When power shifts, how can we ensure families aren’t forgotten in the shuffle? The answer, according to new election exit polling from Ascend at the Aspen Institute, is to leverage two-generation (2Gen) approaches to well-being.
Two-generation (2Gen) approaches build family well-being by intentionally and simultaneously working with children and the adults in their lives together. Drawing on 12 years of bipartisan polling during presidential and midterm elections, Ascend at the Aspen Institute, with polling partners Lake Research Partners and The Tarrance Group, showed that while America is becoming increasingly polarized, support for 2Gen approaches for families remains a unifying source of “common ground” for voters.
On November 21st, Ascend at the Aspen Institute hosted a conversation, Public Support for a 2Gen Approach: 2024 Exit Polling Illuminates Common Ground to Support Families, to explore voters’ attitudes towards a two-generation (2Gen) approach to family well-being and how exit polling data can inform policy, systems change, and practice.
Aspen Institute Vice President and Ascend Executive Director Anne Mosle spoke with bipartisan pollsters Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners and Brian Nienaber of The Tarrance Group, as well as Ascend Parent Advisor and Clark County School Board Trustee Elect Tameka Henry. The panel offered three key takeaways for policymakers, practitioners, and funders working to support America’s families during this period of transition:
- Leverage 2Gen as common ground: nearly three-quarters (73%) of voters – including 95% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans – agree that if we want to make sure children in families with low incomes are successful in their early learning, then we have to also invest in their parents’ economic well-being. Developing policies and programs that target both early learning and parental financial success can gain support across the aisle: an immense opportunity for continuing and creating an agenda that elevates family well-being.
- Choose policy priorities that resonate: four clear policy areas resonated with voters when it comes to families: helping children and adults in their lives get out of poverty (73%), investing in early learning and high-quality childcare (78%), ensuring families have access to mental and behavioral health support (77%) and helping build stability to keep families together and children out of child welfare systems (76%). However, the latter two priorities had more support from Republicans than the first two. Knowing which policy platforms to emphasize for different partisan audiences can help drive more effective policy and programmatic strategies.
- “Be the bright star”: Tameka Henry left us with a message of hope – that we all have an opportunity to hold a light for families when it feels like they have been left in the dark by shifting political priorities. Four-fifths (80%) of voters agreed that if we want policies that work better for families, we need different kinds of leaders than we have now making these decisions. At the same time, three-quarters (73%) of voters agree that if we want government-funded programs that serve families to run effectively and efficiently, we need to trust families and give them the flexibility to do what is right for their family. Advocates have a mandate from voters: to take bold action for families, as defined by families themselves. Policymakers and practitioners have the opportunity and responsibility to listen to, learn from, and most importantly, lead with families.
Insightful questions from our audience offered an additional opportunity to respond to the key concerns of practitioners and policymakers in communities across the country. Lake Research Partners and The Tarrance Group drew on the data to support Ascend in answering the most pressing queries that we did not have time for during the webinar.
What lessons can advocates of issues like child care, family leave, human services, and other 2Gen components take away from this election?
Solutions to the biggest challenges facing families are not going to come from Washington, DC, but from the communities where families live, play, and work. Advocates in communities should know there is a real opportunity to have conversations with elected leaders at the local, state, and federal level on these issues.
When having these conversations following November’s polarized election, advocates should be aware of the different priorities for Republicans and Democrats. Framing an agenda around, for example, implications for the economy for Republicans and climate justice for Democrats, will tap into the top-of-mind concerns for each group and land messages more effectively. Leaning on 2Gen as an area of bipartisan agreement can further spur support across the aisle.
Can you tell us more about the differences in response from voters when we say “helping children and the adults in their lives get out of poverty” vs. “helping children and their parents get out of poverty”. How does the nuance of adults, vs. parents, impact this work?
The reality of parenting today means that many adults – not just parents – often contribute to a child’s success. Voters may respond more to the more inclusive frame of “adults in their lives” over “parents” because they’re aware of how interconnected parents and children are with others. While both actions are a priority among Democrats, these voters are 11 points more likely to rate helping children and the adults in their lives get out of poverty as a top priority (64%) over helping children and their parents get out of poverty (53%). However, more research is needed to truly understand how and why voters make distinctions between parents and adults in this context.
How should organizations and leaders advancing 2Gen talk about racial disparities as important context for this work given the changing political environment?
Leaders and organizations can draw on shared values – such as 2Gen approaches – to navigate discussion on complex issues like racial disparities. While important to Democratic voters, racial disparity was not an issue that resonated with Republican voters, with whom the economy was a top priority.
Messaging can create common ground that works for both groups by combining race with economic impact to focus on potential for growth. Highlighting barriers put in place through laws, policies, and social norms, and concrete solutions to remove those barriers, can create cut-through on topics of race through other messages.
What are some recommendations that you have about sending accessible messages that stand for equity? And help convey solidarity for the specific populations who may suffer disproportionately as a result of the election outcome?
Similarly, equity messaging should open with a shared value and focus more on concrete solutions than framing the problem itself. As to the previous question, contextualizing an issue by priority area for each political group (e.g., the economy for Republican policymakers and voters) is an effective way to land such messages. Resources like Race-Class Narrative language is helpful to provide unifying language that brings people together rather than isolating one another.
