Skip to main content

Campaign for Inclusive Family Policies

Policies for ALL Families
May 8, 2019
Body paragraph

The purpose of the Campaign for Inclusive Family Policies is to establish this basic principle in public policymaking: Family policy should be inclusive—the ways in which families meet their income-earning and caregiving responsibilities should not determine their eligibility for support and services.

There is a serious disconnect between U.S. families and family policy. For decades, policymakers have been pushed to focus on “working families” with the result that many family policies help some families while discriminating against millions of others. The often ill-defined term “working families” is used most commonly to describe families with employed parents who utilize child care services while they are at work. But millions of families do not fit that model—instead they use diverse and dynamic strategies to meet their income-earning and caregiving responsibilities.  In addition, the Department of Labor definition of employed persons includes full-time workers, part-time workers (at least one hour a week), self-employed persons, those working for their family’s business (15 hours or more) and those on leave or on vacation. 

It is time for policymakers to support and respect parents’ decisions. This is not a campaign against “working families”—it is a campaign for helping the greatest possible number of families, regardless of how they manage their income-earning and caregiving responsibilities. In short, it is a call for inclusion.

Parents make complex decisions about employment and caring for their children. They weigh their children’s needs, their own values and desires, as well as economic and career considerations. Families are diverse, their work/life solutions are diverse, and their choices are dynamic. Many families modify their employment and caregiving practices over the years as the needs of their family members change. Today’s “working family” might in two years be a family with an at-home mother or father, and ten years from now it might fit the “working family” category once more.

Policies made with a narrow focus on “working families” discriminate against a significant percentage of families, including—contrary to popular belief—many lower income families. Commenting on the findings of his recent research on low-income families (earning less than $38,000 for a family of four), Gregory Acs of The Urban Institute says: “The need for child care is very important for families that have no other options. But what you most often see is the dad going out to work and the mom staying at home.”

Families who do not fit the “working families” label cross the spectrum of economic status, cultural and political outlooks, religious beliefs, race and ethnicity and include:

  • Families with one full-time earner and one at-home parent;
  • Families in which two earners work different shifts so that one or the other is available for caregiving, including those who have full-time jobs and “tag-team” by working different shifts, those with one full-time earner and one part-time earner, and those with two part-time earners;
  • Families who share caregiving among members of their extended family or trade caregiving with friends in a cooperative arrangement (strategies used by some single parent families as well as by two parent families);
  • Families in which children are being raised by retired grandparents.

These families are not simply “lucky” nor are they statistical rarities. They are no less deserving of support than are families whose income earning/caregiving choices fit the “working family” model.

Child care policy is a prime example of biased policy. Currently, families who use child care services are eligible for several types of government assistance. Many families who pay for child care are eligible for the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit or a Dependent Care Assistance Plan, enabling them to set aside pre-tax earnings for child care expenses. Many moderate and lower-income families qualify to receive federal and/or state child care subsidies. But families who do not use child care services—even those with very low incomes—are not eligible for any assistance.

A few states have tried to help lower income families who want to have a parent at home by establishing At-Home Infant Care programs, providing a monthly stipend in lieu of a subsidy for child care. However, states are unable to use federal funds to support these programs, public awareness of such programs is low, and very few families receive assistance. 

All quality care for children must be supported—including care provided by parents who cut back or forgo paid employment. The ways in which parents meet their income-earning and caregiving responsibilities should not determine their eligibility for support and services.

Special interest lobbyists present a serious obstacle to inclusive family policies. Funding for advocacy on behalf of “working families” comes from a variety of sources including labor unions, for-profit child care businesses, and corporations—all of which have economic interests in keeping parents on the job. Although there are a few grassroots organizations advocating for the families left out when “working families” are the focus of policy making, they operate with severe financial limitations. This makes for a very lopsided debate.

There is no doubt that family policies need attention. Tax expert C. Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, warned that children’s share of the federal budget has fallen significantly in the past 50 years. Additionally, Steuerle and his colleagues at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center point out that families “face a bewildering and often conflicting array of tax programs and eligibility rules.” By establishing the principle of inclusion legislators would take a major step toward crafting straightforward, fair and flexible policies.

Highly respected scholars have proposed the adoption of family policies that respect parents’ choices about caregiving. One type of policy is called by various names: child benefit, child allowance or early childhood benefit. It is a monthly payment made directly to the child’s parents. Some tax experts recommend increasing the value of the Child Tax Credit and making it permanent and pegged to inflation. James C. Capretta points out that such a credit is not directed to child care or education, leaving decisions to parents, “who are in the best position to know what is most needed in their household.”

Pending federal legislation, the American Family Act of 2019-2020 (S.690; H.R. 1560), seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to increase the child tax credit, make it fully refundable, adjusted yearly for inflation, and distributed monthly instead of yearly. This is an inclusive policy proposal and it would significantly reduce the number of children living in poverty. 

States can take some action on child tax credits, as Dylan Matthews of Vox explains--though it may not be practical for them to distribute a monthly credit.

We call on Federal, State and local policymakers to adopt the principles of inclusion, recognize and disregard the lobbying efforts of special interest groups, and focus on policy proposals that offer parents equality, justice and freedom of choice. 

While U.S. parents are taking diverse and dynamic action to nurture their children, policymakers must respond with respect and support by enacting inclusive family policies.

Please show your support for the Campaign for Inclusive Family Policies! 

Sign your name here, and we'll add it below.

Catherine H. Myers Executive Director Family and Home Network

Board of Directors, Family and Home Network: Joanne LaSpina (Chair), Tom Mayer, Michelle Rief, Karen Skelton, Jeanne Faulconer

Please note: Although many family policy debates—and this article—focus on families with children, those who care for sick, elderly and/or disabled people also need policies that adhere to the principle of inclusion.

Our grassroots nonprofit organization introduced the Campaign for Inclusive Family Policies in September, 2006; it grew out of decades of work and communication with tens of thousands of parents. 

Please show your support for the Campaign for Inclusive Family Policies! 

Sign your name here, and we'll add it below.

Please allow a few days time for your name to appear.

Organizations in Support: 

Attachment Parenting International

Mocha Moms, Inc.

Sisters of St. Joseph (Brentwood, NY)


Individual Supporters: 

Peggy O'Mara (NM)

Samantha Gray (TN)

Darcia Narvaez (IN)

Joanne LaSpina (PA)

Tom Mayer (VA)

Christina Church (CA)

Cheli Figaro (MD)

Michelle Rief (VA)

Karen Skelton (VA)

Michelle Vanderwalker (NC)

Sean Umstead (NC)

Elizabeth Menkin (CA)

Laura M. Jones (VA)

Pauline Arnold Connole (VA)

Vivian Natale (WA)

Rochelle Albini (NJ)

Jean T. Lederer (NY)

Catherine B. Donohue (PA)

Karlie Cole (MN)

Nicole Peluso (CT)

Brock N. Lusch (OH)

Jann Manwell (OR)

Sharida D. Gaines-Collins (MD)

Article type
Public Policy