Social Policy and the Family - Brandeis University

Ann. Rev. Social. 1979. 5:275-302
Copyright © 1979 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

SOCIAL POLICY .,. 10579
AND THE FAMILY

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Janet Zollinger Giele
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
Florence Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

02154

INTRODUCTION

In America the family policy field is so new that there is no ready
framework with which to organize recent developments and research prog­
ress. Had it not been for confluence of three powerful social movements­
civil rights, the war on poverty, and the women's movement-American
concern with the impact of social policy on the family might have been even
longer delayed.

A decade ago in an insightful introduction to Alva Myrdal's Nation and
Family, Daniel Moynihan (1968) suggested that Americans, in contrast to

Europeans, have avoided policies directed toward the family because their
religious and ethnic hete�ogeneity makes them unable to agree on any single
family norm. Nevertheless, since the US Senate Subcommittee on Children

and Youth (1973) held hearings that produced the "Mondale Report," there

has been growing readiness in both political and scholarly circles to explore
the relevance of social policy to the family.

Research has progressed most rapidly on two fronts: first, in describing
the negative impact of particular policies on special groups of individuals or
families; and second, in elaborating and classifying the wide variety of
policies thought to have relevance for the family. Much less is known about
how to construct poliCies that will foster or enhance the quality of family
life. One reason for this is the great variety of family forms; what is good for
one type may not be the same for others. Progress therefore awaits advances
in understanding both the variety of family forms and models of family
process. An additional important issue is the relation of the individual's well
being to that of the family.

275

0360-0572179/0815-0275$01.00

276 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org This review touches all these developments and continuing dilemmas.
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. First it locates the emerging field of American family policy studies in rela­
tion to their European precursors and in relation to evolving contemporary
American definitions of the family. Then it maps two major types of social
policy-for special populations, and in support of family functions-that
have been the subject of most recent family impact studies. Finally it takes
up several emerging methodological issues-the construction of social indi­
cators to measure impact on individual and family, and the need for models
of the dynamic process by which social policy affects the family.

CHANGING DEFINITIONS OF POLICY AND FAMILY

To place current developments in the family policy field in their proper con­
text it is first necessary to review the changes that have occurred in defining
the scope of relevant policy and then in defining the family unit itself. Over
a thirty-year period a narrow definition of family policy has by and large
given way to acknowledgment that any poliCY that has important conse­
quences for the family is relevant. At the same time the definition of family
has also changed to include alternative family forms and familial behavior
by nOnfamily members as well as traditional family units. These changes are
significant because they require interdisciplinary cooperation, not only to
describe the wide range of relevant policies, but also to explore different
models of family process that apply to a variety of families.

Family Policy Old and New

European experience with declining birth rates in the 1930s gave rise to
some of the clearest examples of unified government policy for the family.
The narrow goal of raising the birth rate in countries such as Sweden and
France engendered a number of positive family-oriented programs including
housing subsidies, special provisions for maternal and child health, and sys­
tems of child and family allowances. Alva Myrdal's (1968) description of
the Swedish program, first published in Sweden in 1934, is the classic

primer for all contemporary scholars interested in family policy. Her treatise

begins with the population replacement issue but then leads into a broad
spectrum of relevant measures that indirectly affect family functioning and
ultimately the birth rate. The chapter headings are indicative: preparation for
family life, economics of homemaking, housing, nutrition (school meals,
protective diets for mothers and babies), free health services for children,
old age security, and changing roles of women. When reissued in the United
States in 1968, Myrdal's book provided a ready model for mapping potential
American policy initiatives with respect to current social issues such as al­
leviation of poverty or liberation of women.

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 277

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Around the same time another tradition of family policy research made its
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
appearance in the work of British author Margaret Wynn (1972), who fo­

cused on the family's investment in children at different points in the life
cycle. Calling attention to the fact that three fourths of the next generation

were then being raised by only 22% of United Kingdom households, she

asked how the costs of rearing children can be more evenly distributed. Her
suggestions reach beyond direct income tax subsidies; she concludes that

"family policy. . . . must be concerned with all social arrangements as they

affect the family." This means housing, education, health care, and
mother's hours and conditions of employment.

While both Myrdal and Wynn were primarily concerned with the family
as the principal social group for bringing up children and thus emphasized its
nurturant functions, their works also anticipated a much more comprehen­
sive view of family policy. After reading them, one can imagine analogous
policies for other vulnerable groups besides children and in support of other

family functions besides nuturance. Indeed, in the last decade several teams

of investigators have set out to map the field using this wider vision of its
boundaries.

In 1967 a special issue of the Journal ofMarriage and Family reviewed a

number of government programs in relation to the family. Mental health
programs, health care, economic measures, education, and housing were all
examined from the perspective of their impact on family life. It is indicative
of the development of the field at that time that in his introduction the issue

editor, Marvin Sussman (1967), commented, "The content of this issue is,

to my knowledge, the first publication effort to review existing governmental
programs and their relationships to the structure and function of the Ameri­

can family. "
Not for several more years were other comprehensive surveys attempted,

and then with somewhat different purposes and perspectives. Giele & Lam­
bert (1975) surveyed several program areas to examine current perceptions

of policy-family interaction. By relying on the core bibliographies in each
field, interviews with researchers at major academic centers, and trends in
the activity of funding and advocacy groups, they documented a growing
realization that the family was important both as vehicle and object of policy
impact in the six fields they covered: population and family planning, hous­
ing, care of the elderly, child care, income maintenance, and family stabili­
zation.

Using a different technique-analysis of policy and program objec­

tives-Kamerman & Kahn (1976) described another set of US social ser­

vices (child care, child protection, community services for the aged, and

family planning) and contended that they represented a new social program

field: personal social services. Then Kamerman & Kahn (1978) compared

278 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org social services in fourteen countries and significantly entitled their report
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
Family Policy. This book provides a much more comprehensive framework:

to describe policies relevant to the family. Programs are classified in terms

of sectors (income transfers, tax policy, personal social services, health,
housing, education, and employment) and of target groups (children, youth,

aged, women). In this way the authors provide two different approaches to
family policy analysis that represent a useful point of departure for future
work in the field. The sector analysis applies to the family system and is
primarily concerned with support of family functions. The target-groups
analysis views family impact from the standpoint of the individual members
and thus relies on demographic techniques and perspective.

The current work of the Family Impact Seminar (1978a,b) employs the
same fundamental distinctions. Using the Catalog of Federal Assistance, the
Seminar staff recently produced an inventory of federal programs with direct
impact on families. Programs of major government agencies are analyzed
(using number of dollars funded, etc) according to whether they have direct
impact on three dimensions or functions of family life (membership, mate­
rial support, nurturance/health) and on several target groups (children,
youth, adults, or explicit family groups). In addition the interim report (Fam­
ily Impact Seminar 1978b) recognizes a third set of variables to be taken into
account: the many varieties of family that differ by socioeconomic status,
stage of the family life cycle, composition, etc.

These recent efforts to map policies relevant to family impact do not,
however, spell out specific goals or processes. Thus they sadly lack the
focus and dynamic that characterized the work of Myrdal and Wynn. In
1962 Alvin Schorr (1968b) pictured a day when the United States would
develop a "family policy" like other advanced industrial societies, but he
noted that it would require "consensus on a core of family goals, toward the
realization of which the nation deliberately shapes programs and policies. "

The closest thing to this conception of family policy turned out to be
abortive. The only writer besides Schorr who used the term "family policy"
in the 1960s was Daniel Moynihan (1965b). Moynihan was the first to weld
together several crucial variables in a model of policy-family interaction.
First he depicted a vicious cycle of poverty caused by external conditions
(unemployment) that adversely affected the parents' (particularly the
father's) role in the family. The result was poor socialization of children,

low performance in school, difficulty in getting a job, and repeat of the cycle

in the next generation. His formula for intervention relied on p�sitive in­
come maintenance policies to strengthen internal family structure and pro­
duce a more successful outcome for the children.

All in all, shorn of its political overtones, the Moynihan report (Moynihan

1965a) still stands as a bold synthesis that provided a model of connected

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 279

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org variables and a picture of the policy-family system at a crucial time in the
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. development of the field. But as we know, the proposal, tom by charges and

countercharges of racism, proved a political disaster (Rainwater & Yancey,

1967). Even though Moynihan (1973) applied the same logic to poor white
families, and followed it in his design of the Family Assistance Plan for a
guaranteed minimum income, the conceptual advances of his initial model
were lost in the political fray.

There is a lesson in this story: When an intellectual model of the policy­
family process becomes identified with a normative model representing only
one family type, those who feel their culture or family pattern denigrated
will naturally resist, and inaction will result from a clash of goals. Thus
there must be great sensitivity to the wide variety of family forms and behav­
ior if future plans for national action are not to repeat the same mistake. As
current new definitions of the family are tried, we may hope that this sen­
sitivity will grow.

Definition of Famity

Recent definitions of the family have changed in at least two ways-with
respect to family membership and with respect to family functions.

The American definition of family, as expressed by the US Bureau of the
Census (1973), is a group of two or more persons residing together who are
related by blood, marair ge, or�doption. Not including those persons living

apart who defined themselves as family, some 90% of the population live in

families. Yet a number of authors have recently contended that the ideal
nuclear family-understood in the usual sense as an employed breadwinner
husband, nonemployed wife, and dependent children-is clearly in the
minority. The majority do not have dependent children, and there are now

more husband-wife families with both partners in the labor force (41%) than

families with a husband who is the sole breadwinner (34%) (Sussman 1976;

Hayghe 1976; Watts & Skidmore 1978a). These changes demonstrate that

the Census definition of household or family is not synonymous with any
single family model.

In addition other changes have emphasized that the official family defini­
tion may be too inflexible. Families change over time, and some relation­
ships are familial in fact even though they are not formally recognized as
such. During the 1960s an eight-fold increase occurred in the number of
couples living together without marriage. The number of communes grew.
And the number of primary individuals (living alone) continued to grow.

The divorce rate rose to between 30 and 40% (Glick 1975). The life cycle

also appeared less predictable, with more possibility of taking education,
career change, and leisure in a different order. Government programs such
as Aid to Families with Dependent Children found that, in defining as eligi-

280 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org ble families who did not have a father in the home, they created incentives
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. for family-splitting rather than family stability (Lerman 1973). All of these
cross-currents have raised to a new level of consciousness the question of
how best to define the family-in terms of family relationship, household
composition, or simply as a group of individuals.

Watts & Skidmore (1978a) propose that a distinction be more clearly

made between a household and a family. Household would refer to the "liv­
ing or domestic unit and thus include all persons who are sharing the full use
of a dwelling unit's facilities." (Family might or might not coincide with
these living units.) They then propose a household classification with seven
categories that takes into account the different possible conjugal and kin
relationships: single persons, couples, parent-child units, other households
with children or related dependents, related adult units, nonfamilial adult
groups, and institutions.

The Watts & Skidmore typology expands the definition of family in two

ways. First, by using household as the major criterion for classification it
associates certain membership units with families who before were not de­
fined as families (e.g. couples who may not be married). Second, although
not intentionally, it suggests that "family-like" behavior may be occurring
in nonfamilies simply by virtue of their sharing a household (e.g. non­
familial adult groups, institutions). This latter theme accords with a recent
recognition by sociologists that familial (affective) behavior sometimes
occurs outside the family, and likewise nonfamily (rational, instrumental)
activity occurs in the home (Kanter 1977).

Such a change in definition accords with the greater potential crossover
and interpenetration of family and nonfamily boundaries that characterize
modern society (Giele 1978). It is perhaps this underlying structural condi­
tion that currently brings policy for families to the center of national atten­
tion. Small family units that with industrialization lost important economic
and social functions must now inevitably rely on outside institutions for
help. At the same time society in its programs for vulnerable individuals
must rely on the intimacy and flexibility that only the family can easily
supply. Growing insight into this necessarily cooperative interchange has
brought the discovery of the family to the policy domains outlined below.

POLICIES FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

To include policies for the aging, children, women, and other vulnerable
groups under a consideration of family policy, it is necessary to state a
rationale, since many of the relevant works themselves do not make the
connection entirely explicit. As we have seen, certain European countries

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLlCY ON THE FAMILY 281

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org based their family policies in the 1930s on a visible demographic change
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. such as fall in the birth rate. Today a large number of social policies for the
family continue to have a demographic origin. in the sense of being directed
to a particular population distinguished by a characteristic such as age. sex.
health status, race, or socioeconomic status. In this type of policy it is not
the family itself but its dependent members who are the intended clients for
positive programs.

Yet the public attempts to help dependent groups eventually involve the
family in one way or another, either as a group whose help can be enlisted
or as an institution whose characteristics must be imitated if the vulnerable
are to be cared for in dignified and humane fashion.

The demographic processes that augment Of decrease these dependent
populations are thus of interest to the policy analyst. In a critical appraisal of
where the welfare state is headed, Zald (1977) gives particular attention to
the demographic proCesses that create demand for new services. The slowing
birth rate will lead to relatively modest increases in education and services to
children (18% by 1990) whereas for the aged population the rate of in­
creased demand fOf services will be considerably higher (38%). While total
labor force participation will remain virtually steady, the rates for women
will continue to rise and for men continue to fall. Besides these large shifts
related to age structure and sex roles, role differentiation in the society will
continue to produce new specialized clienteles for social service.

Viewing social policy from an individual rather than macro-social per­
spective, Hirschhorn (1977) calls attention to significant changes in the life
cycle that are making it more fluid and unpredictable. Policy, he believes,

should help people to make transitions out of difficulties that, if treated as

temporary, can be confined to a specific life cycle stage.
Mary Jo Bane (1976) makes a different use of demographic statistics to

weigh the relative gains and losses of potentially competing population
groups: women and men, parents and children, the elderly and the young.
Showing, for instance, that since 1960 the income situation of the old has
improved at a faster rate than that of children, she suggests ways to reconcile
such competing interests and achieve equity in the future. In addition to
continued reliance on the American formula of individual rights and equal
opportunity, she proposes more future effort to spread social insurance over
the entire life cycle.

All these works suggest a dynamic rather than static conception of demo­
graphic process and its significance for social policy. In the following review
of family research on the aged, children, women, and others this dynamic
perspective will have to give way to examination and description. However,
we return to it at the end of this article as one of the possible methods of
achieving future progress in the field.

282 GlELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org The Aged
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
The changing age structure of the population, which in industrial societies
results in roughly 10% of the population being over 65, has also historically
been associated with development of social insurance programs to provide
income to the aged when they can no longer work or depend on kin for
support. Harold Wilensky (1975) provides an incisive analysis of the correla­
tion between the inception of social security programs and the changing age
structure of a population. Using techniques of regression analysis to compare
countries' provision of social security to the elderly, he rules out political
structure and level of economic development as primary determinants and
shows instead that demographic change, namely, the aging of the popula­
tion, is the principal antecedent.

The institution of social policies for the aged appears also indirectly re­
lated to changes in the family. Industrialization and urbanization during the
19th Century cut families off from sources of support that they could control
(such as land that might be passed from parents to child, who in return
would take care of them). These economic Changes, combined with the sur­
vival of more old people, thus made necessary a public rather than family­
based form of social insurance (M. Anderson 1977). The transition from one
system to another was not immediate, however. In the United States Schorr
(1968a) noted that the Old Age Assistance Plan had expected children to
provide for their parents where possible. But a clear trend was then in mo­
tion to enlarge the notion of filial responsibility to a more universal concept
so that a whole younger generation would support the old through their con­
tributions to the Social Security system.

Thus social scientists arrived at some concept of how changes in the fam­
ily helped to create policies and programs for the aged. But it took further
effort to perceive that these new systems did not simply act directly on
individuals, but were filtered by the family in ways that could prove either
destructive or advantageous to the old person. During the 1960s descriptive
studies done both abroad and in the United States documented the unexpect­
edly large amount of interaction that old people had with their relatives even
if they did not live with them, and it became clear that the unfortunate ones
were those who had no family to tum to (Shanas et al 1968; Townsend
1957, 1968). It began to be better understood that the family was peculiarly

adapted to give the care with tenderness that old people needed (0. W.
Anderson 1976; Shanas & Maddox 1976; Sussman 1976, 1977). As Diggs

(1976) noted, the family comes about as close as possible to "in­
stitutionalized benevolence."

Such insight raised a new concern: Did policy for the aged reinforce the
benevolent capabilities of the family, or did it instead encourage families to

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 283

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org disown and isolate their old? Townsend (1968) and Morris (1969) saw the
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. need not just to replace but to supplement or complement the services of the
family. Moroney (1976) saw the possibility that by withholding help from
the elderly person who had family, the state might actually penalize families
who gave help. Thus the family began to be conceived as a nexus for in­
terorganizational relationships between bureaucracies and the individual
(Sussman 1976, 1977). It became clear that policies should structure incen­
tives to reinforce the family's involvement. Yet at the same time it was
recognized that the pool of potential caretakers for the old is shrinking as
more women go to work and geographical mobility increases (Moroney
1976; Brody 1978). At the present time it is a continuing issue how the state
can best provide for those who are dependent on it when aid from the family
is not available.

Children

There seems to be no single, clear demographic process that preceded estab­
lishment of children's programs. Industrialization and immigration during
the 19th Century brought concern with child labor and the role of schools in
acculturation. Programs in the 1930s were instituted with fertility decline in
the western European nations and a depression that in the United States gave
rise to the program for Aid to Dependent Children.

Finally, in the 1960s focus shifted to the "disadvantaged" child and to
the relation between society and family. A review of federally sponsored
projects for children (White et al 1973a) proposed that public policy for
children "implement public purposes in child development through change

in public institutions, or alternatively through support of the family's care of
children" (emphasis added).

In the 1970s, the programs for children that received the most public
attention and research involved child care or day care for young children. A
number of comparative studies documented the child care arrangements that
operate in Russia, China, the Israeli Kibbutz, and a variety of European
countries (Bronfenbrenner 1970; Sidel 1972; Bettelheim 1969; Roby 1973).
In the United States a vigorous debate over subsidized day care for the poor
began after the establishment of Head Start but was virtually silenced by
President Nixon's veto of the Comprehensive Child Care Act in 1971. Since
then a number of studies have indicated that the great majority of families
who need day care have informal arrangements in which a member of the
family, neighbor, or nearby relative takes care of the child in the home for
little or no fee (Schultze et al 1972; Woolsey 1977).

Impact studies of families with various child care arar ngements have just
begun. The Working Family Project (1978) suggests that gains for the

284 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org families who use informal arrangements are saving money and being able to
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. entrust children to familiar persons rather than strangers. But parents who

share child care are fatigued and have too little time together. If friends and

relatives are involved, the arrangements are vulnerable to breakdown due to
illness or other emergency.

Current policy development for children has now moved to a more com­
prehensive scale with proposals for universal health screenings and adequate
income maintenance for families with children. Such suggestions had been
put forward some years earlier in the Family Assistance Plan, the Mondale
Committee, and the Talbot seminar (Moynihan 1973; US Senate 1973; Tal­
bot 1976). The National Academy of Sciences (1976) report by a distin­
guished panel of social scientists reiterates these themes by a call for more
extensive health care and screening services for children, neighborhood fam­
ily resource centers, better coordination of services, some system of
adequate economic support, wider choice of child care programs, and spe­
cial services that either support family care or approximate it in out-of-the
home settings.

A report by the Carnegie Council on Children, also heavily influenced by
social scientists, emerges with a similar list of necessary reforms (Keniston

1977). Two major themes predominate: (a) the need to provide parents with

jobs and a decent income including, if necessary, arrangements for parental

leaves, parental allowances, flexible working hours, and part-time work; (b)

reorganization of services to families such as health care, child care, and
legal services to achieve universal access, greater racial and economic inte­
gration, convenience, parent participation, and prevention of later problems.
On one point, universal access, Gilbert Steiner (1976) states an important
alternative view that the nation in providing such services should be primar­
ily concerned with the "unluckiest" children rather than try to spread
limited resources to all children.

Neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the Carnegie report studies
impact so much as proposes new programs. It is therefore impossible to say
what effects such programs might have. To date the most comprehensive
examination of policy impact on children and families is to be found in a
review sponsored by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that
covers federally sponsored programs for young children in early elementary
education, preschool projects, day care, family intervention, and health care
(White et al 1973b). Although many of the results are based on incomplete
or ambiguous data, they show positive results in children's short-term
achievement as a result of early education, Head Start, and other child care
programs. Provision of maternal and child health services also appears to
lower infant mortality.

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 285

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Women
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
With the resurgence of the women's movement in the 1960s scholars spent a
brief period enthralled by the specter of universal patriarchy before settling
into the more demanding intellectual task of documenting the social condi­
tions and poliCies under which sex equality waned or flourished. Much of
the first research to examine policies promoting women's liberation was
comparative. Youssef (1974) contrasted the high labor force participation
rates of women from Latin America with the exceedingly low rates of
women from the predominantly Muslim Middle East. Blake (1974) noted
certain similarities in women's status across industrial societies: increasing
education, declining fertility, rising labor force participation. Studies con­
trasting women's roles in socialist and nonsocialist countries demonstrated
that policies in support of fertility control, child care, and women's
employment could facilitate women's greater involvement in the public
sphere (Fogarty et al 1971; Scott 1974; Giele & Smock 1977).

From all these studies it was immediately apparent that any sex role de­
bate involves the family. Birgitta Linner (1972) of Sweden recounted what
happened there: "The emphasis of the debate has moved even more from the
emanCipation of women to the function of the family as a whole, and the
place of the family within the society." This involved men's roles too; in
Sweden it resulted in a list of goals that are gradually also becoming the
focus of policy proposals in the United States: equal working conditions and
benefits, educational assistance, laws permitting part-time work, day care for
children, opportunity for parental leaves with pay, and universal access to
abortion and contraception.

In the United States, in addition to specific research on women's work,
education, or political roles, a number of studies began to focus directly on
social policy for women. Among the first, Jessie Bernard's Women and the
Public Interest (1971) pointed to the problem of how women and men can
share work and family responsibilities. Safilios-Rothschild (1974) cast pol­
icy questions in the form of how to liberate women and men from com­
pUlsive marriage, parenthood, and housekeeping. As time went on, policy
proposals became more detailed. Bernard (1975) suggested expansion of
insurance systems, part-time employment, and flexible hours as vehicles for
allowing women to carry out both family and occupational roles. Alice
Cook's (1975) survey of working women in nine countries netted a whole
list of concrete social programs for child care, part-time work, and social
insurance mechanisms. Siniilarly, though in much greater detail, Kamerman
& Kahn's (1978) cross-national study of social services documented the
variety of systems of child care, parental leaves, family allowances, and

286 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org other programs that can help women bridge family and work. Kamerman
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
(1977) listed a variety of support services for working mothers that range

from social security benefits (maternity leave and child care) to employee
wage contracts with family support measures, and programs for housing and
youth.

Among works treating impact of social policy on women and the family
can be found studies that range from broad theoretical interpretations to de­

tailed analyses. In a wide-ranging synthesis Giele (1978) gives a conceptual

framework showing links between proposed work and family policies and

the goal of sex equality. By contrast, Ross and Sawhill (1975) focus more

narrowly on the question of whether certain policies have encouraged the
growth of female-headed families. They examine the impact of different
benefit levels and welfare eligibility requirements on rates of transition into
and out of the female-headed family situation.

It now appears that further progress in the women's field will be made by
more such detailed examinations of particular policies and their effects on

women and families. Giele & Kahne (1978) have reviewed proposals on two

policy issues in particular-working schedules, and credit for nonmarket
work-to examine their effect on women's economic security in later life.
CulTent research in progress on work schedules will show more clearly the
effect of both total number of hours worked and type of schedule (flexible,
part-time, full-time, swing shift, etc) on the quality of family life (pleck et al

1978). Detailed consideration of alternative schemes for crediting nonmarket

work, such as parental leaves and social security credit for household work,

is just now getting under way (Gil 1973; Gordon 1978; US Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare 1978). It is still too soon to report results

showing actual impact.

Other Groups

In addition to aged, children, and women, many other special populations
can be mentioned for whom the family may provide the best care or serve as
the key factor in transition out of dependency.

The needs of the mentally and physically handicapped are now receiving
most attention. The process of deinsitutionalization raises the question of
how community services can either supplement the family or provide an
alternative. There is insufficient space here for more than a brief mention of

the issue and the work of Moroney (1976) in trying to unravel the connec­

tions between availability of institutional and community care and the
amount of family involvement. That the matter is of national concern is
evident both in mention of the need for integration of special services in the

National Academy of Sciences (1976) report and in the concern for how

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 287

community services may best be mobilized for rehabilitation (President's
Commission on Mental Health, 1978).

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org POLICIES TO SUPPORT FAMILY FUNCTIONS
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
Both the Family Impact Seminar (1978a,b) and Kamerman & Kahn (1978)

use "sectors" or "dimensions" by which to classify types of social policy
relevant to the family, but neither does so with any particular theoretical
rationale for the categories used. Both schemes do, however, imply that

policies differ according to junction. Some focus on health, others on

economic support, still others on housing, and so on. The question arises
whether the list of functions is arbitrary and continually subject to new addi­
tions, or is on the other hand capable of being conceived more abstractly and
theoretically with a limited number of categories.

Over the past several years I have tried to work with a four-fold classifica­
tion of social policies that support or supplement basic functions of all
families, no matter what their particular structure (Giele, 1978). These func­
tions are nurturant, economic, residential, and cultural. Their performance
will vary widely according to the class, region, ethnicity, age, and composi­

tion of a family. A variety of policies can be listed under each function, and

some policies bear on several functions at once. Such a clear and simple list
is useful not only as an ordering device but also as a theoretical tool. One
can ask, is the nurturant or economic function being performed adequately?
How is one function related to any other? How can performance be im­
proved?

The underlying theoretical perspective from which these four functions
derive is based on early small-group research and on more recent descrip­
tions of the family as a linkage mechanism (Parsons et al 1953; Sussman
1977). The four functions may be thought of as contributing to adaptation
and survival because they link the family to four essential levels of social

organization. Nurturance is focused on sexual gratification, care, feeding,

and emotional support of the individual. The family is the primary unit in
society for serving this function not only for children, but for the sick, the

aged, and for healthy adult men and women. The economic function links

the family group to the material resources that enable it to survive; it also
governs the internal division of labor in the household and affects outside

labor force participation of the members. The residential function locates the

family ecologically in social networks, housing, the community, and region.

Finally, the legal and cultural function sets the group boundaries, defines the

group's identity, and symbolically structures all transactions to give them a
particular meaning. Through legal and cultural definition of relationship, the

288 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org family passes on tradition and material property. At the same time its partic­
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. ular culture becomes linked to differentiated subcultures (of class, region,
ethnicity, religion, etc) and to the general beliefs and traditions of the larger
society.

Depending on one's ideological or theoretical position one can define any
one of these functions as the primary goal of the family. Most of the schol­
arly works here represented appear to define nurturance and support of indi­
viduals as the primary goal of the family and imply that it is the one function
by which the effectiveness of the family should ultimately be judged. From
this perspective both the economic and residential functions represent means
to an end, and the strategies learned over time are passed on through the
family culture. But it should be recognized that from other perspectives the
primary purpose of the family could be conceived as keeping people off the
welfare rolls, producing labor and a consumer market for the economy,
creating stable, crime-free communities, or preserving the nation's social
and moral fabric.

The following functional classification and review of policies is of neces­
sity highly selective. Many policies related to nurturance, particularly the
care of children and the aged, have already been covered under the demo­
graphic classification of poliCies (and this is not surprising, since nurturance
is particularly related to the care of individuals). A number of policies re­
lated to economic functions concern women (and this also is to be expected,
since sex roles primarily affect the internal division of labor in the household
and the labor force participation rates of men and women).

The principal task left to this section is to delineate for each of the four
major functions the range of current policies proposed and the degree to
which family participation is recognized as a necessary ingredient in policy
implementation. Questions of how to evaluate such programs and policies
for their impact on the family will be deferred to the concluding secti0n on
methodology.

Nurturance

Related to the nurturant function of the family are a wide variety of pro­
grams and policies that support the care of individuals. They range from
nutritional programs, family planning, child care, and home services to gen­

eral programs on behalf of better physical and emotional health for all per­
sons. There is space to review here only three types of nurturant policies: (a)
fertility and family planning; (b) health care; and, (c) supports to mental

health. In each area there appears to be increasing recognition that the family
must be involved if program goals are to be realized, but this theme is not
yet strong in the literature.

Ironic though it sounds, little of the policy-related research on family

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 289

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org planning actually considers the family as a system whose support is neces­
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. sary if fertility control is to be successful. Instead, programs to widen access
to contraception are aimed at the individual (Kamerman & Kahn 1976), and
the route to improvement is seen as wider access and more aggressive out­
reach. Recently into this picture has been introduced research on family­
related factors that influence desire to limit fertility. One variable may be the
relative value placed on nonfamilial roles as compared with familial roles
(Davis 1975). Another variable comprises the traditional or modem sex role
expectations of women and men (Davis 1975; Blake 1975; Scanzoni 1975).
In the case of teenage mothers, a practical strategy is to increase the ease of
moving back and forth between school and family responsibilities: Fursten­
berg (1976) finds that teenage mothers may receive useful short-term and
specialized help, but not the long-term and integrated services that they also
need if their life chances are not to be greatly impaired by an early preg­
nancy.

In the realm of policies for health care delivery, the discovery of impor­
tant family variables is new and relatively undeveloped. Probably indicative
of major currents in the field is Mechanic's (1975) recent review of compara­
tive research on health care delivery systems; it does not mention the family
at all. Since then, the World Health Organization (1976) has published an
excellent bibliography and review of family health indexes and their demo­
graphic, epidemiological, social, and economic correlates. However, the
references cited and the different methodological approaches described still
deal overwhelmingly with the etiology of fainily health rather than with the
policy implications of these findings. Only as emphasis on prevention and
"demedicalization" gain more attention does it seem likely that attention to
the family as a partner in health maintenance will grow. Such a shift de­
pends on destratification of the doctor-patient relationship and more em­
phasis on the importance of normal daily routines such as sufficient sleep,
well-balanced meals, and moderate exercise-variables that are much more
under the control of the individual and family than the doctor (Fox 1977).
Sehnert (1977) describes a recent experiment with the effects of a course for
"activated" patients to help them take better care of themselves and their
families. Results show a more appropriate and less costly use of medical
services and improvement in lifestyle (diet) among the experimental group.

In the realm of mental health a similar situation exists. There is ample
research on the contribution of family structure and dynamics to mental ill­
ness and on the potentialities of family therapy as a mode of treatment (May,
1974), but there is an amazing lack of emphasis on policies and programs to
give positive support to the family in achievement of mental health. In the
report of the President's Commission on Mental Health (1978) the major
recommendations touching the family concern prenatal care, health screen-

290 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org ing services to infants, child care, courses on marriage and parenting, and
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. other measures that are oriented primarily toward the early end of the life
span. The report does recognize that developmental life crises in adults (vet­
erans, persons in stress situations, seasonal workers) should also be studied.
One major strategy is suggested: promoting the development of helping net­
works and mutual support groups that deal preventively with crises. This
strategy undoubtedly owes much to the community mental health movement
and the work of Gerald Caplan (1974) in preventive psychiatry. But routine
involvement of the family with such possible support systems has yet to
become familiar and widespread. As Eisenberg (1977) has said, the medical
care system today has had thrust upon it a range of needs once supplied by
the extended family, the church, and the school, to which it cannot
adequately and appropriately respond. Research on the impact of health
policies involving the family as an active partner seems long overdue.

Economic Activity

The family's economic well-being depends on the interaction of a number of
variables: family composition, employment of the members, and income
from public and private transfers such 3S Social Security, pensions, medical
benefits, etc. One way to examine the impact of welfare, tax, or employ­
ment policies on the family is to measure their effects on family structure,
labor force participation of members, and total family income. Over the past
decade, spurred by the War on Poverty, the volume of research examining
family economic status has skyrocketed. Here it is possible only to provide a
rough guide to key themes and related references in the context of family
policy.

Policies for affecting family income have themselves changed since the
1960s. The War on Poverty according to Haveman (1977) relied first and
foremost on an employment strategy; but at the same time it resulted in
important new health programs and housing for the poor, as well as a dra­
matic increase in use of food stamps. A tremendous increase also occurred
in existing categorical programs such as AFDC and Aid to the Aged, Blind,
and Disabled. It is still a matter of debate how much decrease in poverty
occurred as a result; one calculation estimates that the number·of households
in poverty was reduced from 13% in 1964 to less than 5% in 1975 (Have­
man 1977).

Over the course of this period, the emphasis of both policy and research
began to shift. As income poverty decreased, the inequality of income dis­
tribution remained and in fact became more pronounced because of such
differential factors as whether a family had two incomes or many dependents
to support. Gradually the concept of giving direct help to a category labeled
"poor" began to give way to a more universal notion of lessening the gap
between low income and high income families through demogrants to indi-

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 291

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org viduals to meet their basic needs or negative income tax schemes. Such
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. strategies would presumably increase incomes at the low end of the spectrum
by providing benefits in such a way as to meet basic needs while encourag­
ing work and avoiding incentives for the family to split (Lampman 1976).

Thus current research related to impact of economic policies on the family
has three major branches, one oriented toward design and testing of various
income maintenance schemes, another toward labor force participation of

family members, and a third toward family composition as both independent
and dependent variables in the economic well-being of the family. For this
development to occur, however, several advances in thought were neces­
sary. It had to be understood that, to paraphrase Carolyn Shaw Bell (1975),
every job did not have to support a family, that a family's income could be
made up from a number of sources including employment of several family
members (Oppenheimer, 1977), and that family composition itself was one
of the most critical factors in promoting economic well-being (Duncan &
Morgan 1976).

To test income maintenance schemes, the Institute for Research on Pov­
erty and other contractors conducted experiments with government support.
The results of the New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment are the most
famous. They show that in the experimental families who received income
supplements, male family heads reduced their hours worked by only 6% and
wives reduced theirs by 30% (US Department of Health, Education and
Welfare 1973). Generally this finding has been interpreted positively as
showing little negative effect of benefits on work incentives (Lampman
1976).

Valuable longitudinal data on labor force participation come from two

principal sources. The National Longitudinal Surveys begun in 1967 have
helped to show the importance of retirement poliCies, health, and income
factors in the participation of older men. Other studies based on the NLS
data have examined how women's employment relates to child care ar­
rangements, education, fertility expectations and wage rates (Bielby et al
1978). Longitudinal data from the Five Thousand Family study at the Uni­
versity of Michigan have shown that transfer income has a negative impact
on labor force participation rates. In addition the Michigan study gives in­
sight into the institutional factors relating to working hours that may contrib­
ute to moonlighting, quitting, and family and job relocation (Duncan &
Morgan 1977). Such effects of working hour constraints, not only on
employment but the quality of family life, are of increasing interest to a
wide variety of researchers (Kanter 1977; Keniston 1977; Pleck et alI978).

Perhaps most difficult to summarize is the research on family composi­
tion. Much attention has been given to the impact of welfare benefits on
family splitting (Lerman 1973; Honig 1973). In their detailed examination of
the growth of female-headed families, Ross & Sawhill (1975) concluded that

292 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org higher benefits did not contribute to family splitting so much as to maintain­
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. ing female heads in a single state by inhibiting or delaying remarriage . Dun­

can & Morgan (1976) found that there was a higher divorce rate in states

with higher AFDC benefits but that the remarriage rate did not seem to have
been affected . A useful guide through this maze is now available in a report

by Bradbury et al (1977). They conclude that, because of methodological

flaws in the available research , there is only weak evidence that AFDC levels
affect either separation or remarriage rates .

Residence

With the War on Poverty and efforts to stimulate the economy there has
been tremendous ferment in the housing field also . Housing programs there­
fore offer a natural focus for examining the effects of residential policies on
family life . However, the residential variable reaches beyond housing. As

Phyllis Wallace (1977) has said, "Housing is no longer viewed as a single,

good shelter, but as a mix of neighborhood amenities -good schools , clean
streets , adequate recreational facilities , access to a better life . " By this
broad conception , residential policies include not only housing, but school
desegregation , the energy crisis , highway construction that disrupts neigh­
borhoods , and the building of new towns and regional centers.

In the research on impact of such policies, three interrelated themes stand

out as relevant to the family: (a) race and class segregation; (b) connections
between environmental changes and internal dynamics of the family; and (c)

the need to safeguard social networks, neighborhoods , and regional ties on
behalf of family well-being.

It appears that the housing policies of the last decade have in some ways

exacerbated racial and economic segregation. Both Downs (1974, 1977) and
Wallace (1977) note that middle class people benefitted more than poor

families from increased housing production and tax benefits for home own­
ership . But the poor, although they could take up some vacancies in old and
new units , were trapped in deteriorating central cities where crime and van­
dalism flourished . Housing subsidies , housing production , and tax policies
all had the effect of raising the general housing standard , but the greatest
advances were in the suburbs while the poor improved their lot primarily by

taking what was left behind. Downs (1977) terms the phenomenon a

"trickle-down process. "
It is still a speculative venture to draw connections between recent

changes in metropolitan areas and the internal dynamics of family life.

Downs (1977) presents the interesting suggestion that as families moved to

larger spaces , thereby relieving crowding and increasing privacy, they at the
same time were probably " contributing to a general decline in the solidarity
and importance of family ties in our society . " Some partial confirmation of
this theme comes from other studies . The Five Thousand Family study in

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 293

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org examining families ' moves over a five-year period found that 70% of the
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. moves were to improve housing and relieve crowding (Morgan 1974). In a

study of the impact of the energy crisis on families , Perlman & Warren

( 1 977) reported that nearly half of the people they interviewed cut back on
visiting friends and relatives during the fuel shortage, although a small per­
centage saw friends and relatives more often. These figures could be inter­
preted as a commentary on the typical distance between relatives which has
perhaps increased in the last several decades with creation of the suburbs and
more widespread use of the automobile.

The interaction of migration and internal family processes ultimately af­
fects the community and determines whether families want to stay or leave .
The trickle-down process has been destructive for poor families and their
communities to the extent that it concentrated troubled families in poor
neighborhoods (Downs 1 977) .

How can such destructive processes be avoided in the future and how can
positive community attributes be safeguarded and enhanced? Certain of the
new English towns provide positive examples (White 1976) . In the United
States the work of Carol Stack and her associates at Duke University is
making clear the positive contributions of existing social networks, land use
patterns , and neighborhood tradition to the quality of family life (Stack
1 974; Friedman 1978) . The challenge now is to inject these insights into the
design of future poliCies on residential and regional development.

Legal and Cultural Identity

A legal and cultural rubric for classification of family policies is still new ,
relatively untried , and its content therefore not well defined . Neither

Kamerman & Kahn ( 1978) nor the Family Impact Seminar ( 1 978a,b) have a

distinct category for policies affecting the legal and cultural identity of the
family. However, because I have been working with a theoretical framework
that made me look for a function that maintains the boundaries and culture
of the group , I have identified it as a necessary additional category . To make
a rough beginning , I have grouped the relevant research under two separate
topics , one dealing with family law , the other with family culture .

Glendon ( 1 976) has formulated one of the most powerful theories for in­
terpreting general changes in family law . Through historical and compara­
tive legal research she identifies a trend in Western European countries as
well as the United States toward the delegalization ( ' 'dejuridification' ') of
marriage . Increasingly the law appears to look on marriage as a matter of
individual choice, not to be hampered by excessive preliminary formalities
nor to be dissolved with undue difficulty . Such change in the state 's posture
toward marriage allows greater rein to individual choice and feeling and
assumes greater autonomy of dependent family members such as women and
children.

294 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Many works on the changing status of children and women support this
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. thesis . Rodham ( 1973) finds current law reforms moving to change chil­
dren 's status in two ways: by extending more adult rights to children and by
recognizing certain unique needs and interests of children as legally enforce­
able rights . Texts on women and the law document similar trends (e.g. Bab­
cock et al 1 975) . However, in the case of both women and children, their
new theoretical rights to more autonomous status do not necessarily accord
with what may be their actual dependent status . Increasingly it devolves
upon the state to protect their interests. For example, after separation or
divorce, the low rate of child support payments from absent fathers suggests
that clearer standards must be set concerning the amount of support that can
reasonably be expected. In addition more effective enforcement and collec­
tion procedures are needed that are perhaps tied to the income tax or Social
Security system (Gates 1977; Jones et al 1 976).

Impact studies clearly reveal that changes in the law can have an impor­
tant effect on family life. Jones et al ( 1976) found that in states with close
followup of child-support orders there was a much better record of payment
collection. Stetson & Wright ( 1 975) observed a higher rate of divorce in
those states with liberal divorce laws. Sklar & Berkov reported a dramatic
decline in births after abortion was made legal in California.

With respect to the family's cultural identity, it is perhaps too early to
expect impact studies. In fact in all the family policy literature it is difficult
to find any reference to the possible effects of specifically cultural policies
on the family; and in the literature on ethnicity there is frequently no sys­
tematic attention given to the family. Yet when one reflects on the upsurge
of interest in black, Hispanic , and Native American culture , language pat­
terns, and family forms , it makes sense to expect such studies in the future
(Yancey et al 1 976). Kobrin & Goldscheider ( 1 978) , for example , note dif­
ferences in upward mobility and intermarriage among ethnic and religious
groups in Rhode Island. Hereafter a particularly promising approach may be
analysis of ethnic value orientations to understand the ease or difficulty with
which specific families and individuals become acculturated (Papajohn &
Spiegel 1975).

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

In the foregoing review, impact of social policy on the family has been
described systematically in terms of the independent variable: type of policy.
Now we turn to the dependent variable, the effects that are being observed,
and consider the various indicators that can be used as measures.

Fortunately the recent development of social indicators provides the fam­
ily policy field with a philosophical basis and a growing literature to help it

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 295

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org in constructing outcome measures. Goode ( 1968) early noted three levels of
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. social complexity at which the family 'S operation could be observed: (a)
individual; (b) relational (dyads and triads such as parent-child, etc); and (c)
global (the family or kin group as a whole). The relational focus has not
developed as far as the others (however, see Matessich 1976 for a taxonomy
of impact at this level) . Most measurements of policy impact on the family
are of the individual or global type.

A possible source of confusion, however, is the fact that many attributes
can be measured at both an individual and a group level. For example,
employment may be considered as a characteristic of the individual who is

working or unemployed, or it may be defined as the status of a head of
household, in which case it becomes a rough measure of the family's
economic well-being (Watts & Skidmore 1978b). Current issues in family
impact analysis thus center around three principal questions: how to measure
impact at the individual level; how to measure impact at the group level; and
how to select appropriate conceptual models that adequately portray the
linkages between individual, family, and the social poliCies of the larger
society .

Impact on the Individual

A key question to ask of social policies for vulnerable groups is whether
outside intervention actually benefits individuals who are to be helped. What
domains of individual satisfaction or well-being should be measured?

In The Quality of American Life Campbell et al (1976) develop an index
of individual well-being by combining items representing general satisfac­
tion with life. In addition they inquire about experience with work, marriage
and family life, the residential environment, and feelings about the country
in general.

Their findings are particularly relevant to measurement of policy impact
on the family for two reasons: First, they show how degree of satisfaction
varies with personal attributes such as age, sex , race, or education, and
family attributes such as marital or parental status. Second, several of their
findings, especially those showing high stress in college-educated house­
wives and parents of young children, are relevant for development of future
programs and policies such as subsidized child care.

Impact on the Family Group

A number of other investigations have attempted to conceptualize and mea­
sure the quality of family life. Over the past decade several landmark pub­
lications have listed important dimensions of family life that should be
measured not only across groups but across time. Goode ( 1 968) early listed

296 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org a number of data needs: time and money budgets, variations in family
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. patterns, functioning of kin networks, socialization practices, etc. Ferriss
( 1970), using aggregate data drawn largely from the census and other gov­
ernment sources, presented indicators of change in the American family
since 1940. The major dimensions he observed were marital status , family
and household composition, fertility, and work and income. In the Five
Thousand Family study, Morgan et al ( 1 974) also grappled with how to
measure economic well-being and family change. In addition to family in­
come they examined such global measures as family composition, labor
force participation, and educational attainment. Social Indicators 1976, a
recent US Department of Commerce ( 1 977) publication, also includes a
number of measures that bear on family well-being-e.g. family size and
composition, living arrangements and housing, health conditions and educa­
tional enrollment by family income, and characteristics of families below the
poverty level.

What seems particularly noteworthy in these efforts is a gradual con­
vergence on a few major dimensions that describe the internal functioning of
the family and its linkages to larger social systems . Several investigators
have now begun to codify the principal types of indicators that should be
used (Stolte-Heiskanen 1974; Land 1975; Rice 1977; Perlman 1978).

The major indicators can be grouped in a way that corresponds with the
four major family functions identified earlier: (a) quality of life with respect
to nurturance and socialization (health, education, care-taking of vulnerable
members); (b) level of economic performance (labor force participation , di­
vision of labor in the home, income from all sources); (c) quality of housing
and residential location (access to community resources, migration); and (d)
characteristics of family composition (extendedness, size, change through
marriage, divorce , etc). Finally , a fifth category, (e) degree and quality of
family participation in other social systems (religious and political involve­
ment, alienation, and ethnic and class integration) describes links to the
larger social order. That such a list can be constructed suggests that there is
growing consensus on the measures appropriate to family well-being.

Conceptual Models

While consensus on the significant types of impacts has developed, there is
no clear conception of the dynamics by which well-being is attained . On
one theme, however, there is considerable agreement: The family operates
as a mediating system between the individual and the larger society
(Stolte-Heiskanen 1974; Sussman 1976, 1 977; Keniston 1977). Thus one
way to classify dynamic models of policy-family interaction is according to
different levels of social organization.

First are theories that describe the internal dynamics of the family system.

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 297

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Here , for example, studies of family economic well-being provide a model
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
for analyzing the" ways in which other family characteristics (family compo­

sition , attitudes, location , labor force participation) are related to a particular

outcome (Morgan et al 1974; Duncan & Morgan 1977).
A second type of theory describes the interchange between families and

individuals. In the past, socialization and therapy models of interaction have
predominated (Parsons & Bales 1955; Ackerman 1958). Now these models ,
supplemented by others, should be reviewed and revised for purposes of

policy analysis.

A third type of theory conceptualizes the dynamic relation between
families and the larger society. Theories of ethnic adaptation (Papajohn &
Spiegel 1975) and models of social network formation (Bott 197 1 ; Stack
1974) suggest how families ' ties with others can supplement and strengthen
group resources. The role of such extra-familial supports must be incorpo­

rated in any comprehensive picture of policy impact on the family.
In the final analysis, of course , one would like to have theoretical formu­

lations and empirical examples that connect all three levels of social

organization -the individual , the family, and the larger society. At the mo­

ment the premier example of such an attempt is the work of Glen Elder

( 1 974, 1 977), who in a historical study of the impact of the Depression on

children showed how the family experience of economic deprivation truly

acted as a mediating force in shaping children's later careers. While there is

much to be learned from such historical studies (Boocock 1978), the matter

of how to accomplish a similar integration with contemporary data on social

policies and the family is a task still largely before us.

CONCLUSION

The field of family impact analysis is still so new that to report only research

on impact without an extended definition of both relevant socialpolicies and
the family is premature. Over the past decade a growing awareness that

social policies were having important effects on the family had to be par­

ticularized so that we could say what policies and what effects. Gradually

some consensus has emerged that policies affecting certain key groups ­
children, women, the elderly, and the handicapped-should take the family
into account. Policies that touch certain key family functions -nurturance ,
economic support, residence, and cultural identity-should also be exam­
ined for their effects on the family.

But how to measure these effects? Studies that examine the impact of
policies on the family reveal certain pervasive concerns: family splitting,
women's labor force participation , fertility , racial and economic segregation,
poverty . On closer examination some of these effects are best studied at the

298 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org individual level, others at the family unit level. Satisfaction, employment,
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. and family membership have been suggested by some as measures that best
characterize the individual, whereas family income, family composition ,
socialization, and residence are appropriately observed at the family level.

Faced with the voluminous research documenting the range of relevant
policies and impacts , the family policy field must begin to codify several
alternative theories of family process. At the moment there are broad maps
of relevant policies on the one hand and highly specific formulas for measur­
ing narrow policy impacts on the other. But the field now awaits some
dynamic models of policy-family interaction to organize it at its core.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the National Science Foundation, especially Gladys Handy
and Kenneth Gayer, for support (Grant GI-43792) during 1974-75 to under­

take preliminary review of family policy development in the United States.
Since that time my colleagues at the Heller School and students in the course
on " Family Life and Social Policies" have advanced my thinking enorm­

ously. I particularly wish to thank Robert B . Hudson for directing me to the

relevant materials in aging , and Robert Perlman and Kenneth A. Lorenz for
alerting me to alternative models of family process.

Literature Cited

Ackerman, N. W. 1958. The Psychodynamics Bernard, I. 1975. Women, Wives, Mothers:
ofFamily Life: Diagnosis and Treatment of Values and Options, pp. 273-76. Chicago:

Family Relationships. NY: Basic Books. Aldine. 286 pp
379 pp. Bettelheim, B. 1969. The Children of the

Anderson, M. 1977. The impact on the fam­ Dream: Communal Child-Rearing and
ily relationships of the elderly of changes American Education. London: Macmillan.
363 pp.
since Victorian times in governmental Bielby, W. T . , Hawley, C. B . , Bills, D.

income-maintenance provision. In Family, 1978. Research Uses of the National Lon­
Bureaucracy, and the Elderly, ed. E.
gitudinal Surveys. Washington DC: Soc.
Shanas, M. B . Sussman, pp. 36-59. Sci. Res. Counc. 138 pp.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press. 233 pp. Blake, I. 1 974. The changing status of
Anderson, O. W. 1976. Reflections on the women in developed countries. Sci. Am.
sick, aged and helping systems. In Social 2 3 1 : 1 37-47
Policy, Social Ethics, and the Aging Soci­ Blake, I. 1975. Population policy for Ameri­
ety, ed. B . L. Neugarten, R. I. Havighurst, cans: is the govermnent being misled? In
pp. 89-96. Rep. Nat!. Sci. Found. Population: Dynamics, Ethics, and Policy,
Washington DC: GPO. 121 pp. ed. P. Reining, I. Tinker, pp. 37-53.
Babcock, B. A . , Freedman, A. E . , Norton, Washington DC: Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
E. H . , Ross, S. C. 1975. Sex Discrimina­ Boocock, S. 1978. Historical and sociological
tion and the Law: Cases and Remedies.
Boston: Little, Brown. 1092 pp. research on the family and the life cycle:
Bane. M. I. Here to Stay: American Families methodological alternatives. Am. J. Sociol.
in the Twentieth Century, p. 1 19. NY: 84:Suppl. S366-94
Basic Books. 195 pp. Bott, E. 197 1 . Family and Social Network:
Roles, Norms, and External Relationships
Bell, C. S. 1975. Should Every Job Support a
in Ordinary Urban Families. London:
Family? Publ. Interest 40: 109- 18 Tavistock Publ. 2nd ed. 363 pp.
Bernard, J. 197 1 . Women and the Public In­ Bradbury, K . , Bishop, I. , Burdett, P.,

terest. Chicago: Aldine. 293 pp.

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 299

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Garfinkel, I . , Middleton, R. , Skidmore, F . , George Washington Univ. Inst. Educ.
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. Sweet, J . , Walster, E. 1977. The Effects of
Welfare Reform Alternatives on the Family. Leadership. 85 pp.
Rep. US Dept. Health, Educ. & Welfare. Family Impact Seminar. 1 978b. Interim Re­
Madison, Wis: Univ. Wisconsin Inst. Res.
port. See Family Impact Seminar 1 978a.
on Poverty, Spec. Rep. Ser. 80 pp. 100 pp.
Brody, E. M. 1978. The Aging of the Fam­ Ferriss, A. L. 1970. Indicators of Change in
the American Family. NY: Russell Sage.
ily. Ann. Am. Acad. Polito Soc. Sci. 438:
145 pp.
1 3-27 Fogarty, M. P., Rapoport. R., Rapoport,
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1970. Two Worlds of
R. N. 1971. Sex. Career. and Family. In­
Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. NY: Russell
Sage. 190 pp. cluding an International Review of
Women's Roles. London: Allen & Unwin.
Campbell, A . , Converse, P. E . , Rodgers, 581 pp.
W. L. 1 976. The Quality of American Fox, R. C. 1977. The medicalization and
Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satis­
factions, pp. 42, 49. NY: Russell Sage. demedicalization of American society.
Daedalus 106 (1):9-22
583 pp.
Caplan, G. 1 974. Support Systems and Com­ Friedman. E. 1 978. Crest Street: A Family/
Community Impact Statement. Durham NC:
munity Mental Health; Lectures on Con­ Duke Univ. Inst. Policy Sci. 35 pp.

cept Development. NY: Behavioral Pub!. Furstenberg, F. P. Jr. 1976. Unplanned Par­
267 pp. enthood: The Social Consequences of
Cook. A. H. 1975. The Working Mother: A Teenage Childbearing. NY: Free Press.
Survey of Problems and Programs in Nine 293 pp.
Countries. Ithaca, NY: New York St. Sch.
Gates, M. 1 977. Homemakers into widows
Ind. Labor Relations, Cornell Univ. 71 pp. and divorcees: can the law provide
Davis. K. 1975. PopUlation policy: will cur­
economic protection? See Kamerman 1977,
rent programs succeed? (See Blake 1975, pp. 215-32
pp. 27-36.) Giele, J. Z. 1978. Women and the Future:
Diggs, B. J. 1 976. The ethics of providing Changing Sex Roles in Modern America,
for the economic well-being of the aged. pp. 44, 1 89-90. NY: Free Press. 386 pp.
Giele, J. Z . , Kahne, H. 1978. Meeting work
See O. W. Anderson 1 976, pp. 55-64 and family responsibilities: proposals for
Downs. A. 1974. The successes and failures flexibility. In Women in Midlife: Security
and Fulfillment, ed. A . F. Cahn. US House
of federal housing policy. Publ. Interest of Representatives Select Comm. on Ag­
ing. Washington DC: GPO. 333 pp.
34: 1 24-45 Giele, 1. Z. • Lambert, 1. D. 1975. Current
Downs, A. 1977. The impact of housing
Family Policy Development in the United
policies on family life in the United States States. Preliminary Rep. to Nat!. Sci.
since World War II . Daedalus 106 (2):
163-80 Found. on Grant GI-43792. Cambridge,
Duncan. G. J .• Morgan. J. N. 1 976. Intro­ Mass: Radcliffe Inst. 164 pp.
duction, overview, summary, and conclu­ Giele, J. Z . . Smock, A. C., eds. 1 977.
sions. In Five Thousand American
Women: Roles and Status in Eight Coun­
Families-Patterns of Economic Progress, tries. pp. 22. 419. NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Vol. 4. ed. G. J. Duncan, J. N . Morgan, 443 pp.
pp. 1-22. Ann Arbor. Mich: Univ. Michi­ Gil, D. G. 1973. Unravelling Social Policy,
gan Inst. Soc. Res. 527 pp. pp. 59-135. Cambridge. Mass: Schenk­
Duncan. G. J. , Morgan, J. N . , eds. 1977. man. 1 7 1 pp.
Five Thousand American Families ­ Glendon• . M . A. 1976. Marriage and the
Patterns of Economic Progress. Vol. 5, state: the withering away of marriage. Vir­

pp. 18-20, 3 14-15. Ann Arbor, Mich: ginia Law Rev. 62: 663-720
Univ. Michigan Inst. Soc. Res. 526 pp. Glick, P. C. 1975. A demographer looks at
Eisenberg, L. 1977. The search for care.
Daedalus 106 ( 1 ):235-46 American families. J. Marriage Fam. 37:
Elder, G. H. Jr. 1974. Children of the Great 1 5-26
Depression: Social Change in Life Ex­ Goode, W. I. 1968. The theory and mea­
surement of family change. In Indicators of
perience. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. Social Change: Concepts and Measure­
400 pp. ments, ed. E. B . Sheldon, W. E. Moore,
pp. 295-348. NY: Russell Sage. 822 pp.
Elder, G. H. Jr. 1977. Family history and the
life course. J. Fam. Hist. 2 (4):279-304 Gordon, N. M . 19'18. The Treatment of

Family Impact Seminar. 1 978a. Toward an Women in the Public Pension Systems of
Inventory of Federal Programs with Direct
Impact on Families. Washington DC:

300 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Five Countries. Washington DC: Urban Linner, B. 1 972. Sex and Society in Sweden.
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. Inst. 1 1 7 pp. NY: Harper & Row. 225 pp.
Haveman, R. H. 1977. Introduction: poverty
and social policy in the 1 960s and Mattessich, P. 1 976. Taxonomies for Family
1 970s-an overview and some specula­
tions. In A Decade of Federal Antipoverty Impact Analysis, pp. 28-29. Minneapolis:
Programs: Achievements, Failures, and Univ. Minnesota Fam. Stud. Center, Fam.
Lessons, ed. R. H. Haveman, pp. 1 - 19. Impact Ser. Rep. No. 3. 41 pp.
NY: Academic. 38 1 pp. May, J. T. 1 974. Family Health Indicators:
Hayghe, H. 1976. Families and the rise of Annotated Bibliography. Washington DC:
working wives -an overview. Mon. Labor GPO. 2 1 2 pp.
Rev. 99: 1 2- 1 9 Mechanic, D. 1975. The Comparative Study
Hirschhorn, L. 1977. Social policy and the of Health Care Systems. Ann. Rev. Sociol.
life cycle: a developmental perspective. 1 :43-65
Soc. Servo Rev. 5 1 :434-50 Morgan, I. N . , ed. 1 974. Five Thousand
Honig, M. 1973. The impact of welfare pay­ American Families -Patterns of Economic
ment levels on family stability. See Lennan Progress, Vol. 2, pp. 76, 101 . Ann Arbor:
1973, pp. 37-53 Univ. Michigan Inst. Soc. Res. 376 pp.
Jones, C. A . , Gordon, M. M . , Sawhill, I. V. Morgan, I. N . , Dickinson, K . , Dickinson, I. ,
1976. Child Support Payments in the Benus, I., Duncan, G. 1 974. Five
United States. Working Paper. Washington Thousand American Families-Patterns of
DC: Urban Inst. 136 pp. Economic Progress, Vol. 1 . Ann Arbor:
Kamennan, S. B . 1977. Public policy and Univ. Michigan Inst. Soc. Res. 436 pp.
the family: a new strategy for women as Moroney, R. M. 1976. The Family and the
wives and mothers. In Women into Wives: State: Considerations for Social Policy.
London: Longmans. 142 pp.
The Legal and Economic Impact of Mar­ Morris, R. 1 969. Aging and the field of social
riage. ed. I. R. Chapman, M. Gates, pp. work. In Aging and Society, Vol. 2, Aging
195-214. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Pub!. and the Professions, ed. M . W. Riley,
3 16 pp. J. W. Riley, M. E. Johnson, pp. 18-54.
Kamennan, S. B . , Kahn, A. I. 1 976. Social NY: Russell Sage. 410 pp.
Services in the United States: Policies and Moynihan, D. P. 1 965a. The Negro family:
Programs. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. the case for national action. See Rainwater
Press. 561 pp. & Yancey 1967, pp. 39-124
Kamennan, S. B . , Kahn, A. J., eds. 1978. Moynihan, D. P. 1 965b. A family policy for
Family Policy; Government and Families the nation. See Rainwater & Yancey 1 967,
in Fourteen Countries. NY: Columbia pp. 385-94
Univ. Press. 522 pp. Moynihan, D. P. 1 968. See Myrdal 1968, pp.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Work and Family in the x-xvii
United States: A Critical Review and Moynihan, D. P. 1973. The Politics of a
Agenda for Research and Policy. NY: Rus­
sell Sage. 1 16 pp. Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administra­
Keniston, K. 1977. All Our Children: The tion and the Family Assistance Plan. NY:
American Family Under Pressure. NY: Vintage. 579 pp.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 225 pp. Myrdal, A. 1 968 (orig. 1941). Nation and
Kobrin, F. E . , Goldscheider, C. 1 978. The Family: The Swedish Experiment in Demo­
Ethnic Factor in Family Structure and
Mobility. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger. cratic Family and Population Policy. Cam­
257 pp. bridge, Mass: MIT Press. 441 pp.
Lampman, R. J. 1 976. Employment versus National Academy of Sciences. 1 976. Toward
Income Maintenance. Madison: Univ. Wis­ a National Policy for Children and
consin Inst. Res. on Poverty . Reprint 217. Families. Washington DC: Nat!. Acad.
2 1 pp. Sci. 1 33 pp.
Land, K. C. 1975. Social indicator models: Oppenheimer, V. K. 1977. Women's eco­
an overview. In Social Indicator Models, nomic role in the family. Am. Sociol. Rev.
ed. K. C. Land, S. Spilerman, pp. 5-36. 42:387-406
NY: Russell Sage. 4 1 1 pp. Papajohn, J. , Spiegel, I. 1975. Transactions
Lennan, R. I. 1973. The family, poverty, and in Families, p. 269. San Francisco:
welfare programs. In ,Studies in Public Wel­ Jossey-Bass. 3 16 pp.
fare, Pap. No. 12, Pt. 1 , pp. 1 -36. Joint Parsons, T . , Bales, R. F. , Shils, E. A. 1953.
Econ. Comm. , 93rd Congr. , 1st Sess.
Washington DC: GPO. 179 pp. Working Papers in the Theory of Action.
Glencoe, Ill: Free Press. 269 pp.
Parsons, T . , Bales, R. F. 1 955. Family, So­
cialization and Interaction Process. NY:
Free Press. 422 pp.

IMPACT OF SOCIAL POLICY ON THE FAMILY 30 1

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Perlman, R. 1978. Public Policy Impacts on Shanas, E. , Townsend, P. , Wedderburn, D . ,
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. American Families, p. 1 5 . Waltham, Mass:
Brandeis Univ. Heller School. 17 pp. Friis, H . , Milh(ljl , P. , Stehouwer, J . 1968.

Perlman, R . , Warren, R. L. 1977. Families Old People in Three Industrial Societies.
in the Energy Crisis: Impacts and Implica­ NY: Atherton. 478 pp.
tions for Theory and Policy, pp. 86-87.
Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger. 236 pp. Sidel, R. 1 972. Women and Child Care in
China: A Firsthand Report. NY: Hill &
Pleck, J. , Staines, G. L . , Lang, L. 1978.
Work and Family. Rep. for Office of Asst. Wang. 207 pp.
Sec. Pol. Eval. & Res . , US Dept. Labor. Sklar, J . , Berkov, B. 1973. The effects of
Wellesley, Mass: Wellesley College Cent.
Res. Women. 56 pp. legal abortion on legitimate and illegitimate

President's Commission on Mental Health. birth rates: the California experience. Stud.
Fam. Plann. 4:281 -92
1978. Report to the President, Vol. 1 . Stack, C. B . 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies
Washington DC: GPO. 94 pp. for Survival in a Black Community . NY:
Rainwater, L. , Yancey, W. L. 1967. The Harper & Row. 175 pp.
Moynihan Report and the Politics of Con­ Steiner, G. Y. 1976. The Children's Cause.
troversy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Washington DC: Brookings Inst. 265 pp.
493 pp. Stetson, D. M . , Wright, G. C. Jr. 1975. The

Rice, R. M. 1977. Social Indicators Concern­ effects of laws on divorce in American
ing the Family. NY: Fam. Serv o Assoc. of
states. J. Marriage Fam . 37:537-47
Am. 26 pp. Stolte.Heiskanen, V. 1 974. Social indicators
Roby, P. 1973. Child Care -Who Cares?
for analysis of family needs related to the
Foreign and Domestic Infant and Early
Childhood DeVelopment Policies. NY: life cycle. J. Marriage Fam. 36:592-600
Basic Books. 456 pp. Sussman, M. B . , ed. 1967. Government pro-
Rodham, H. 1973. Children under the law.
grams and the family. Special Issue, p. 5.
Harvard Ed. Rev. 43:487-514
Ross, H. L. , Sawhill, I. V . 1975. Time of J. Marriage Fam. 29: 1-209
Sussman, M. B . 1976. The family life of old
Transition: The Growth of Families
Headed by Women. Washington DC: Urban people. See Shanas & Maddox 1 976, pp.
Inst. 223 pp. 2 1 8-43

Safilios-Rothschild, C. 1974. Women and So­ Sussman, M. B. 1977. Family, bureaucracy,
and the elderly individual: an organization!
cial Policy. Englewood Cliffs , NJ: Pren­ linkage perspective. See M. Anderson
tice-Hall. 1 97 pp. 1977, pp. 2-20

Scanzoni, J. H. 1975. Sex Roles, Life Styles, Talbot, N. B . , ed. 1976. Raising Children
and Childbearing: Changing Patterns in in Modern America: Problems and Pro­
Marriage and the Family. NY: Free Press. spective Solutions. Boston: Little, Brown.
254 pp.
590 pp.
Schorr, A. L. 1968a. Social Security and fil­ Townsend, P. 1957. The Family Life of Old
ial responsibility. In Explorations in So­
cial Policy, pp. 101-3 1 . NY: Basic Books. People. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul .
308 pp. 284 pp.

Schorr, A. L. 1968b. Family policy in the Townsend, P. 1968. Welfare services and the
family. See Shanas et al 1 968, pp. 102-31
United States. See Schorr 1 968a, pp.
US Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of
143-63 Population: 1970. Subj . Rep. Final Rep.
PC (2)-4A: Family Composition. p. App-9.
Schultze, C. L . , Fried, E. R. , Rivlin, A. M . , Washington DC: GPO. 298 pp.

Teeters, N . H. 1972. Setting National Pri­ US Department of Commerce. 1977. Social
orities: The 1 973 Budget, pp. 252-90. Indicators 1976: Selected Data on Social
Washington DC: Brookings Inst. 468 pp. Conditions and Trends in the United States.
Washington DC: GPO. 564 pp.
Scott, H. 1 974. Does Socialism Liberate
Women? Experiencesfrom Eastern Europe. US Department of Health, Education, and
Boston: Beacon Press. 240 pp. Welfare . 1973. Summary Report: New Jer­
sey Graduated Work Incentive Experiment.
Sehnert, K. W. 1977. A course for activated Washington DC: Office Asst. Sec. Plann.
patients . Soc. Policy 8:40-46 & Eval . 49 pp.

Shanas, E. , Maddox, G. L. 1976. Aging, US Department of Health, Education, and
health, and the organization of health re­
sources. In Handbook of Aging and the So­ Welfare. 1978. Report of the HEW Task
cial Sciences, ed. R. H. Binstock, E. Force on the Treatment Of Women under
Shanas, pp. 592-61 8 . NY: Van Nostrand Social Security. (February). Washington
DC: US Dep. Health, Education, and Wel­
Reinhold. 684 pp.
fare. 133 pp.
US Senate, Subcomm. on Children and

302 GIELE

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Youth. 1 973. American Families: Trends view and Recommendations. Vol. 2, Re­
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only. and Pressures. 1973. Hearings, 93rd view oj Evaluation Data for Federally
Congr. , 1st Sess. Washington DC: GPO. Sponsored Projects jor Children. Washing­
ton DC: GPO. 3 15 pp.
451 pp. Wilensky, H. L. 1 975. The Welfare State and
Wallace, P. A. 1 977. A decade of policy de­ Equality. Berkeley: Univ. California Press.

velopments in equal opportunities in 1 5 1 pp.

employment and housing. See Haveman Woolsey, S. H. 1977. Pied piper politics and
the child-care debate. Daedalus 106 (2):
1 977, pp. 329-59 1 27-45
Watts, H. W. , Skidmore, F. 1978a. House­
Working Family Project. 1978. Parenting. In
hold Structure: Necessary Changes in
Categorization and Data Collection. Pre­ Working Couples. ed. R. Rapoport, R. N.
pared for Census Bur. Conf. Issues in Fed. Rapoport with J. Bumstead, pp. 74-88.
Stat. Needs Relating to Women. Bethesda, NY: Harper & Row. 191 pp.
Md. , April 27-28. 24 pp.
World Health Organization. 1976. Statistical
Watts, H. W., Skidmore, F. 1 978b. The Im­ Indices oj Family Health. Tech Rep. Ser.
plications o/ Changing Family Patterns and 587. Geneva: WHO. 92 pp.
Behavior for Labor Force Hardship and
Measurement. Madison: Univ. Wisconsin Wynn, M. 1972. Family Policy: A Study oj
Inst. Res. on Poverty Spec. Rep. Ser. the Economic Cost ojRearing Children and
66 pp. Their Social and Political Consequences,
p. 276. Hammondsworth, Eng.: Penguin
White, L. E. 1 976. Forms of urban design
Books. 384 pp. 2nd ed.
compatible with healthy living by children Yancey, W. L. Ericksen, E. P., Juliani,
and their families. See Talbot 1976, pp.
373-400 R. N. 1 976. Emergent ethnicity: a review

White, S. H. , Day, M. C., Freeman, P. K . , and reformulation. Am. Social. Rev. 4 1 :

Hantman, S. A . , Messenger, K . P. 1973a. 3 9 1 -403
Federal Programs jor Young Children: Re­ Youssef. N. H. 1 974. Women and Work in
view and Recommendations, Vol. 1 , Goals
and Standards of Public Programs for Developing Societies. Berkeley: Univ. Cal­
Children, p. 17. Dept. Health, Education, ifornia Inst. Int. Stud . , Population Monoge.
& Welfare. Washington DC: GPO. 467 pp Ser. No. 15. 137 pp.
White, S. H. , Day, M. C. , Freeman, P. K . ,
Hantman, S. A. , Messenger, K . P. 1973b. ZaId, M. N. 1977. Demographics, politics,
Federal Programs jor Young Children: Re- and the future of the welfare state. Soc.
Servo Rev. 5 1 : 1 10-24

! I �).

, ..
Fu r t h e rANNUAL

REVIEWS

Quick links to online content

Annual Review of Sociology
Volume 5, 1979

CONTENTS

THEORY AND METHODS

Methods for Temporal Analysis, Michael T. Hannan and Nancy

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1979.5:275-302. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Brandon Tuma 303-28
by BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY on 05/13/09. For personal use only.
Environmental Sociology, Riley E. Dunlap and William R. Catton, Jr. 243-73

SOCIAL PROCESSES

Sociology of Mass Communications, Josephine R. Holz and Charles R.

Wright 193-217

Sociology of Contemporary Religious Movements, Thomas Robbins and

Dick Anthony 75-89

INSTITUTIONS 27-52
Criminal Justice, Gwynn Nettler 91-111
Sociology of American Catholics, Andrew M. Greeley

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY

Comparative Industrial Sociology and the Convergence Hypothesis, 1-25
William Form 351-79

Sociology of Labor Markets, Arne L. Kalleberg and Aage B. Sjlrensen

DIFFERENTIATION AND STRATIFICATION 53-74
113-35
Black Identity and Self-Esteem: A Review of Studies of Black 219-42
Self-Concept, 1968-1978, Judith R. Porter and Robert E.
Washington

Sociology of Later Life, George L. Maddox
Ascribed and Achieved Bases of Stratification, Anne Foner

,CULTURE 137-66
Revitalizing the Culture Concept, Richard A. Peterson

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY 167-91
Reality Construction in Interaction, Arthur W. Frank II/ 381-409
Sociology of Mental Health and Illness, Michael S. Goldstein
275-302
POLICY
Social Policy and the Family, Janet Zollinger Giele

SOCIOLOGY OF WORLD REGIONS 329-50
Sociology of South Africa, A. Paul Hare and Michael Savage

CUMULATIVE INDEX OF CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS, VOLUMES 410-11
1-5 412-15

CUMULATIVE INDEX OF CHAPTER TITLES, VOLUMES 1-5