Expanding choice in long term planning for family futures

• Published in: Marriage & family review 1993-08, Vol.18 (3/4), p.1-36
• Main Author: Settles, B.H
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: administrative management; Business community; Caregiving; Choice; Decision making; Education; Equity; Families; Family planning; family relations; Future planning; Generational relationships; generations; Life course; long term family planning; longevity; Management; Opportunities; parent-child relationships; planning; Problem solving; Risk; social policy
• ISSN: 0149-4929; 1540-9635
• DOI: 10.1300/J002v18n03_01

KEYWORDS. Caregiving, Choice, Decision making, Opportunities, Problem solving, Management, Risk, Equity, Life course, Generational relationships, Family planning INTRODUCTION We are living our lives around and among crises and challenges. Planning for our futures is done with an awareness of the many imponderables and the unknowns that shape our destinies. The responsibility, that individuals and their families have for shaping their own lives and providing for their futures, has become more important because of demographic, social, economic, and technological changes. In addition, families need to become more effective in influencing the larger society and bureaucratic institutions in terms of long term outcomes of policies and programs. Although there is increased opportunity for choice and planning, families need new strategies for dealing with the complexities, changing situations, and finding the relevant and useful information critical to estimating outcomes and assessing the effectiveness of actions. The role of professionals and agencies serving families must be re-examined in light of these changes. Often, the assumption has been that experts' programs, or interventions could replace individuals and families in making decisions that direct long term outcomes. In fact, it is clear that work and community institutions have much shorter time lines and interests than the individuals and families who use these programs. When employers are dominated by the bottom line on a quarterly basis, government has only a yearly budget process, and voluntary, non-profit groups are funded on a project or contributory approach, their evaluation and planning activities are constrained and consideration of long-term outcomes are pushed into the background. The accounting of costs and benefits seldom includes consequences over the lifetimes of clients in these bureaucracies. It is well to remember that is the individuals and their families that absorb the costs of short falls in economic and social institutions. For a complete reprint of this article contact Haworth Press by telephone (1-800-HAWORTH) or EMail ([e-mail]) Article copyright The Haworth Press, Inc.