A report on a focus group held in Camden, New Jersey

20 July 2000

Jon Van Til, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The Ford Foundation’s Fragile Families initiative has as a primary goal the advancement of public understanding of the importance of assisting young men and women of minority and poverty backgrounds to care responsibly for such children as they may bring into the world. Crucial among the influentials on such issues are policy leaders in urban communities like Camden, New Jersey.

Camden is a city well acquainted with the problems of urban poverty. It also boasts a savvy civic sector, both at the grassroots and organizational levels; a large and active set of faith-based institutions; nationally prominent political leadership in the area of welfare and social policy; and an urban-involved faculty at the local campuses of Rutgers and Rowan Universities. Camden would seem to be an ideal place to explore the responses of 1) community activists, 2) social agency leaders, 3) faith-based lay and ministerial leaders, 4) governmental officials, and 5) involved academics to the concepts and approaches involved in the Fragile Families initiative.

PRESENTATION OF THE INITIATIVE TO A FOCUS GROUP

Selected individuals from five backgrounds (community activists, social agency leaders, faith-based lay and ministerial leaders, governmental officials, and academics) were convened at Rutgers University to explore attitudes and responses to a presentation of the current progress of the Fragile Families initiative. Sixteen individuals (six African-American women, three African-American men, one Hispanic woman, three Caucasian men, three Caucasian women) participated in the two-hour meeting, and seven of these persons remained for a discussion over lunch which carried on for more than one more hour.

The first hour of the meeting consisted of a presentation of the Fragile Families initiative by Dr. Hillard Pouncy, Senior Research Associate in the Department of Urban Studies and the Senator Walter Rand Institute for Public Affairs at Rutgers University, Camden. Dr. Pouncy’s presentation covered four major areas:

1. the distinction between "deadbeat" and "deadbroke" fathers
2. the distinction between "fragile" and "fragmented" families
3. the history of the Ford Foundation initiative and its role in urban analysis and policy development
4. issues in the design of family policy

Following Dr. Pouncy’s presentation, participants in the focus group were invited to raise questions of fact or clarification. These questions quickly moved to reflect critical perspectives on the approach, involving such matters as:

1. Question regarding possible differences in treatment of a first and subsequent children;
2. Question regarding the place of children with multiple or "unknown" fathers;
3. Comment on the relation of the approach to the economic bases of the problem;
4. Question of the reason for setting the "three year" focus on the issue.

Dr. Pouncy explained that the initiative did seek to focus on clear or "clean" cases in its present phase: first children of identifiable parents from poor and African-American backgrounds.

A second round of questions appeared to reflect implicit positions of criticism or skepticism of the approach presented:

5. Notation that the factor of "institutional racism" was not included as part of the fragile families problem as discussed;
6. Question regarding the omission of the role of schools in dealing with the problem of fragile families;
7. Question regarding the prevalence of "non-clean cases" in the experience of the questioner;
8. Question regarding the apparent omission of Latino families in the approach.

RESPONSES OF THE FOCUS GROUP

Noting the passage of time, the convenor moved to establish the ground-rules for the focus group. Four major questions would be asked, and participants were invited to express their views on these questions by either (or both) speaking to the whole group or by recording their responses in booklets distributed to participants.

Four principal questions were asked:

1. What are the major strengths of the policies presented regarding fragile families?
2. What are your principal concerns regarding the adequacy of the policy proposals?
3. How much more information would you like to have on this problem?
4. How important is it that Camden’s key stakeholders keep abreast of developments in fragile family formation?

Responses may be summarized as follows:

A) STRENGTHS OF THE POLICY INITIATIVE

• Fragile families can be saved—but culture and social conditions need to be taken into account. (academic community developer and leader)
• It focuses on fathers and on family reintegration in a non-traditional way. (state official)
• It is an initiative that could bring hope to families if it ends in resources to provide services to this target population (nonprofit organization administrator known for welfare advocacy)
• Positive is the asset approach—families—versus the deficit approach. It looks to build on potential for family and marriage, which are tradition models based on American family values. (nonprofit organization administrator)
• The major strengths are: a) the ability to look at solutions for restoring the family; b) opening communication and bringing about more understanding between families and people trying to help them; c) breaking the cycle of issues that divides the family. (community leader)
• Identifying a group of individuals that are committed to making a go of marriage; exposing the false premise of the Personal Responsibility Act that young men are predators and welfare families are centered only on women; proposing policy approaches that emphasize building partnerships with young men rather than treating them as delinquents. (involved policy academic)
• The only strength that caught my attention is that someone/organization is now looking at the Fragile Families Father and attempting to provide assistance to these individuals. (voluntary organization staffer)
• I don’t find any strengths at all. I am a father, a grandfather, and great grandfather. If I live to see September 24, 2000, I will have been married for 50 years. The government is solely responsible for the fractured families by causing the people to lose their moral standards. (lay church leader)

2. CONCERNS ABOUT THE POLICY INITIATIVE

Four concerns were presented by a state Senator nationally known for his welfare policy initiatives:

• Age of marriage—we should not develop separate attitudes and policies for the underclass;
• New Jersey has pioneered in supporting young fathers through the Family Development Program and the maintenance of General Assistance programs: these young men need training and educational opportunities;
• A great weakness of the "Work First" approach to welfare reform is that it drastically ignores the importance of education;
• Support obligations may appropriately be put in abeyance, but should not simply be forgiven: they need to remain as a "hammer" to assure compliance.

Other comments tended to underscore these points:

• We need the resources—MONEY—to help families overcome poverty and violence. (community leader)
• Nothing ever seems to come from these efforts. Our children are intelligent, but they resort to what they think they need to do to survive. In that process, they become the victims of anger and lack of communication. They need to be brought to seats around the table. (youth educator)
• It could bring hope to families if it ends in resources to provide services to this target population. (nonprofit organization administrator known for welfare advocacy)
• I wonder if the assumption is that the solution is marriage and traditional families. A focus on building strengths for fragile families is not enough. Beneath the problem are economic inequalities and issues of institutional racism. (nonprofit administrator)
• Thinking about this issue opens a very different world than my life experience and training has prepared me for. I am very interested to learn about this new perspective. (minister and community leader)
• It needs to be tied into the State’s Strategic Partnership Plan as it relates to Economic Development. (State official)
• There are no "clean" Fragile Families. Families should be helped where they are in life (one, two, however many children). Also, what if a "clean" fragile family member has a serious drug or mental problem, or both? He would still be expected to pay child support. How will you help adequately? (voluntary organization staffer)
• The fragile families model needs to be tested in a community incubator that is real to the needs of families. (academic community developer and leader)
• The model does not take into consideration that if people are not educated, then they are ignorant—which means they have no idea of right or wrong (lay church leader)
• This proposal may well be "nibbling around the edge of a problem." That is, the core problem is economic opportunity and equal opportunity rather than social intervention. The proposal itself was built on conversations with non-profits; perhaps there ought to be a conversation with economic/private sector leaders who themselves need to be "educated" about the real nature of welfare problems and the true social costs of continuing to address welfare and poverty as we currently do. (involved policy academic)

C) NEEDS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

• I believe the information he has brought is not what we need at this time. If the moral standards of yesteryear are reinstituted, and kept in place, most of the problems we are discussing would be eliminated. (lay church leader)
• I have a lot of information on these issues. (academic community developer and leader)
• I’d like some literature about the basics of the research and what you think the outcome will be which could bring hope to poor folk in our community. (nonprofit organization administrator known for welfare advocacy)
• I would like to see the models and talk about their various strengths and weaknesses. (nonprofit administrator)
• Essential information from this initiative should be distributed to the task forces now working in Camden. (state administrator)
• I would like as much information as possible. Camden is a very diverse city with many different problems. (community organization staffer)
• Longitudinal panel studies are needed to get a handle on the marginal benefits and opportunity costs of the kinds of programs advocated in this initiative. (involved policy academic)
• Research is good but what I would like to have is more programs, resources, and funding that could make the changes in individuals and family life. (community leader)

4. IMPORTANCE OF THE INITIATIVE TO KEY CAMDEN STAKEHOLDERS

• We know what the family structure is—we need Ford and other foundations to come to Camden and give hands on assistance to help with programs working on family issues. (community leader)
• Just this week the Annie Casey Foundation has honored a number of community organizations with special grants. I think the Ford Foundation has observed issues in Camden long enough to begin giving technical assistance and organizational support to address issues of family violence and economic distress. I encourage the research but think that action is really what is needed. (community organization director)
• It’s important to work from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. (lay church leader)
• It’s important to continue the dialogue and to expand considerably the diversity of stakeholders. (nonprofit administrator)
• It is imperative that you speak to the providers in the trenches who are grassroots practitioners. People in this community are tired of being researched. Those who come in from outside the community, however well intentioned—whether from the Ford Foundation or the Annie Casey Foundation—need to bring resources to address these problems. Please contact me so we can discuss our agency’s involvement with welfare reform and other public policy issues, including research. (nonprofit organization administrator known for welfare advocacy)
• It will be important to identify the resources (money, administration, policy expertise) to make this project work (involved policy academic)
• A community initiative would be extremely important since businesses are likely to look more favorably at New Jersey and its cities if there is a family reintegration initiative. (state official)
• Camden is a case study for fragile families. I am willing to assist Dr. Pouncy in redefining this work. (academic community developer and leader)
• In my opinion, this is very important and needs to be followed up by all: Service Providers, Nonprofits, Community Leaders, and today’s Focus Group members. (community organization staffer)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The focus group design permitted the presentation of the policy initiative to a group of individual knowledgeable of social policy, but in large part unfamiliar with the specifics of the Fragile Families initiative. An innovation in focus group design, to invite both written and verbal contributions simultaneously, yielded a richer set of responses than this (relatively experienced) designer of focus groups has previously found with groups he convened. An additional benefit of the design involved the collection of valued input from individuals who would not ordinarily be expected to speak comfortably in a group of this size which involved such major players in the city and state political, governmental, and nonprofit arenas.

That much said, it should also be noted that the group went through the accustomed phases of "storming, forming, and norming." The initial questions directed to Dr. Pouncy, following his clear and effective presentation of the project, were, on the most part, implicitly critical of the initiative. These questions and statements tended to be permeated with a sense of "So what else is new? We’ve been aware of the importance of supporting young men for years here in Camden, and in New Jersey as well." Dr. Pouncy’s response to these challenges was effective: he identified with the questioners, clarified his own role in the process, and explicated aspects of the project that highlighted its interest and basis in grassroots community process. He consistently guided the group to focus not on him, but rather on what they as community leaders might learn from the process.

Verbal participation in the focus group was, as might have been expected, dominated by the contributions of three or four individuals. But eight participants (six of whom spoke infrequently if at all) completed written responses to the questions presented to them.

The oral discussion permitted, however, the focus group to take a familiar form to the convenor: as a "Camden social policy group". Old political adversaries and allies recalled past disagreements and agreements; familiar arguments were rehearsed bemoaning the power of economic injustice and institutional racism; the role of research was recognized but delimited; and the primacy of action and organization was asserted.

This forming process led quickly to a norming phase. Particularly as the participants recorded their observations in writing, the strong consensus began to emerge as to the importance of pursuing common concerns regarding the fragile families initiative. The group asserted its interest in receiving individually packages of information on the Fragile Families initiative and copies of the present report. Various individual expressions of willingness and interest in being more fully involved in the effort were recorded. Indications were made by several important participants in city and regional partnerships to incorporate the initiative in their work were given. And a desire from several sources to reconvene the group, possibly with official representation from Ford Foundation staff as well as from consultant Pouncy, was expressed.

On the whole, the convenor was left with the sense that participants found the process a morning well spent. The presenter was clear, the design effective, and the participation sharp and well focused. The Ford Foundation was surely wise to ask for the counsel of Camden’s social and public policy leadership as it sharpens and develops its Fragile Family initiative. The Foundation will certainly be welcomed if it chooses to continue to participate in Camden as the issues discussed that July morning are advanced within the future action agendas of that lively and exciting city.

 To return to Jon Van Til's home page: http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~vantil