The Groves Conference on Marriage and Family: History and Impact on Family Science

Groves and NCFR: Interaction and Synergy

The late 1960s were a period of great social unrest. The assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, demonstrations at the Democratic Party convention in Chicago, Vietnam War, Black Power Movement, Women’s Liberation, Gay Rights, and liberalizing of some state abortion laws were at the forefront of news events. In this milieu, NCFR activists urged NCFR to develop and implement a policy of responsible social action. On October 23, 1969, at the annual NCFR conference in Washington, D.C. a group calling itself the Family Action Group-69 (with the purposely provocative acronym FAG-69) was formed, chaired by David Olson, also a Groves member. Within two days, the Executive Committee of NCFR agreed to its non-negotiable demands and the group was officially given committee and section status. The Family Action Group-69 was immediately replaced by a Family Action Committee (FAC) and a Family Action Section (FAS). The former would focus on organizational procedures and establish objectives and priorities. The latter would plan the section program for the annual NCFR conference. The group requested NCFR to make public position statements regarding family life. It demanded the placement of student-young professional representatives on all NCFR committees. Future Groves President Roger Rubin was appointed to the NCFR Board of Directors and FAC. At the same time other students and young professionals were given committee membership. David Olson became FAC chair (Rubin, 1969). By 1971 position statements were formulated on the Vietnam War, abortion, and the Equal Rights Amendment. That same year, two task forces were authorized: Income Maintenance, chaired by Roger Rubin, and Divorce, chaired by Emily Brown. Both task forces presented their final reports in 1976 at the NCFR conference in New York City (Hartness, 1976).

On January 26, 1983, Roger Rubin recommended in a memo to Groves President Charles Figley that a legislative committee be established within the Groves Conference (Rubin, 1983a). Figley’s response was that, “...it was quite appropriate to have a person designated on the Board who will serve as a legislation and public policy liaison with other sister organizations” (Rubin, 1983b). The backdrop for this Page  98correspondence was Rubin’s recommendation to the Public Policy Committee of the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) that a liaison person representing Groves be informed of NCFR’s policy initiatives. NCFR accepted the proposal. As a member of both the Groves Board and the NCFR Public Policy Committee, Rubin was appointed to this role. The two organizations could independently suggest, support, reject, or ignore each other’s policy pursuits as they pertained to family life. The Groves perspective was that it could respond more quickly and effectively to legislative initiatives due to NCFR’s numerous and more cumbersome procedures. This event occurred within the context of a broader movement to elevate family-related social sciences to a more active and prominent role in influencing the national debate about the quality of family life. The genesis of this movement was partially due to recognition of the many social changes impacting family life since the 1960s and the activism of NCFR affiliate the District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Council on Family Relations (DCFR). In September of 1977 an affiliate chapter of NCFR was formed to focus on social action for family-related policy issues. Calling itself the District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Council on Family Relations (DCFR), it elected Ann Tourigny, a Groves member, as its first president. Over time Groves members Catherine Chilman, Margaret Feldman, Roger Rubin, Elaine Anderson, Leigh Leslie, Linda Rothleder, Ned Gaylin, and Emily Brown were among the leaders of DCFR. Links with other policy minded groups such as the Maryland Home Economics Association and its legislative internship program were established (Westerberg, n.d.).

Simultaneous to NCFR’s activities, Groves continued its advocacy work. Writing to Groves President Charles Figley in 1983, Representative George Miller, Chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families let it be known “... how pleased I am that the Groves Conference has considered the work of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in its deliberations” (Miller, 1983). Meanwhile, DCFR maintained a direct relationship with Miller’s staff representative Linda Ittner. An historical nexus between Groves and NCFR existed which was especially strong regarding the evolution of public policy and family life advocacy. It is one of mutual links, membership, and cooperation.

Among DCFR’s accomplishments was the publication in the fall 1983 of the first Family Monitor, a newsletter monitoring legislation potentially impacting families. The Family Monitor mode of communication was replaced in 1990 by Family Fax, an effort to alert NCFR-affiliated organizations about national family-related policy issues. Much credit for this initiative goes to Margaret Feldman, who in 1992 was appointed NCFR’s policy representative in Washington, D.C. and NCFR newsletter policy columnist. Another DCFR achievement began in 1985, when DCFR President Linda Rothleder wrote to Mattie Gershenfeld for inclusion in the NCFR Feedback newsletter that DCFR intended “... to work closely with the public policy committee of NCFR in their initiatives in preparing a ‘how to lobby’ workshop for the National Conference in Dallas. We would hope that the affiliated councils could act as a grass roots network for communicating information on national policy issues” (Rothleder, 1985). However, as early as the 1984 NCFR conference, DCFR led workshops and presentations for NCFR affiliates on advocating family policy issues to legislators. Teaching techniques for advocacy remained in the NCFR programs in 1985, 1991, 1993, and 1994. DCFR was declared officially inactive on February 17, 1998, largely due to duplication of efforts. At this time, notification was given to the NCFR Affiliated Councils that DCFR’s most active members were on the Washington-based NCFR Policy Committee and, therefore pursue NCFR interests in that way.

It was not until 1992 that Groves had returned to Washington, D.C. with a policy focused agenda. The development of this conference got its start when Margaret Feldman and Catherine Chilman were on a boat excursion with other attendees of the 1991 Groves conference, and the wind was so strong they could not dock for a while. So as not to waste any time, they generated a discussion of what sort of a conference on domestic policy and families was needed now. They came ashore with a program draft and an innovative approach to direct involvement in the Washington, D.C. scene. They proposed to share their experiences and strategies for effectively promoting family issues. As conference co-chairs, Chilman and Feldman organized around the theme “Families: The Cross-Cutting Issue in Domestic Policy” (Chilman & Feldman, 1992). A pre-conference tour at the National Institutes of Health was facilitated by family specialist Page  100Katrina Johnson. Ray Rist from the General Accounting Office gave the first plenary address “Asking the Right Questions, Seeking the Right Answers.” His expertise in results-based management work and program evaluation was the basis of an analysis of when and how to influence policies and programs. The increasingly important issue of accountability and unanticipated outcomes was another aspect of his talk.

The next day the program moved to Capitol Hill starting with a choice of congressional hearings. A plenary in a Senate Hearing Room featured a panel of representatives of agencies that provide information for Congress: Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office, Congressional Research Office, and Office of Technology Assessment. Their presentations and discussions emphasized the timelines, scope, and pressures for responsiveness that their reports must meet. The Groves program was heavily dependent on speaker participation by government employees including some from the National Institutes of Health. Among the plenary speakers was Roger Porter, Assistant to the President [G. H. W. Bush] for Economic and Domestic Policy. He emphasized parental involvement in education and child support enforcement while recognizing the needs of disadvantaged families. Olivia Golden, Senior Policy Advisor to the Children’s Defense Fund, focused on the economic changes affecting young families; the need for college education becoming “absolutely necessary”; the rising costs of housing, health, and education; and the limited safety net for children. Judy Auerbach critiqued the lack of adequate child care in the United States. Representatives from the Consortium of Family Organizations discussed their work.

In accordance with the Groves tradition of small group interaction in hour- long workshops, an emphasis was placed on discussing public policies and families in the following areas: poverty, physical health, mental health, work, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, unemployment, racism, child care, and single parenthood. Other workshops covered the implementation of federal family legislation, families over the lifespan, and parental consent requirements for abortion.

The 1992 Groves Conference also featured a presidential address by Barbara Settles titled “The Future of Family Policy” which included attention to the family microsystem:

At the 1992 Groves Conference, Margaret Feldman also drew special attention for Groves’ members to bring major research policy issues to their own locality, including research on sexual attitudes and subsequent policy formation. Feldman was able to use this event to develop a much larger-scale experience for NCFR: The Family Policy Advocacy Workshop. In 1997 when the NCFR conference met in Crystal City, Virginia, the Family Policy Section, Public Policy Committee, and the Association of Councils co-sponsored a Family Policy Advocacy Skills Workshop which used Margaret Feldman’s model from the 1992 Groves conference to help NCFR members be more effective family policy advocates and advisers (NCFR, 1997). In 1990 the NCFR Family Action Section had been renamed the Family Policy Section, and Roger Rubin took office as NCFR’s first Vice-President for Public Policy. He would be followed by Barbara Settles, Elaine Anderson, and Nancy Kingsbury, all Groves members. In 1992 NCFR approved a statement on a Public Policy Master Plan which suggested public policy duties and agendas to the Board and allowed some scope for the vice president and the president to implement the approved program. The office of Vice-President for Public Policy was phased out in 1999 following NCFR’s adoption of the Carver governance model and reorganization of policy initiatives.

During the 1990s Groves programs usually had some sessions that addressed policy issues and policy implementation. Policy was Page  103being addressed in terms of not only national policy, but local and international developments that affected families. For example, policy issues are found in conferences dealing with health, therapy, immigration and mobility, diversity, sexuality, and gender roles. Table 1 notes some of the policy-oriented sessions and speakers.

Different problems arose in the decade following 2000 which made close collaboration and action less feasible around family policy concerns. Currently, at Groves Conferences specific policy issues are incorporated into at least one session in each conference.

Finally, among the many leaders to be recognized for their participation and contributions to the history of family policy development are others not previously or only briefly mentioned, including Sharon Alexander, Mary Jo Czaplewski, Karen Bogenschneider, Shirley Zimmerman, Pamela Monroe, Lynda Walters, Patricia Langley, Ron Daley, Barbara Chandler, Ouida Westney, Leanor Johnson, Kay Troost, Carla Howery, Mary Ann Hollinger, Christine Nord, David Cook, Barbara James, Hal Wallach, and many others. Many shared membership in Groves and/or NCFR as organizational vehicles for their participation.