Roles for Professionals in Building Family Policy: A Case Study of State Family Impact Seminars

Abstract

A trend in society in the A 1990s that may be noteworthy for family professionals is the growing consensus across the political spectrum that policies would be more effective if they strengthened the family's capacity to help itself and others. Only recently have politicians been able to put family issues on the table since the aftermath of the politically charged White House Conference on Families in 1980 (Weiss, in press). Calls for a family focus in policy making have been repeated in testimony before the U.S. Congress (Bronfenbrenner, 1986b), in the initiatives of federal agencies (United States Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1991), in the reports of prestigious commissions (Committee for Economic Development, 1987; National Commission on America's Urban Families, 1993; National Commission on Children, 1991), and in the recommendations of professionals who educate families or deliver family services (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1989; National Commission on Child Welfare and Family Preservation, 1990). This public sentiment has led policy analysts to claim that concern for the family is no longer viewed as being politically conservative or progressive, but rather as simply American (Jacobs & Davies, 1991). This bipartisan shift toward families and away from an historic focus on individuals in policies and programs leads to an urgent, soul-searching question for family professionals: How can we seize the moment and capitalize on this consensus to help turn family rhetoric into reality, into concrete policies and programs that strengthen and support families? That which lies before our eyes may seem the easiest to see, according to the poet Goethe, yet may be, in fact, the most difficult. The purpose of this article is to fully explicate an array of roles for the professional in building family policy, expanding upon the theoretical notions proposed by Nye and McDonald (1979). They proposed two basic policy roles for family professionals-for researchers, that of family policy research (which is subdivided into categories of research for family policy, family evaluation research, and family impact analysis), and for other family professionals, that of family advocacy. This article describes and updates these roles, discusses how the roles for researchers and nonresearchers may not be as distinct as originally proposed, and introduces one additional role-family policy alternatives education. The potential of this new role is illustrated with a case study of state Family Impact Seminars, a series of seminars for policy makers that aims to analyze the consequences an issue, policy, or program has for family well-being, to clarify the potential consequences of various policy alternatives, and to illustrate how policy making might benefit if the role of the family were taken into account in addressing public issues. This article aims to describe this new role, but not to promote it as the optimum or only role for professionals, recognizing that the role or combination of roles that is most appropriate may vary according to the intended target of policy efforts, the issue under consideration, and the professional's job context. To this end, the new role is best illustrated by comparing it with other potential roles for professionals in building family policy. Table 1 contrasts these five roles--their goals, methods, and examples from the literature.(Table 1 omitted) Research for Family Policy According to Nye and McDonald (1979), research can perform an important role in family policy by determining whether social action is needed, either by identifying social problems or by refuting contentions that a problem exists. Whereas Nye and McDonald (1979) limit research for family policy to the consequences of diverse family structures on family members and society, others broaden the focus to include research on the family's ability to perform such functions as economic support of members, cultural socialization, and care and protection of vulnerable family members (Ooms & Preister, 1988). …