|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Malting Policies for Children:
A Study ofthe F:eJera~ Process
Cheryl D. Hayes, Editor
Pane! for the Study of the Policy Formation Process
Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy
Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washi ngton, D.C. 1 982
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report
was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for
the report were chosen for their special
with regard for appropriate balance.
competences and
This report has been reviewed by a group other than
the authors according to procedures approved by a Report
Review Committee consisting of members of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the
National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the
Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of
advising the federal government. The Council operates in
accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy under the authority of its congressional charter
of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private,
nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The
Council has become the principal operating agency of both
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy
of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering
communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies
and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of
Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established
in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Making policies for children.
1. Children--Government policy--United States.
2. Children--Nutrition--Government policy--
United States. 3. Family policy--United States.
I. Hayes, Cheryl D.
HQ792.U5M34 353.0084'7 82-2218
ISBN 0-309-03241-5 AACR2
Available from
l
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Panel for the Study of the
Policy Formation Process
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. (Chair), John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University
Lewis H. Butler, Health Policy Program, School of
Medicine, University of California at San Francisco
Sherryl Graves, Department of Psychology, New York
University
Sheila B. Kamerman, School of Social Work, Columbia
University
Thomas Kiresuk, Program Evaluation Resource Center,
Minneapolis, Minn.
William A. Morrill, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Princeton, N.J.
Constance B. Newman, Newman and Hermanson Company,
Washington, D.C.
Fernando Oaxaca, Resource for Communications, Inc., Los
Angeles, Calif.
Martin Rein, Department of Political Science,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Harold A. Richman, School of Social Service
Administration, University of Chicago
Carol B. Stack, Institute of Policy Sciences, Duke
University
Carol H. Weiss, Graduate School of Education, Harvard
University
Cheryl D. Hayes, Study Director
John R. Nelson, Jr., Research Associate
iii
OCR for page R4
Committee on Child Development
Research and Public Policy
Alfred J. Kahn (Chair), School of Social Work, Columbia
University
Eleanor E. Maccoby (Vice Chair), Department of Psychology,
Stanford University
Urie Bronfenbrenner, Department of Human Development and
Family Studies, Cornell University
John P. Demos, Department of History, Brandeis University
Rochel Gelman, Department of Pyschology, The University
of Pennsylvania
Joel F. Handler, School of Law, University of Wisconsin
E. Mavis Hetherington, Department of Pyschology,
University of Virginia
Robert B. Hill, National Urban League, Inc., Washington,
D.C.
John H. Kennell, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve
University and Rainbow Babies' and Children's Hospital
Frank Levy, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
Richard J. Light, Graduate School of Education, Harvard
University
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University
Robert H. Mnookin, Law School, Stanford University
William A. Morrill, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,
Princeton, N.J.
Richard R. Nelson, Department of Economics, Yale
University
Constance B. Newman, Newman and Hermanson Company,
Washington, D.C.
John U. Ogbu, Department of Educational Studies, College
of Education, University of Delaware
Arthur H. Parmelee, Department of Pediatrics, University
of California at Los Angeles
1V
OCR for page R5
Harold A. Richman, School of Social Service Administra-
tion, University of Chicago
Roberta Simmons, Department of Sociology, University of
Minnesota
Jack L. Walker, Institute for Policy Studies, University
of Michigan
Robin M. Williams, Jr., Department of Sociology, Cornell
University
Wayne Holtzman (ex officio), The Hogg Foundation for
Mental Health, University of Texas; Chair, Panel on
Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for
the Mentally Retarded
Sheila B. Kamerman (ex officio), School of Social Work,
Columbia University; Chair, Panel on Work, Family, and
Community
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Contents
PREFACE
PART 1: REPORT OF THE PANEL
1 INTRODUCTION
Objectives of the Study, 5
Approach of the Study, 6
The Policy Determination Literature, 6
The Case Study Approach, 8
The Analysis of the Case Studies, 12
Plan of the Report, 14
THREE CASES OF FEDERAL POLICY FORMATION
The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,
Infants, and Children, 15
The Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements, 20
The Child Care Tax Deduction/Credit, 27
Conclusion, 35
COMPONENTS OF THE POLICY FORMATION PROCESS
Contextual Factors, 39
Constituency Pressure, 41
Principles and Ideas, 44
Actors and Institutions, 47
Media Presentations, 49
Research, 50
Interactions Among Components in Federal Policy
Formation, 54
vii
3
15
OCR for page R8
4 A POLICY FRAMEWORK
MAKING
~
The Policy Framework, 59
The High Level, 60
The Middle Level, 62
The Low Level, 63
Operational Implications, 67
5
THREE LEVELS OF DECISION
FUTURE FEDERAL POLICY FORMATION AFFECTING
CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
PART 2: CASE STUDIES
THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR WOMEN,
INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
John R. Nelson, Jr.
Introduction, 85
Child Nutrition:
Society, 86
The New Deal to the Great
Progra~Tunat~c Antecedents, 97
The Beginnings of WIC, 102
The Advocates and the Courts, 108
Program Evaluations, 117
The Carter Years, 120
Notes, 128
Appendixes
A: Gallup Public Opinion Polls: 1935-1971
B: Summary of Major Legislative Initiatives
Relating to Children's Nutrition and
Feeding
C: Summary of Expenditures and Participation
in Major Children's Nutrition and Feeding
Programs
THE FEDERAL INTERAGENCY DAY CARE REQUIREMENTS
John R. Nelson, Jr.
Introduction, 151
American Day Care Before the FIDCR, 152
The 1968 FIDCR, 162
The FIDCR and Title XX, 171
To the Appropriateness Study, 181
Toward the Final Regulations, 188
Notes, 197
. . .
vane
58
72
78
83
85
138
145
148
151
OCR for page R9
Appendixes
A: Proposed Child-Staff Ratios, 1942-1978
B: Federal Expenditures for Child Care, 1977
C: Distribution of Children Receiving Full
Time Nonparental Care, 1977
D: Care Modes: A Consumer Survey
E: Households Using Various Types of Care,
Classified by Youngest Child's Age
200
202
203
204
205
THE CHILD CARE TAX DEDUCTION/CREDIT
John R. Nelson, Jr., and Wendy E. Warring 206
..
Introduction, 206
The Origins of the Child Care Deduction, 209
Impact and Revision: 1954-1964, 222
From Tax Relief to "Job Development":
1964-1971, 230
From Tax Deduction to Tax Credit: 1971-1978, 242
Notes, 254
Appendixes
A: Legislative Changes in the Child Care Tax
Deduction/Credit, 1953-1978
B: Impact of the Child Care Deduction/Credit,
Selected Years
1X
260
263
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Preface
This report is the product of a 30-month study sponsored
by the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The
Panel for the Study of the Policy Formation Process,
established by the Committee on Child Development Research
and Public Policy of the Assembly of Behavioral and Social
Sciences, had three objectives: (1) to develop a better
understanding of how federal policies affecting children
and their families are formulated; (2) using the framework
of that understanding, to identify factors likely to
influence the content of such policies in the near future;
(3) to offer observations concerning how participants in
policy debates concerning children and their families
could most effectively pursue their interests.
From the outset we recognized that many critics would
question whether a committee created to address issues
relating to children and families should establish a
panel, under the sponsorship of an agency with sectarian
interests in these matters, to pursue study objectives of
this character with anything approaching the detachment
expected of the National Research Council. While we
leave it to the readers of this report to draw their own
conclusions as to our success, we want to make clear why
the panel undertook this study, how we sought to maintain
the necessary detachment, and what we feel was achieved.
We undertook the study for three reasons, the first of
which is straightforward. A primary purpose of the parent
Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy
is to synthesize, coordinate, and propose research
relevant to public policy affecting children and their
families, and therefore the study was of interest. As
researchers, we wanted to see if we could achieve deeper
understanding of a vital aspect of social decision
X1
OCR for page R12
making. As a panel concerned with public policy, we
wanted to see if we could derive operationally useful
insights from that understanding.
A second reason for undertaking the study is related
to the first.
· . .
An aspect of the Parent committee's
mission Is forging links between research and policy
making and developing an understanding of policy making
to serve as a foundation for its other ongoing studies as
well as its future work. While several of us had been
actively involved in policy making and most were familiar
with the literature on children and family policy, all
recognized the value of an opportunity to examine the
policy-making process collectively and develop a shared
perspective.
A third attractive feature of this study was the
opportunity it afforded the panel to study policy making
from the perspective of many professions and social
science disciplines. A major premise underlying formation
of the parent committee was that its broadly interdisci-
plinary membership, which comprises individuals with both
research and governmental and Professional experience.
would produce reports of greater depth and creativity
than if the same work were approached from narrower
perspectives. A panel study of policy making that seemed
to invite contributions from several research traditions
and perspectives seemed an ideal vehicle to test this
premise.
The parent committee was concerned, however, with
potential problems of intentional and unintentional bias.
Accordingly, members of the panel were chosen primarily
for their professional competence and experience in the
field of policy making in general. Only a few had prior
identification with policy positions concerning children
and families. Although panel members were not chosen to
represent any particular mix of political views, in fact
they exhibited considerable diversity in their views of
the appropriate role of government with respect to the
well-being of children and families. Indeed, it would be
impossible to predict even now how the panel might come
out if polled on such partisan issues as enactment of
comprehensive child care legislation or the proper role
for the agency sponsoring the study.
Because our study represents a departure from the usual
National Research Council approach, a word of explanation
is in order. In the first phase of the project, we
reviewed the literature on policy making as it affects
children and summarized the findings and conclusions it
xii
OCR for page R13
contained. We also reviewed representative literature
from the broader field of public policy determination.
We attempted to see if we could discharge our obligation
by showing the policy implications of preexisting social
science research, an approach that is characteristic of
National Research Council studies. On the basis of these
reviews, we concluded that the most useful contribution
we could make to the subject we were asked to investigate
was to gather additional data on the policy-making process
as it affects children and to interpret it in the light
of what we already know but, if appropriate, with a fresh
perspective. Accordingly, we undertook three new case
studies of federal policy making affecting children and
their families, presented in Part 2 of this volume, and
completed the analysis contained in Part 1.
As to the results of the study effort, while we took
seriously our obligation to offer observations useful to
participants in policy making, we rejected as altogether
inappropriate any notion that we should provide a field
manual for children's advocates or agency officials.
Rather, we believe we have provided a framework for
participation in policy making that will be useful to
individuals and organizations of a wide variety of
political and programmatic orientations. We regard this
framework, described in Chapter 4, as the report's main
contribution, with implications that are both general
enough and operational enough to be useful to groups such
as the Committee on Child Development Research and Public
Policy.
The members of the panel met 10 times during the course
of the study and formed an unusually close-knit working
group, with each participant contributing to the effort
at numerous points. Several drafts of the report were
begun and discarded in the process of arriving at the
approach presented in this volume. As chairman of that
panel as well as of the committee until 1980, I welcome
the opportunity to express my gratitude and admiration
for the enthusiasm, creativity, and effort displayed by
the panel members throughout the study. The study also
benefited at its earliest stage from the advice and
insights of the following individuals, who served on an
ad hoc panel to devise a work plan: John D. Steinbruner,
Ronald G. Havelock, and John M. Seidl. Appreciation is
also due the members of the Committee on Child Development
Research and Public Policy, who constituted a sympathetic-
ally critical audience and valued advisory group for this
study. In addition, I wish to thank the numerous indi
xiii
OCR for page R14
.
viduals outside the National Research Council who took
the time to read and comment on the case studies and the
early drafts of the report.
The study director for the project was Cheryl D. Hayes,
who played an outstanding role in translating the panel's
ideas and directions into a plan of work and then into a
report. Special acknowledgement is also due John R.
Nelson, Jr., research associate, who did the research for
and drafted the three case studies and assisted in their
analysis. Wendy E. Warring, research assistant, also
assisted with the research for the case study on the
child care and dependent tax deduction credit. Special
thanks are due David A. Goslin, executive director of the
Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, for his advice
and assistance throughout the project. Christine L.
McShane, the Assembly's editor, did her usual outstanding
job in preparing the report for publication.
Finally, the committee and the panel owe warm thanks
to Edith Grotberg, director of research and evaluation at
the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, for
initiating this study and providing support and encourage-
ment throughout.
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr.
Chair, Panel for the Study of
the Policy Formation Process
xiv
OCR for page R15
Malting Policies for Children
A Study ofthe federal Process
OCR for page R16
