Shifting Toward a Mainstream Approach to Children’s Issues : Under this view, investment in all families will enhance U.S. productivity. It has led to job programs such as flex-time.

Not long ago, when public policy advocates talked about “children’s issues,” they often were talking about somebody else’s kids. But no more.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in policies and programs affecting the entire spectrum of American families, not just those who are poor or who have children with special needs. This broad-brush emphasis is likely to become even more pronounced with the arrival of the new President and First Lady, both of whom have long been involved in promoting a children’s agenda.

President-elect Bill Clinton served as a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Children. Hillary Clinton, a veteran advocate of these issues for two decades, already has declared she will become a strong voice for children in the White House.

STRATEGY: This mainstream approach does not signal an ebbing of concern for the special needs of disadvantaged children. Instead, it reflects a fundamental shift in philosophy toward government programs that address the needs of all families.

“About five or six years ago, children and family issues were treated as problems for ‘welfare’ kids, or ‘women’s’ issues,” said Dr. Edward Zigler, director of Yale University’s Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy. “But then I began hearing a new set of clang words: competitiveness, productivity, investing in human capital. Well, all of that means investing in children.”

Now the federal government is expected to adopt an attitude that has taken hold among some employers. In this view, programs that support all families will enhance America’s long-term productivity and competitiveness. In the private sector, this approach has led to such policies as family leave, flex-time, job sharing and work-site child care.

Proponents expect that a wide-ranging legislative agenda encompassing health care, education, employment, urban aid and other issues involving children will receive favorable attention by the Clinton White House and the new Congress that convenes in January.

Proposals such as family leave, which affects all workers, and a proposed $1,000 tax credit for all families with children, regardless of income, typify the new mainstream approach. The tax credit is the centerpiece of the legislative agenda issued by the children’s commission on which Clinton served.

To some extent, this strategy appears to reflect a shrewd political calculation. The federal government’s most successful “safety net” programs tend to be those that are not limited to the disadvantaged. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are enormously popular in part because they provide benefits to all of the elderly, not just the poor.

On Capitol Hill, advocates for children’s causes are optimistic that many long-stalled measures may be enacted.

“It’s a whole new day,” said Kathy Bonk, co-director of the Communications Consortium, a lobbying group for children’s and family issues. “It’s not like we’re going to have a struggle to move this legislation. The Hill is primed.”

OUTLOOK: Despite this enthusiasm, the legislative proposals still face significant obstacles, not the least of which is cost. Many of these initiatives were opposed by the Ronald Reagan and Bush administrations on the grounds they were too expensive. While Clinton appears more receptive to them in principle, he has promised to simultaneously step up spending on public works and reduce the budget deficit during his first term, a combination that could affect funds for social programs.

“It’s going to be difficult to find money to fuel some of the more innovative ideas,” acknowledged Dr. Reed V. Tuckson, president of Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science and a children’s commission member. “There will still be a reluctance on the part of businesses, particularly small business, to support some of these measures.”

Even if funding were not a problem, many members of Congress may be reluctant to expand the scope of federal social programs. In the past, the legislative agenda of children’s advocates has been blocked in part by congressional conservatives who believe the government has no business interfering with family life.

Gary Bauer, who served as a domestic policy adviser in the Reagan White House and now runs the Family Research Council, has appealed to the incoming Administration to avoid the “big government knows best” approach to family issues. Bauer urged Clinton to “pursue a social agenda modeled more after the ‘parents know best’ philosophy.”

BACKGROUND: Both Clintons come with strong credentials in their advocacy of families and children.

As the state’s First Lady, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, which recommended changes to strengthen the accreditation standards for the state’s public schools. She served on a Southern Governors’ Assn. task force on infant mortality, and in 1977 founded Arkansas’ Advocates for Children and Families, which promotes parenting, health and education.

After a trip to Israel, where she read about a program that trains disadvantaged parents to teach their preschool children school skills, she introduced the idea to Arkansas.

In 1976, she joined the board of directors of the Children’s Defense Fund, an advocacy group devoted to the plight of poor and minority children.

The new Administration’s interest in improving the lot of children and families was underscored by Clinton’s appointment of Donna Shalala as secretary of health and human services. In accepting the job, which encompasses many health and social services programs affecting children, Shalala paid tribute to Hillary Clinton, whom she succeeded as chairwoman of the Children’s Defense Fund.

“We have spent most of our adult lives often together working to get this nation to understand that our future is inextricably tied to the health, welfare and education of our children and their families,” Shalala said. “I want her to know how proud and excited I am to have the opportunity to continue our work to ensure that no child is left behind.”

Some advocates acknowledge that the current euphoria may diminish, while the roadblocks faced by these programs will still be present.

“The level of optimism and hope is very high, but there are still significant obstacles,” said Tuckson, the university president. He paused, then added: “On the other hand, we all would have welcomed such a dilemma a year ago.”