Family Policies and Family Well-Being: The Role of Political Culture
Publication Year: 1992
How can you assess the effects of existing government policies on families? Are there ways to predict the effects of future policies upon the family? Challenging the view that governmental social programs have been detrimental to family life, Zimmerman provides empirical evidence to show that attitudes toward the governments' role in relation to families are associated with the political cultures of different states. She also illustrates the relationship between states' political cultures and the kinds of family policies states enact. Important guidelines are suggested to aid in the development of a policy agenda that will enhance the well-being of individuals and families, regardless of where they live. Family Policies and Family Well-Being examines findings from several independent but related undertakings including: a survey of family ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
Part I: Conceptual Foundations
- Chapter 1: Family Policies and Families: Their Intersections
- Chapter 2: The Goal of Family Policy: Individual and Family Well-Being
- Chapter 3: Political Culture: Definitions and Variations in the 50 States
Part II: Empirical Studies
- Chapter 4: Attitudes Toward Government and Families: The Role of Political Culture
- Chapter 5: States' Policy Approaches to Families: The Role of Political Culture
- Chapter 6: Family Policies and Family Well-Being: The Role of Political Culture
Part III: Summary and Implications
SAGE Sourcebooks for the Human Services Series[Page ii]
Series Editors: ARMAND LAUFFER and CHARLES GARVIN
Recent Volumes in This Series
HEALTH PROMOTION AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
edited by NEIL BRACHT
FAMILY POLICIES AND FAMILY WELL-BEING: The Role of Political Culture
by SHIRLEY L. ZIMMERMAN
FAMILY THERAPY WITH THE ELDERLY
by ELIZABETH R. NEIDHARDT & JO ANN ALLEN
EFFECTIVELY MANAGING HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
by RALPH BRODY
by KRIS KISSMAN & JO ANN ALLEN
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: A Family Systems Perspective
edited by EDITH M. FREEMAN
SOCIAL COGNITION AND INDIVIDUAL CHANGE: Current Theory and Counseling Guidelines
by AARON M. BROWER & PAULAS. NURIUS
UNDERSTANDING AND TREATING ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE
by PHILIP P. MUISENER
EFFECTIVE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS: A Guide for EAP Counselors and Managers
by GLORIA CUNNINGHAM
COUNSELING THE ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSER: School-Based Intervention and Prevention
by MARLENE MIZIKER GONET
TASK GROUPS IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES
by MARIAN FATOUT & STEVEN R. ROSE
NEW APPROACHES TO FAMILY PRACTICE: Confronting Economic Stress
by NANCY R. VOSLER
WHAT ABOUT AMERICA'S HOMELESS CHILDREN? Hide and Seek
by PAUL G. SHANE
SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE IN THE 21st CENTURY
by SURJIT SINGH DHOOPER
SELF-HELP AND SUPPORT GROUPS: A Handbook for Practitioners
by LINDA FARRIS KURTZ
UNDERSTANDING DISABILITY: A Lifespan Approach
by PEGGY QUINN
QUALITATIVE METHODS IN SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH: Challenges and Rewards
by DEBORAH K. PADGETT
Copyright © 1992 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
For information address:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Newbury Park, California 91320
SAGE Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Family policies and family well-being: the role of political culture / Shirley L. Zimmerman.
p. cm. —(Sage sourcebooks for the human services series; 20)
Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index.
ISBN 0-8039-4286-9 (cl). —ISBN 0-8039-4287-7 (pb)
1. Family policy—United States. 2. Family—United States. 3. Political culture—United States. 4. Family policy—United States—States. I. Title. II. Series: Sage sourcebooks for the human services series; v. 21.
97 98 99 00 01 02 03 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
Sage Production Editor: Diane S. Foster
Although this book has been in the writing stage for a year, the discussion is a product of 5 years of research effort. At this time, I would like to express my thanks to Cathy Schultz, Mary Seabloom, Marjorie Schaffer, and Phyllis Owens. Mary Seabloom and Marjorie Schaffer assisted with the research reported in Chapters 4 and 6. Phyllis Owens assisted with the research in Chapter 5. Cathy Schultz was absolutely indispensable to the computer analysis of the data reported in Chapters 4 and 6.1 thank each of them; without their help, these various undertakings would have been made much more difficult, if not impossible.
I also would like to thank my colleague and friend, Paul Rosenblatt, and my friend, Edwin Shneidman at UCLA, both of whom read and commented on the initial draft of the book. I am particularity grateful to Armand Lauffer whose encouragement and support helped to validate my conceptualization of the issues that I discuss in the book. The same is true of Marquita Flemming from Sage. Both made numerous helpful suggestions for improving my presentation of the issues, with Armand reading and commenting on manuscript drafts as often as these were sent to him. Both Armand's and Marquita's enthusiam helped me endure sitting at the computer for endless hours at a time over these months.
I also would like to express my appreciation to the staff at the Census Bureau for their help in identifying and providing the historical data I needed for the analyses I discuss in Chapter 6. No matter with whom I spoke to at the Bureau during the data-gathering stage of the research, he or she was always helpful and pleasant. The same was true of the staff at the National Center for Health Statistics.
But, of course, it is the people with whom one lives who have to bear the daily brunt of this kind of activity—living with someone who though [Page viii]physically present, often is psychologically absent, lost in a world of images on a screen. And so, I would like to thank again my spouse, Peter, who suffered through all this, for the second time now, especially during periods when the work was most intense. The same goes for our children and grandchildren and friends whose affection and understanding are important to me.
Now that the writing is done, I hope my interpretation of the findings I report here makes sense to you. The research process that produced the findings was iterative in that as I found the answer to one quesion, it stimulated me to ask another related one. This started the process anew in terms of conceptualizing the question, operationalizing it, collecting the data needed to answer it, and then analyzing and interpreting the data. The results are what you see here.
It is my hope that what I have reported here makes some small difference in the larger scheme of things, especially in attitudes toward government and government's relationship to individuals and families—which translates into the attitudes that each of us holds toward others.
Introduction: Mapping the Book[Page ix]
Together, we are about to engage in the exploration of the connections between family policies, individual and family well-being, and political culture. Political culture refers to the values and attitudes that people hold toward government and toward each other (McClosky & Zaller, 1984). In its broadest sense, family policy refers to everything that governments do that affect families (Zimmerman, 1988a). Family well-being as a family policy goal is a value criterion that can be used to assess and evaluate the effects of existing government policies on families and predict the family effects of policies that are still being considered but have not yet been adopted. Recent court rulings have broadened the definition of family so that it now includes many nontraditional arrangements that meet the functional, if not the structural, requirements of the term. Although only one of many definitions, family is defined here as an ongoing caring relationship between and among persons who assume responsibility for one another in sickness and in health, in good times and bad.
During the course of this discussion, we will examine findings from several independent but related undertakings: a survey of family professionals living in states with different political cultures, comparing their attitudes toward governments' role in helping families; a content analysis of the family legislation enacted by three states with different political cultures, comparing their policy approaches to families; and [Page x]an analysis of the relationship between states' policy approaches to families and individual and family well-being and the role of political culture in their relationship. All the studies were undertaken between 1985 and 1990. Except for the attitudinal study, which applies to a single point in time, these analyses cut across both time and states. Because each was undertaken independent of the other, the questions that guided them are different, as are their conceptual foundations. The theme that unifies them is the meaning of states' political culture for states' policy approaches to families and individual and family well-being:
Although less common at the intranational level, the kinds of comparative analyses reported here are relatively common at the international level. They have been undertaken in examining cross-cultural differences in the well-being of people in different countries (Almond & Verba, 1963; 1989; Inglehart, 1990), the policy approaches of different countries to families (Kamerman & Kahn, 1978), and the economic effects of different countries' family policy approaches on different types of families (Smeeding & Torrey, 1988). More recently, Pechman and Englehardt (1991) compared the income tax treatment of families in different countries. However, like Dye (1966, 1990) who has undertaken several comparative analyses of states' policy efforts, I have found that such analyses are just as useful to do at the intranational level (Zimmerman, 1987,1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1989, 1990,1991a, 1991b). Indeed, because of the Federal nature of our political system, the 50 states offer research conditions akin to a natural experiment. Because so much of American life is organized at the national level—the communications industry, the airlines industry, retail business and advertising, professional and other types of voluntary organizations, and so forth—differences among states tend to go unnoticed and unobserved. Exceptions to this, in addition to Dye (1966, 1990), are Linsky and Straus (1986) and Lammers and Klingman (1984). This discussion joins theirs in highlighting these differences while exploring the possibly larger meanings and implications of such differences.
Family policy and families are defined in the first chapter. I also discuss issues surrounding changing family definitions as these intersect with family policy. It is here that you will become familiar with the terminology associated with family policy as outlined by Kamerman and Kahn (1976) and Zimmerman (1979; 1988a). Their writing highlights the different dimensions of family policy, and calls for a broad rather than a narrow approach to the subject. Appendix A includes a glossary of terms.[Page xi]
Chapter 2 focuses on individual and family well-being as a value and family policy goal, and its importance: conceptually, philosophically, politically, and practically. I also present some theoretical explanations for individual and family well-being—stratification theory, expectation and aspiration-adjustment theory, resource theory, resource-need congruence and resource exchange theories—and different ways of measuring well-being at micro and macro levels. I also draw your attention to some of the interpretative frameworks from the family field that also can be used to operationalize the concept. These include the family systems, family stress, and family life-cycle frameworks, among others. Appendix B includes some items that can be used to assess individual and family well-being in your community or state, or the well-being of individuals and families served by agencies in your community.
Political culture is discussed in the third chapter where I introduce the works of Almond and Verba (1963, 1989), Inglehart (1990), and McClosky and Zaller (1984) who studied the political culture of the United States. I also discuss the historical implications of the United States's political culture for its policy approach to families and for their well-being. Based on a typology developed by Daniel Elazar (1984), the chapter also highlights the distinguishing features of the political cultures of the 50 states: individualistic, moralistic, traditionalistic, and different mixes of the three. Appendix C includes Elazar's outline of the dominant value orientations associated with these political cultures, and could be used to analyze the political culture of your own state.
Chapter 4 focuses on findings from a survey that aimed to determine the influence of political culture on attitudes toward government and families as domains of distributive choices and the distributive norms associated with these domains. The subjects were family professionals living in 23 different states selected on the basis of Elazar's (1984) typology of their states' political cultures. The context for the study was the divergent outcomes of policy choices for families with children and elderly members. Its theoretical perspective drew from theories of distributive justice as these pertained to the normative bases for distributive choices. The findings provided empirical evidence that attitudes toward governments' role in relation to families are associated with the political cultures of different states. Appendix D in Chapter 4 includes the statements that comprised the attitudinal scales on which the discussion of the chapter is based. These can be used to do a similar survey of attitudes in your community.[Page xii]
Chapter 5 explores the connection between states' political cultures and their policy approaches to families. The conceptual framework for the discussion comes from Chapter 3 and Elazar's typology. The research itself was based on a content analysis of the family legislation enacted by three states—Nevada, Minnesota, and South Carolina—states uniquely different from one another in terms of political culture, thus allowing for comparisons to be made among them (Zimmerman & Owens, 1989). The years selected for the analysis were 1979, 1982 to 1983, and 1985, which are important historically for family policy developments in this country. The analysis makes clear that there is a relationship between states' political cultures and the kinds of family policies states enact. The substantive and functional categories that were developed for analyzing the family legislation of these states are outlined in the tables in the chapter. These categories may be useful in analyzing your state's policy approach to families also.
Drawing on social integration theory, Chapter 6 makes clear the connections between states' policy approaches to families and individual and family well-being and the role of political culture in their relationship. The findings from these analyses also challenge the view that government social programs have been detrimental to family life. Individual and family well-being either was higher in states in which government played a more active role in meeting peoples' needs or was unaffected by it. Measures of individual and family well-being included states' suicide rates, teen birthrates, poverty rates, and divorce rates. States' policy choices were operationalized by states' per-capita public welfare expenditures but attention is paid to states' per-capita hospital expenditures and taxes as well. States' political cultures were measured by the percentage of state populations voting for Republican presidential candidates over the period of the analyses. The analyses covers 25 years of the recent past, years characterized by the expansion and contraction of the role of state and federal governments in human affairs. These include 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1985.
The seventh and final chapter summarizes the findings from these studies and draws conclusions about the implications of a political culture that has grown increasingly individualistic for individual and family well-being. The conclusions form the basis not for projecting a detailed policy agenda to enhance the well-being of individuals and families, regardless of where they live, but for arriving at a few general principles to aid in the development of such an agenda and arrive at a consensus to support it.[Page xiii]
In addition to offering a few analytic tools, I hope this book will stimulate you, the reader, to think about some of the issues with which it deals, and to join me in challenging conventional wisdom about government's role in human affairs. Exercises are provided at the end of many chapters to encourage you to take the time to think more carefully about some of these issues. Although much of the material that I present is heavily research based, I hope that as you become familiar with the ideas that I discuss, you will catch some of the excitement that I experienced as I moved from one research question to another. Let us begin.
Appendix A: Glossary of Family Policy Terms[Page 167]
Family—special relational ties reflecting need of individuals for stability, continuity, and unconditional affection; group of people closely related by blood, marriage or adoption, or who share a common ancestry; group whose members love and care for each other; two or more persons related by mutual expectations of emotional and material support, regardless of living arrangements, whose behaviors convey mutual responsibility, intimacy, and care on a continuing basis; two or more persons in a committed relationship from which they derive a sense of identity as a family; any ongoing social arrangement in which persons who care about and are committed to one another are able to have their basic psychological, social, physical, and economic needs met; cohabiting groups of some duration composed of persons in intimate relations based on biology, law, custom, or choice and usually economic interdependence
family policy—a perspective that highlights the family dimensions of private and public actions; course of action designed to achieve family goals and objectives; choice in the pursuit and attainment of collectively agreed-upon goals and values in addressing family problems and alternative solutions to them; field of activity[Page 168]
family policy; explicit—laws, legislation, and programs that have stated family objectives
family policy; implicit—laws, legislation, and programs that affect families although their family objectives are unstated
family policy; manifest—laws, legislation, and programs with obvious family objectives or consequences
family policy; latent—laws, legislation, and programs whose family objectives and consequences are not obvious
family policy; direct—laws, legislation, and programs that have family aims and consequences, although these may or may not be stated
family policy; indirect—laws, legislation, and programs that have aims and objectives other than those pertaining to families, through which families are affected
family policy; intentional—laws, legislation, and programs with deliberately planned family consequences
family policy; unintentional—laws, legislation, and programs with unplanned family consequences
family realm—complex set of affect, development, experience, rules, ethics, patterns, relationships, aspirations, values, and heritage
needs—that which is essential for the performance of key social roles, i.e., spouse, parent, child, worker, citizen
nonintegration—the exclusion of some people from benefits or social supports enjoyed by others
political culture—attitudes that people hold toward government and toward each other; the distribution of attitudes toward political objects in a population
political culture, individualistic—emphasis on private over public concerns; committed to limiting government intervention into private activities and the economy, to minimum necessary government intervention in economic affairs
political culture, moralistic—views government in a positive light, as having responsibility for promoting the general welfare; committed to active government intervention into the economic and social life of the community[Page 169]
political culture, traditionalistic—views government in a positive light but tries to restrict its role to maintaining the existing social order; ambivalent toward the marketplace and paternalistic and elitist conception of commonwealth
social integration—refers to strength of persons' ties to institutions that function to bind individuals to the larger society; a general consensus concerning rules of behavior and means of ensuring compliance with them, including governments' mediation of connections between and among people so as to further members' well-being.
well-being—state of being healthy, happy, and free from want; outcome of long-term socialization and developmental processes and concurrent environmental conditions and processes; composite of satisfactions in domains of marriage, job, leisure, family, and housing; degree to which basic needs are met
well-being, family—extension of concept of well-being to families based on systems notion that whatever affects one member affects the larger family unit as well
Appendix B: A Survey Questionnaire of Well-Being[Page 170]
The following are questions that can be asked in a survey to assess the well-being of persons in your community. Begin with a lead question, asking persons to say yes or no as to whether any of the following happened to them during the past 12 months:
- Got a promotion? Yes_ No_ not sure_
- Lost a promotion or new job?
- Got laid off from work?
- Worried about losing a job?
- Had a noticeable increase in income or feeling of financial security?
- Had a noticeable decrease in income or feeling of financial security?
- Had a child?
- Got divorced, separated, or ended a long romantic relationship?
- Developed serious marital problems?
- Had serious or upsetting problems with children?
- Didn't have enough good friends?
- Felt lonely much of the time?
- Wasn't having any fun?
- Didn't have enough time to do things would like to do?
- Lacked entertainment, cultural, and recreational activities?
These can be followed by questions that ask people how satisfied they are with:
- their job?
- their financial prospects for the future?
- the quality of their friendships?
- the quality of their marriage or most important relationship?
- the amount of fun they have?
- the entertainment, recreational, and cultural activities available to them?
- government in Washington?
- government at the state capital?
- their city council?
- their doctor?
To complete the survey, ask respondents to describe their lives in global happiness terms, as being:
- very unhappy
- somewhat unhappy
- neither happy or unhappy
- somewhat happy
- very happy
A scale of minus 100 to plus 100 can be used to measure the domains shaping personal lives. Ratings on individual items can be adjusted to give added weight to domains rated most important by individual respondents. A person would rate near 100 plus if he or she indicates being very satisfied with all aspects of life. Aggregated scores near 100 for a given community would tell you that the level of well-being in that community was very high, the opposite being true when scores are low.
By securing satisfaction scores for a randomly selected group of persons living in your community and relating these to such variables as age, sex, income, race, political party, religion, marital and health status, you will be able to determine whether any of these played a role in the distribution of the scores you obtained on the survey. If, in addition, you conduct a survey of randomly selected persons in another community in your state or another state, you will be able to compare [Page 172]scores across communities. At the same time, you will want to gather information about community characteristics that also might help to account for differences in scores. These could relate to unemployment rates, the sex and age structure of the community, political culture, and so forth.
Be aware that satisfaction scores as global measures of individual and family well-being are not meant to determine whether a particular agency program contributes to family well-being. Indeed, an argument may be made that no single program in and of itself can realistically be expected to have much of an effect in this regard. Nonetheless, you may be able to design a questionnaire that would give you this kind of information. Consult a researcher at your local university or in your agency or office if you need help.
For a more macro level analysis of family well-being, you can rank states and counties for selected years on their:
- unemployment rates
- poverty rates
- teen birthrates
- infant death rates
- suicide rates
- divorce rates
- school completion rates
- etc., etc., etc.
These rankings can then be compared across states and also over time. The data for such rankings can be obtained from the Statistical Abstracts of the United States for each year you are interested in observing. Sometimes such information is reported on a bidecennial basis and sometimes on a decennial basis. Notice changes in rankings over time and think about reasons for such changes, using both theory and knowledge about historical developments as guides. States consistently ranking higher on poverty rates compared to other states would be considered as having lower levels of well-being. See Chapter 6.
Appendix C: States' Political Cultures[Page 173]
Appendix C includes three tables: One that outlines the characteristics of the three political cultures as identified by Daniel Elazar in Chapter 3, one that places states on a continuum based on their political cultures, and a third that shows the populations of cultural groupings by state, 1940–1980.[Page 174][Page 175]Table C.l Characteristics of the Three Political Cultures[Page 176][Page 177]Table C.2 State Political Cultures: The National Configuration[Page 178]Table C.3 Populations of the Cultural Groupings, by State, 1940–1980a
Appendix D: Instrument for Survey of Attitudes about the Intergenerational Distribution of Resources[Page 179]
The research instrument that appears below is the one that I developed in doing the attitudinal survey of family professionals in 23 states about the intergenerational distribution of resources. If you wish, you may use it to replicate the study in your state or community. As you can see, it includes instructions for completing the survey. You may add items to it. In coding states for data analysis, number them sequentially, in alphabetical order. A description of the data analysis is included in chapter 4. For further information about the survey, please contact me: Professor Shirley L. Zimmerman, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 290 McNeal Hall, 198S Buford, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, phone number (612) 625–3735.The Intergenerational Distribution of Resources
Shirley L. Zimmerman, PH.D., Professor Family Social Science, University of Minnesota 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
This questionnaire is designed to measure certain general attitudes with respect to the intergenerational distribution of resources. On the [Page 180]following pages you will find a series of general statements of opinion followed by a set of possible responses that appear below:
- Strongly disagree (SD)
- Disagree (D)
- Mildly disagree (MD)
- Mildly Agree (MA)
- Agree (A)
- Strongly Agree (SA)
- Don't know (DK)
Please read each of the statements and then circle the number of the response that best represents your immediate reaction to the stated opinion. Respond to each opinion as a whole. If you have reservations about some part of a statement, circle the response number that best approximates your general attitude. Answer items 41–44 only if they are applicable to your situation.
Please note: Questions start with item 5.[Page 181][Page 182][Page 183][Page 184][Page 185][Page 186]
References[Page 187]1988. March 11). Life in the USA. USA Today, p. 7A.(After vagrant attack, Santa Monica decides generosity has limits. (1990, August 20). New York Times, p. A10.1990). Family policy in the 1980s: Controversy and consensus. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 (4), 1136–1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353324, & (1987). From reduction to linkage: The long view of the micro-macro link. In J.D.Alexander, B.Giesen, R.Munch, & N.Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 1–42). Berkeley: University of California Press., & (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.(1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., & (1989). The civic culture: Political altitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2253-5, & (1984, May). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Rates, trends and research findings. The Center for Population Research, NICHD.(1990). The “L-word”: A short history of liberalism. The Political Science Teacher, 3 (1), 1–9., & (1976). Here to stay: American families in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.(1989, June 29). Poll finds New Yorkers dissatisfied with help for homeless. New York Times, p. Y11.(1978). The case against family policy. Social Work, 24 (6), 455–459.(1989). The almanac of American politics, 1990. Washington, DC: The National Journal., & ([Page 188]1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row., , , , & (1990, July 2). Report says families lost economic ground despite boom of ‘80s. Star Tribune, p. Yl.(1990). Public social welfare expenditures, fiscal years 1965–87. Social Security Bulletin, 53 (2), 10–16.(1972). Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.(1989, July 10). Koch broadens concept of “family” regarding bereavement leave. New York Times, p. 11.(1967). The boundaries of social policy. Social Work, 12 (1), 3–11. Borhnstedt, G. W. (1969). Observations on the measurement of change. In E.F.Borgatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 113–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1988). Meeting needs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1987). Explaining divorce in the United States: A study of 3,111 counties, 1980. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 549–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352200, & (1962). Broken homes among attempted suicides and psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Mental Science, 108, 773–774.(1985). The parental divorce transition: Divorce-related stressors and well-being. Journal of Divorce, 9 (2), 61–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J279v09n02_05, , , & (1989). A seventh group has visited the elephant. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51 (3), 826–829. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352182, & (1989). The “families” focus of Families in Society. Social Casework, 70 (9), 523–524.(1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In W.Burr, R.Hill, I.Nye, & I.Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family, 2 (p. 64). New York: Free Press., et al. (1987–88). Do income maintenance programs break up marriages? A reevaluation of SIME-DIME. Focus, 10 (4). University of Wisconsin-Madison, The Institute for Research on Poverty., & (1976). The Quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage., , & (1983, summer), Gender, race and the shrinking welfare dollar. Public Welfare. 41, 36–39., & (1990, August 16). Debate over school paddling grows amid rising concerns. New York Times, p. 1Y.. (1987). Should we discourage teenage marriage?Public Interest. 87, 23–37., & (1981). Marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1980). Social and psychological research concerning adolescent childbearing: 1970–1980. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 793–805. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351825(1983). Adolescent sexuality in a changing American society: Social and psychological perspectives. New York: John Wiley.(Chilman, C.S., Cox, F.M., & Nunnally, E.W. (Eds.). (1988). Employment and economic problems, families in trouble series, Vol. I. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.[Page 189]1989, May 2). Mirror of America: Problems plague even happily wed. Star Tribune, p. 1E., & (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22 (3), 643–657., , , , , , , & (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A.Campbell & P.Converse (Eds.). The human meaning of social change (pp. 263–338). New York: Russell Sage.(1983). Family planning among the urban poor: Sexual politics and social policy. Family Relations, 32, 47–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/583978, & (1972). The teenage sexual revolution and the myth of an abstinent past. Family Planning Perspectives, 3, 26–47(1979, September). Psychological maturity, ego identity and fertility related behavior. Paper presented at the annual American Psychological Meeting. New York., & (1980). Psychosocial development and the social problem of teenage illegitimacy. In C.S.Chilman (Ed.), Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Findings from research (pp. 15–41). (DHHS Publication No. NH1 81–2077). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office., & (1988). Am I my parents’ keeper? An essay on justice between the young and the old. New York: Oxford University Press.(1985). Anti-poverty policy: Effects on the poor and nonpoor (Conference paper). Focus, 8 (2). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty., , & (1979). Factors affecting adolescent contraception practice: Implications for sex education. Adolescence, 14, 657–664., & (1990, June 6). Most expect a better life in 2000, but not Utopia. Star Tribune, p 1E.(1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as a basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31 (3), 137–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x(1972). The political culture of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown.(1965). Broken homes and attempted and completed suicides. Archives of General Psychiatry, 12, 213–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1965.01720320101011, , & (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.(1984). Years of poverty, years of plenty. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.(1966). Suicide. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1897.)(1966). Politics, economics, and the public. Chicago: Rand McNally.(1990). American federalism: Competition among governments. Lexington, MA: Lexington.(1968). A systems analysis of political life. In W.Buckley (Ed.), Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist. Chicago, IL: Aldine.(1990, July 20). Problems could delay proposal by Oregon to ration health care. New York Times, p. A7.(1986). Social psychology: Attitudes, cognition, and social behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558290([Page 190]1984). American federalism: A view from the states. New York: Harper & Row.(1986). Marketplace and the commonwealth and the three political cultures. In M.Gittell (Ed.), Slate politics and the new federalism (pp. 172–178). New York: Longman.(1986). The Family: Change or continuity?Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.(1984). The impact of AFDC on family structure and living arrangements. (Report prepared for U. S. Department of Health and Human Services under Grant 92A-82)., & (1985). Poverty in America: Is welfare the answer or the problem? (Conference paper). Focus, 8 (2). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty., & (1971). State variations in United States divorce rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 321–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/349418(1989). Life cycle models of saving and the effect of the timing of divorce on retirement economic well-being. Journal of Gerontology, 44 (3), S121–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronj/44.3.S121(51 percent dissatified with the ways things are going. (1990, July 25). Star Tribune, p. 8D.1974). Societal structure of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas., & (1989, April 22). Redefining the family. New York Times, p. 18Y.(1968). The categorization of policy contents. In A.Ranney (Ed.), Political Science and Public Policy (pp. 41–52). Chicago, IL: Markham.(Expenditure tradeoffs in the American states: A longitudinal test 1948–1984. Western Political Quarterly, 44., & (in press).1987). To unpack micro and macro: Link small with large and part with whole. In J.S.Alexander, B.Giesen, R.Munch, & N.Smelser (Eds.), The Macro-Micro Link (pp. 86–111). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1969). Marital status and suicide in the United States: A special test of the status integration theory. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 521–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/224685(1964). Status integration and suicide. Eugene: University of Oregon Press., & (1973). Unraveling social policy. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.(1986). The political culture of the states. In M.Gittell (Ed.), State politics and the new federalism (pp. 157–179). White Plains, NY: Longman.(1984). The social and demographic correlates of divorce and separation in the United States: An update and reconsideration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 563–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352598, & (1985). Regional differences in divorce in the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 641–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352265, & (1991). Personal correspondence.(1964). Psychosocial factors associated with pregnancy in adolescent girls: A preliminary report. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 138, 524–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-196406000-00003, , , & (1980). The political economy of the Welfare State. London: Macmillan.([Page 191]1988). Outcomes, interpretations, and policy implications. In J.Palmer, T.Smeeding, A.B.Torrey (Eds)., The vulnerable (pp. 413–442). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute., & (1988, September 3). Family law: Battleground in social revolution. New York Times, p. 19Y.(1989, November 24). Abortion: A new round. New York Times, p. 1Y.(1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1982). Broken promises: How Americans fail their children. New York: Basic Books., & (1973). Urban anthropology. In J.J.Honigmann (Ed.), Handbook of social and cultural anthropology (pp. 979–1029). Chicago: Rand McNally.(1989a, July 7). Court widens family definition to gay couples living together. New York Times, p. 1Y.(1989b, November 11). New York state housing aids expand definition of family. New York Times, p. 12Y.(1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage., & (1991). Supportive services for families in poverty: Dilemmas of reform. Social Service Review65 (3), 343–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/603852(1974). An economic theory of suicide. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 83–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260171, (1986). State policy-making and political culture: The new federalism, tax revolts, and Texas. In M.Gittell (Ed.), State politics and the new federalism (pp. 190–203). New York: Longman., & (1988). Disparities in the well-being of children over two decades: 1962–83. In J.Palmer, T.Smeeding, B.Torrey (Eds.), The Vulnerable (pp. 149–170). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute., , , & (1988). Generational politics. In J.Palmer, T.Smeeding, & B.Torrey (Eds.), The Vulnerable (pp. 381–411). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.(1969). Black suicide. New York: Basic Books.(1990). Abortion services in the United States, 1987 and 1988. Family Planning Perspectives, 22 (3), 102–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2135639, (1982). Subjective well-being among different age groups. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research., , & (1981). What's fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: John Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10645-000, & (1990a, July 26). Fraser to urge benefits for couples not married. Star Tribune, p. 1A.(1990b, July 30). Fight looms on domestic-partners issue. Star Tribune, p. 1B.(1990). Culture shift in advanced society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.([Page 192]1985, March 14). Health brings happiness: Our families and social lives also. USA Today, p. 8A.(1970). An introduction to the study of public policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.(1981). Child abuse: An interactional event. New York: Columbia University Press., & (1988, December 25). Personal satisfaction rises in U. S., poll shows. New York Times, p. Y10.(1969). Theory and practice of social planning. New York: Russell Sage.(1987, November). AIDS and the family: A content analysis at the 1987 annual meeting of the National Council of Family Relations, Atlanta, GA., & (1976). Explorations in family policy. Social Work, 21, 181–187., & (Kamerman, S., & Kahn, A. (Eds.). (1978). Family policy: Government and families in 14 countries. New York: Columbia University Press.1988). Social policy and children in the United Slates and Europe. In J.Palmer, T.Smeeding, & B.Torrey (Eds.), The Vulnerable (pp. 351–380). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute., & (1977). Work and family in the United States. New York: Russell Sage.(1980). Modernization and the demographic transition: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of a revised model. Sociological Focus, 13, 315–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1980.10570369, & (1978, November). Regulation that works. The New Republic25: 16–20.(1984). Slate policies and the aging: Sources, trends, and options. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath., & (1951). Types of integration and their measurement. American Journal of Sociology66 (4), 332–340http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/220757(1968). The policy orientation. In D.Lerner & H.Lasswell (Eds.), Policy sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.(1987). The effect of stressful life events and transitions on family functioning and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49 (4), 857–873. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351979, , & (1987). Dollars and dreams: The changing American income distribution. New York, NY: Russell Sage.(1986). Social stress in the United States: Links to regional patterns in crime and illness. Cover, MA: Auburn House., & (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics16. 677–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2009452(1970). Decision making vs. policy making. Public Administration Review, 30. 324–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/974053(1985). Policy indicators: Links between social science and public debate. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.(1980). Provincial variations in divorce rates: A Canadian case. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 171–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351944(1989). Aging parents and adult children: Research themes in intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 (2), 275–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352492, & (1990). American liberalism and the democratic dream: Transcending the American dream. Policy Studies Review10 (1), 89–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1990.tb00068.x([Page 193]1990, July 4). Lesbians’ custody fights test family law frontier. New York Times, p. Yl.(1969). Social forces in urban suicide. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.(1989, May 11). Two house freshmen reflect clash of cultures. New York Times, p. Y12.(1984). The American ethos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., & (1964). Anomie, anomia, and social interaction. In M.B.Clinard (Ed.), Anomie and deviant behavior (pp. 213–242). New York: Free Press.(1989). The index of social health, 1989: Measuring the social well-being of the nation. Tarrytown, NY: Fordham University Graduate Center.(1982). Private crisis, public costs: Policy perspectives on teenage childbearing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute., & (Most oppose any cuts, limits on Social Security, Medicare. (1989, April 23). Star Tribune, p. 19A.Most say tax system not fairer. (1989, March 26). Star Tribune, p. 14A.1987). Relating the micro and macro. In J.C.Alexander, B.Giesen, R.Munch, & J.Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 356–388). Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press., & (1964). Affect and perceptual learning. In H.Ruitenbeek (Ed.), Varieties of personality theory (PP-254-277). New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.(1968). Nation and family. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(National Center for Health Statistics (1959–1961). Vital statistics of the United States: Vol. 2. Mortality. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.National Center for Health Statistics. (1961). Vital statistics of the United States 1960. Vol. 1. Natality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.National Center for Health Statistics. (1969–1971). Vital statistics of the United States: Vol. 2. Mortality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.National Center for Health Statistics. (1971). Vital statistics of the United Slates 1970. Vol. 1. Natality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.National Center for Health Statistics. (1978, March). Divorce and divorce rates: United States. Vital and Health Statistics: Series 21, No. 29 (DHEW Publication No. PHS 78–1907). Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.National Center for Health Statistics. (1983, June). Advance report of final divorce statistics, 1980. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 32, no. 3, Supp. 1. (DHHS Publication No. PHS 83–1120). Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.National Center for Health Statistics. (1984, August). Birth and fertility rates for states, 1980. Vital and Health Statistics: Series 21, No. 42 (DHHS Publication No. PHS 84–1920). Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.[Page 194]National Center for Health Statistics. (1987, August). Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1985. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, no. 5, Supp. (DHHS Publication No. PHS 87–1120). Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.National Center for Health Statistics. (1987, December). Advance report of final divorce rales, 1985. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, no. 8, Supp. (DHHS Publication No. PHS 88–1120). Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.National Center for Health Statistics. (1989). Advance report, final divorce statistics, 1986. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 38, no. 2, Supp. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.National Center for Health Statistics. (1990). Advance report of final natality statistics, 1988. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 39, no. 3, Supp. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.1990, April 13). Rural areas often lack resources to deal with suicide. Star Tribune, p. 7Bw.(1973). Women in the labor force and suicide. Social Problems, 21, 220–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/799541, , & (1975). Equality and efficiency: The great tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.(1974). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1990, September 19). Alienation from government grows. New York Times, p. A15.(1991, March 30). Lee Atwater: Master of tactics for Bush and GOP, dies at 40. New York Times, p. Yl.(1987). Income security policies in the United States: The inevitablility and consequences of retrenchment. Journal of Public Policy, 7 (1), 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004323(1983, May 8). Pension unit plans closer study of suicide threats. New York Times, p. Y13.(1990, July 6). Administration rejects proposal for new anti-poverty programs. New York Times, p. A1.(1991, May 11). Focusing on welfare. New York Times, p. 5.(1991). The income tax treatment of the family: An international perspective. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution., & (Pessimism replaces optimism in world. (1991, January 1). Star Tribune, p. 4A.1988). Putting asunder: A history of divorce in western society. New York: Cambridge University Press.(Poll: Married women's lives more likely to be satisfying. (1988, August 24) Star Tribune, p. 3A.Poll finds public favors defense cuts, selective higher taxes to trim deficit. (1989, March 9). Star Tribune, p. 6A.1988). Disturbing the nest: Family change and decline in modern societies. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.(Poverty trends and issues. (1983, October 18, p. 9). A report prepared by the U. S. Bureau of Census for the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittees on Oversight and on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation. Washington, DC.1984, December). Children and the elderly in the United States. Scientific American, 251 (6). 44–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1284-44(Racial discrepancies found in medical care. (1990, May 3). New York Times, p. A9.1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st-century capitalism. New York: Knopf.([Page 195]1983). Perceptual indicators of family well-being. Social Indicators Research. 12, 417–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00300447, & (1991). Family life quality: Theory and assessment in economically stressed farm families. Social Indicators Research, 24, 269–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00306083, , & (1989, November 27). Parents fight for right to let a daughter die. New York Times, p. Yll.(1957). Some interpretations of social factors and clinical diagnosis of attempted suicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 114, 221–231., , & (Robins, P., Spiegelman, R., Weiner, S., & Bell, I. (Eds.). (1980). A guaranteed annual income: Evidence from a social experiment. New York: Academic Press.1991, March 20). Wanted in home agenda: Unity the U.S. had in war. New York Times, p. Al.(1989). Farming in our blood: Farm families in economic crisis. Ames: Iowa State University Press.(1990, June 27). U. S. is by far the leader in homicide. The New York Times, p. A9.(1987). Poverty rates by state, 1979 and 198S: A research note. Focus, 10 (3), 1–5. University of Wisconsin-Madison, The Institute for Research on Poverty., & (1991, May 15). New York is urged to cut welfare rolls. New York Times, p. A16.(1968). Analysis of public policy: A search for theories and roles. In A.Ranney (Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp. 151–175). Chicago, IL: Markham.(San Francisco backs rights of unwed couples. (1989, May 24). New York Times, p. Y13.Satisfaction with state of nation, personal lives showed increase in ‘88. (1988, December 25). Star Tribune, p. 30A.1986, June 9). Does welfare undermine the family?Washington Social Legislation Bulletin, 29 (35), pp. 137–140.(1969). The role of social indicators and social reporting in public expenditure decisions. In The analysis and evaluation of public expenditures: The PPB system. A compendium of papers submitted to the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Volume 1. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.(1989). The sexual bond: Rethinking close relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., , , & (1955). Completed and attempted suicide. American Sociological Review, 20, 273–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2087385, & (1986). The battle for human nature. New York: Norton.(1970, March). We're driving young blacks to suicide. Psychology Today, 24–28(1987). Variations in divorce rates by community size: A test of the social integration explanation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 827–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351975(Shneidman, E.S. (Ed.). (1981). Endeavors in psychology: Selections from the personology of Henry A. Murray. New York: Harper & Row.1985). Definition of suicide. New York: John Wiley.([Page 196]1987). A psychological approach to suicide. In G.R.VandenBos & B.K.Bryant (Eds.), Cataclysms, crises and catastrophes: Psychology in action (pp. 151–183). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.(1968). The effects of income on the suicide rate. American Journal of Sociology, 74. 302–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/224644(1985). Conference Comments. Focus (8), 2. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.(1988). Patterns of income and poverty: The economic status of children and the elderly in eight countries. In J.Palmer, T.Smeeding, & B.Torrey (Eds.), The vulnerable (pp. 89–119). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute., , & (1964). Personal values in the study of lives. In R.White (Ed.), The study of lives (pp. 325–347). New York: Atherton Press.(1990). A feminist case against national family policy: View to the future. Policy Studies Review8 (3), 610–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1989.tb00983.x(1991). A feminist approach to national family policy. In E.Anderson and R.Hula (Eds.), The reconstruction of family policy (pp. 23–42). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.(1987). Promoting policy theory: Revising the arenas of power. Policy Studies Journal, 15, 675–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1987.tb00753.x(1980). The effects of marital dissolution on suicide. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 42, 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351936(1981). The effects of immigration on suicide: A cross-national analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 205–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0203_4(1981). The futility of family policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday., , & (Study says poor have higher cancer death rate. (1989, July 18). Star Tribune, p. 3A.Suicide ends battle with Social Security. (1983, May 14). Minneapolis Star and Tribune, p. 24S.1984). Moral controversies and the policymaking process: Lowi's framework applied to the abortion issue. Policy Studies Review3, 207–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1984.tb00115.x, & (1968). Commitment to welfare. New York: Pantheon.(1969). Essays on the welfare state. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.(1989, March 23). Rich got richer and poorest poorer from 1979 to 1987. New York Times, p. Y1.(1964). A basic dimension of ideology. In R.White (Ed.), The study of lives (pp. 389–411). New York: Atherton Press.(1989). Structural determinants of the divorce rate: A cross-societal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family51, 391–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352502and (1986a). The relationship between marital dissolution and suicide: The Canadian case. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 341–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352401(1986b). The relationship between migration and the provincial divorce rate in Canada, 1971 and 1978: A reassessment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 207–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352245(1991, March 18). No recession for executive pay. New York Times, p. C1.([Page 197]U.S. Bureau of Census. (1961a). State government finances in 1960. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1961b). Census of the population: I960, Vol. 1, characteristics of the population. Part 1, United States summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1971a). State government finances in 1970. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census (1971b). Census of the population: 1970, Vol.1, Characteristics of the population. Part 1, United States summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1981). State government finances in 1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1983). County and city data book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1984). State government finances in 1983. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1986). State government finances in 1985. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1988). Statistical abstract of the United States, 1988 (108th ed.) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1989). Statistical abstract of the United States, 1989 (109th ed.). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Bureau of Census. (1990). Statistical abstract of the United Slates, 1990 (110th ed.) Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. taxes rise for all but rich. (1990, March 9). Star Tribune, p. 7A.1985). Basic content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.(1986). Interest groups and public policy within a legislative setting. In M.Gittell (Ed.), State politics and the new federalism (pp. 111–120). New York: Longman.& (1965). Industrial society and social welfare. New York: Free Press.& (1985). Comparative social policy: Theories, methods, findings. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of International Studies., , , & (1983). Divorce and recent net migration in the Old West. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 437–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351522, , , & (1985). Poverty and family structure: The widening gap between evidence and public policy issues (conference paper). Focus8 (2). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.& (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 3–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/217913(1990, August 3). Mother told she has to adopt son taken by spouse, then legal system. Star Tribune, p. Al.(1978). The impact of no-fault divorce law reform on divorce in the American states. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40 (2), 575–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/350938, & (1976). The family and its relevance for social policy. Social Casework. 57 (8), 547–554.([Page 198]1979). Policy, social policy, family policy: Concepts, concerns and analytic tools. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41 (3), 487–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351620(1981) Continuing education in social work: An evaluation study of a summer program. Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 1 (3), 15–21 and 25–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615478111220041(1982). Clarifying the confusions in family policy developments. Family Relations, 31 (3), 445–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/584178(1985). Families and economic policies: An instrumental perspective. Social Casework, 66 (7), 424–431.(1987a). States’ public welfare expenditures as predictors of states’ suicide rates. Suicide and life threatening behavior, 17 (4), 271–287.(1987b). State councils on families and/or children: Form or substance? A report of a survey of the 50 states.(1987c). State level public choices as predictor of individual and family well-being. Women and Health, 12 (3/4), 161–188.(1988a). Understanding family policy: Theoretical aproaches (pp. 126–144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243658(1988b). State level policy choices as predictors of state teenage birthrates. Family Relations, 37 (3), 315–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/584569(1988c). State level public policy as a predictor of individual and family well-being. In C.Perales & L.Young (Eds.), Too little, too late: Dealing with the health needs of women in poverty (pp. 161–188). New York: Ha worth. Also published in Women and Health, 12 (3/4), 1987.(1989). Myths about public welfare: Family instability, poverty, and teen illegitimacy. Policy Studies Review, 8 (3), 674–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1989.tb00988.x(1989). Comparing the family policies of three states: A content analysis. Family Relations, 38 (2), 190–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/583674, & (1990). The connection between macro and micro levels: States’ hospital expenditures and their suicide rates. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 28 (1), 31–55.(1991a). The welfare state and family breakup: The mythical connection. Family Relations, 40 (2), 139–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/585471(1991b). The policy functions of family policies in three states: A comparative analysis. In E.Anderson & R.Hula (Eds.), The reconstruction of family policy, (pp. 45–58). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.(1979) Legislators’ attitudes towards family policy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41 (3), 507–517. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351622, , & (
About the Author