groves 9453087.0002.001 in
« Prev section Next section »
Page  87

Chapter 4: Family Policy and Advocacy

Roger H. Rubin
Barbara H. Settles[1]

The historic title of the Groves Conference on Marriage and Family was the Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, and it had an action orientation. The early conferences emphasized marriage counseling and marriage and family life education as likely useful interventions (E. Groves, 1938-1942). Knowledge of sexuality and family planning were included in the range of topics, with a plenary presentation by Norman Himes on “Birth Control through the Ages” and medical presentations, such as Bayard Carter’s “Medical Aspects of Marital Adjustments” and “The Doctor as a Marriage Counselor” and Robert Dickinson’s address on marital maladjustments and their causes and treatments, being common (E. Groves, 1938, 1939, 1940). Ernest and Gladys Groves had a wide-ranging set of interests that included social justice, nondiscrimination, and equal rights and organized parallel conferences when segregation prevented an integrated one (see chapter 8, this volume, on African American participation). Early in the developing family field concerns about marriage and family stability and permanence led to presentations on domestic law (E. Groves, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1942; G. Groves, 1944). Ernest Burgess presented his research on criteria for success in marriage (E. Groves, 1940) and updated it in 1946 (E. Groves & Sowers, R. 1946). Economic concerns were addressed by Benjamin Andrews (G. Groves, 1946). Workshops on the effects of World War II on families also were on many programs (E. Groves, 1941).

Page  88

Later, family policy was seen more as a process in which good research and scholarship needed to be advocated by family professionals who often had not been educated for this responsibility. Throughout the history of the conference attention was paid to the frank and open discussion of controversial issues, such as teaching about marriage, family, and sexuality which were assumed appropriate and necessary. Groves’ speakers were invited from national and international organizations, such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, American Youth Commission, Health League of Canada, The Catholic Conference on Family Life, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Federal Council of Churches of Christ, and the American Association of University Women. In 1942 a week-long workshop was held in July on medical and legal issues (E. Groves, 1942).

Their collegial ties led to a working group meeting in Chicago on the development of the family life cycle conceptual framework (Hill, 1951). Paul Glick, a Groves member from the U.S. Census Bureau, used data to illustrate the utility of the developmental approach (Settles & Liprie, 1987). Groves’ members also were active in White House Conferences on Children and Youth. In the late 1940s Evelyn Duvall and Reuben Hill were co-chairs of a task force of the 1950 White House Conference and wrote a textbook which was meant for GIs but rejected because it included information on sex and birth control (Platt, 2011). It later became a well known textbook.

In the conferences in the decade after World War II topics such as divorce and families’ responses to disasters and stress dealt with governmental roles in law and services in addition to the roles of family-level prevention and intervention: divorce (G. Groves, 1949); desertion (Frazier, G. Groves, & Dent, 1950); divorce reform American Bar Association (G. Groves & Hill, 1951); divorce and divorce reform (Hill, 1952); and divorce after the war by Eugene Litwak (Christensen, 1954). The move toward no-fault divorce was an early area in which family scholars expressed opinions. The roles of local, state, and national government in regulating and supporting families has made it difficult to pose issues and solutions at a national level. In the United States the state and local governments have a primary responsibility for family law and in federal programs the Page  89administration and delivery of programs is likely to be done through state or local government. During World War II the recruitment of women, including married women, into the labor force had been a national priority. However, after the war both government and media promoted a return to more traditional middle-class roles for women. There was much concern over the sudden influx of unemployed and disabled veterans as national interventions to assist readjustment were established, such as the G.I. Bill for education and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured home mortgages. As the country became much more national in its economy, moving about for jobs and promotions had become more common.

During the second half of the 1940s, birth and divorce rates both went up, and the number of children per family increased. In retrospect, this period in popular culture of a stay-at-home mother and a breadwinning father was rather brief. By the time children were entering elementary or junior high school, their mothers were beginning to return to work. They were needed to teach school, nurse, and to do clerical, factory, and professional work. Those jobs were becoming more flexible about marital status and work hours, and some consideration of maternity leave was beginning to be discussed. Unease with the Parsonian “isolated nuclear family” as an ideal type with a traditional gender-role split was already evident in academic circles (Parsons, 1951; Parsons & Bales, 1955) with Sussman and Burchinal (1962) bringing attention to the kinship and support networks of families. This debate became a public issue in 1963 with the publication of Betty Friedan’s (1963) The Feminine Mystique. Both sexuality and male and female roles were specifically addressed by Groves conferences. Politically, the civil rights movement was underway.

The 1960 Groves conference featured a panel discussion on the 1960 White House Conference with Marvin Sussman, Elizabeth Force, Hershel Nissinger, Aaron Rutledge, and Donald Longworth and a session on working wives with Ivan Nye, Lois Hoffman, Lee Burchinal, and Theodore Johannis (Sussman & Oyler 1960). In a conference on health, panelists compared medical services in the United States, England, and Denmark; and Vera and David Mace presented their research on the Soviet family (Vincent, 1963).

Page  90

Arguably, the first Groves Conference theme to exclusively confront a policy-laden and potentially politically divisive social issue was “American Poverty and Family Life in the mid 1960s.” In this socially conscious decade, the Knoxville, Tennessee meeting was an ideal setting, reflecting the rediscovery of American poverty (Chilman, 1964). The public had been moved by the 1962 publication of “The Other America” by Michael Harrington, major civil rights legislation was about to be signed, and Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” was soon to be launched. Catherine Chilman chaired this conference with low-income as its focus. She was employed by the Children’s Bureau which was at the cross roads of many efforts to make government more effective in addressing poverty. Policy was addressed in most sessions, with a final panel entertaining proposals from labor, industry, and agricultural on better coping for low-income families (Chilman, 1964).

As early as 1952, the decision of the Groves conference to leave the south to be able to hold racially integrated conferences stated symbolically that the group did have policy aspirations (see chapter 8, this volume). Although some themes that might now seem to require a policy analysis—such as one-parent families (Bell, 1965) and sexuality (Reiss, 1966)—focused primarily on research and applications, the rapidly expanding literature and experimental research convincingly suggested a more open reception to these topics. The 1968 conference’s emphasis on comparative family analysis and cross-cultural differences brought some concerns about policy to the forefront (Straus, 1968). Later, Groves also tried to hold conferences only in states that had passed the women’s Equal Rights Amendment (Dunham, 1979; M. Feldman, 1998).

Groves conference discussions often dealt with important national issues presented as part of the membership business meeting. Program resolutions and letters to policymakers and institutions became a route to expressing those concerns. For example, Lester Kirkendall drafted a world peace and family issues resolution in 1984 which the board and membership refined and passed (1986). It was concerned with the threat of nuclear war and the arms race and promoted peaceful conflict resolution through arbitration, negotiation, and judicial process. The high costs of military expenditures versus Page  91family needs were expressed. A letter to Ronald Reagan on peace issues and a Groves conference resolution is also in the record (Boss, July 1, 1985).

In 1973 Margaret Mead, Urie Bronfenbrenner, and other prominent scholars recommended to Senator Walter Mondale, chair of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Children and Youth, that “family impact” statements be required as a part of policy making. Although the concept never became legislatively required, family policy-oriented entities emerged. Among the most prominent was the Family Impact Seminar. It was founded in 1976 by A. Sidney Johnson, the Subcommittee staff director. Theodora Ooms would become Executive Director (Ooms, 1995). The American Family, a national newsletter on family policy and programs, was established in 1977 by Rowan Wakefield’s Youth Policy Institute as a source of disseminating the latest policy developments. Coalitions were being built, such as the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), the Coalition of Family Organizations (COFO), and the National Academy for Families. On Capitol Hill, the then House Select Committee on Children and Families was created.

That the Groves Conference would embrace family policy advocacy as a cause was a predictable progression considering its long legacy of concern for social justice. Other chapters in this volume describe in detail Groves’ history of racial tolerance and recognition of inequalities based upon gender, race, ethnicity, and social class. Conference programs often reflect themes of empowerment, diversity, inclusion, and a voice for families in the policy making process. In 1970 Groves President Marvin Sussman co-chaired the conference with David and Vera Mace titled “Family Policy: Can We Formulate a Family Policy for the Community, the State, and the Nation?” (D. Mace, V. Mace, & Sussman, 1970). This explicit venture into family policy was held in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The meeting was the first following the reorganization of the Groves Conference (see chapter 1, this volume), and the organizers wanted to make it a model for a new approach. Workshops covered policies related to mental health, population planning, comprehensive family life education, family counseling services, family research and policy, poverty programs, women’s rights, and religion. The Page  92conference focused on national policies but remained inclusive of families at the micro-level.

“Societal Planning for Family Pluralism” was the conference theme in Dallas in 1972. Program chair Marvin Sussman proposed to examine family pluralism in terms of planning and policy (Sussman, 1972). This interface of the concepts of what is family, family definitions, and family policy was discussed in depth. Issues surrounding delivery of family services, community planning for housing and transportation, and family well-being were some of the seminar topics. Among the workshop leaders were Edwin Nichols and Lenore Weitzman reporting on “The Family and the Political System: Current Legislation and Trends.” Sussman’s presidential address was titled “Progress on the Establishment of a National Family Institute.”

...the choice is not between ideology and no ideology, but between being clear and explicit on one hand, and pretending to be value free on the other ...Our work is always guided by politics.... Regardless of one’s politics no one wants to act on the basis of information which turns out to be false. This task, the task of learning how to do things that may be informed by ideology, and which may be related to ideology, but which are not corrupted by it, this task is what underlies the theme of the 1973 Groves Conference. (Ryder, 1973b)

Page  93

Thus, Ryder established a guideline for choosing and selecting issues, themes, and topics appropriate for policy advocacy. Included that year in the Groves program history flyer was the statement,

Its objectives are to work on the cutting edges of theory development and empirical research, using interdisciplinary perspectives. Most recently Groves has expanded toward implementing these emphases through the applications of the findings of research and theory in the public arena, such as policies affecting the quality of family life. (Ryder, 1973b)

Perhaps with this impetus, the Groves membership in 1973 almost unanimously approved the resolution: “The Groves Conference should reaffirm the Supreme Court decision on abortion and work against a constitutional amendment limiting individual freedom.”

In 1976, under the presidency of Catherine Chilman, a veteran of both federal government and academic employment, the conference theme was “Continuing the Revolution: Needed Policies and Programs for Families” (P. Glasser & L. Glasser, 1976). Kansas City was the location. Plenary sessions addressed issues still remaining at the forefront of contemporary problems such as “The Family and the Crisis of Health Care.” The potential role of social science in this dialogue included the final plenary: “Contributions of the Family Expert to Social Policy and Legislative Change.” The continuation of this activist bent was reflected in a May 23, 1977 letter to President Carter from Catherine Chilman stating,

As a conference, we voted to applaud you for your great interest in families and your proposal that there be a White House Conference on Families in 1979. Next year our entire conference will be devoted to the subject of preparations for this White House Conference and the contributions that knowledge specialists in the field may be able to make to this conference. (Chilman, 1977)

She went on to state in her letter that families are in critical trouble and that appropriate public policies are needed—especially in the areas of health insurance, income maintenance, urban affairs, and low-income housing. These concerns cross social class, ethnicity, race, and family forms. In President Chilman’s correspondence to Page  94the members she clearly stated that they “...could and should have an impact on the planning and activities of President Carter’s administration in respect to the impact of government policies on families” (Chilman, 1977).

Thus, the 1978 conference culminated in the theme “Towards the White House Conference on Families, 1979 - Plan for Action” led by program chair Marvin Sussman. The meeting in Washington, D.C. provided a perfect venue to attract many significant figures outside academia to its conference (Sussman, Cameron, & Settles, 1978). Senator Edward Kennedy spoke on the topics of domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, parental influence in the shaping of children’s health habits, and health insurance. He emphasized that the voice of families must be heard in all debates affecting their well-being. Mary Jo Bane, Head of the federal government’s Administration for Children, Youth, and Families participated in a panel on the President’s Report on Mental Health. Nancy Amidei, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) spoke on “How One Gets a Program Through Congress... What Professionals in the Helping Professions Need to Know About the Real World.” Peter Beach, Director of Veterans Affairs, presented an analysis of family life among Vietnam veterans. Arthur Fleming, Chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Robert Benedict, Commissioner of the Administration on Aging, HEW, and Robert Hill, Director of the National Urban League were also among the distinguished professionals who spoke. Workshops included the topics minority families and public policy, family planning policy, legal and administrative impacts on families, including the nuclear, emerging, and diverse forms, the needs of children and the elderly, and parenting, housework, and family policy.

In 1978 the Groves Conference reaffirmed its stance on abortion and expanded it to other forms of voluntary family planning and fertility control, especially access for the poor and federal funding for such services (Dunham, 1978). At the same time it voted to support the ratification of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. These two resolutions were passed at the Groves business meeting (Dunham, 1979).

Page  95

This time was a harbinger of increasing synergy between the Groves Conference and the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) regarding government policies and families. Several Groves/NCFR members had shaped their careers around policy as a thrust in the development of family studies and many members had some interest in this area. Harold and Margaret Feldman were among the leaders in this endeavor. Cecelia Sudia, Catherine Chilman, Robert Ryder, and Willa Choper lent their government experience to their Groves colleagues. Cooperative Extension Service family experts and Groves’ members, Patricia Nelson, Karen Goebel, and Betsy Garrison have also provided a connection to governmental family life education and outreach.

A letter from Marvin Sussman to 1978 Groves program members and copied to Catherine Chilman, Groves President, and Kate Garner, a future NCFR President, included a plan for formulating a national policy on child and family development (Sussman, 1977, September 27). Sussman emphasized the “action” component necessary to implement the principles of a policy. Programs do something to and for people. He stated,

A program of policy research involving the family would best begin with looking at current policies and programs and their effects upon families rather than starting out with ‘basic’ research and then seeing how one might affect new policies. (Sussman, 1977, p. 2)

He criticized the haphazard and often irrational ways family impacting policies are created. According to Sussman, family policies should guarantee protections, rights, and the identification of responsibilities among diverse family forms and lifestyles. Ideally, to achieve this goal policies must be developed, debated, and discussed among families and professionals. The federal government may serve as a facilitator for this process. The planning of a 1979 White House Conference on Families by the Carter administration was a prime example of this facilitating role. Simultaneously, the 1978 NCFR Conference in Philadelphia, chaired by Groves’ member David Olson, had the theme “Family Policy: Putting Priorities into Action.”

Page  96

The 1979 Groves Conference, chaired by Marvin Sussman and Teresa Marciano, was once again located in Washington, D.C. (Sussman & Marciano, 1979). The plan for the 1979 Groves Conference had been to respond to the findings of the White House Conference. The program emphasis was changed to the theme “The Well-Being of the Child in Various Family Forms” which reflected a shift in focus from family policy to child oriented issues. This closely related to the United Nation’s Year of the Child. The refocusing possibly resulted from the turmoil among groups on the political left and right over the definition of family(ies) resulting in the restructuring of the White House Conference on Families. The White House Conference would no longer be held in Washington, D.C., but in three separate cities: Baltimore, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles (Dzodin, 1980). Between September, 1979 and January, 1980 hearings were held across the country. Several thousand people from different walks of life expressed their opinions. Recommendations coming from the Conferences were largely immobilized by the incoming Reagan Administration and the growing politicization of the institution of the family. Little progress was made (Ooms, 1995).

Nevertheless, the 1979 Groves Conference successfully attracted a stellar group of participants. Edith Grotberg of the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families chaired “The Impact of Early Intervention Research on Public Policy.” James Robinson, National Director of Head Start, appeared with his associates Bernard Brown and Willa Choper. A set of children’s health and hunger experts and advocates attended. Blandino Cardenas-Ramirez, Chief of the Children’s Bureau and Commissioner for the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families and family historian Tamara Hareven discussed children and programs. The workshops were well supported by both Groves’ members and state and federal governmental experts with 94 listed on the program. The conference built many relationships with government agencies and international experts on the rights of children. It was a major expansion of perspectives on family policy and children’s needs. The focus was on good policies and implementation. Over the next decade, the Groves Conference addressed specific themes on family and change, but some workshops continued to be offered dealing with policy issues.

Page  97

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.

Page  99

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.

Page  101

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:

In order for us to project how family policy will emerge in the future, we must not only take into account how families themselves will try to affect policy but, what issues will be addressed by policymakers. Let me suggest four factors which I believe have an impact on family policy in the United States today and which will continue to affect the development of family policy in the near future.

Okay, first, let’s look at accidents of birth. That’s a nice way of saying that social stratification is alive and well in America. It’s not that we have no family policy to moderate the effects on the individual child of his or her social position due to whatever family arrangements his or her mother has been able to develop. We just don’t have that kind of moderation; If one is born with a silver spoon in his or her mouth, religion, ethnicity, class or caste are already his or hers without any informed consent....Remember that in most family studies social, demographic, income, and education account for most of the explained variances in the big data analyses....Accident of birth is still a very strong part of what we have to react in terms of shaping family policy.

Secondly, social administration and responsibility for family law enforcement, programs, and implementation (being state and locally organized and administered) means that families are directly influenced by location. The availability of work and community resources is not evenly distributed and the mobility of families is limited by many forces.... regional and subcultures and resource limitation tend to restrict the range of family choices. Certainly, the urban poor family is an example of a group cut off from easy geographic or economic mobility....failure to develop a national system leaves families to bridge the problem and clean up after the inadequacies of government and community institutions.

Thirdly, families bear the consequences of their actions throughout the life course. They care about longitudinal outcomes. They live with mistakes, guilt, and tragedy as well as celebrating and remembering good times. When they negotiate for resources and services, they must meet today’s daily needs such as food, clothing, shelter, transportation, Page  102health, education, etc., but also, they care about the long term, 10, 20, 30 years out (results)...The institutions they deal with have a monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, bottom line....The scary part to me about cost benefit analysis in family policy is that families’ final costs and benefits are so far removed from decision makers’ accountability....Actually, the ever constant tinkering with policies that affect families is a problem for them. How can they guess what new wrinkle will change the outcomes they have hoped to achieve?

Fourthly... conflicts over family boundaries-who are in and who are out. Definitions are the stuff of political arguments and research....I believe these same four issues which have been American issues will be the heart of international family policy development in the future. (Settles, 1992)

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.

Table 1. Policy Presentations, 1990-1999
1993

The new South: Some thoughts on changing cultural patterns

Sharon Price

Hurricane Andrew & its aftermath for families who became homeless

Nancy Hogan

1994

United Nations International Year of the Family panel

Margaret Feldman, Mary Hicks, Harriette McAdoo, Marcia Lasswell, & Catherine Chilman

University for Peace, Costa Rica

Nona Cannon

1995

What is family policy?

Pamela Monroe

Cross-national perspectives on inheritance and caregiving

Roma Hanks

Meeting the needs of children and families in the changing political and policy environment

Karabelle Pizzati

What’s right is right and what’s left for families?

Catherine Chilman & Patricia Langley

1996

Worldwide paradigm shift for families

Margaret Feldman & Catherine Chilman

1997

Providing adequate, affordable family health care

Ben Goodman, Janice Keefe, Marcia Lasswell, Durene Lewis, & Barbara Settles

Welfare reform: Providing families with minimal income

Catherine Chilman, Margaret Feldman, & Dorothy James

Economic realities: Impact on family health care in Canada

Ronald Stewart

1998

The impact of basic genetics & genome research

Robert Nussbaum, Kathy Hudson, Lindsay Middleton, David Reiss, & Kay Troost

1999

Issues for research and policy on aging and the family

Jill Quadagno

Page  104

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.

Groves Conferences as Experimental Templates for the Discipline

This chapter emerged out of examining files and discussing the serendipity and straight forward interchange of professional organizations. Policy as a focus was not directly prioritized in the early development of both Groves and NCFR. Rather, a concern for best practices and standards in the profession and a desire to include everyone in the professions led to actions that had policy ramifications. Later, research and program evaluation made clear that new social processes required attention, especially regarding how narrow conceptions of families had become part of policies and programs. Among the consequences were to deprive minorities and new families of rights and support through discriminatory practices. There was a sense in the 1970s and ‘80s that family scholars might be able to actively engage and influence policymakers. In the 1990s a great deal of effort was put into training and supporting professional action at the local and state level since that was where the implementation of federal policy was shaped. Bogenschneider and Corbett (2010) noted that “The story of U.S. social policy reveals a disturbing disconnect between the research community...and the policymaking community” (p. ix). In their work they present many solid and tested ways to Page  105build connections and bridge the gap between academia and public policy making. The continuing presence of polarization around family issues in politics remains a challenge to evidence based policy making (Settles, 2011). Elaine Anderson commented on the role of policy in Groves:

Groves over the years has been a paving ground for young scholars to “get their feet wet” in the world of policy. I think for me the most poignant example is the year in San Antonio when the whole conference was devoted to discussion of the emerging AIDS crisis. I was on the policy subcommittee for that discussion and ultimately ended up chairing and spearheading the chapter written on policy from that conference. This was an invaluable professional experience for me not only working with and learning from more senior colleagues, but also discovering that I could hold my own with them. (Anderson 2012)

The international Groves conferences in Costa Rica and Nova Scotia brought additional focus on the role of global connections in family policy at the local level. In the 21st century, the family as the safety net, rather than the family relying on business or governmental support for a safety net, has been more visible. Instead of assuming that better policies might be advanced, helping families to deal with the inadequacies and barriers they face has been emphasized. Issues of sustainability and threats to minorities have threaded through many of the conferences. Looking to the future of family policy for families living in a globalized world, a politicized nation, states with limited resources, and local communities who are seeking development opportunities worldwide, we perhaps have less hubris in our ability to shape policy and more respect for families navigating the patchwork policies and programs that are currently available and always changing.

Page  106

References

  • Anderson, E. (2012). Personal correspondence.
  • Bell, R. (1965, April 26-28). The one-parent family in the United States. Thirty-First annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Philadelphia, PA. [Program]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Evidence-based policy making: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Boss, P. (1985, July 1). [Letter to Ronald Reagan, President of the United States]. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Chilman, C. (1964, April 14-15). Low-income families in the United States in the mid-60s. Thirtieth Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Knoxville, TN. [Announcement]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Chilman, C. (1977, October 6). [Letter to Jimmy Carter, President of the United States]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Chilman, C., & Feldman, M. (1992, March 11-15). Families: The cross-cutting issue in domestic policy. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Washington, D.C. [Program]. Copy in posession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Christensen, H. T. (1954, April 28-30). Seventeenth annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family. Lafayette, IN. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Dunham, R. M. (1979, April 29). [Minutes of the business meeting]. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Washington, D.C. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Dzodin, H. (1980). The White House Conference on Families. The end of the beginning: A report of family conciliation courts. Conciliation Courts Review, 18(2), 1.
    • Page  107
  • Feldman, M. (1998). [Correspondence on equal rights]. Copies in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Frazier, E., Groves, G., & Dent, D. (1950, April 24-26). Ninth annual Groves Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Durham, NC. [Program]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Norton.
  • Glasser, P., & Glasser, L. (1976, March 25-28). Needed programs and policies for families. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Kansas City, MO. [Program]. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Groves, E. (1938, April 12-15). Fourth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Groves, E. (1939, April 11-14). Fifth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Groves, E. (1940, April 9-12). Sixth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Groves, E. (1941, April 8-10). Seventh annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Groves, E. (1942, April 7-9). Eighth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Groves, G. (1944, April 14). Third annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Durham, NC. [Program]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare History Archives.
    • Page  108
  • Groves, G. (1946, April 12-14). Fifth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Durham, NC. [Program]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Groves, G. (1949, April 4-6). Eighth annual Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Durham, NC. [Program]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Groves, G., & Hill, R. (1951, April 23-25). Fourteenth annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Groves, E., & Sowers, R. (1946, April 9-11). Ninth Conference on Conservation of Marriage and the Family, Chapel Hill, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Harrington, M. (1962). The other America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Hartness, S. (1976, August 4). [Letter]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Hill, R. (1951). Interdisciplinary workshop on marriage and family research. Marriage and Family Living, 13(1),13-28.
  • Hill, R. (1952, April 21-23). Taking perspective on divorce and divorce reform: Counseling, research & teaching. Fifteenth annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Durham, NC. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Kirkendall, L. A. (1986). Groves resolution on world peace and family issues. In P. W. Dail & R. H. Jewson (Eds.), In praise of fifty years: The Groves Conference on the Conservation of Marriage and the Family (p. 7). Lake Mills, IA: Graphic Publishing.
  • Mace, D., Mace, V., & Sussman, M. B. (1970, April 26-29). Can we formulate a family policy for the community, the state and the nation? Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Winston-Salem, NC. [Program]. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
    • Page  109
  • Miller, G. (1983, November 21). [Letter as chair of the United States House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • NCFR. (1997, November 5-10). Fifty-ninth annual conference, National Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, [Program]. VA. Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
  • Ooms, T. (1995). Taking families seriously: Family impact analysis as an essential policy tool. Family Impact Seminar, Washington, D.C. Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations.
  • Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
  • Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
  • Platt, J. (2011). ISA Presidents. Retrieved from http://www.isa-sociology.org/about/presidents/isa-president-reuben-hill.htm
  • Reiss, I. (1966, April 18-20). Sex in our society: Symptoms and prognosis. Thirty-second annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family,The Family Study Center of The University of Missouri at Kansas City, MO. [Program].Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Rothleder, L. (1985, January 27). [Letter to Mattie Gershenfeld]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Rubin, R. H. (1969, October 29). [Letter and memos]. Copies in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Rubin, R. H. (1983a, January 26). [Letter]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Rubin, R. H. (1983b, February 10). [Memo]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Ryder, R. (1973a, May 10). Letting many flowers bloom: Implications of ideology for research and the professional. Groves Conference on Marriage and Family, Myrtle Beach, SC. [Introduction]. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
    • Page  110
  • Ryder, R. (1973b, May 10-13). Letting many flowers bloom: Implications of ideology for research and the professional. Groves Conference on Marriage and Family, Myrtle Beach, SC. [Summary report]. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Settles, B. H. (2011). Evidence-based policy making: Insights from policy minded researcher and research-minded policy makers. [Review of the book by K. Bogenschneider & T. J. Corbett]. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3(3), 234-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00096.x
  • Settles, B. H. (1992, March 14). The future of family policy. [Presidential address]. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Washington, D.C. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Settles, B. H., & Liprie, M. L. (1987). Demography and the family: An interview with Paul C. Glick, Ph. D, Retired Senior Demographer, U.S. Census, Adjunct Professor, Arizona State University. [Video]. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Straus, M. (1968, April 22-24). The American family in cross-cultural perspective. Thirty-fourth annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family: Boston, MA. [Program]. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, SW 299, Social Welfare Archives.
  • Sussman, M. B. (1972, May 5-8). Societal planning for family pluralism. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Dallas, TX. [Announcement]. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Sussman, M. B. (1977, October 3). Formulating national policy on child and family development, p. 2. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Sussman, M. B. (1978). Final report of the 1978 Groves Conference: Towards the White House Conference on Families, 1981 - Plan for Action, Washington, DC. Copy in possession of B. H. Settles.
  • Sussman, M. B., & Burchinal, L. (1962). Family kinship network: Unheralded structure in current conceptualizations of family functioning. Marriage and Family Living, 24, 231-240.
    • Page  111
  • Sussman, M. B., Cameron, B., & Settles, B. H. (1978, April 27-30). Toward the White House Conference on Families 1979: Plan for Action. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Washington, D.C. [Program]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Sussman, M. B., & Marciano, T. (1979, April 26-28). The well-being of the child in today’s families: The International Year of the Child. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Washington, D.C. [Program]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.
  • Sussman, M. B., & Oyler, M. (1960, April 4-6). Theory, research and practice. Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family, Columbus, OH. [Announcement]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Vincent, C. (1963, April-May). Twenty-ninth annual Groves Conference on Marriage and the Family: The family in health and illness, St. Louis, MO. [Program]. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Ernest R. and Gladys Groves Papers, MS 169, Institute of Regional Studies.
  • Westerberg, L. (n.d). [Memo]. Copy in possession of R. H. Rubin.

Notes

1. Equal co-authorsreturn to text

Page  112
« Prev section Next section »