FE

AT

UR

ES W

It is the great American experiment . . . a democraticsociety . . . of the people, by the people, for the peo-ple. It is the gift of a way of life that was launchedwith informed thought and paid for in blood. It is agift that continues through word, deed, and yes,through more bloodshed of American citizens. It is agift that will keep on giving only as long as Americancitizens consider civic, or democratic, engagement

important. Indeed, to sustain a democratic society, itis a must.

The family and consumer sciences profession(FCS), with its focus on families as the basic socio-economic unit of a democracy and on individualsas consumers, has the potential for contributing tothe sustainability of society. There are roles to beplayed both collectively, as a professional associa-

We The People:Renewing Comm

8 V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S

Bonnie Braun, Ph.D., CFCSSue Williams, Ph.D.AAFCS Chalkley-Fenn Public Policy Scholars

© Getty Images

tion, and individually to fulfill the organization’smission to be a source and voice for families. Theintent of this article is to help renew commitmentto democratic engagement among members of theFCS profession. The article reminds readers of thelegacies of both the early founders of this nationand the FCS profession; reviews current thinkingabout civic, or democratic engagement; and sug-gests tangible roles for all FCS professionals.

Democracy, Individuals and Families

No society can remain vital or even sur-vive without a reasonable base of shared values– and such values are not established by edictfrom lofty levels of the society. They are generat-ed chiefly in the family, school, church, andother intimate settings in which people dealwith one another face to face.

John W. GardnerCommunity, 1991

John Gardner wrote about the vital link betweenshared values and survival of freedom, and therole of interpersonal interaction within social unitsas a means of protecting and nurturing democra-cy. Strong, resilient families and supportive com-munities are the first line of homeland defenseand development of those values.

This link between democracy and humandevelopment within families was the topic ofBrown’s classic publication, Philosophical Studiesof Home Economics in the United States (1985).Brown pointed out that democracy directs oursocial and political thought and action. Those who

are democratic seek to create a government and aset of procedures that will be consistent with theprinciples of the ideal democracy. Ideal democracyis concerned with the creation of conditions inwhich the development and use of the potentiali-ties of each person are maximized. Thus, Brownconcluded that there is a fundamental linkagebetween democracy and human development.

In the late 1990s, Robert Theobald, a futurist,encouraged the FCS profession to be at the van-guard of change in the face of overwhelming chal-lenges facing humankind at the start of the 21st

century. He saw the profession as a potential con-tributor to a compassionate era (Theobald, 1997).Braun (1998) termed it a human ecological era, inwhich our nation might achieve, in the arena ofhuman well-being, the equivalent of what wasachieved during the agricultural, industrial, andinformational eras.

According to Theobald (1997), the future istoo important to be left to experts alone; it mustbe created by citizens engaged in exploring com-mon ground. One means of engaging citizens isthrough the connection to their children andgrandchildren because, as Garbarino (1988) said,it is through family that we understand thefuture—as if it mattered.

The family is key to civic engagement. BarbaraRoberts, an Oregon State Representative, con-tends that when people are personally involved ina public issue, they will actively participate in poli-cy actions related to the issue. Issues of familyconcerns are personal. “You are only one cause,one concern, one tragedy, one moral indignation,one economic crisis away from political involve-ment” (Family Community Leadership, 1986, Onestep away leader guide, p. 1).

Bonnie Braun, Ph.D., CFCS, is Extension Family LifeSpecialist, University of Maryland and Sue Williams, Ph.D, isExtension Family Policy Specialist, Oklahoma State University.

V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S 9

itment To Civic EngagementThere is a fundamental linkage between democracy and human development.

Threat as Opportunity

Recent downturns in the economy and the aftermath of the attacks ofSeptember 11th reminded Americans how quickly events in one part ofthe nation, and world, affect the home. Immediate responses includednon-partisan cooperation in Congress, patriotic pride and volunteerism,and thought-probing and insightful news media coverage. Movie-goersfilled theatres to see a variety of war movies while military action involv-ing Americans was back on the evening news. But is this kind of activitylikely to sustain a democracy?

The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation (2002) polled over1,000 people and concluded that Americans do not think that patrioticfeelings are a replacement for substance in politics and action in civiclife. In fact, citizens think civic responsibility and political conduct aremore than just waving the flag, singing patriotic songs and giving bloodor donating funds. The Harwood Institute concluded that it is time togive Americans a way to convert their expressions of hope and love ofcountry into a true commitment to positive political change. What mightbe the catalyst that will reengage private citizens and professionals in thepublic work of making policy?

Reengagement Implies Previous Disengagement

Before the catalyst can be identified, it is important to understandthe danger of disengagement and its prevalence in American society.Founders of this nation, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson,believed that democracy could be preserved through active involve-ment of the citizenry in public decision-making. Alexis de

Tocqueville, who toured the new nation to observe and learn les-sons from the first 50 years of its existence, originally published

his observations and conclusions in 1835 and 1840 inDemocracy in America (de Tocqueville, 1969). He believedthat mores, or habits of the heart, were the key to maintenanceof a democracy. He noted the tension between the commongood and the individual good and warned that, taken to anextreme, the individualism of Americans could lead to forget-ting ancestors, peers and descendants.

Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposeseach citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows andwithdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little

society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater societyto look after itself. de Tocqueville

One hundred and fifty years after de Tocqueville,another social sciences observer and his colleaguesreported their observations of American society inHabits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in

American Life (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, &Tipton, 1985). Bellah and associates conducted their

research based upon the belief that

1 0 V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S

c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engageme

The family is key to

civic engagement.

© Getty Images

ent • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engag

“a free society needs constantly to considerand discuss its present reality in the light of itspast traditions and where it wants to go”(Bellah et al., p. 307). They concluded that“the individual and society are not in a zero-sum situation: that a strong group that respectsindividual differences will strengthen autono-my as well as solidarity: that it is not in groupsbut in isolation that people are most apt to behomogenized” (Bellah et al., p. 307).

In 2000, another sociologist, Robert Putnam,writing in Bowling Alone, described the ebbing ofcommunity over the last several decades and chal-lenged Americans to adopt an agenda for recreat-ing social capital. Putnam demonstrated thatfewer and fewer contemporary Americans aredoing much of anything collectively—voting, rally-ing around shared causes, inviting each other intotheir homes or discussing issues of common con-cern. When Americans do occasionally gather, it ismore often only an excuse to focus on themselvesin the presence of an audience. According to hisresearch, just as de Tocqueville warned, growingindividualism or atomization, poses a grave threatto the nation’s welfare.

Democracy relies on financial capital, laborand natural resources for smooth functioning. Italso relies on social capital to foster cooperation,trust, and a sense of shared stewardship of thecommon good. Deficiencies in social capital canlead to political disorganization, poverty, crime,neglect of children’s education and welfare, andwidespread loneliness and depression. Indicatorsof these conditions in America are numerous.Taken to their extreme, these deficiencies coulddestroy the fabric of American society. Putnamargued that the time has come to reweave the fab-ric of our communities as a step in strengtheningAmerican democracy.

Sociologists are not alone in addressing theworth of community. A group of foundation exec-utives met for several years to explore both how acivil society functions and the problems thatundermine a democratic civil order (KetteringFoundation, 1999). At first, their discussionsfocused on the disconnect between individuals andgovernment. Their initial view was that individuals

and governments are two distinctly different andisolated entities that could be conceptualized astwo separate boxes. As discussions progressed, theparticipants concluded that something very impor-tant exists between government and individuals—community. And, it is in this third entity,community, that the important public work ofproblem-solving and opportunity-creation exists.

Figure 1 depicts the concept of civil societywith many more individuals than governmentsconnected by community. In this model, commu-nity includes non-governmental organizations anda large number of informal associations. Civicassociations and networks serve a variety of socialproblem-solving functions that draw on the socialrelationships that people form.

V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S 1 1

Figure 1. Concept of Civil Society.

Characteristics of Healthy Civil Societies

Yankelovich (1991) suggested that to make democracy work, the peoplemust be actively involved in making public judgments. In short, he suggest-ed that to preserve American democracy there is something for everyone todo—average citizens, institutions, people in positions of leadership, experts,government officials, the media. Yankelovich concluded that involvement ofa wide range of individuals and groups is the way things get done in ahealthy democracy. Mathews (1999, p.1) defines the people or the public as:“a diverse body of citizens jointed together in ever-changing alliances tomake choices about how to advance their common well-being.”

Healthy civil societies, or communities with a strong public life, are dis-tinctive in several ways, according to the Kettering Foundation. They have adifferent approach to problem-solving—an approach that involves manypeople. People in such societies are voracious learners—often adapting butseldom imitating. They benefit from lateral citizen-to-citizen action thatmight be called public action or public work. This public action serves tosupplement and reinforce official action. Citizens in a healthy civil societyare prone to be critical of government, but they are not alienated. Agenciesof government may be regarded as less important because people are notdependent upon them. All communities have leaders, but the leaders in acommunity in which civil society is strong are of a different sort. These com-munity leaders are not so much gatekeepers as door-openers.

The attitudes, norms, and political culture of a healthy civil society arealso distinctive. People in such a society are in the habit of owning theirproblems rather than blaming others, and they take a greater degree ofresponsibility for their future—they are engaged.

This kind of engaged, learning society, fits the concepts advanced by thefounders of America. In 1765, John Adams said, “Liberty cannot be preservedwithout a general knowledge among the people . . .” (Bartlett, 1980, p. 380).

Thus, public education was considered a key to theAmerican democratic experiment. Another key was theactive involvement of an educated citizenry in public policy.

The early history of land-grant universities, and particu-larly of Cooperative Extension, was grounded in the edu-cation of the common folks. According to Peters (1996),the land-grant idea carried an important democratic prom-ise consciously linking education, work and citizenship.Peters described the early work of Extension in which citi-zens and agents of government met around a commoncouncil table systematically discussing problems and needs.This kind of collective processing by people can be under-stood as public work—where things of value are created forthe local community, the state, the country and the world(Boyte & Kari, 1996).

Civic or Democratic Engagement

Civic engagement is currently a popular term in academ-ic, community development and political circles. Themeaning of the term varies. How civic engagement is

1 2 V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S

c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engageme

All communities

have leaders, but

the leaders in a

community in

which civil society

is strong are of a

different sort.

ent • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engag

practiced also varies. For this article, the conceptis called democratic engagement. Democraticengagement describes a process of participating inpublic decisions developed through collective,reasoned arguments oriented toward mutualunderstanding (Benhabib, 1996; Bohman, 1998;Cohen, 1997; Elster, 1998; Gastil, 2000). Thiskind of engagement, whether among individuals,experts or both, is an antidote to citizen ignoranceand alienation from politics, as well as to politicalprocesses that appear to sacrifice the public good(e.g., well-being of children and families) to short-term or narrow interests. Democratic engagementrequires that people: 1) interact peacefully; 2)share knowledge and perspectives on issues; and,3) organize to act publicly on these issues.

Putnam (2002) conducted a nationwide surveyof 500 Americans after the tragedy of September11th. He concluded that the level of political con-sciousness was substantially higher than it was dur-ing the previous year. However, he found a gapbetween attitudes and behaviors that suggests thepotential for renewed civic engagement. He callsthis potential civic solidarity. Civic solidarity is amoral resource, a social good. Unlike a materialresource, civic solidarity increases with use anddiminishes with disuse. In the aftermath ofSeptember 11th, the window of opportunity openedfor a sort of civic renewal resulting in civic solidari-ty. This occurs only once or twice in a century.

Public Policy through Engagement

One arena for action by citizens during this win-dow of opportunity is involvement in public policy.Public policy is an agreed upon course of action,guiding principle, or procedure considered to beexpedient, prudent or advantageous—a settledcourse of action adopted and followed by the pub-lic (House & Young, 1988). The political sciencefield describes public policy in a more formal andlimited manner as an intentional course of actionfollowed by a government institution or officialresolving an issue of public concern. According tothis definition, public policy is expressed in laws,public statements, official regulations, or widelyaccepted and publicly visible patterns of behavior.

The term public policy may make people thinkpublic decision-making is such a formal processthat they could not become involved in a mean-

ingful way. This simply is not true. Public policy isa set of principles that direct action. Public policytakes many forms: laws, rules, program priorities,funding decisions, even customs and traditions.

Consider customs and traditions as public poli-cy. How often has the comment been heard—“But that is the way we have always done it?”Interested and concerned citizens and profession-als have the power to change tradition (prevailingpolicy) in a positive way to better serve the peo-ple. Also the absence of laws or regulations doesnot mean there is no policy. Instead, it means that,for the specific issue, the policy is to do nothing asa governing body (Williams & Sanders, 1995).

FCS and Democratic Engagement

What more important public work can therebe than that of the development and strengthen-ing of families as the basic unit of democracy?Leading the focus on families as decisions aremade in the public arena is the challenge to mem-bers of the FCS profession and the AmericanAssociation of Family and Consumer Sciences(AAFCS). The federal government allows non-profit associations to receive special tax benefitswith the expectation that they will provide servic-es for the common good of the citizenry.

Engaging in public work, and especially publicpolicy, is an element of our professional heritage.The early history of our association is filled withevidence of engagement by FCS professionals infederal, state and local policy-making (Pundt,1980). FCS professionals understand the necessityof speaking out for, and working on, public poli-cies that could improve individual, family, andcommunity well-being. They have contributed tonumerous pieces of legislation that indirectlyaffect individuals and families; for example,through establishment and funding of entitiessuch as Cooperative Extension and AgriculturalExperiment Station research and vocational edu-cation. FCS professionals also have contributeddirectly to individuals and families through legisla-tion affecting food, clothing, housing, and numer-ous other areas of human and built environments.

In 1997, the Smithsonian honored the profes-sion’s early engagement with an exhibit in theAmerican History Museum. The banner headlineof the exhibit on family and consumer sciences

V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S 1 3

acknowledged the profession’s role in “enlargingthe circle of influence of the home, reforming ofthe home, school and government and forgingwomen’s powers into weapons of reform.”

With that legacy and the call for engagement incommunities and the many forces affecting families,isn’t it time for family consumer sciences profession-als to once again enlarge the circle of influence?

Roles of Engagement

Involvement can take numerous forms androles. A review of the literature reveals considera-tion of appropriate roles (Mathews, 1999;Meszaros and Cummings, 1983; National Councilon Family Relations, 2001; Vickers, 1985). Therole most emphasized is that of educator—a rolefulfilled by members as they conduct public issueseducation. However, in spite of the importanceand vital nature of the educator’s role, othersmight better fit the personal and professional styleand expertise of individual members. Roles of theFCS public policy activist vary depending on theissue and context. Variables may include suchaspects as timing, content of the issue, job respon-sibilities, civic duties, personal and professionalskills and preferences.

Citizen Professional The core role, and the one for all AAFCS

members is that of being a responsible citizen(Williams, 2001). An FCS professional, in the citi-zen role, takes responsibility for engaging in civicwork, making educated decisions and participat-ing in the deliberative process. They also monitordemocratic institutions and hold them account-able for providing a positive incentive structureand means for citizens to be actively engaged indemocratic processes. During the 2000 presiden-tial election, Americans became aware that everyvote counts—or not—and were reminded of thecivic duty and privilege to vote. They were furtherreminded that an institution, like voting, mayitself need changing when it does not serve thepeople, or in this case, the electorate.

Voting is not the only way citizens becomeengaged in public policy. National elections andfederal legislation is only one venue in which pub-lic policy is made. In states and communities, poli-cy comes closer to home.

FCS citizen professionals can make their voicesheard locally. They can express ideas and beliefsbased on personal values regarding matters thataffect individual and family life in local communi-ties. Examples of how people make their voicesheard might be: to testify at a school board meet-ing; write an op-ed piece for the local newspaper;invite neighbors to discuss an issue; circulateleaflets (Williams & Sanders, 1995). With so manyways to be heard and roles to play, no FCS profes-sional should refrain from civic engagement.

Educator ProfessionalA role for members who are in formal and

informal educational settings is that of a policy edu-cator (Anderson & Miles, 1990). An FCS profes-sional in the role of an educator can utilizeresearch-based knowledge to build understandingand capacity in such a way that people are empow-ered to shape and influence public policy. The edu-cator role can be fulfilled in secondary or universityclassrooms where historic and contemporary policyissues are part of the curriculum. Further, an edu-cator role may exist in community-based adult andyouth programming such as that conducted bycommunity colleges. A volunteer educator workingwithin community organizations can play a vitaleducation role. Many retirees, as well as currentlyemployed FCS professionals and students, serveimportant volunteer policy education roles.

Patton and Blaine (2001) suggest that public poli-cy education requires that professionals function intwo distinct types of roles: content expert and processexpert. The content expert provides credible informa-tion critical to the public decision-making process,while the process expert helps to frame the issue inpublic terms and facilitates public deliberation.

Not every FCS professional is a skilled educa-tor; however, those who are can participate viateaching and learning. Who can better combinethe content of family and consumer sciences withthe public policy arena in which policy decisionsare made that affect the quality of life for families?Who can better help policy makers integrateresearch knowledge into policy deliberations?

Analyst ProfessionalAnother role for members is that of analyst.

Using research-based knowledge about families

1 4 V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S

c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engageme

and the dynamics of the family system, FCS pro-fessionals can conduct research and provide find-ings from those studies in a timely and usefulmanner. An FCS professional in the analyst rolehelps citizens and policy makers understand issuesand options, using logic to examine the complexi-ty of issues and potential impact on public policydecisions. FCS professionals can prepare state-ments of findings and apply the research to thesituation, giving rise to issues and the eventualneed for policy (Bogenschneider et al., 2000). FCSprofessionals can provide this analysis as issuesand policies are emerging. After policies are inplace, FCS professionals can analyze the intendedand unintended outcomes and present the analysisin understandable formats, so that the informationcan be used to shape regulations. Eventually, thisanalysis leads to change in future policies.

Advocate ProfessionalWhen advocacy is mentioned, FCS professionals

often respond that “they do not do that”—imply-ing that advocacy is a part of policy best left to oth-ers. To overcome this barrier, consider advocacy intwo ways: 1) as advocating for a specific piece oflegislation or regulation or 2) as advocating for chil-dren, families, or communities based on principlessuch as economic and social well-being of families,adequate food and nutrition, and quality child care.An FCS advocate professional examines an issue,applies personal and professional knowledge andvalues, and argues for a specific strategy or legisla-tion, or for a general concept or principle.

The FCS professional has the right and respon-sibility to study an issue and speak out as both aneducated citizen and as an FCS professional whois arguing for a specific course of action.However, that same professional does not havethe right to argue for a specific course of action inthe name of AAFCS, or his or her employer.

The conceptual framework for the profession,adopted in 1994, states: “The profession providesleadership in . . . influencing the creation of policyand shaping societal change . . .” (AAFCS, 2002). Aspart of AAFCS’ program of work, the Public PolicyCommittee makes recommendations to the Board,which sets the direction for action of the association.Through resolutions, testaments and other means,both AAFCS staff and members advocate for fami-

lies and communities—on the basis of principles andresearch. The current AAFCS tag-line is an advocacystatement: The Source and Voice for Families. The“source” portion reflects the research base of themembership; and the “voice” portion refers toencouraging consideration of family needs and theimpact on families in policy decisions. Since policy isa part of AAFCS, the tag-line calls upon members toserve as advocates for families.

FCS professionals can chose from a variety ofroles. Not everybody needs to be engaged in thesame way. Each professional must build on his orher strengths and find a comfortable role withinthe policy arena. To find that comfort zone, eachprofessional needs to:

• Understand the unique characteristics ofeach role;

• Match the roles to personal and professionalstyle, expertise, and strengths;

• Realize that issues evolve as a process; and• Understand that appropriate actions vary

depending on the stage

A Model of Analysis

No matter which role, or combination of roles,an FCS professional is fulfilling, tools are impor-tant for the task. FCS professionals can generatetools such as the one created by the lead authorand her colleague, Dr. Jean Bauer, University ofMinnesota. The two functioned first as analysts,then as educators, and finally as advocates of fam-ily well-being in creating and disseminating tools.Faced with a complicated federal policy thatrequired state and local action, the two FCS pro-fessionals sought a means of presenting the policyso that citizens and policy-makers could respondknowledgeably. The result was a policy analysisorganizing tool that takes the user through a logi-cal thought process.1 The five categories and relat-ed general questions are shown in Figure 2.

This analytic tool is useful to FCS professionalsfor self-study of policies or for educating citizens,county commissioners and other policy-makers. Itcan serve as a starting point for examining anexisting policy and proposed policies. It can beused to advocate for family well-being. The tool

V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S 1 5

ent • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engag

1 The “Five I’s” Policy Analysis Organizing Tool is available athttp://www.aafcs.org/public/index.html

provides a common ground for study and exami-nation.

Timing Engagement

Assuming an FCS professional understandsmultiple roles and is willing to fulfill one or moreof them, how does the professional know whichrole to assume in the public policy process? Oneanswer lies in timing—understanding where thepolicy is within an issues framework.

Public policy arises out of issues. Issues do notjust happen; they evolve from a concern or fromsomeone’s vision of what could be. If other peopleshare an identified concern, they begin theirinvolvement through informal conversation. Asmore people become involved in the issue, commu-nication becomes more complex. Eventually, theissue emerges on the public agenda. Issues mayhave political boundaries but they seldom are parti-san. Discussion generates different ideas aboutwhat should be done to address an issue. Eachsolution has potential consequences—what will begained or lost?—who will benefit?—who willlose?—how much difference will it make?—is itfeasible?—what are the trade-offs? Eventually, achoice is made. This choice may be the result oflegislative action at the national or state level, or

action of a city council or local com-mittee. It also may simply be theresult of history and tradition for howthings are done. The choice couldalso be to forget the whole issue andmaintain the status quo.

As policies are implemented, thework of the public policy activist isfar from done. A law or regulationwill not be effective unless it isenforced. The authorization processcreates and shapes programs toimplement public choices. The appro-priations process provides funding.The processes of authorization andappropriations hold the power of lifeor death for a public choice. Whenthe policy is implemented, the affect-ed public(s) should be involved in theevaluation of the benefits and costs ofthe choice. Findings from the evalua-tion can lead to informative modifica-

tions and future choices. Issue evolution is a socialprocess in which people who are affected discusswhat the policy does and does not do (See Figure3). If some people perceive that the issue is notbeing resolved by the new policy, or that the newpolicy is creating fresh problems, their concernbecomes a catalyst for renewing the early phases ofevolution of the matter. Even when most people aresatisfied with a policy, a vocal or powerful minoritycan renew the cycle with their concern and persist-ent involvement. In reality, many policies are in acontinual state of change cycling through phases ofevolution.

It is important to note that a concern or issuemay die at any stage of the cycle. In addition, thelength of any one stage is hard to predict. Publicpolicy activists, operating in any of the roles dis-cussed, can become engaged in the issue at anypoint during the evolutionary cycle. When enter-ing, regardless of the role being played— citizen,educator, analyst, or advocate—the activist needsto know which evolutionary stage the issue is in atthe time. The actions of the public policy activistwill vary depending on the stage of issue evolutionand the role being taken by the activist (Gratto,1973; House & Young, 1988).

1 6 V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S

c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engageme

Engaging in Public Policy—A RecentExample

When Congress and the Administration decid-ed to make changes in “welfare as we knew it,”members of AAFCS2 contributed to the policydevelopment process in all three roles beyondthat of citizen professional (Braun & Benning,2001). In 1995–96, during visits with every mem-ber of Congress, AAFCS members advocated forfamily considerations using a set of principles.When asked to respond to emerging legislation,FCS professionals analyzed the language basedon the principles. Using a quickly convened“think tank,” a satellite downlink broadcast, anational conference and presentations at meet-ings, members of the public and other FCS pro-fessionals learned about the pending and finallegislation. Because the legislation devolved deci-sion-making to state and local communities,members developed teaching resources and con-ducted workshops to educate local citizens andpolicy makers about the federal legislation (Bauer& Braun, 1997).

Realizing that the legislation did not requireevaluation of the resulting policy and programchanges, and that studies being done werefocused on urban families, members organized

to conduct a multi-state study to analyze theimpact of changes on rural, low-incomefamilies.3 There is great richness in the study’secological approach, data set and collaboration.The study is a unique, 15-state, 28-county, longi-tudinal study that brings together the expertiseof faculty and students from five specialtieswithin FSC to understand the well-being ofrural, low-income mothers and their families inthe context of welfare reform. The team is con-ducting an integrated research and extensioninitiative that is often cited as a strength of theprofession. The study combines quantitative andqualitative data to better understand, at themicro-level, the challenges of making ends meetin rural areas. At a more macro-level, it is shed-ding light on the effects of community programsand local, state and federal policy on rural fami-ly well-being.

The 433 mothers in the study have messagesfor policy makers and program directors. Thestudy team is committed to getting those messagesout as they educate Congress, state legislators,county commissioners and citizens during thereauthorization process in 2002. Two policy briefswere released in early 2002; others will follow.Visits have been made to members of Congress.Findings have been, and continue to be, dissemi-nated to advocates and professional associations.Over the course of this policy work, the teamfunctions in all four roles: citizen, educator, ana-lyst and advocate—for the well-being of these andother rural families.

Public Policy, AAFCS and You

At the June, 2001 Annual Meeting, the PublicPolicy Committee released a brochure announcingpolicy directions for the association. Thebrochure, Engaging in Public Policy DecisionMaking: A Strategic Direction can be found atwww.aafcs.org. (Anderson & Braun, 2001). Atheme for the next several years, SustainableFamilies—Supportive Communities, captures theniche for AAFCS in developing and promotingstrong families and supportive communities

V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S 1 7

ent • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engag

Figure 3

2 The number of members participating in this work is soextensive that a complete citation is not possible. Theauthors acknowledge and honor the work of theseunnamed members who are engaging in public policy tiedto welfare and public assistance for low-income families.

3 For more information, contact Bonnie Braun, researchteam member and Vice-Chair for Communications.

through public policy. The brochure identifiesagreed upon AAFCS public policy priorities andencourages affiliates to establish priorities within astate or local community.

With this brochure, the Committee went onrecord with six actions or strategies for AAFCSand suggestions for state affiliates. Members ofaffiliates and the officers can study this publica-tion and use it as a basis for planning a programof work. The three policy priority statements thatsupport engagement in the areas of childcare, 21st

century community learning centers and geneticengineering and biotechnology are also on theAAFCS website.

The AAFCS Public Policy Committee listedseven actions for building capacity among mem-bers. This article, written by two members of thecommittee, is part of that capacity building. Twotools for policy analysis and education are on theAAFCS website: 1)The Five I’s Policy AnalysisOrganizing Tool and 2) A Citizens’ Guide to Childand Family Focused Public Policy. These docu-ments supplement the AAFCS Policy Manual,which is available for sale (Ley & Saunders, 1997).

Another way to expand capacity is to becomea Chalkley-Fenn Visiting Public Policy Scholar.For the authors, this experience broadenedunderstanding of federal policy-making anddeepened appreciation for the work of AAFCSheadquarters staff. Both of the authors appliedtheir experiences to work in home states andinstitutions as well as to the work of the associa-tion. Applications for this scholarship, endowedby members of AAFCS, are due early in each cal-endar year.

The Public Policy Committee is actively work-ing on projects to advance the public policy agen-da of AAFCS. But the committee can onlyprovide a vision and leadership. It’s up to allmembers to:

• Overcome personal barriers to civic engage-ment;

• Help overcome institutional barriers to civicengagement;

• Seek opportunities for involvement that fitwith expertise and interests;

• Choose roles that match personal comfortand skills; and

• Act upon the conviction that each personcan and should engage in public policy.

AAFCS can be a key player in building thekind of democracy in which families are valued asthe basic socio-economic unit and for their role innurturing productive, contributing individuals.Through AAFCS, members can discover a balancebetween individual needs and wants and the workof the collective for the common good of the asso-ciation and society. Through the Association,members can be in a supportive environment tolearn and apply the skills for strengthening a civilsociety—where the well-being of families and com-munities is valued. Through AAFCS, membersdon’t bowl alone, but rather in league with otherFCS professionals—together learning and demon-strating commitment to democratic engagement.

References

AAFCS. American Association of Family ConsumerSciences. (March 27, 2002). Who we are. Available:http://www.aafcs.org/who/index.html

Anderson, C., & Braun, B. (2001). Engaging in publicpolicy decision making: A strategic direction. Alexandria, VA:American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences.

Anderson, C., & Miles, C. S. (1990). Policy educa-tion: Making a difference in the public arena. Journal ofHome Economics, 82(2), 7–11.

Bartlett, J. (1980). Bartlett’s familiar quotations.Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Bauer, J. W. & Braun, B. (1997). Leadership per-spectives: Responding knowledgeably to welfare reform.In C. Peck (Ed.), Proceedings, Family Economics-Resource Management Annual Meeting Pre-Conference(pp. 71–74). Alexandria, VA: American Association ofFamily and Consumer Sciences.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A.,& Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism andcommitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.

Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative modelof democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.),Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Bohman, J. (1998). The coming age of deliberativedemocracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 400–425.

Boyte, H., & Kari, N. (1996). Building America:The democratic promise of public work. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

1 8 V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S

c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engageme

Bogenschneider, K., Olson, J. R., Linney, K. D., &Mills, J. (2000). Connecting research and policymaking:Implications for theory and practice from the familyimpact seminars. Family Relations, 49(3), 327–339.

Braun, B. (1998). Reflective leading in the publicinterest. Reflecting Leading in the Public Interest: ADialogue About Practice. East Lansing, MI: KappaOmicron Nu Honor Society.

Braun, B., & Benning, L. (2001) Welfare reformfour years later: The mobilization of the land-grant sys-tem. Journal of Extension, 39(4). http://www.joe.org.

Brown, M.M. (1985). Philosophical studies of homeeconomics in the United States our practical-intellectual her-itage, Volume 1. East Lansing, MI, Michigan StateUniversity.

Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legiti-macy. In J. Bohman and W. Rehg (Eds.), DeliberativeDemocracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA,MIT Press.

de Tocqueville, A. (1969). In G. Lawrence (Ed.),Democracy in America. New York: Doubleday, AnchorBooks.

Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Family Community Leadership (1986). Issues analysisand resolution, Family Community Leadership ResourcePack. Corvallis, OR: Western Rural Development Center.

Garbarino, J. (1988). The future as if it really mat-tered. Longmont, CO: Bookmakers Guild, Inc.

Gardner, J. (1991). Community. Unpublished man-uscript.

Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation aluxury or a necessity? Political Communication, 17, 357–361.

Gratto, C.P. (1973). Policy education: A modelwith emphasis on how. Increasing Understanding ofPublic Problems and Policies. Oak Brook, IL: The FarmFoundation.

Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. (2002).Post-September 11 patriotism, civic involvement andhopes for the 2002 election season. A report of the NewPatriotism Project: Improving Political Conduct inAmerica. Bethesda, MD, The Harwood Institute.

House, V. W., & Young, A. A. (Eds.). (1988).Working with our publics (module 6) education for pub-lic decisions. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina AgriculturalExtension Service and the Department of Adult and

Community Education, North Carolina StateUniversity.

Kettering Foundation (1999). Learning about civilsociety: A graphic record of the civil investment seminars.Dayton, OH: The Kettering Foundation.

Ley, C., & Saunders, M. E. (1997). Public policymanual. Alexandria, VA: American Association ofFamily and Consumer Sciences.

Mathews, D. (1999). Politics for people: Finding aresponsible public voice. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Meszaros, P. S., & Cummings, P. (1983). Roots inpublic policy formation. Journal of Home Economics,75(2), 34–37.

National Council on Family Relations (2001).Public policy through a family lens: Sustaining families inthe 21st century. Minneapolis, MN: National Council onFamily Relations.

Patton, D. B., & Blaine, T. W. (2001), Public issueseducation: Exploring extension’s role. Journal ofExtension, 39 (4), www.joe.org.

Peters, S. (1996). Cooperative extension and thedemocratic promise of the land-grant idea. St. Paul, MN:University of Minnesota Extension Service and HubertH. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

Pundt, H. (1980). AHEA: A history of excellence.Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapseand revival of American community. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Putnam, R. D. (2002, February 11). Bowlingtogether: The United States of America. The AmericanProspect, 20–22.

Theobald, R. (1997). Reworking success: New com-munities at the millennium. Gabriola Island, BC,Canada: New Society Publishers.

Vickers, C. (1985). Effective public policy: A ques-tion of attitude. Journal of Home Economics, 77(4), 49–53.

Williams, S. (2001). Citizen engagement throughpublic deliberation. Journal of Family ConsumerSciences, 93(2) 12–13.

Williams, S., & Sanders. L. (1995). Getting involvedin public policy. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma StateUniversity Cooperative Extension Service.

Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment:Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse,NY: Syracuse University Press.

V O L . 9 4 ■ N O . 3 ■ 2 0 0 2 J F C S 1 9

ent • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engagement • c iv ic engag