Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
. 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 R1
Malting Policies for Children A Study ofthe federal Process

OCR for page R1