Thursday, September 20, 2012

Determining which topics are Family Policy

Karen Bogenschneider writes in her Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars:

Family policy, a subfield of social policy, encompasses one of four family functions: (a) family creation (e.g., to marry or divorce, to bear or adopt children, to provide foster care), (b) economic support (e.g., to provide for members’ basic needs, (c) childrearing (e.g., to socialize the next generation), and (d) family caregiving (e.g., to provide assistance for the disabled, ill, frail, and elderly). Family policies address issues such as child care, child support, divorce, family violence, juvenile crime, long-term care, and teenage pregnancy. Tax provisions that create a child care tax credit would be considered family policy. However, a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, many of whom happen to live in families, would not be considered family policy. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would be considered family policy. However a universal health care program would not be considered family policy, because it targets individuals, irrespective of whether or not they live in a family setting.

So many things might be considered family policy, but some are not necessarily considered proper discussions for family policy. Since this field is considered a "sub-topic of social policy," what types of policies have we talked about in class might be considered social policy and what might be considered family policy?  

What are the arguments and current topics that are being discussed in this election season that might be considered family policy?  (Hint: see the four basic functions of families).





6 comments:

  1. I would say an issue that we have talked about that relates to social policy is gender differences. My first thought was the feminist perspective where the roles of man and woman have been socially constructed and culturally defined giving men power. I believe this falls even farther into the glass ceiling where the women that are out there working “men titled” jobs are not getting the same pay. This is a social problem, and would be considered for social policies.
    As for the public policy in our current government the thought that immediately comes to mind is healthcare or “Obamacare” as known in the media. I worked in a hospital, and things would get so complex with health insurance. I believe that family policies and allowing children to stay on their parent’s health insurance until the age of 26 has benefited many families, and taken a load of the government health care system like Medicaid. One example of a young family consisting of a husband and wife expecting a child to be delivered at our facility had a complex insurance status. The husband was covered under “his parents” insurance until he turned 26. The wife was covered under “her parents” insurance which happened to be double coverage because both mother and father were titled to their own insurance. The expecting mother was also covered under Medicaid, and the child was going to be under Medicaid once it was born. So Medicaid was responsible for the remaining amounts that her 2 insurances did not cover. Although Medicaid had an amount to pay, it was a much smaller amount than it could have been. My point is that although this is a public family issue, it does have its benefits to families when it comes to the portion entitling coverage of a child until the age of 26.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know that we talked a little about divorce, child custody, and child support. This is a big issue right now for my family. My husband was married twice before so there have obviously been divorces. He has kids with both ex-wives. Two of the kids live with his first wife who we pay child support for. However, the mother refuses to let us see the kids. We have been going to court on and off for the last 2 years, trying to gain joint custody, but there is always something that comes up, that postpones the final decision. Even though we want to have a part in the children's lives, and we financially support the children, many people believe that the kids should remain with their mother, because "kids should always be with their mothers."

    On the other hand we have his daughter from his second marriage living with us. Sometimes the mother will help with the financial support of the child, but doesn't want the responsibility of helping to raise her daughter.

    I would like to see more policies that support both parents. The fact that the judicial system will take sides instead of making everything equitable is frustrating, at least from my perspective.


    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that's an excellent policy debate...and one that would work if you wanted to use it as your final project. There are serious inequities as we assign custody after a divorce. It's particularly difficult when the divorce is a nasty one and the parents can't agree on how to manage the children.

    I am really curious how we can create policy that focuses on the child's attachment relationships. What policy issues can we address by evaluating the child's attachment? Can we make better decisions on custody if we can see how well the children do with either parent?

    Talk amongst yourselves!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing that I can see going wrong with policies on child attachment to their parents in custody cases, is that often times kids will be more attached to their mothers. I say this because in a lot of cases mothers are more nurturing, but also just because a child doesn't have as strong of an attachment to the other parent doesn't mean that the relationship won't benefit them as much. I would like to see a child advocate in custody cases that can't be decided by the parents. This way both parents have the chance of having a positive and productive relationship with their children. For example; my husband's kids are definitely more attached to their mother, but that doesn't mean that my husband shouldn't have as much time with them as she does.

      Delete
  4. While I've known people involved in nasty divorces and custody battles, I've never really given lots of thought as to how such a process could really be improved beyond encouraging parents to work together (which I already realize is quite a simplistic and futile view in many cases). By assessing the attachment of the child to his or her parents, we could possibly come up with arrangements and agreements that could totally blow current "ideal" situation out of the water. We often say that we want the best for the child, but it's not like the child can just sit down and tell us what he or she really wants (whether it's for lack of communication skills, pressure from the parents, or another issue). If we could objectively evaluate attachment and relationships in a scientific manner, that would be extremely helpful; however, I realize that this is an idealistic view and there are many details and snags that make it currently impossible and even difficult in future plans; it's a nice idea, though, and something to strive for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of the topics we have discussed in class is "class." We have talked about the changes in economy, economic restructuring, unequal distribution, trends in poverty, trends in income by family type, four class model (upper class, middle class, working class, and lower class), how class works, the effect of class and economics, etc. I read an interesting article in the New York Times titled "When Richer Weds Poorer, Money Isn't the Only Difference." If anyone is interested here is the web address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/national/class/MARRIAGE-FINAL.html?pagewanted=all).

    As far as arguments and current topics that are being discussed in this election season that might be considered family policy I believe that class is right at the top with Romney being labeled upper class ($$$) and then even going so far as to say President Obama because of his race and ethenic background. Class is also a part of the election in how you look at how each party is trying to win certain populations... Look at the remark that Romney said about the 47% who don't pay taxes...

    ReplyDelete