School of Social Work



Florida International University

School of Social Work

SOW 6236 Social Welfare Policy and Services II

Fall Semester, 2022

|Instructor: |Richard Beaulaurier, Ph.D., M.S.W. |

|Telephone: |305-348-5876 |

|E-mail: |beau@fiu.edu (Note: put SOW 6236 in subject line); When possible, please send messages through Canvas. |

| Office Location: |AHC5 – 572 |

|Class Location: |CASE (ECS) 138 |

|Office Hours: |Immediately after class for two hours. Other times can be scheduled. |

|Website: | |

CATALOG DESCRIPTION

This course offers students the opportunity to gain in depth knowledge about social welfare policymaking processes and their impact on the social service delivery system.

COURSE PRE/CO-REQUIREMENTS

The Pre-requisite Course for SOW 6236 is:

SOW 5235: Social Welfare Policy and Services I and 2nd year MSW or advanced standing

COURSE DESCRIPTION

The course will consider social welfare policies in health, mental health, and substance abuse. Students will analyze the current social work delivery systems and consider the ramifications of reform proposals. Attention will be paid to the development and implementation of social welfare policies at the various governmental levels and the private sector. The course will examine the formation and delivery of health, mental health, and substance abuse services to various identifiable population subgroups (e.g. families, children, and the elderly).

EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

To provide students with the skills to:

1. Identify the social welfare policies that permit the development of health, mental health, and substance abuse social services with identifiable population subgroups (e.g., families, children, the elderly). (PBs 42, 56)

2. Critically analyze the efficacy of social service delivery systems. This includes making recommendations for policy-related changes that would improve the social welfare and health of disadvantaged populations. (PBs 42, 48, 49, 50, 57, 58, 59, 68)

3. Analyze and evaluate intended and unanticipated effects of social welfare policy on racial, ethnic, religious, disabled, and gay and lesbian client groups. (PBs 49, 50, 55)

4. Select and apply advanced social work research methods to establish the evidence base for appropriate social welfare policy for at risk population groups. (PB 51)

5. Synthesize research, policy, and practice to develop an approach for addressing a specific problem in service delivery affecting disadvantaged groups that is guided by professional standards and ethics. (PBs 43, 48)

CSWE Educational Policies and Practice Behaviors Related to Course Objectives, Learning Outcomes, and Assignments/Exams

The School of Social Work is fully accredited by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). Required courses in the curriculum must be compliant with CSWE’S Education Policies and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). Each course objective, learning outcome, and assignment/examination must be linked to educational policies and specific practice behaviors (PB). Each PB will be assessed in this course to ensure you are achieving competency. Below is a list of the educational polices and PB that are assessed in this course. The complete EPAS can be found in your student handbook.

|Core Competencies |Behaviors |Dimensions |Ed Objectives |Assignments |

|1 – Demonstrate Ethical |34. Understand and identify professional strengths, |Knowledge | |Discussion board |

|& Professional Behavior |limitations, and challenges. |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| |35. Apply ethical decision-making skills to issues |Skills |5 |Discussion board |

| |specific to clinical social work. |Values | | |

| |36. Recognize and manage personal biases as they |Knowledge | | |

| |affect the therapeutic relationship in the service of |Skills | | |

| |the clients’ well-being. |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| | |Values | | |

| |37. Engage in reflective practice and demonstrate |Skills |5 |Discussion board |

| |professional use of self with clients. |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| |38. Communicate professional clinical judgments in |Skills |5 |White paper |

| |oral, written, and electronic format. |Cognitive and | |Discussion board |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

|2 – Engage diversity and|39. Research historical contexts and intersectionality|Knowledge |1 |White paper |

|difference in practice |of clients’ identities. |Skills | |Issue paper |

| | |Values | |Discussion board |

| |40. Apply knowledge of diversity and differences to |Skills |2, 3, 4 |White paper |

| |enhance the effectiveness of clinical practice. |Values | |Discussion board |

| | |Knowledge | | |

| |41. Understand how sociocultural contexts influence |Knowledge |1 |Discussion board |

| |definitions of psychopathology, risk factors and |Values | | |

| |resilience. |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

|3 – Advance human rights|42. Use knowledge of the effects of oppression, |Knowledge |1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |White paper |

|and social, economic, |discrimination, and historical trauma on client and |Skills | |Issue paper |

|and environmental |client systems as well as the resilience of client and|Values | |Discussion board |

|justice |client systems to guide treatment planning and |Cognitive and | | |

| |intervention. |Affective Processes | | |

| |43. Apply advocacy strategies designed to eliminate |Skills |2, 3, 4, 5 |White paper |

| |oppressive structural barriers and promote equitable |Values | |Issue paper |

| |access to services and resources. |Knowledge | |Discussion board |

| | |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

|4 – Engage in |44. Use the evidence-informed process in clinical |Knowledge | | |

|research-informed |assessment and intervention with clients. |Skills | | |

|practice and | |Values | | |

|practice-informed | |Cognitive and | | |

|research | |Affective Processes | | |

| |45. Use research methodology to evaluate clinical |Knowledge |5 |White paper |

| |practice effectiveness and/or outcomes. |Skills | |Issue paper |

|5 – Engage in Policy |46. Advocate with and inform administrators and |Knowledge |2, 3, 5, |White paper |

|Practice |legislators to influence policies that affect clients |Values | |Issue paper |

| |and services. |Skills | | |

| | |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| |47. Communicate to stakeholders the implication of |Skills |2, 3, 5, |White paper |

| |policies and policy change in the lives of clients. |Knowledge | |Issue paper |

| | |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| | |Values | | |

|6 – Engage with |48. Develop a culturally responsive therapeutic |Skills | | |

|Individuals, Families, |relationship. |Values | | |

|Groups, Organizations, | | | | |

|and Communities | | | | |

| |49. Establish therapeutic relationship that encourages|Skills | | |

| |clients to be equal participants in the establishment |Cognitive and | | |

| |of treatment goals and expected outcomes. |Affective Processes | | |

| |50. Attend to the interpersonal dynamics and |Skills | | |

| |contextual factors that potentially impact the | | | |

| |therapeutic alliance. | | | |

|7 – Assess Individuals, |51. Use multidimensional bio-psycho social-spiritual |Knowledge | | |

|Families, Groups, |assessment theories and diagnostic classification |Skills | | |

|Organizations, and |systems in the formulation of comprehensive |Cognitive and | | |

|Communities |assessments. |Affective Processes | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |52. Identify and articulate clients’ strengths and |Knowledge |1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |White paper |

| |vulnerabilities while recognizing the role of |Skills | |Issue paper |

| |historical contexts and intersectionality of clients’ |Values | |Discussion boards |

| |identities. |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| |53. Assess clients’ readiness for change. |Skills | | |

| | |Values | | |

| | |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| |54. Assess clients’ coping strategies to reinforce and|Skills | | |

| |improve adaptation to life situations, circumstances, |Cognitive and | | |

| |and events. |Affective Processes | | |

| | |Values | | |

| |55. Select and modify appropriate intervention |Knowledge | | |

| |strategies based on continuous clinical assessment. |Skills | | |

| |56. Use differential diagnosis. |Skills | | |

| | |Knowledge | | |

| |57. Utilize knowledge of psychotropic medications that|Knowledge | | |

| |are typically used in treatment of mental health |Skills | | |

| |disorders including expected results and side effects.|Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| | |Values | | |

|8 – Intervene with |58. Critically evaluate, select, and apply best |Knowledge | | |

|Individuals, Families, |practices and evidence-informed interventions. |Skills | | |

|Groups, Organizations, | |Values | | |

|and Communities | |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

| |59. Demonstrate the use of appropriate clinical |Skills | | |

| |techniques for a range of presenting concerns |Values | | |

| |identified in the assessment, including crisis |Cognitive and | | |

| |intervention strategies as needed. |Affective Processes | | |

| |60. Collaborate with other professionals to coordinate|Skills | | |

| |treatment interventions. |Knowledge | | |

| |61. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of multiple |Skills | | |

| |theoretical perspectives and choose interventions that|Values | | |

| |are culturally responsive to clients’ identities and |Cognitive and | | |

| |situations. |Affective Processes | | |

|9 – Evaluate Practice |62. Use clinical evaluation to analyze and report |Skills | | |

|with Individuals, |treatment outcomes and apply evaluation findings to |Cognitive and | | |

|Families, Groups, |improve clinical practice. |Affective Processes | | |

|Organizations, and | | | | |

|Communities | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |63. Ensure that historical contexts and |Knowledge | | |

| |intersectionality of clients’ identities are |Values | | |

| |integrated in the evaluation process. |Cognitive and | | |

| | |Affective Processes | | |

Course Format: F2F

This course was originally conceived as a hybrid course with about half the class occurring asynchronous on-line, and half face-to-face in the classroom. The Face to Face version retains an asynchronous component of

readings, videos and discussion boards in Canvas.

Required and Recommended Texts/Materials

Required

There is one required text for this course:

Jansson, B. S. (2019). Social welfare policy and advocacy (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

(ISBN 9781506384061)

All other reading material will be provided to you. All or most will be available through the instructor’s website. Directions for accessing the site will be provided during the first session of class ().

COURSE ASSIGNMENTS

Policy Papers (70%) (PB 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 25, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 68):

Assignments are designed to monitor your understanding of the course material and to assist you with integrating reading material with what you learn through in-class lectures and discussions. As part of your final grade, you will have to hand in two papers that focus on a specific health policy area. These papers should be completed as follows:

• Health Issue Paper (30%): For this paper, you will write an 8-10 page paper on a health issue that requires or has required a policy response.

o This paper will be graded using the following equally weighted criteria:

▪ Inclusion of the historical background of the issue,

• You should focus on recent history to the extent possible. What has happened within the last few years that has made this topic important now? What are the recent developments that have led to this being an issue that we need to do something about now? Do not be tempted to go back to the beginning of time here. Decision makers are generally most interested in what actions, events or trends have given this issue urgency such that they need to act right away.

▪ Description of the current context of the issue

• What is being done to address the issue right now? What is making it worse? What are the factors in the present that decision makers will need to deal with to tackle this issues right now?

• Use statistics to document who and how people are effected. Answer questions about…

o Who is effected?

o How much are they effected?

o What is the trend? (And how bad or good will it get?)

▪ Identification of the stakeholders related to the issue.

• Who stands to gain by the present situation, and who will lose out if it changes?

• Who is suffering now and will stand to gain if the situation changes.

• What organized groups support changes? What organized groups oppose them?

• Who is it necessary to engage in order to create change on this issue?

• Focus on large, direct effects, particularly to organized groups.

• Who can policy makers rely on as support or opposition to any changes that might be proposed?

▪ Use of high quality citations to support the paper.

• No paper receives a good grade without peer reviewed sources.

• All papers that rely primarily on websites get a poor grade.

• News outlets can give an indication of who and what is important on an issue, but are a poor sources of fact. Old newspaper articles are a terrible source of fact. Generally they are not sufficient to site for fact.

• Only a few government and independent websites produce reports that are reasonable sources of fact, though generally not as good as peer reviewed journal articles. The instructor will discuss this in class, and provide examples of good and bad sites.

• Be very aware of what you read. Your value to decision makers is almost entirely based on the quality of information that you can provide.

• Health Policy White Paper (40%):

o A policy white paper is a persuasive essay that uses facts and logic to promote or oppose a policy or policy change. White papers are used by policy advocates as a clear statement of their position on why a policy should be implemented, changed or blocked. They are a tool for clearly articulating the desired policy, the reasons for it, and the opposition to it, as well as the advocate’s position. Thus, while it is expected that policy papers will take a position, it is also important that (a) the position they take be well reasoned, and (b) they be fair.

o Politicians generally have at least three questions when it comes to policy changes: (1) Why is this policy or policy change a good (or bad) idea. Who will be pleased with this policy or policy change, and why? Who will be unhappy with this policy change, and why.

o The quality of your white paper will be judged on the following criteria:

▪ Clear and concise statement of the policy or policy change that you support or oppose.

▪ The fairness of your reasoning

▪ The persuasiveness of your conclusion

▪ Quality of your facts and evidence

o Each of the four qualities above will be weighted equally in grading your white paper.

▪ Clarity:

A white paper is seeks the implementation of a new policy, a change in an existing policy or opposes such an implementation or change. You will need to be clear and specific about exactly what policy or change you favor or oppose. However, most policy issues are complex and easily jumbled with a lot of other issues that, while important, are not the main focus of your intended policy change. Clear papers keep the reader focused on the change that is proposed or opposed, without digressing or distracting with issues that are not the main focus.

▪ Fairness:

Most policies and policy changes are not perfect. Of course you need to clearly give the reasons for your viewpoint. What is more difficult, is explaining the logic of the people who oppose your viewpoint. Even the best policies have arguments against them as well as arguments for them. In most cases you will be arguing that on balance policies you advocate for are good ideas and those you oppose are bad ideas. Beyond that elected officials represent ALL of their constituents, not just the ones who agree with you. Fairness means that you show why someone might oppose a policy you favor or favor a policy you oppose, and why this position seems reasonable them. It is critical to policy makers to know all sides of the issue.

▪ Persuasiveness:

On most issues there are three kinds of people: (1) the kind that are totally in favor of your viewpoint, (2) the kind that are totally opposed to your viewpoint and (3) the kind that could be persuaded either way. Your whitepaper targets this last group. The main question in persuasiveness is whether an open minded reader, after reading your paper, is likely to be persuaded to adopt your viewpoint. To persuade the reader your logic needs to be clear, and lead to your viewpoint as a clear conclusion. It also has to be timely. There is an old saying that “no one invests in a sinking ship.” It does not matter how clear your logic, nor how compelling your argument if you cannot show that there is sufficient support for your viewpoint to carry.

▪ Quality:

No matter how good your reasoning your argument will fall apart if your evidence is questionable. Use facts and figures, and get them from the best possible, and most recent sources. Accurately cite your sources. Avoid polemic sources. Do not use websites as sources.

o White papers are generally concise. Papers longer than 15 pages will not be accepted.

o You will be asked to submit a hard copy and an electronic copy (email is acceptable for the electronic copy) by the beginning of class on the due date.

o See the suggested outline for the Policy White Paper at the end of this syllabus. There are other formats that will work for the white paper, but the suggested outline should help you achieve the four graded criteria of clarity, fairness, persuasiveness and quality.

Policies or policy changes that you oppose or support may be taken from any of the following areas:

| | |

|Long-term care |Substance abuse (tobacco, alcohol, licit or illicit drugs) |

|Health insurance |Health issues affecting a specific population (children, homeless, elderly, |

|Obesity |GLBT, etc.) |

|Hunger |Other policy area (must be approved by instructor) |

|HIV/AIDS | |

|Immigration | |

Discussion Boards (20%) (PB 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 25, 42, 48, 55, 58):

Students must make two comments about the readings or other materials (e.g. videos) assigned for that week. A question may be substituted for a comment. Students must also make comments on at least two other students’ posts on the discussion board for that week. To receive full points student must do the above on at least 12 discussion boards by 11:59 PM the night before a scheduled class.

Note: It is perfectly acceptable to indicate that you like or dislike an article or a comment, or that you agree or disagree. However, that is not a sufficient response unless you clearly say why.

Class Participation (10%):

The course relies heavily on the participation of class members and the quality of discussion. To receive full credit for class participation you must:

• be present for the full class sessions.

• participate in synchronous class discussion and other class activities.

• To receive full points students must be present for at least 10 synchronous class sessions

Expectations for Discussion and Participation

Many of the topics for this class are controversial. So much so that students, their families or their clients may have directly benefitted or suffered under policies that will be discussed. Students may well have a range of knowledge, emotion and opinions regarding policy topics. For these reasons it is imperative that students remain respectful in discussion. Please use the following guidelines

• Consider all viewpoints welcome—particularly those that differ from your own.

• Keep discussion respectful

• Avoid logical fallacy especially ad hominem

• Whenever possible, use facts to make your case.

• Be prepared to cite your sources

• Be prepared to say why you hold an opinion

There is no expectation that you will have opinions that are the same as the instructor or other students in the class. However, you will be expected to clarify the reasoning behind your opinion. As a citizen you are entitled to your opinion. As a professional, however, you will be expected to have opinions that are based on sound reasoning, fact and the best available evidence.

General expectations and policies specific to your assignments:

• Late Assignments: An assignment/take-home exam is late if it is not submitted on the due date at the beginning of class. One half grade point will be deducted for late assignments.

• Assignments will stress critical thinking and writing. Your work should reflect original ideas and concepts that you can explain and justify based on the material presented in the course. An assignment that consists mostly of cut and pasted material from other authors will be considered plagiarism .

• Assignments are to be grammatically correct, free from typographical errors, and consist of language that is appropriate for a college-level assignment (no slang, cursing, etc.).

• Students found to have cheated and/or plagiarized will receive an F for the assignment and/or course. This includes, but is not limited to:

o Submitting an assignment completed (partially or entirely) by someone other than you.

o Completing an assignment for someone else to submit as their own work.

o Using someone else’s ideas and/or arguments without giving him or her adequate credit.

o Obtaining or providing assistance on academic work that is expected to be completed independently.

o Reporting false data or information.

• For help with the above guidelines you may want to consult the readings section of the instructor’s website.

Calculation of Final Grade

The instructor uses a spreadsheet to calculate the final grade. All assignments are converted to grade points on a four point scale exactly like the one FIU uses to calculate your grade point average.

Grade points: 

 

|A |4.00 |B- |2.67 |D+ |1.33 |

|A- |3.67 |C+ |2.33 |D |1.00 |

|B+ |3.33 |C |2.00 |D- |0.67 |

|B |3.00 |C- |1.67 |F |0.00 |

The grade points for each assignment are weighted by the percentage they are worth of the final grade. Thus if a student had 8+ grade for summaries, 8+ grades for participation, a 3.5 grade on the first paper, and a 3.8 grade on the final paper, the final grade for this student would be calculated as follows:

(4 x .1) + (4 x .2) + (3.5 x .3) + (3.8 x .4) = 3.77

Since 3.77 is closer to 3.67 than to 4, this student would receive an A- for the course.

To calculate participation and summary scores lower than 8, the instructor calculates percentages and then assigns the appropriate grade point, using the standard university conversion:

|A |93-100 |B- |80-82 |D+ |67-69 |

|A- |90-92 |C+ |77-79 |D |64-66 |

|B+ |87-89 |C |73-76 |D- |60-63 |

|B |83-86 |C- |70-72 |F |59 & below |

Thus:

8+ = 100%, an A translates to 4.00

7+ = 88%, a B+ translates to 3.33

6+ = 75%, a C translates to 3.00

5+ = 63%, A D- translates to 0.67

Anything below 5+ receive a 0.

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS

The instructor will abide by the University’s policies on religious holidays as specified in the University Catalogue and the Student Handbook. Any student may request to be excused from class to observe a holiday of his or her faith.

DISABILTY

If there are any adjustments to the course that you feel would be helpful to accommodate your disability, please discuss them with the instructor.

RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY

The instructor intends this class to be a safe space for all students regardless of their disability, mental health status, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, religion, language, ethnicity, race or culture. We will discuss these issues frankly and openly in class. However, all discussion should be characterized by respect for the differences of others and an openness to learning.

Tentative Class Schedule and Topics

|week |Module |Class Topic |Readings or other Materials |

| |Section I: Health, Health Policy, and Health Care |

|1 | |Course Orientation and format |Introduce students to format and resources for the course. |

|2 |1 |Introduction |Review legislative policy making from first year policy course. |

| | |~ Basic Policy Concepts |View Youtube Videos |

| | |~ American Government | |

| | |~ Policy Arenas | |

|3 |2 part 1 |U.S. Health Policy and Services |Jost, T. S. (2012). An Affordable Care Act at Year 5. Journal of the |

| | |~ Types of health policies |American Medical Association, 313(17), 1709-1710. |

| | |~ Official actors in the policymaking process |Mariner, W. K., Glantz, L. H., & Annas, G. J. (2012). Reframing Federalism:|

| | |~ Setting the agenda for health policy |The Affordable Care Act (and Broccoli) in the Supreme Court. New England |

| | | |Journal of Medicine, 367(12), 1154-1158. |

| | | |Mortimer, D., & Peacock, S. (2012). Social welfare and the Affordable Care |

| | | |Act: Is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost? Social Science & |

| | | |Medicine, 75, 1156-1162. |

|4 |2 part 2 |Context and Issues in U.S. Health Policy and |Olson, L. K. (2015). The Affordable Care Act and the Politics of the |

| | |Services |Medicaid Expansion. New Political Science, 37(3), 295-320. |

| | |~Managed health care services |Soubly, D. M., (2017). ‘Through the lens of advocacy’: |

| | |~SW and health |Will the Affordable Care Act ‘explode’ from executive action?. Benefits Law|

| | |~ Policy making in the U.S. |Journal, 30(4), 55-81. |

| | | |Rulli, T., Emanuel, E. J., & Wendler, D. (2012). The Moral Duty to Buy |

| | | |Health Insurance. Journal of the American Medical Association, 308(2), |

| | | |137-138. |

| | | |Andrews, C. M., Darnell, J. S., McBride, T. D., & Gehlert, S. (2013). |

| | | |Social work and implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Health and |

| | | |Social Work, 38(2), 67-71. |

|5 |2 part 3 |Advocacy and Modifying Health Policy |Jansson Chapter 7 |

| | |~ Analyzing policy |Eversman, M. H., & Bird, J. D. P. (2017). Moral panic and social justice: A|

| | |~ Modifying policy |guide for analyzing social problems. Social Work, 62(1), 29-36. |

| | |~ Lobbying and social work |Wilson, C. E.,. (2017). Repealing the Affordable Care Act essential helath |

| | | |benefits: Threats and obstacles. American Journal of Public Health, 107(8).|

| | | |1225-1226. |

| | | |McMorrow, S. (2021). Stabilizing and strengthening the Affordable Care Act:|

| | | |Opportunities for a new administration. Journal of Health Politics, Policy |

| | | |and Law, 46(4), 549-562. |

| |Section II: Special Topics in Social and Health Policy Advocacy |

|6 |3 |Comparative Health Care Policy |Eissler, L. A., & Casken, J. (2013). Seeking Health Care Through |

| | |~ Influences of health care systems |International Medical Tourism. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 45(2), |

| | |~ International issues in health care |177-184. |

| | | |Okma, K. G. H., & Marmor, T. R. (2013). Comparative studies and healthcare |

| | | |policy: learning and mislearning across borders. Clinical Medicine, 13(5), |

| | | |487-491. |

| | | |McNeil, D. D. (2010, June 4). A poor nation, with a health plan, The New |

| | | |York Times. |

|7 | |Discussion of Final Paper | |

|8 |4 |Advocacy for Racial and Ethnic Justice |Rahman, K. S., & Simonson, J. (2020). The institutional design of community|

| | | |control. California Law Review, 108(679-744). |

| | | |Poteat, T., Millett, G. A., Nelson, L. E., & Beyrer, C. (2020). |

| | | |Understanding COVID-19 risks and vulnerabilities among black communities in|

| | | |America: the lethal force of syndemics. Annals of Epidemiology, 47, 1-3. |

| | | |Michener, J. (2020). Race, politics, and the Affordable Care Act. Journal |

| | | |of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 45(4), 547-566 |

| | | |Acting President Jessell Memo on HB 7 |

|9 |5 |Advocacy in Field of Aging |Jansson Chapter 8 |

| | | |Beaulaurier, R. L., & Taylor, S. H. (2001). Dispelling fears about aging |

| | | |with a disability: Lessons from the disability rights community. Journal of|

| | | |Gerontological Social Work, 35(2), 81-98. |

| | | |Koenig, T.L., Chapin, R., & Spano, R. (2010). Using multidisciplinary teams|

| | | |to address ethical dilemmas with older adults who hoard. Journal of |

| | | |Gerontological Social Work, 53(2), 137-147. |

| | | |Wolfe, M., Carmody, J., Wexler, N., Fulmer, T., & Gracia, J. N. (2022). The|

| | | |positive impact of public health engagement in healthy aging during the |

| | | |COVID-19 pandemic. Generations, 46(1), 2694-5126. |

|10 |6 |Advocacy In the Childern and Families Sector. |Jansson Chapter 11 |

| | | |Vesneski, W., Killos, L., Pecora, P. J., & McIntire, E. (2017). An analysis|

| | | |of state law and policy regarding subsidized guardianship for children: |

| | | |Innovations in permanency. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, 21,|

| | | |26-75. |

| | | |Okpych, N. (2012). Policy framework supporting youth aging-out of foster |

| | | |care through college: Review and recommendations. Child and Youth Services |

| | | |Review, 34, 1390-1396. |

|11 |7 |Advocacy in the Field of Immigration |Jansson Chapter 13 |

| | | |Haselswerdt, J. (2022). Who benefits? Race, immigration and assumptions |

| | | |about policy. Political Behabior, 44, 271-318. |

| | | |Kocher, A. (2017). The new resistance: Immigrant rights mobilization in an |

| | | |era of Trump. Journal of Latin American Geography, 16(2), 165-171. |

| | | |PBS Frontline: Immigration Battle, October 20, 2015 (online video) |

| | | | |

|12 |8 |Advocacy in the Social Safety Net Sector and |Jansson Chapter 9 |

| | |LGBTQ issues |Quinn, G. P., & Sutton, S. K. (2015). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, |

| | | |Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) Perceptions and Health Care Experiences. Journal |

| | | |of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 27, 246–261. |

| | | |Daniel, H., & Butkus, R. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender |

| | | |health disparities: Executive summary of a policy position paper from the |

| | | |American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 163, 135-137. |

| | | |Meyer, I. H., & Bayer, R. (2013). School-based gay-affirmative |

| | | |interventions: First amendment and ethical concerns. American Journal of |

| | | |Public Health, 103(10), 1764-1771. |

|13 |9 |Advocacy in the Field of Substance Abuse |Abraham, A. J., Andrew, C. M., Grogan, C. M., D’Aunno, T., Humphreys, K. |

| | | |N., Pollack, H. A., & PeterD.Friedman. (2017). The Affordable Care Act |

| | | |transformation of substance use disorder treatment. American Journal of |

| | | |Public Health, 107(1), 31-32. |

| | | |Wen, L. S., Behrle, E. B., & Tsai, A. C. (2017). Evaluating the impact of |

| | | |Affordable Care Act repeal on America’s opioid epidemic. PLOS Medicine, |

| | | |14(8), 1-4. |

| | | |Kolodny, A., & Frieden, T. R. (2017). Ten steps the federal government |

| | | |should take now to reverse the opioid addiction epidemic. Journal of the |

| | | |American Medical Association, 218(16), 1537-1538. |

|14 | |Discussion |

|15 | |Health policy paper is due. |

Bibliography/Suggested Readings

Andersen, R. M., Rice, T. H. & Kominski, G. F. (Eds.) (2007). Changing the U.S. Health Care System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baggett, T.P., O’Connell, J.J., Singer, D.E., & Rigotti, N.A. (2010). The unmet health care needs of homeless adults: A national study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1326-1333.

Barusch, A. S. (2009). Foundations of Social Policy, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Bernick, E. M. & Myers, N. (2008). Treatment or placebo: Are state programs decreasing the proportion of uninsured? The Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 367-384.

Bhavsar, V. (2008). Globalization: Mental health and social economic factors. Global Social Policy, 8(3), 378-396.

Blank, R. H. & Burau, V. (2007). Comparative health policy, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Bookman, M. Z. & Bookman, K. R. (2007). Medical tourism in developing countries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Broom, A. & Tovey, P. Men’s health: Body, identity and social context (pp. 9-32). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brownell, K. D. & Horgen, K. B. (2004). Food fight. The inside story of the food industry, America’s obesity crisis, and what we can do about it. New York: Contemporary Books.

Budrys, G. (2005). Our unsystematic health care system. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Burton, S., et. al. (2006). Attacking the Obesity Epidemic: The Potential Health Benefits of Providing Nutrition Information in Restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1669-75.

Cassady, D., et. al. (2006). The power of policy: A case study of healthy eating among children. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1570-71.

Chae, D.H., Lincoln, K.D., Adler, N.E., & Syme, S.L. (2010). Do experiences of racial discrimination predict cardiovascular disease among African American men? The moderating role of internalized negative racial group attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 1182-1188.

Chandra, A., Gruber, J., & McKnight, R. (2011). The importance of the individual mandate – Evidence from Massachusetts. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(4), 293-295Corrigall, J. (2008). Global trade and mental health. Global Social Policy, 8(3), 335-358.

Druss, B. G., & Bornemann, T. H. (2010). Improving health and health care for persons with serious mental illness: The window for US federal policy change. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(19), 1972-1973.

Engel, J. (2006). Poor people’s medicine. Medicaid and American charity care since 1965. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Freudenberg, N., Daniels, J., & Crum, M. (2005). Coming Home From Jail: The Social and Health Consequences of Community Reentry for Women, Male Adolescents, and Their Families and Communities. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1725-36.

Frone, M. (2006). Prevalence and Distribution of Alcohol Use and Impairment in the Workplace: A U.S. National Survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(1), 147-56.

Gard, M. & Wright, J. (2005). The obesity epidemic. New York: Routledge.

Graham, H. (2007). Unequal lives. Health and socioeconomic inequalities. New York: Open University Press.

Grant, J. (2009). A profile of substance abuse, gender, crime, and drug policy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(8), 654-668.

Harley, D. A., Donnell, C. & Rainey, J. A. (2003). Interagency collaboration: Reinforcing professional bridges to serve aging populations with multiple service needs. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69(2), 32-37.

Hopkins, L., Labonté, R., Runnels, V. & Packer, C. (2010). Medical tourism today: What is the state of existing knowledge? Journal of Public Health Policy, 31(2), 185-198.

Hughes, D., Ullery, B.W., & Barie, P.S. (2008). The contemporary approach to the care of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 65(1), 237-247.

Iris, M., Ridings, J. W. & Conrad, K. J. (2010). The development of a conceptual model for understanding elder self-neglect. The Gerontologist, 50(3), 303-315.

Kane, R. L. & Kane, R. A. (2001). What older people want from long-term care, and how they can get it. Health Affairs, 20(6), 114-127.

Koenig, H. G. (2008). Medicine religion and Health. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Marmot, M. & Wilkinson, R. G. (2006). Social Determinants of Health. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

McBride, D. C., Terry-McElrath, Y., Harwood, H., Inciardi, J. A. & Leukefeld, C. (2009). Reflections on Drug Policy. Journal of Drug Issues, 39(1), 71-88.

Moniz, C. & Gorin, S. (2010). Health and mental health care policy. A biopsychosocial perspective, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Moore, V. R. & Miller, S. D. (2007). Coping resources: Effects on the psychological well-being of African American grandparents raising grandchildren. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 27(3/4), 137-148.

Morgenstern, J., & Blanchard, K. (2006). Welfare Reform and Substance Abuse Treatment for Welfare Recipients. Alcohol Research & Health, 29(1), 63-67.

Nelson, J. (2003). Women of color and the reproductive rights movement. New York: New York University Press.

Nichter, M. (2008). Global health. Why cultural perception, social representations, and biopolitics matter. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.

Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2007). Politics, policy, and the motivations for advocacy in nonprofit reproductive health and family planning providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 5-21.

Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2007). The impact of program design on enrollment in state children's health insurance programs. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 23-35.

O’Connel, J. J. et al., (2010). The Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program: A public health framework. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1400-1408.

Polsky, D., Sochalski, J., Aiken, L. H. & Cooper, R. A. (2007). Medical Migration to the U.S. Trends and Impacts. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics.

Ramos, B. M., Jurkowski, J., Gonzalez, B. A. & Lawrence, C. (2010). Latina women: Health and healthcare disparities. Social Work in Public Health, 25(3) 258-271.

Ross, D. C. (2007). Medicaid documentation requirement disproportionately harms non-Hispanics, new state data show: Rule mostly hurts U.S. citizen children, not undocumented immigrants. Washington D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rosser, S. V. (2009). Diversity and women’s health. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rudolph, K., Standish, S. Amesty, N.D. Crawford, R.J. Stern, W.E. Badillo, A. Boyer, D. Brown, N. Ranger, J.M. Garcia Orduna, L. Lasenburg, Sarah Lippek, and C.M. Fuller. (2010). A community-based approach to linking injection drug users with needed services through pharmacies: An evaluation of a pilot intervention in New York City. AIDS Education and Prevention, 22(3), 238-251.

Ruggiano, N. (2012). Consumer direction in long-term care policy: Overcoming barriers to promoting older adults’ opportunity for self-direction. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55(2), 146-159.

Schonfeld, L., King-Kallimanis, B., Duchene, D., Etheridge, R., Herrera, J., Barry, K., & Lynn, N.. (2010). Screening and Brief Intervention for Substance Misuse Among Older Adults: The Florida BRITE Project. American Journal of Public Health, 100(1), 108-14.

Scriven, A. & Garman, S. (2007). Public health: Social context and action. New York: Open University Press.

Seccombe, K., Hartley, H., Newsom, J., Hoffman, K. Marchand, G. C., Albo, C., Gordon, C., Zaback, T., Lockwood, R. & Pope, C. (2007). The Aftermath of Welfare Reform: Health, Health Insurance, and Access to Care Among Families Leaving TANF in Oregon. Journal of Family Issues, 28(2), 151-181.

Slayter, E. M. (2010). Disparities in access to substance abuse treatment among people with intellectual disabilities and serious mental illness. Health & Social Work, 55(1), 49-59.

Smart, J.F. & Smart, D.W. (2006). Models of Disability: Implications for the Counseling Profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 29-40.

Sowers, K. M. & Rowe, W. S. (2007). Social work practice and social justice. From local to global perspectives. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Stolberg, S. G. (2010, April 16). Obama Alters Hospital Rules for Gay Rights. The New York Times.

Strax, T. E. et al., (2010). Aging and developmental disability. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 21(2), 419-427.

Swett, E. A. & Bishop, M. (2003). Mental health and the aging population: Implications for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69(2), 13-18.

Torrone, E. A., Levandowski, B. A., Thomasa, J. C. Isler, M. R. & Leone, P. A. (2010). Identifying Gaps in HIV Prevention Services. Social Work in Public Health, 25(3), 327–340.

Varma, M. K., Satterthwaite, M. L., Klasing,A. M., Shoranick, T., Jean, J., Barry, D., Smith Fawzi, M. C., McKeever, J. & Lyon, E. (2008). Wòch nan soley: The denial of the right to water in Haiti. Health and Human Rights, 10(2), 76-89.

Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. (2010). Will Increasing Alcohol Availability By Lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Decrease Drinking and Related Consequences Among Youths? American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 986-92.

World Health Organization. (2002) Dying for change. Poor people’s experience of health and ill-health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Yamin, A. E. (2009). Shades of dignity: Exploring the demands of equality in applying human rights frameworks to health. Health and Human Rights, 11(2), 1-18.

Young, V. D. & Reviere, R. (2006). Women behind bars. Gender and Race in U.S. Prisons. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Oberlander, J. (2003). The politics of health reform: why do bad things happen to good plans?. Health Affairs, W3, 391-404.

Cook, D.M. (2009). The Politics of Smoking in Federal Buildings: An Executive Order Case Study. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1588-1595.

Okie, S. (2005). Medical marijuana and the Supreme Court. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(7), 648-651.

Enthoven, A. C., & Fuchs, V. R. (2006). Employment-based health insurance: Past, present, and future. Health Affairs, 25(6), 1538-1547.

Hoffman, B. (2003). Health care reform and social movements in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 93(1), 75-85.

Sox, H. C., (2008). Achieving a high-performance health care system with universal access: What the United States can learn from other countries. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148(1), 55-75.

Hernandez, M., & Fultz, S. L. (2006). Barriers to health care access. In M. D. Shankle (Ed.) The Handbook of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Health. Binghampton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Anderson, L. S. (2009). Adding Players to the Game: Parentage Determinations When Assisted Reproductive Technology is Used to Create Families. Arkansas Law Review, 62, 29-56.

Suggested Outline for Policy White Paper

FIU SOW 6236

Who am I writing for?

Your target audience is an elected official who is about to make a decision regarding a policy issue that is important to you. You can assume a certain level of governmental knowledge, but it is your job to fully brief the official so that they can make a well informed choice.

Format:

Summary:

A one paragraph description of the policy issue and a summary of your recommendation.

Why is this so important? What should be done about it?

Current Situation

The development of this policy issue, within a historical, political and factual framework.

Describe the issue in detail and then give the reader some background. How long have people been working on this? Who is involved in this issue? What has been tried already? What is currently being done about it?

Proposed changes

An outline of the policy options which are being discussed.

What actions are being discussed (or enacted) to address this problem? Lay the options out, one by one, with a brief, un-biased description.

Effect of proposed changes

An outline of the policy options which are being discussed.

How will each of the options change things? Will they work? Why or why not? Use studies and statistics (the best available factual information) to back up your case.

Political Implications

A discussion of groups or individuals who are in support or in opposition.

Who loves it? Who hates it? Why do they take these positions? Is there a compromise that might make everyone content? What will happen to the politician(s) you are trying to influence if they choose one side or the other? Who will they befriend? Who will they antagonize?

Fiscal Impact

A presentation of the potential costs and/or revenues which are associated with the policy issue.

How much will this cost? Where will it come from? Who will paying for it or lose budget as a result of it? What kind of secondary consequences are there for doing or NOT doing a particular option?

Recommended Action

Your recommendation to the policy maker about this issue.

What should we do? Why?

Length:

Maximum of 15 pages.

References:

Cite in proper APA format. The reference page does not count toward the page total.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download