of-Paying-Takes-II.pdf Weir, K. (2019, November 1). Politics is personal. Monitor on Psychology, 50(10), 45–51. Weiss, C. H. (1978). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In L. E. Lynn (Ed.), Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 23–81). National Academy of Sciences. Weiss, C. H. (1989). Congressional committees as users of analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(3), 411–431. Weiss, C. H. (1999). Research-policy linkages: How much influence does social science research have? In World Social Science Report 1999 (pp. 194–205). UNESCO. http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001163/116325E.pdf Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980). Social science research and decision making. Columbia University Press. Weiss, J. A., & Weiss, C. H. (1996). Social scientists and decision makers look at the usefulness of mental health research. In R. P. Lorion, I. Iscoe, P. H. DeLeon, & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), Psychology and public policy: Balancing public service and professional need (pp. 165–182). American Psychological Association. WELPAN (2002a). Developing a workable cross systems waiver authority: Perspectives of the WELPAN network. Institute for Research on Poverty. WELPAN (2002b). Eliminating the silos: Or, it’s not just welfare anymore. Institute for Research on Poverty. WELPAN (2002c). Recreating social assistance: Or, how to use waiver authority to eliminate program silos. Institute for Research on Poverty. Westat (2000). Trends in the well-being of America’s children and youth. ASPE. http://aspe. hhs.gov/hsp/00trends/index.htm Wilcox, W., Gersten, C., & Regier, J. (2019). Marriage penalties in means-tested tax and transfer programs: Issues and options. OFA Report 2019-01, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/hmrf_ marriagepenalties_paper_final50812_6_19.pdf

REFERENCES

419

Wilcox, B. L., Weisz, V. P., & Miller, M. K. (2005). Practical guidelines for educating policymakers: The Family Impact Seminar as an approach to advancing the interests of children and families in the policy arena. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(4), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3404_6 Wilcox, W. B., Wolfinger, N. H., & Stokes, C. E. (2015). One nation, divided: Culture, civic institutions, and the marriage divide. The Future of Children, 25(2), 111–127. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/43581975 Williams, T. (2019, January 28). A first in over a century: Only one state has a split legislature. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/democrats-gun-controlhealthcare.html Williams, N., Himmel, K. F., Sjoberg, A. F., & Torrez, D. J. (1995). The assimilation model, family life, and race and ethnicity in the United States: The case of minority welfare mothers. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 380–405. Williams, D. R., & Jackson, P. B. (2005). Social sources of racial disparities in health. Health Affairs, 24(2), 325–334. Wilson, R. (2022, January 20). ‘Unprecedented:’ States invest in child care to recover pandemic losses. Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/590463-unprecedentedstates-invest-in-child-care-to-recover-pandemic-losses/ Wilson, W. J. (1991, November). Urban poverty, joblessness, and social isolation: Challenges to the inner-city ghetto family? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Denver, CO. Wilson, W. J. (1997). The new social inequity and affirmative opportunity. In S. B. Greenberg & T. Skocpol (Eds.), The new majority: Toward a popular progressive politics (pp. 57–77). Yale University Press. Winkler, A. (1994, November–December). Communitarianism. Utne Reader, 66, 105–108. Winton, P. J., & Crais, E. R. (1996). Moving towards a family-centered approach. In P. J. McWilliams, P. Winton, & E. Crais (Eds.), Practical strategies for family-centered interventions (pp. 155–193). Singular. Wisconsin Council on Children and Families. (n.d.). Legislative advocacy guide. http:// www.wccf.org/pdf/legislative_advocacy_guide.pdf Wisensale, S. K. (2001a). Family leave policy: The political economy of work and family in America. Sharpe. Wisensale, S. K. (2001b). Twenty years of family policy: From Carter to Clinton. In S. Garasky & J. Mercier (Eds.), Redefining family policy: Implications for the 21st century (pp. 3–20). Iowa State University Press. Wolfe, A. (1989). Whose keeper? Social sciences and moral obligation. California Press. Wong, D. (2010). Family proofing policy: A review of international experience of family impact assessment. Relationships Foundation. https://www.relationshipsfoundation. org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Family_Proofing_Policy.pdf World Health Organization. (2012) World Health Day 2012- Ageing and Health. [Toolkit for event organizers.] https://www.afro.who.int/media-centre/events/ world-health-day-2012-ageing-and-health World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2021). Country case study on the integrated delivery of long-term care: Turkey. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/ 349928 World Population Review. (2023). Hague Convention countries 2023. https://worldpopulation review.com/country-rankings/hague-convention-countries Wulczyn, F. (2021, September 1). Under pressure: Investigating how system-level factors shape racial inequality in child welfare outcomes. William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/

420REFERENCES

under-pressure-investigating-how-system-level-factors-shape-racial-inequality-inchild-welfare-outcomes X4Impact. (2022). The US nonprofit landscape: Human services insights 2022. https:// x4i.org/downloads/pdf/The%20US%20Nonprofit%20Landscape%20-%20Human%20 Services%20Insights%202022.pdf Yankelovich, D. (1995, Fall). Three destructive trends. The Kettering Review, pp. 6–15. Yankelovich, D., interviewed by Nelson, R. C. (1989). America’s values are changing. In D. L. Bender & B. Leone (Eds.), American values: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 110–118). Greenhaven. Yasharoff, H. (2021, Jan. 20). Amanda Gorman performs powerful poem at inauguration: Read the full text of ‘The Hill We Climb’. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/ entertainment/celebrities/2021/01/20/read-amanda-gorman-inauguration-poem-thehill-we-climb/4231769001/ Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0034654311405999 Yearby, R., Clark, B., & Figueroa, J. F. (2022, February). Structural racism in historical and modern US health care policy. Health Affairs. 41(2), 187–194. https://www.vox.com/ 2014/7/9/5883687/birth-control-saves-money-lots-of-it Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young children. Russell Sage Foundation. Yoshikawa, H., & Ariel, K. (2011). The effects of parental undocumented status on the developmental contexts of young children in immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 5(4), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00204.x Yoshikawa, H., Chaudry, A., García, S. R., Koball, H., & Francis, T. (2019, March). Approaches to protect children’s access to health and human services in an era of harsh immigration policy. Institute of Development and Social Change. https://research.steinhardt.nyu. edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/ac190/IHDSC_Approaches_to_Protect_Childrens_ Access_to_Health_and_Human_Services_in_an_Era_of_Harsh_Immigration_Policy.pdf Zahn, D., Hirota, S., Garcia, J., & Ro, M. J. (2003). Valuing families and meeting them where they are. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1797–1799. Zalis, S. (2021, April 14). Predictable flexibility: The key to making post-pandemic workplaces work for women. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2021/04/14/ predictable-flexibility-the-key-to-making-post-pandemic-workplaces-work-for-women/ ?sh=28b6719d7a54 Zigler, E. (1998). A place of value for applied and policy studies. Child Development, 69, 532–542. Zigler, E., Phillips, D., Moorehouse, M., & Watson, S. (2009, April). Child development science and policy: Where have we been? Where are we going? Presentation and discussion session held at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO. Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (2002). A life lived at the crossroads of knowledge and children’s policy. In A. Higgins-D’Alessandro & K. R. B. Jankowski (Eds.), Science for society: Informing policy and practice through research in developmental psychology (pp. 5–15). Jossey-Bass. Zimmerman, S. L. (1995). Understanding family policy: Theoretical approaches. Sage. (Original work published 1988)

421

INDEX Note: Page references in italics denote figures and in bold tables. 10th Amendment 115 abortion 35, 83, 88, 95 281–282; right and U.S. Supreme Court 109–110 ABT (Agreement, But, Therefore) method 321 activism 21, 22; see also political activism Adams, John 126 Adolescent Diversion Project 71 Adoption and Safe Families Act 251 advocacy: critical choice of 338–355; looking to the past 337–338; meaning of 333–334; organization’s transformation to education 355–356 advocacy approach 333–334; consequences of 357; considerations for 341; defined 333; examples of 343; factoring in context 338–355 Affordable Care Act 109, 248 Algers, Horatio 171 American Academy of Pediatrics 344 American culture 195 An American Dilemma (Myrdal) 118 American Dream 49, 54–55, 127, 154–155, 373 American Enterprise Institute 188 American Heart Association 344 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) 336, 350 American Maternalists 279, 284 American Medical Association 278 American Psychological Association 343, 344 American Rescue Plan 31–32 American Sociological Association 338 Americans with Disabilities Act 21 AmeriCorps 9 Anderson, Elaine 326 anger, and policy activism 372 Annie E. Casey Foundation 6, 118 approaches to policy engagement see advocacy approach; education approach Arbery, Ahmaud 158 Ariel, K. 337 Asian Exclusion Act 157 Aspen Institute 289 Assessing the Impact of Child Care Centers on Families checklist 265 Basic Law for a Gender-Equal Society (Japan) 94 Bellah, R. N. 166 Berger, L. M. 146 Bernard, Jessie 225

Bernard van Leer Foundation 289 Berry, Wendell 33 Beveridge, Albert J. 166 Bianchi, Jon-Paul 117–118 Biden, Joe 16, 37, 109–110 bill becomes a law see policy process bipartisan 320, 350; agreement among Democrats and Republicans 46; legislation 206; political appeal 270; political support 22 Black Americans 8, 157 Black Lives Matter movement 18, 24, 158, 292, 372 Black Panthers 20 Blankenhorn, D. 212, 214, 297 Bloody Sunday 9 Boesak, Allan Aubrey 29 Boston Massacre 126 Boushey, H. 191 Brain Trust 280, 290 Brandeis, Louis 122 Braun, Bonnie 326 Braver Angels 292 Bright Horizons 201–202 Bronfenbrenner, U. 103–104, 244, 252, 281 Brooks, Arthur 188, 189 Brown, Jerry 372 Brownell, Kelly 343–344 Brown v. Board of Education 11, 22 Buchanan, Pat 166 Build Back Better Act 201 Bureau of Labor Standards 278 Bureau of Labor Statistics 276 Burke, Edmund 5 Bush, George W. 36 Cameron, David 244 Canadian Bill of Rights 167 Cantrell, Hunter 24 Caplan, Nathan 301 Carlson, A. 279 Carlson, M. J. 146 Carter, Jimmy 36, 281 Cato Foundation 336 Cázares-Kelly, Gabriella 17–18 census data 180, 277, 286 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 336, 347 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 344 charitable giving/activities 173 Charles Koch Foundation 336

422INDEX

Cheal, D. 219 Cheney, Liz 126 Cherlin, Andrew 151, 171–172 child and family: poverty 16–17; saving 274, 274, 277–278 child care 62–63, 66, 353, 364; benefits 251; chains 202; costs 63; and COVID-19 pandemic 110; European Union 61; Kellogg Foundation 118; payments 201; private (for profit ) companies 200–201; for sick children 93; spending 32 childhood obesity 14–15 Child-Parent Center 264 children: with developmental disabilities 149–150; health insurance for 363–364; Nebraska Family Impact Seminars 363–364; Oregon Family Impact Seminar 364–365 Children, Youth, and Family Consortium (University of Minnesota) 261 Children’s Bureau 277–278, 286, 290, 344 child support 48, 98–99, 109–110, 199, 222, 253, 282, 286, 297, 314 Child Tax Credit 32, 47, 50, 93, 110, 159, 283 Child Trends 42 Chile 62–63 Chile Grows With You program 62 Chinese Exclusion Act 157 Chua, Amy 368 church membership/attendance 173–174 citizen engagement: broad-based 291–292; common characteristics 9–10; and family policies 9–21; and individualism 173–174; and opportunity 10–11; and political activism 10; and political effectiveness 17; and responding skills 15; and societal issues 12 civic organizations 84, 218 Civilization Fund Act 157 civil rights: Black college students 8; movement 8–9, 27, 118; political activism on 11 civil society 58, 62, 173–174, 206, 213, 218, 229 Clay, Henry 209 Clinton, Bill 36 Clinton, Hillary 38, 166 Coalition of Family Organizations 255 cohabitation 44, 47, 58, 96, 100, 146, 151, 181; family life around 213; before marriage 221; rise in 151, 213; Western countries 172 collaboration 276; interfaith 174 collective bargaining 23, 157, 373; political activism on 11–12 Colorado Children’s Campaign 117 commitment: in families 95–96; in individualistic societies 34, 217; in societies with weak social safety 177; in strong market economies 187–188

committees: appropriations 133; authorization 133; congressional 356; hearings 132; political action 96; role in engagement 316; study committees 309 Commons, John 338 communication: about racial disparities to policymakers 325–326; frame 86 communitarianism 166 community culture: choosing between advocacy or education 351–353; guiding questions related to advocacy or education 348–355; policymakers and target policy setting 348–351; purpose of involvement 353–355 Community Dissonance Theory 301–302, 310, 311, 328, 339, 340 community inhabitants: guiding questions related to advocacy or education 340–346; identity in policy world 342–345; personal beliefs about objectivity/neutrality 345–346; professional expertise/personal demeanor 340–342 community institutions: guiding questions related to advocacy or education 347–348; organization’s mission 347–348; professional position 347–348 compromise 134–136, 140, 230–231; virtue of seeking 207–209 concerned camp 212, 215–219, 216, 227–230; evidence for 218; family agenda of 218–219; values of 216–218 confirmation bias 235 Congress 20, 34, 36, 47, 74, 93, 107–109, 111–113, 115, 123–124, 132, 245, 290, 349; evidencebased home visiting programs 138; farm bill 251; formal structures 290; National Science Foundation 296; partisan polarization 206 Congressional Budget Office 245, 317, 335 Congressional Dads Caucus 290 Congressional Research Service 317, 335 Congress of Mothers 275 consensus 230; bipartisan 256; political 59, 73–74, 283, 369 Cooper-White, P. 235 Corbett, Thomas 228, 231, 309 Council of Economic Advisers 290–291 COVID-19 pandemic 110, 283, 285, 289; American Rescue Plan 31–32; inequality based on race and ethnicity 158 credibility 343, 352 Cullors, Patrisse 18 cultural tensions and families 49–51 culture 166; best practices in family policymaking 320–327; in family policymaking 309–310, 310 Cushman, Diane 121–122

INDEX

data: analysis 182–183; collection 180 Daughters of the American Revolution 275 decision-making 210–211 Declaration of Independence 123, 167 de facto means 83, 85–86, 90, 93–94 democracy: achievements 123; and citizens 141; decision-making 208, 239; founding documents 123; institutions 125; policymaking 341; political debate 205; tripartite structure 123 Democracy in America (Tocqueville) 165 democratic rights 19–20 demographic changes in family life 47–48, 158–162 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) 20 Department of Health and Human Services 140 desegregation 175 Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act 247–248 developmental disabilities 149–150 devolution 115, 178 Dewson, Molly 280 Dionne, E. J. 238 disabilities: developmental 149–150; people with (see people with disabilities) diverging destinies 193 diversity 9, 146, 159, 180, 223–226; family 257, 262, 263; ideological 307 doctrine of “separate but equal” 22 Doherty, William 197, 292 Dole, Bob 36 early childhood care and education 219, 302 Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 6, 48, 159, 249, 365 ecological family systems theory 104–105, 105, 119, 252–253, 269 economic inequalities 35, 153–155; families 48–49 Edin, Kathryn 285–286 Edmund Pettus Bridge 8 education 43, 106, 155, 298; early childhood 62, 70, 75–76, 161; parent 89, 110, 265, 289, 352–353; education programs 218; preschool 62–63; public 127; racial inequities in 23; sex 251, 298 education approach 333, 333–335, 335, 338, 340–345, 351, 354–358; consequences of 342; considerations for adopting 334–335; critical choice of 331–358; defined 333; factoring in context 338–355 Einstein, Albert 369 election integrity 16 Eliot, T. S. 376 Emancipation Proclamation 109 Employment Act (1946) 291 enforceable trust 33, 162

423

engaging policymakers: ABT method 321; information preferences 302, 303, 304, 359; opportunities for discussion 319–320; preferred delivery methods 334; relationship-based approaches 313, 354; use of stories and narrative 321 Etzioni, Amitai 234 evidence-based policy 309, 328 executive orders 103, 108, 109–110, 117, 119 exemplar communicators 339 Fairchild, Mary 127–128, 134 families 4–6; change, worldviews of 212–215; configurations 58; contributions to society 192–193; and cultural tensions 49–51; definitions of 96–100; demographic changes 47–48, 158–162; economic inequalities 48–49; economic well-being 61–62; efficiency of contributions 66–68; and family policies 7, 66–67, 104–107; and formation of human capital 191–192; forms and functions 146–151; functional definitions 97–99; importance to society 32–34, 34; marginalization of 34–44; and market economy 193–198; normative ideal 59, 73–74; outsourcing functions to marketplace 195–197; policymaker interest in 51–53; and policymaking 34–44; professional interest in 51–53; racial/ethnic inequalities 48–49; responsibilities 49–51; social inequalities 48–49; and stakeholder support 34–44; structural definitions 97–99; value to society 60 family marginalization 34–44; contributions of prominent forces 35, 35, 45–53; in federal, state, and local laws 110–116; and professionals 39–44; professional training in 51–53 familism 226–227 familism-individualism dichotomy 227 family allowances 75, 278 Family and Medical Leave Act 160, 345 family bubble 40, 103–104, 107, 119 family caregiving 47, 72–73, 88, 110, 178 family-centered economics 38 family-centered implementation: participatory practices 254; relational practices 254 family contexts 263 family demography 180 family diversity 257, 263 family engagement 258 family farm 251 family forms: changes in 50, 146–150; definitional issues 98–99, 224, 227; diversity of 88, 96; implications for diversity 162, 224; implications for policy 50, 158–161, 220, 222–224, 289;

424INDEX

interference of the market economy, 193–198; international configurations 58; main function of families 88–89; stigmatization 150–151 family functions and market economy 194–195, 195 “family glitch” 248 family impact 244 Family Impact Analysis 248, 252, 262–267, 268; of agency/organization using checklist 266–267; of rules, legislation, laws, or programs 264–266 Family Impact Checklists 246, 260–261, 269 Family Impact Discussion Starters 246, 255, 258, 258–260, 269 Family Impact Guide for Policymakers: Viewing policies Through a Family Lens 269 Family Impact Handbook How to View Policy and Practice through the Family Impact Lens (Bogenschneider) 268 Family Impact Institute 255 family impact lens 86; defined 87; in defining families 90–94; ecological family systems theory 252–253; incarceration 92; open policy windows theoretical framework 254–255, 255; policies and programs 247–252; self-efficacy theory 253, 253–254; theoretical rationale for 252–255; value in policies/programs/practices 247–252 family impact principles 247, 255–258 Family Impact Rationale: An Evidence Base for the Family Impact Lens (Bogenschneider) 268–269 Family Impact Seminars 16, 25, 259, 281–282, 287, 296, 335; conceptual impacts 307; defined 287; design of 302; impacts of 306–309; infrastructure for engaging policymakers 302–309; institutional impacts 308–309; instrumental impacts 306–307; political hope inspired by 363–367; relational impacts 307–308; seeding of hope by 366–367, 367; signature components of 302–305, 303–304; theory-driven 302; working of 305–306 family impact statements 244, 281 Family Impact Toolkit 247, 267, 267–269, 268 Family Integrated Transitions 71 family law 39, 86, 87, 88, 175–176 family leave 76, 88, 200, 226, 249, 297–298, 373; economic impact of paid 65–66 family policies 32; addressing economic development 62–64; around the world 57–59; broad-based citizen activism 291–292; as child and family saving 277–278; and citizen engagement 9–21; comprehensive vision 117; development of caring and committed citizens 64–65; emergence, in last half century 280–283; employers, limitations of 199–200; and families 7, 66–67, 104–107; federal, state, and local laws and initiatives 108–116, 111–115; government decision-making

290–291; implementation 107–108, 108; insights 283–292, 284; interdisciplinary focus on families 289–290; investments in adolescence 70–72, 71; investments in early childhood 69–70, 70; investments in later life 72–73; lack of nimble response 146; legitimated by relevant research/ theory 284–286; and market economy 198–202; origins of 275–277; of the past 274–280; philanthropic commitments to 117–119; pioneers of 274; policymakers on 76–77, 286– 287, 297–301; and policymaking 94–96; private value to members 58–59; public value to society 59; rationale for 59–74; and social problems 287–289; in Social Security Amendments 278–280; and time/efforts 296–301; United States investments in 74–76; in women’s advocacy 275–277 family policy definitions 81–86, 88–89; de facto means for achieving nonfamily goals 90, 93–94; direct family policy 267; family impact lens 86, 87, 90–94, 243–269; indirect family policy 85, 87, 89–90 family policymaking: cultural practices in 320–327; economic/political feasibility of 322–325; families and peoples/communities 326–327; human face/pragmatic image 320–322; inhabitant practices in 311–316; institutional practices in 316–320; nonpartisan approach 317–320; policy inhabitants/institutions/culture in 309–310, 310; and policymakers 311–312, 314–316; and racial disparities 325–326; research provisions 316–317; theory of paradox 226–231; Youth and Family Champions 312–314 family stability 256–257 family stigmatization 150–151 family structure: disagreements over 37–38, 222– 223; effects of 192, 284; in family impact analysis 202; origins of changes in 188, 193–194; policy agenda 222; privileging of family structures 178; rapid changes in 115, 146–150 family values 196, 197–198, 221, 373 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 285 federal policies; examples of 111–115; focus of 110; history of 110; and individualism 177–178 Ferguson, C. J. 357–358 Flinchbaugh, Barry 236 Floyd, George 8, 18, 158 Folbre, N. 69, 192 Food Stamps 48, 109, 115, 159, 178, 250, 261, 282 Ford Foundation 118 Friedman, Thomas 237 Frost, Robert 339 Functional Family Therapy 71

INDEX

Gallup poll 279 Garza, Alicia 18 gender identity 26, 146, 150–151, 155, 163, 223–225, 237 gender inequality 26, 42, 49, 54, 66–68, 75, 94, 150–151, 155, 163, 221, 224–225, 237, 249 General Accounting Office 317, 335, 365 General Federation of Women’s Clubs 276, 292 “German paternalism” 278 GI Bill 292 Goldstein, D. 201 Goodall, Jane 362, 369–370, 374 Gorman, Amanda 28 “go-to” legislators 311–312 government decision-making 290–291 government role in family life 45–47 government structure: executive branch 123–124; judicial branch 123; legislative branch 123–125 grandparent-led families 148 gray divorce 154 Great Depression 32, 63 Great Society 118 Grigorenko, E. L. 345 Grisso, Thomas 357 Habits of the Heart (Bellah) 166 Haidt, Jonathan 319 Hall, Douglas John 368 Hall, G. Stanley 276 Harding, Warren 288 Haskins, R. 230 Haspel, Elliot 202 Hatch, Orrin 248 Head Start 6, 32, 39, 118, 180, 283, 289, 344–345 health impact assessments 245 health insurance for children 363–364; Nebraska Family Impact Seminar 363–364 Healthy Families America 139 Hengstebeck, N. D. 290 Heritage Foundation 347 Herrine, Luke 15 Hersh, E. 27 Hidalgo, Lina 17 Hines, Denise 326 Hird, J. A. 349 Hochschild, Arlie 188, 194, 195, 196 Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 139 homeless shelters 116, 261 home visiting 110, 138–140, 297, 307 Hong Kong 19–20; Chief Executive and Family Council 244; Human Rights and Democracy Act 20 Hoover technocrats 279

425

hope, and political activism 366–367, 367, 373 House of Delegates or Assembly 123 how a bill becomes a law see policy process human capital 191–192 Hunt, Ben 215 ideologically unpredictable people 238, 239 imagination, and political activism 372–373 immigrant families 146–147 impatient camp 212, 222–226, 223; evidence of 226; family agenda of 225–226; policy agenda of 223; values of 224–225; views of family change 225–226 Indicators of Children’s Well-Being 285 indirect family policy 85, 87, 89–90 individualism 165–184, 188; benefits of 167; in charitable giving and activities 173; and civic engagement 173–174; defined 49–50; differences in Western democracy 172–173; extent of in American society 50, 165, 167–171; and family life 34, 171–173, 217; in federal policies 177–178; in judicial rulings 175–176; in local policies 178–179; perils of 166–167; in policymaking 175–179; in professional training 179–184; in research 179–184; role of family in counteracting 51; social safety net decisions 176–177; in state policies 178; in unions and work associations 174 individual rights 49–51 inequality: in America 49, 155; based on income and wealth 156, 189, 362; racial and ethnic 49, 155, 156–158; in welfare services 94; see also gender inequality instability in children’s lives 47, 153, 172–173, 256 Institute of Medicine 344 institutions: engaging in family policymaking 309–310, 310; practices in family policymaking 316–320 international conventions 108–109, 117 It Takes a Family (Santorum) 38 Jackson, Jesse 230 Johns, Barbara 11 Johnson, Andrew 126 judicial rulings, and individualism 175–176 juvenile crime 88, 287 Kahn, A. J. 85 Kahneman, Daniel 233 Kamerman, S. B. 85 Kelley, Florence 277–278, 286 Kenley, Luke 318 Kennedy, John F. 136, 238 Kennedy, Ted 21

426INDEX

Kids Count 118 Kinder Care 201–202 King, Martin Luther, Jr. 25 Kingdon, J. W. 254–255 Kingdon’s Open Policy Windows Theoretical Framework 254–255, 255 Kissinger Academics 342 knowledge-based economies 191 Krosnick, Jon 16 Krugman, Paul 351 Kunin, Madeleine 38, 372–373 laboratory-driven legislation 337–338 La Follette, Robert M. 22 Lampman, Robert 82 Lang, Robert 353 Laracy, Mike 6 Lathrop, Julia 277–278, 291 Latina woman, elected as County Judge 17 lawmaking see policy process “law of collective survival” 208 laws: Family Impact Analysis of 264–266; local 116 Leahy, Patrick 247 Lee, Carol 13 legislative service agencies 245, 260, 305–306, 317, 345, 349 Letiecq and Anderson 336 Let’s Move 14 Lewis, John 8, 9, 126 LGBTQI+ 251; families 150–151; populations 150–151 Lightbridge Academy 201 Lincoln, Abraham 109, 235 Lindsay, Samuel McCune 276 Little Mother Leagues 278 local laws 116 local policies: examples of 116; and individualism 178–179; role of nonprofits 116 Locke, John 167 Lodge, Henry Cabot 126 long-term care 228, 249, 253, 307; economic value 72–73; family role in caregiving 72 Lord of the Rings 374 Louisiana Family Impact Seminars 325 low-income working families 364–365 Macron, Emmanuel 98 market economy: benefits of 188; contributions of families 191–193; design of family policies 199; bringing disenfranchised into U.S. society 189–190; disparities by race, income, and wealth 189–191; economic pricing of priceless 197–198; as force for good or ill for families 188; influences on families 193–198; influencing

family policy 198–201; interference with family formation/functioning 193–195, 195; limitations 199–201; outsourcing of family functions 196; posing a peril to family policy 201–202; replaces family functions 194–195, 195 marriage 33; advantages of 150; capstone 152; cornerstone 152; decline in 151–153; economic divide 156–157; educational divide 155–157; enforceable trust 162; gay 37–38; same-sex 7, 147 Marriage Friendly Therapists 198 Martin, Trayvon 18, 372 Maternalists 279, 284 maternity benefits 63 Maton 297, 351 Mayhew, D. R. 233 McCain, John 37, 126 McDermott, Jim 139 McDonald, G. W. 338 McGurk, Harry 244 McLanahan, Sara 193 Mead, Margaret 244, 281 Medicaid 110, 287, 365 Medicare 110, 160, 226 Miller, George 21 Miller, Mark 313–314 Minuchin, S. 103–104, 252 Minuchin’s structural family systems theory see structural family systems theory Monroe, Pamela 325 morals/morality: basis for consensus 44; contributors to 166; counterbalance to individualism 51; origins of 116; skepticism about 224 Moynihan, D. P. 285, 291 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care 71 multi-generational families 148 Multisystemic Therapy 72 Murray, Charles 193 Myrdal, Gunnar 118 myth 104, 107, 196, 286 Nagel, T. 345 National Academy of Sciences 250 National American Woman Suffrage Association 275 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 11, 37–38 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 115 National Congress of Mothers 292 National Consumers’ League 275 National Council of Catholic Women 275 National Council of Jewish Women 275 National Council on Family Relations 39, 41 National Environmental Policy Act 245

INDEX

National Family Caregiver Support Program 160 The National Family Caregiver Support Program 248 National Network of Partnership Schools 266 National Science Foundation 296 National Women’s Trade Union League 275 Native American woman, elected as County Recorder 17–18 Navalny, Alexei 126, 371 Nebraska Family Impact Seminars 363–364 New Deal 279–280, 284, 288 New England Journal of Medicine 344 New York Academy of Medicine 364 New York Immigration Coalition 337 New York Times 344 Nicholas of Cusa 3 Niebuhr, Reinhold 369 Nieuwenhuis, R. 107 Nixon, Richard 282, 344 No Kidding 171 nonpartisan/nonpartisanship 336; confusion surrounding 319–320; contributors to 336; difficulties of establishing 317–318; influence of 319–320; seminars or forums 319–320; strategies for attaining 317–319; valuing of 336 Northway, Don 373 Northway, Phyllis M. 373 Nouwen, Henri 23–24 novelists and political hope 373–374 nuclear family: decline in 215, 222–223; traditional 218 Nye, F. I. 338 Obama, Barack 22, 26, 27–28, 34, 36–37, 139–140, 158 Obama, Michele 14–15 Obergefell v. Hodges 175 objectivity 256, 306; personal beliefs about 345– 347; policy educators on 346 O’Connor, Sandra Day 176 Old Age pensions 280 older adults 160, 213; caregiving for 48; family caregivers for 153–154; government spending on 110 Olds’ Nurse-Family Partnership 70, 71, 138–139; see also home visiting Olsen, Luther 350 Olson, R. 321 Onaga, Esther 325 Ooms, Theodora 82, 96, 179, 282 open policy windows 252, 255 open policy windows theoretical framework 252, 254–255, 255 opportunity: and citizen engagement 10–11; and political activism 23–24 optimism 214 optimistic perspective see satisfied camp

427

Oregon Family Impact Seminars 364–365 Oregon House Revenue Committee 364 Oregon Social Learning Center 92 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 62, 200, 245, 373 organization: Family Impact Analysis of 266–267; transformation from advocacy to education 355–356 Orshansky, Mollie 82 Orszag, Peter 140 Orthner, D. K. 221 Palin, Sarah 37 Palmer, Parker 209, 232 pandemic see COVID-19 pandemic paradox see theory of paradox parental involvement in schooling 266, 282 parental leave 64–66, 169, 171, 202, 226, 229, 231, 264 Parent-Child Home Program 139 parenting 4, 37, 40; competence 64; consistency of effects 64; education 43; effectiveness of training 138–140, 227; importance of 138–140; skills 257 Parents as Teachers 139 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 176 Parent Teacher Association (PTA) 292 Paris Climate Accords 110 participatory practices 254, 258 partisan/partisanship: causes of 297–299; controversies around 281; extent of divide 205–206; strategies for overcoming 317–318, 332–333; in youth and family issues 297–299 partisan polarization 205–207; see also polarization Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) 248 Pelosi, Nancy 126 people with disabilities 18; rights and political activism 20–21, 26–27 perceptual reductionism 228 pessimistic perspective 214 see concerned camp Pew Charitable Trust 324 philanthropy: contributions to family policy 117–119; private 104, 117–119; strategies for investing 119 Philip F. La Follette, 355 Pielke, R. 342 Pinker, Steven 368 polarization 205–230, 362; effects of 206; extent of 208; process whereby it occurs 207–208; significance of 205–206; strategies for overcoming 207–226; in youth and family policy 205–207 polarized politics 233; common ground 236–237;

428INDEX

engage with people in disagreement 234–236; new ideas/innovative solutions 238; show respect 237; and stereotypes 233–234; talk agreeably about politics 236–238; and theory of paradox 231–238; treat others with kindness 237–238 policy administrators/administration: definition of 125, 125; information preferences 302, 303–304; work culture 302, 303–304; writing style 304 policy/ies: activism 372; administrators 125, 302–304; defined 86, 87, 124; inhabitants 309–310, 310; public 6, 86–87, 87, 124; serving institutional interests 251–252; social 87, 87–88; targeted 95; universal 216; value of family impact lens in 247–252 see policy process policymakers: advocacy approach 333, 333–334, 335; communicating value of family policy 76–77, 286–287; communication about racial disparities 325–326; definition of 124–125; and diverse families 48; education approach 333, 334–335, 335; endorsement of families 43; family impact seminar infrastructure 302–309; information preferences 302, 303–304; knowledge of families 146; marginalization of families 35–39; partisan polarization 297–299; and political hope 370–373; public policy think tanks 356–357; real-life stories of 126–129; research utilization 299–301; skills of 340–341; and social problems 287–289; work culture 302, 303–304; writing for 323–324; writing style of 304 policymaking 4, 6–7; approaches 333, 333–334, 335; citizen engagement 9–21; culture of 133–138, 134; enormity inside Capitol 129–130; enormity outside the Capitol, 150–151; and family policies 94–96; family policy and family impact lens in 247–252; institutional culture 309–310,, 310; marginalization of families (see family marginalization) policy process 131–133; bill draft 132; committees 132, 133; compromise 134–136, 140; enormity inside Capitol 129–130; enormity outside Capitol 130–131; executive approval 133; executive branch 123–125; floor debate 132–133; how a bill becomes law 131–133; idea becoming law 131–133; judicial branch 123, 141; legislative branch 123–124; rationality of 134; relationship-based culture 313, 354; veto 133 policy windows 254; see also open policy windows theoretical framework political activism 4, 8–9; census definition of unpaid work 13; on child and family poverty 16–17; and citizen engagement 9, 10; on

civil rights 11; and collective bargaining 11–12; effective 25–26; election integrity 16; engaging in 26–27; involvement in 22–26, 23; for reducing childhood obesity 14–15; for the rights of people 13–14; rights of people to lead independent lives 13–14; rights of people with disabilities 20–21; and smoking bans 12–13; on student loan debt 15–16 political activists: advice from 21; role of 27–28 political debates 210–211 political effectiveness: predictors of 17 political hobbyism 27, 29 political hope: Family Impact Seminar successes 363–367; naturalist views 369–370; policymaker views 370–373; researcher views 367–368; theologian views 368–369 political pessimism 214, 361–362, 366, 374 politics 6, 86–87, 87; an obstacle 6; an opportunity 6; contributions to democratic decision-making 208; definitions 6; different approaches to 6 Poo, Ai-jen 288 Popenoe, D. 215, 218 postmodern perspective see impatient camp poverty in families: the deserving poor 161; effective policies for mitigating poverty 158– 159; explanations for poverty 176–177; families favored by anti-poverty policy 48, 159; historical growth in poverty spending 46–48, 159; income and wealth inequality across families 154–161, 162; political activism on 16–17; strategies for overcoming poverty 82–83, 180 Powell, John 325–326 prescription drug costs for seniors 365–366 President’s Research Committee on Social Trends 279 privatization 200–201 productive workers, and families 60–61 pro-family talk 244 professional societies: choice of approach in engaging policymakers 355–358; implications for 357–358 programs: design and implementation 250–251; effectiveness 248–249; efficiency 249; eligibility 247–248; Family Impact Analysis of 264–266; targets of interest 251 Progressive Era 291 Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy see Sheppard-Towner Act public interest in families see families public policy 6, 86, 87, 124 public policy think tanks: policymakers’ use of expertise from 356–357 “public science” 344 Putnam, Robert 167

INDEX

racial disparities 15; communication to policymakers about 325–326; extent in juvenile justice reform 325; frame 86 racial-ethnic diversity see diversity racial/ethnic inequalities 156–158; families 48–49, 150–151 racial impact analyses 245 Rappaport, Julian 209, 233 Raver, Cybele 16 real contradictions: in creative tension with each other 211–212; distorting decision-making 210–211; distorting political debate 210–211; pursue innovative responses 211–212; theory of paradox 209 real political work 27 Reeves, R. 296 Regan, Ronald 281 Rehabilitation Act 20 Reich, Robert 8 Reid, Justin G. 11 relational practices 254, 258 relationship-based culture of policymaking 137, 312–315 religious organizations 218 Republic 123 research and theory: family policy legitimated by relevant 284–286 researchers: examples of effective engagement in policymaking 311–316; influence of individualism on the quantity and quality of family research 179–184; information preferences 303–304; on investing in family policy 297; learn from, about political hope 367– 368; misperceptions of policymakers 130, 234; shortcomings in professional preparation 340– 342; strategies for effective policy engagement 316–328; work culture 302, 303–304; writing style 304 research organizations: choice of approach in 355–358; implications for 357–358 Research-to-Policy Collaboration 287, 335 respite care 177 Rich, Andrew 356 Richards, Ellen Swallow 276 The Righteous Mind (Haidt) 319 rights of people 13–14 Riley, Dave 341, 347 Roberts, Ed 10, 12–14, 20, 23–24, 372 Roessler, Carol 346 Romney, Mitt 37–38 Roosevelt, Eleanor 371 Roosevelt, Franklin D. 157, 236, 278–280, 290, 288, 338 Roosevelt, Theodore 126, 157, 277, 286, 338, 375 Rorty, R. 362

429

safety net 157, 177, 222, 280 Salvation Army 20 same-sex marriage/partnerships 7, 22, 37, 44, 83, 146, 147, 175, 222, 282, 297, 299, 368 Santorum, Rick 38 satisfied camp 212, 219–222, 220; evidence for 221; family agenda of 221–222; policy agenda of 222; values of 221; views of family change 220 SCHIP program 251 Schroeder, Pat 222 self-efficacy theory 252, 253, 253–254, 269 sexual orientation, and families 150–151 shadow bureaucrats 93 Sheppard-Towner Act 278, 288–289, 292 single-parent families 148–149 single parents 148–149 SITCOMs 171 skills: and political activism 25; responding and citizen engagement 15 smoking bans 12–13 Snyder, Timothy 233 Social Darwinism 276 social inequalities 48–49 social issues 88 social justice 336–337 social media enthusiasts 27 social policy 87, 87–88 social problems 287–289 social safety net see safety net social safety net decisions 176–177 Social Security 160, 219, 226, 236–237, 278 Social Security Act 31, 157, 279–280 Social Security Amendments of 1939 274, 278–280, 293 Social Security Disability Insurance 160 Social Security taxes 344 Social Security Trust Fund 90 society: families make efficient contributions to 192–193; main functions families provide for 89; support to families 60 stability of children’s lives 153 Stacey, J. 223 stakeholder support and families 34–44, 35 Standard North American Family 223, 225 Stanley v. Illinois 96 State Children’s Health Insurance Program 364 state government/policies: devolution 115, 178; focus of 115; individualism in 178; jurisdiction 124, 175; latitude of 115; laws and initiatives funded 115–116; revenue invested 343–344; variations of 115–116 stealth issue advocacy 342 Steinberg, Laurence 357 Steiner, Gilbert 282

430INDEX

stereotypes 128 Sternberg, R. J. 345 stimulus checks 47, 110 strategic science 343 structural family systems theory 104 student loan debt 15–16 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 48, 110, 159, 250 Supreme Court see U.S. Supreme Court Sutton, Willie 6 Sweden 63 targeted universalism 325 tax credits 110, 159, 183; for low-income working families 364–365 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 190 Taylor, Breonna 158 Taylor, Frederick 277 Teach for America 9 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 159, 218 theologians and political hope 368–369 theology 368–369 theory of paradox 207–212; application of 226–231; beauty of 233; contradictions 209–212; definition of 207; engagement in polarized politics 231–238; and family policymaking 226–231; innovative responses 211–212; political feasibility 231–238; potential for bridging controversy 206–207, 210; true paradox 210; value and virtue of seeking compromise 207–209 THINKERs 171 Thompson, Tommy 320 Thunberg, Greta 362, 371, 374 Time Magazine 343 Tolkien, J. R. 374 Tometi, Opal 18 transformational changes in family life 145, 151– 154, 152; cohabitation 151; decline in marriage 151–153; drop in stability of children’s living arrangements 153; gap in family caregivers for older adults 153–154 Transforming Evidence Funders Network (TEFN) 118–119 transgender 146, 150–151, 155, 158, 163 transnational families 149 Trattner, W. I. 277 Trends in the WellBeing of America’s Children and Youth (Westat) 285 Trump, Donald J. 38, 109 trust: enforceable 33, 162; in government 47, 122; in policymakers 137, 301, 311–316; value of policymakers’ trust in researchers and

professionals 350; value of policymakers’ trust in their colleagues 311–315 The Umbrella Movement 19 unemployment benefits 47 Unemployment Insurance 160 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 115 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act 115 unions/work associations 174 United States: changing family forms 146–147; child care cost 63; decline of traditional family in 50; dominant culture in 4; equality of opportunity 167; family households 146; family policy landscape in 117; international conventions 108–109; investments in family policies 74–76; meaning of family 44; and religion 174; spending on children and youth 53 universal policies 226 universal public education 226 upper middle class: benefits of U.S. public policies to 190–191 U.S. Constitution 99, 109, 115, 124, 147, 178, 224 U.S. Securities and Exchanges Commission 202 U.S. Supreme Court 7, 11, 16, 96, 109–110, 115, 123, 148, 176 utilization of research in policymaking 118, 334; strategies for 320–321; theories of 325; value to policymakers 247–252 value: of family impact lens in policies 247–252; of family impact lens in practices 247–252; of family impact lens in programs 247–252; of seeking compromise 207–209 Van Lancker, W. 107 veterans’ benefits 226 voluntary associations 148, 215 von der Leyen, Ursula 23 Walker, Scott 11–12 Wallace, David Foster 51 Walsh, Froma 179–180 Ward, Lester 337–338 Washington v. Davis 175 Welfare Peer Assistance Network (WELPAN) 287 welfare policies 225–226 welfare reform 228 Western civilization 191 White House Child and Family Policy Council 290–291 White House Conference on Families 281 Willard, Frances 276 William T. Grant Foundation 118, 312 Wilson, Woodrow 338

INDEX

Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars 355, 365–366 Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WISTAX) 355–356 Wisconsin Works program 264 W. K. Kellogg Foundation 117–118 Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) 276 women: advocacy 275–277; organizations 275–278, 283; reformers 275, 279, 286 Wong, Joshua 19, 23 workplace flexibility 170, 199 World Health Organization 344 World Institute on Disability 14 worldviews of family change 212–215 World War I 277 World War II 189, 296 writing for policymakers and policy administrators: information preferences 302, 303–304; research

431

needs 302, 303–304; work culture 302, 303–304; writing style 304 Yoshikawa, H. 337, 354 Young Women’s Christian Association 275 Yousafzai, Malala 374 Youth and Family Champions 317, 318, 320, 322, 324 youth and family issues: definition of 88; extent of polarization 297–299; human face or pragmatic image 320–322; importance of research evidence 311–312 Zelensky, Volodymyr 126 Zigler, Edward 244, 281, 344–345 Zimmerman, George 18, 372