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 3
introduction
Government action to protect children, principally those
who are orphaned, abandoned, neglected, or otherwise
dependent, is part of the American heritage. In recent
decades, however, government has acted to meet more of
the social and developmental needs of more children--not
only those special needs of children whose families are
unable or unwilling to provide adequate care. This
expanding public role is reflected in the growing number
and variety of federal initiatives for children and
families. Although estimates vary, there are more than
260 programs administered by 20 agencies of the federal
government that benefit children either directly or
through professional service providers, parents, and
other adults (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 1979; Family Impact Seminar, 1978; Rose, 1976)
These programs include a broad range of activities: tax
benefits and income supplements for families with depend-
ent children; health, education, and specialized services
for needy children; regulations governing the delivery of
aid and services; personnel training, technical assist-
ance, and institutional support for agencies serving
children; and a wide variety of research on the problems
facing children and families.
Because federal efforts to support children and their
families are extensive and varied, it is difficult to
identify any overarching goals or purposes. Programs
have been enacted piecemeal over an extended period of
time with little apparent attention to their collective
impact or their interrelationship. As Gilbert Steiner
has noted, "Public involvement in [this] field is a
federal agency-by-federal agency, congressional
committee-by-congressional committee, state-by-state or
city-by-city assortment of unrelated decisions that are
3
.
OCR for page 4
4
.
as likely to be contradictory as complementary" (Steiner,
1976:vii).
Critics frequently draw attention to significant
problems of efficiency and coordination among existing
programs. Yet, even if greater efficiency and coordina-
tion could be achieved, advocates for children would
still contend that the level of government effort is
inadequate. In promoting their own interests and posi-
tions they would continue to propose increased public
expenditures for a wide range of activities, such as
preventive health care, early childhood education,
special services for the handicapped, aid for abused and
neglected children, foster care, day care, income
supplements for families, and more jobs for parents.
Advocates for children are not alone in seeking larger
allocations. In recent Years the competition for fedora 1
resources nas Become more Intense, and, by all indica-
tions, the trend will continue. Human services experts
predict that in the next decade the demands on the federal
budget will be greatest for income maintenance, health
benefits, and other services for the aging population
(Lynn, 1978:26). In the face of this competition, how
can programs and resources directed toward the welfare of
American children and their families be improved? How
will the necessary trade-offs among various proposals be
made? How can the proposals that are most needed, most
effective, or most politically feasible be identified and
pursued?
There are no easy answers to these questions. Clearly,
however, better services and benefits for children or
increased efficiency and coordination among existing
programs are unlikely without greater systematic knowledge
of the process by which public resources are allocated.
Despite the best efforts of concerned individuals and
groups both within and outside government, a more effec-
tive public policy toward children will be difficult to
produce if we lack understanding of how and why decisions
concerning programs and budgets are made and how these
decisions can be directed to meet the needs of children.
Existing studies of policies affecting children and
families provide little insight. Several descriptive
accounts of federal policies and programs have been under-
taken recently (U.S. Department of Health. Education. and
, ~
Welfare, 1979; Snapper et al., 1975; White House Confer-
ence on Children, 1970; Lash and Sigal, 1975; Wakefield
and Wakefield, 1978, 1979). Such comprehensive descrip-
tions of programs, agencies, congressional committees,
OCR for page 5
5
statutes, budgets, research agendas, and court decisions
attempt to uncover the significant participants and the
forums, the channels of communication, and the influence
involved in identifying and resolving issues related to
children. Other studies have presented topologies of
federal programs, distinguishing the ways in which they
benefit children (Family Impact Seminar, 1978; Rose,
1976). Still others have evaluated specific substantive
policy proposals (Bane, 1977; Steiner, 1976; Keniston and
the Carnegie Council on Children, 1977; deLone, 1979).
These studies are sometimes valuable for their accuracy
and rich detail in explaining particular outcomes, yet
they are limited in the understanding they provide
concerning the conditions and constraints that will
influence the directions of policy in the future. To
obtain this type of knowledge, policy makers and advocates
alike require an understanding of the process of policy
~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ A; 1 = ~1 ~
formation that goes Beyond wean 1~ ~U~=l`~^y In__ in
the literature on policy for children.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The Panel for Study of the Policy Formation Process under-
took its work in an effort to create a better understand-
ing of federal decision making affecting children and
their families as a basis for more effective action by
key participants in that process. The study had three
major objectives.
First, the panel sought to gain some understanding of
how federal policy for children is made. We examined
what we called "concrete expressions of the formation of
policy": programs, legislation, budgets, regulations,
and court decisions. We identified the principal govern-
mental and nongovernmental actors in the policy-making
process and explored how these individuals and organiza-
tions influence policy outcomes. We uncovered some of
the significant forces that interact to shape program
content, regulation, and budget size. Moreover, we
examined how these interactions vary in different kinds
of government actions: direct service programs, regula-
tory promulgations, and tax provisions.
Second, the panel attempted to identify some of the
conditions and constraints that characterize federal
policy making affecting children and their families. By
tracing selected policy developments through their politi-
cal and socioeconomic environments, we discovered a
OCR for page 6
6
variety of factors that are likely to influence trends
and future directions.
Third, we tried to understand how the participants in
the formation of federal policy for children influence
the decision-making process. Through an examination of
the dynamics of policy formation in selected areas, we
made several conjectures concerning how and when various
participants can influence federal policy. Our purpose
was not to map strategies for achieving miter" tar ~ armor
policies and programs.
~&~4 ~^ ~ ~ MEL
These objectives reflect the needs of our intended
audience. First and foremost, we hope to inform the
research community and to stimulate a new direction for
future study. In addition, we hope to provide useful
guidance to policy makers both inside and outside
government who participate in federal decision making
affecting children.
APPROACH OF THE STUDY
At the outset of the study we reviewed much of the litera-
ture on policy determination in order to examine existing
theories of policy formation and assess their potential
as analytic frameworks. We then developed three case
studies of federal policy developments as the body of
evidence for our analysis. Finally, we analyzed the data
from the case studies and drew conclusions concerning the
nature of federal policy making affecting children and
families and effective participation in that process.
The Policy Determination Literature
There is disagreement among experts over the precise
definition of policy. Greenberg points to the great
variety of boundaries (or lack thereof) suggested for the
concept of policy, including all government action, a
program of goals, general rules to cover future behavior,
the consequences of action and inaction, important govern-
ment decisions, a selected line of action, and a declara-
tion of intent (Greenberg et al., 1977). Because of its
inherent complexity, public policy is more difficult to
study systematically than most other phenomena investi-
gated empirically by social scientists. The policy
process takes place over time and therefore cannot be
explained as a simple unit or event. It generally
OCR for page 7
7
involves a large number of decision points--for example,
a Senate vote, a presidential veto, and an appellate
court decision. Although each of these "outputs" contri-
butes to policy formation and might be predicted by
existing theories, they are partial measures. In our
review of existing literature, we have not encountered
any model that integrates such events and distinguishes
their relative significance.
A second characteristic of policy making, which
renders it less susceptible to systematic analysis by
traditional quantitative techniques, is that it inevitably
involves the presence of a large, heterogeneous group of
participants. The power to influence public policies
affecting the well-being of children, or any other group,
is shared by individuals and organizations at each level
of government as well as in the private sector. The
interests, perceptions, and values of those participants
differ, as do the formal and informal roles they play in
the decision-making process.
The concerns and constitu-
encies of the member of Congress, the departmental
secretary, the agency director, the program administrator,
the research manager, the project officer, the practi-
tioner, and the parent often conflict in important
respects. Policy making is a process of resolving
conflicts of interest; the policy analyst must assign
weights to the involvement of various participants. Such
judgments are partially subjective, depending to some
extent on the preconceptions of the policy analyst and to
some extent on the perceptions of the sources consulted.
m e major difficulty involved is to assign significance
to those perceptions.
A third relevant characteristic of policy making is
the complexity of each of the events that contribute to
policy formation. Just as the larger policy process is
complex, occurring over time, involving a number of
decision points and many different actors, each individual
policy event--for example, a legislative vote, a court
decision, or the appointment of a subcommittee chair--
shares these characteristics on a smaller scale. Even an
apparently simple government policy is likely to be the
result of a complex chain of causes and relationships and
to have many interrelated consequences. Such complexity
is difficult to deal with systemically in the context of
existing theories of policy formation.
Finally, policy formation is not susceptible to
description by simple additive models. Policies are
shaped by a variety of conditions, events, and actors
OCR for page 8
8
.
over a period of time. It is a dynamic process. Forces
interact in complex ways that are hard to disentangle.
The effect of a single government action on society
cannot be understood in isolation from others. The panel
believes that the dearth of cumulative understanding in
_
this area has not resulted from a lack of interest on the
part of policy makers or researchers; it reflects instead
the fact that there is no consensus on what is scientifi-
cally knowable about policy making or on how to acquire
useful knowledge. The crucial epistemological issues are
reliability and generalizability: On what scientific
basis can observations, information, and other data on
policy formation be integrated into a body of knowledge
on which social scientists agree? If such agreement were
reached, would it center on historically specific know-
ledge or that obtained from analysis according to a set
of general laws of policy formation? These two issues
are far from resolved.
The Case Study Approach
To collect, integrate, and interpret information, the
panel conducted case studies of federal policy making
affecting children and families. This method was
selected after a systematic review of its advantages,
disadvantages, traditions, achievements, and limitations
in public policy study. With the experience of other
investigators in mind, we adopted the case study method
because it seemed to provide the best opportunity to
explore both inductively and deductively the dynamics of
policy formation. We were nevertheless mindful of the
problems associated with this methodological approach.
Properly conducted, a case study can integrate a vast
quantity of information from a variety of sources. It
can draw material from official documents, formal analytic
studies, interviews, journalistic accounts, and related
sources. In addition, it can explore a variety of inter-
actions among relevant actors and institutions that make
policy. As a detailed, systematic presentation of how
particular policies evolved, a case study can provide a
context for testing and modifying existing models and
developing new hypotheses concerning the policy process.
Moreover, as Alex George suggests, the case study is a
valuable means of "discerning new general problems,
identifying possible theoretical solutions, and formulat
ing potentially generalizable relations that were not
-
OCR for page 9
9
previously apparent" (George, 1979:17). The panel
believed that this method offered the most promising
means of learning more about the complexity of federal
policy making affecting children, assessing existing
theories, and, above all, developing an analytic framework
for understanding the policy formation process in a way
that will provide lessons concerning future participation
"in a systematic and differentiated way" (George, 1979:2).
We recognize, however, that this method, like all
others, has limitations and is vulnerable to criticism.
Time and resources precluded more than a few intensive
cases. Necessarily, our investigators had to be selective
in gathering information and weaving it into a coherent
narrative. In so doing they may have excluded important
data or have been unconsciously attracted to information
supporting a priori views. Significant factors may have
escaped documentaton, eluded interviews, or have had
their effects in ways that are not directly observable.
The investigators may have tended to identify with
participants to whom they had access or, for that matter,
with those having strong, articulate, or well-informed
views. In addition, since we adopted no existing model
of policy making, it was difficult to anticipate all of
the behavioral relationships of potential relevance to
policy determination. Finally, there is the issue of
generalizability, of how indicative the cases are of the
past or, a fortiori, of the future. Despite these limita-
tions, we believed that the case study method offered the
most useful, methodologically sound vehicle for conducting
a study of federal policy making affecting children and
families.
Once the case study method was chosen, we turned to the
questions of content and subject. Because we wanted an
inclusive account of the policy formation process, time
and resources limited us to three cases. In light of the
difficulties of defining policy in a conceptually coherent
way, we chose instead to concentrate on the concrete mani-
festations of federal policy: programs, regulations,
budgets, and legislative revisions. Thus, our case
studies of policy formation became case studies of the
initiation and development of legal provisions, programs
and regulations.
questions: Why has federal policy toward children in
these areas evolved historically as it has? What are the
conditions and constraints that shape the context of
future policy in these areas? How was federal policy
making influenced by concerned actors in the process?
The inquiry was guided by three
OCR for page 10
10
We selected three case studies from an array of federal
activities affecting children and families by applying
several criteria. We agreed that the cases should
represent activities carried out in different bureaucratic
locations. We considered other cabinet-level departments
in addition to the U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. We also agreed that the cases should include
types of federal activities in addition to grant-in-aid
programs, such as regulatory initiatives and uses of the
income tax code. Furthermore, we did not want the case
studies to be limited to programs or other legislative
initiatives that were "successful n as measured by (1) the
lack of opposition they encountered in the legislative
process or (2) a rapid or steady rate of growth in program
participation and budgetary appropriation. Hence we
looked for initiatives that encountered opposition or
even failed to be enacted.
The final choices rested on the judgment of panel
members that each case should examine a different type of
federal action: a categorical grant program, a regula-
tion, and a tax measure. We selected three activities
that appeared to offer interesting and varied examples of
the federal policy formation process: the Special
Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children in the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the
Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements in the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services); and the
Child Care Tax Deduction/Credit of the U.S. Department of
the Treasury. Each case involves a different set of
congressional and executive branch policy makers and
nongovernmental interests and advocates. Presented in
Part 2 of this volume, these case studies are a major
product of our efforts.
Because they represent different types of federal
actions on behalf of children, different goals, and
different sets of actors and institutions inside and
outside government, the three case studies offer a basis
for comparison. Taken together they suggest many of the
circumstances and events that have shaped the current
context of policy for children. Since the initiation and
implementation of the three policies cover roughly the
same period of time, they were all subject to the same
general social, economic, and political conditions.
Moreover, the period of time over which each policy was
examined was sufficient to allow extensive observation of
the roles and influences of various actors, the resolution
OCR for page 11
11
of conflicts in debate surrounding the policy initiatives,
and the patterns of success or failure following the
implementation of the program or regulations.
The primary goal of the case studies was to discover
what occurred in the formation of each policy and why it
occurred in the particular way it did. The cases focused
on certain observable actions of the federal government:
the enactment of statutes, the adoption of agency budgets,
the promulgation of regulations and guidelines, the
establishment of administrative units, the interpretation
of the law by the courts, and the results of evaluation
research. These actions constitute federal policy toward
children in the sense that they are the observable and
identifiable phenomena providing form to policy initia-
tives and influencing the behavior of the policy makers
who support or oppose them.
To impose coherence and rigor in the preparation of
the cases, we established three major criteria. First,
each case is explicated historically, both to explore the
context of policy development and to test the widespread
hypothesis that policy making is incremental. Second,
each case focused on the policy making process. Rather
than ask what should have been done, we asked what was
done, why it was done in that way, and how it affected
what was done subsequently. Our emphasis was on under-
standing the policy formation process and not on judging
it. Although we were concerned with all assessments of
policies and programs related to the three case studies,
we ourselves did not attempt to evaluate their effects on
children and their families. Rather we examined the
effects of existing program evaluations on the policy
formation process. Third, we assumed that the relative
power of actors influenced the achievement of their goals
and that such power was exercised within social, economic,
political, and ideological structures.
Each case study identified relevant actors and institu-
tions, emphasized them according to their observed
prominence, and explained their perceptions insofar as
they were relevant to the policy process. If the history
of an event was in dispute, the interpretation carrying
the greatest weight of factual evidence was incorporated
into the case. The emphasis accorded a decision affecting
a policy varied with the controversy and the significance
of the particular act to the policy process as a whole.
A fundamental issue was the thoroughness, validity,
reliability, and bias in estimation of the body of
evidence itself. Each case study is a report based on
OCR for page 12
12
the verbal accounts (comprised of written documentation
and interviews) relating to the policy but not to
behavioral observation, ratings, or psychophysiological
measures. A great deal of effort was devoted to checking
for potential reporting errors or omissions and disting-
uishing between matters of fact and matters of inter-
pretation. In several instances, members of the panel
were actual participants in the decision-making processes
described, and their direct observations contributed to
our sense of the validity of the cases. In addition,
cross-checking of methods (documents versus statements,
formal versus informal documents and statements) and
perspectives (using experts and policy participants out-
side the panel) went on continuously throughout the study.
The Analysis of the Case Studies
We were impressed by the complexity of the interactions
within each case study.
We attempted to disaggregate
these interactions into their components and to understand
the role of each in federal policy formation. These
components can be grouped into six general categories:
contextual factors, principles and ideas, actors and
institutions, constituency pressure, media presentations,
and research studies.
_ . . .
This disaggregation, although
useful In explaining retrospectively the roles of these
components, offered little insight into their interactions
in the formation of federal policies or their potential
in future policy making.
The panel sought an analytic construct to relate these
components and to provide general lessons concerning
their interactions. Accordingly, we adopted an analytic
metaphor with two qualities absent in other theoretical
models we reviewed: (1) an enticing resonance in both
the case studies and the panel's own experiences and (2)
the potential for yielding some useful advice about
federal policy making for children.
According to the metaphor, policy making can be visual
high, middle, and
low. At each level, differences in decision making can
be noted along three key dimensions: the nature of the
policy issues in question, the actors involved, and the
ized as occurring at three levels:
type of government actions that result. Policy making at
the high level can be said to involve the definition of
major social problems, the formulation of solutions, and
the resolution of conflicting social values--for example,
OCR for page 13
13
the legality of abortion or the federal regulation of
energy consumption. The main participants are policy
makers at the highest level of government: the President,
the congressional leadership, and the Supreme Court.
Policy making at the middle level involves decision
making affecting the allocation of authority and
resources--for example, the establishment of a new
compensatory education program or the authorization of
funds for a new program of research. Decisions made at
this level represent the means to achieve the ends
established at the high level. The key participants are
presidential appointees, members of Congress, or desig-
nates of either. At the low level, policy making involves
the technical design of means chosen at the middle level--
for example, the writing of regulations or congressional
legislation. The primary participants are the staffs of
the high- and middle-level actors.
The high, middle, and low classification scheme is not
meant to be pejorative. The stakes at any level can be
substantial. A high-level decision maker can become
involved in the low arenas and, conversely, under certain
circumstances, a low-level actor can participate in
high-level policy making. The classification refers
principally to the level of decision making necessary to
resolve the contested issues. Although the character-
istics of decision making at each level are distinguish-
able, a complex policy issue could be contested in several
arenas simultaneously; the high level would not necessar-
ily be the critical one for resolution. Similarly, as
events progress in the policy-making process, the level
of decision making can change, thus altering the nature
of the policy issues in question, introducing new partici-
pants, and creating new possibilities for government
action.
In Chapter 4 we detail the many nuances and caveats
concerning this analytic framework. For now the reader
should regard the metaphor as a tool we found useful in
studying the policy-making process. We stress that it
has numerous intellectual antecedents elsewhere in the
literature and that it still requires further examination
and verification by others in different contexts.
Once the framework was developed by the panel, its
usefulness was tested by staff efforts to apply it to the
cases. The original classification was found only
partially applicable and was modified. The method was
consensual, subjective, and interactive. No doubt this
review process will continue and will include individuals
outside the panel.
OCR for page 14
14
By applying the framework to the case studies and our
experience, we discerned that the different character-
istics of each level of policy making suggest particular
strategic opportunities or levers that appear as keys to
effective action. We attempted to ascertain the levers
applicable at each level and to develop from them some
advice to participants in the policy-making process who
represent the interests of children and their families.
In this way, we developed the substance of our
conclusions and recommendations.
PLAN OF THE REPORT
The remaining chapters of this report present the findings
and conclusions of our study. Chapter 2 is a summary
account of the three case studies. Chapter 3 is an
analysis of the components of the policy formation process
revealed in the cases. Chapter 4 integrates our findings
concerning the characteristics of policy formation at
each level of the process and presents our general con-
clusions concerning the available levers to participants
both inside and outside the federal government. Chapter
5 relates the framework and conclusions of Chapter 4 to
federal policy making toward children and their families.
It states our conclusions on how various actors in the
policy-making process might alter their behavior to be
more effective advocates for children and their families.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
affecting children
