One of the biggest threats to youth and family policy is growing pessimism among scholars that engaging policymakers is worth their time and effort (Bogenschneider, Corbett, & Parrott, 2019). New studies provide evidence on whether it is possible to build better public policy for youth and families in an era of partisan polarization. The fourth edition of my book, Family Policy Matters: How Policymaking Affects Families and What Professionals Can Do, situates this emerging evidence in the evolving landscape of family policy—the transformational changes that have occurred within families and the social, economic, and racial/ethnic disparities that have grown across families. An updated chapter unpacks why polarization occurs and provides several practical strategies for engaging people you disagree with politically in agreeable and productive ways.
In the book, I provide best practices for turning analysis into action by drawing on cutting-edge research and a point of view often overlooked in policy books—the voice of policymakers themselves. Here, I highlight some of those insights so scholars can engage policymakers on youth and family policy with some confidence.
How Open are Policymakers to Youth and Family Issues?
Many youth and family policies are less partisan than other policy issues, a surprising finding that emerged from a study of policymakers themselves (Bogenschneider, Day, & Bogenschneider, 2021). Our team interviewed 123 state legislators about their research use, relationships with colleagues, and how each are affected by partisan polarization (60% responded). We also asked legislators to nominate colleagues who were exemplary champions of youth and families known for their effectiveness in advancing supportive policies. We then interviewed the 24 legislators with the most nominations (86% responded).
These Youth and Family Champions defined youth and family policy broadly to include child care, child vaccines, domestic violence, family leave, foster care, human trafficking, juvenile justice, K-12 education, student loans, and so forth. However, Champions excluded from their definition what they termed “social issues,” which included abortion, same-sex marriage, and some education issues like sex education.
Despite Champions’ broad definitions of youth and family policies, legislators across gender, party, race-ethnicity, and state lines report that youth and family issues are less partisan. Why so? Families are a shared value premise, explained one Democratic Champion: “Everybody understands the importance of family and youth where they may not with [other issues].” Take, for example, environmental issues, where a legislator first has to convince colleagues that climate change is real and then that it warrants a policy response.
A Republican Youth and Family Champion conveyed widespread support for passing youth and family policies: “I would bet you that if you look at the last couple years…at each bill that passed…about 400 or 500 pieces of legislation. And if you categorize them as something in your definition of family and youth, you’d probably see…95 percent unanimous or better, that’s my guess.”
Similar evidence emerged from researchers. Maton (2017) asked 79 psychologists to describe their greatest success in influencing social policy. An overwhelming 70 percent of their policy changes focused on youth and family policies.
Knowing the openness to youth and family issues, which policymakers are likely to be the best investment of your time?
How Can I Identify Which Policymakers to Engage on Youth and Family Policies?
Early on, the field of evidence-based policy focused primarily on better techniques for communicating and packaging science. The idea was that policymakers did not have access to research and were unable to wade through its scientific terms and techniques (Tseng, 2022). However, this idea has been replaced by a consistent finding from studies funded by the William T. Grant Foundation and others over the last decade: Policymaking is a social process where research use relies on relationships (Bogenschneider, Day, & Parrott 2019; Crowley et al., 2021; DuMont, 2019).
To initiate relationships in the policy culture, legislators recommended personally contacting them to build trust. “Trust is your currency around here”, according to a Democratic Champion, for anyone who wants their research evidence to be taken seriously (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020; Bogenschneider et al., 2021).
Yet building relationships seems a daunting task. How can you know which policymakers to engage?
Busy legislators specialize and develop expertise on a specific issue and become known as a Champion or the “go-to” person. These “go-to” legislators advise their colleagues on what positions to take and how to vote (Bogenschneider & Bogenschneider, 2020).
The good news is that you do not need to build a lot of relationships. You can prioritize building relationships with the Champions of youth and family issues. In state legislatures, there is, at a minimum, one Republican and one Democrat Champion in each house. If you can get your research into the hands of these Champions, they will spread it to their colleagues. I think of these “go-to” legislators as allies who can help make your research “go viral”.
How can you find the Youth and Family Champions? You can look at the members of committees that address youth and family issues. You can contact political insiders. Typically, the “go-to” legislators are common knowledge among anyone who works inside the legislature (e.g., legislators, staff, legislative service agency analysts) or anyone who works closely with legislators (e.g., intermediaries, lobbyists).
How do you make the approach to engage Youth and Family Champions around your research?
Which Approach is Best Suited to My Position and Purpose?
For many scholars, the burning question is not whether to engage in youth and family policy, but rather how to do so. Two prominent approaches are advocacy and education. Scholars can draw on research to advocate for policy options they deem most desirable for the purpose of persuading. Or scholars can use the nonpartisan education approach of providing research on the likely consequences of various policy options without stating personal preferences for the purpose of informing.
I write in my recent book that choosing an approach depends on one’s personal context. I propose seven guiding questions that scholars can factor into their choice:
- Does the optimal approach for me depend on my professional position and my organization’s mission?
- Does the optimal approach depend on the purpose of my involvement?
- Should my decision reflect policymakers’ preferences in the target policy setting?
- Does the decision depend on my professional expertise and personal demeanor?
- Does my choice rest on my personal beliefs about objectivity and neutrality?
- Does my approach determine my identity in the policy world?
- Can I choose advocacy in one setting and education in another?
Another point for scholars interested in research use to consider: Could my advocacy have unintended consequences (see Ferguson, 2015; Nichols, 2024)? The first known experimental-design study on the advocacy approach was published recently in Nature. The study examined Nature’s endorsement of Biden for president in 2021. Zhang (2023) randomly assigned 4,260 participants to receive information about Nature’s endorsement or Nature’s new visual design. Among Trump supporters, the advocacy for Biden caused large reductions in trust in Nature and fewer responses to offers of Nature articles on vaccine efficacy. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in science in general. Contrary to the journal’s intent, opinions of Trump or Biden did not change.
In Family Policy Matters and its accompanying instructor manual, I’ve also outlined 10 best practices for engaging policymakers around youth and family policy, such as providing research at the right time and places with the right partners, using the delivery methods and approaches policymakers prefer. Engaging policymakers with greater effect entails listening to them to learn about their information needs, communicating research evidence through stories and images, and creating opportunities for discussion.
Is Engaging in Youth and Family Policy Worth my Time and Effort?
The 180,000 words in the book can be summarized in 12 words, “It is possible to build better public policy for youth and families.” It is not easy. It is not certain. Yet I have witnessed with awe and amazement when policymakers have used research that benefits the lives of countless youth and families in all their diversity. When it happens, it is a beautiful thing to behold.
Bogenschneider, K., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2020). Empirical evidence from state legislators: How, when, and who uses research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(4), 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000232
Bogenschneider, K., Corbett, T. J., & Parrott, E. (2019). Realizing the promise of research in policymaking: Theoretical guidance grounded in policymaker perspectives. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12310
Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Bogenschneider, B. N. (2021). A window into youth and family policy: State policymaker views on polarization and research utilization. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000681
Bogenschneider, K., Day, E., & Parrott, E. (2019). Revisiting theory on research use: Turning to policymakers for fresh insights. American Psychologist, 74(7), 778-793. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000460
Crowley, D. M., Scott, J. T., Long, E. C., Green, L., Israel, A., Supplee, L., Jordan, E., Oliver, K., Guillot-Wright, S., Gay, B., Storace, R., Torres-Mackie, N., Murphy, Y., Donnay, S., Reardanz, J., Smith, R., McGuire, K., Baker, E., Antonopoulos, A., … Giray, C. (2021). Lawmakers’ use of scientific evidence can be improved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(9), e2012955118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012955118
DuMont, K. (2019, January 16). Reframing evidence-based policy to align with the evidence. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from https://wtgrantfoundation.org/digest/reframing-evidence-based-policy-to-align-with-the-evidence
Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Everybody knows psychology is not a real science: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70(6), 527–542. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0039405
Maton, K. I. (2017). Influencing social policy: Applied psychology serving the public interest. Oxford University Press.
Nichols, T. (2024, September 18). Scientific American didn’t need to endorse anyone. The Atlantic Daily.
Tseng, V. (2022). Research on research use: Building theory, empirical evidence,
and a global field. William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Tseng_WTG-Digest-7.pdf
Zhang, F. J. (2023). Political endorsement by Nature and trust in scientific expertise during
COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(May 2023), 696-706. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5
