THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON SCHOOL OF …



THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

[pic]

Name: Diana Opollo, LMSW, PhD Student

Office Number: Social Work Building A Room: 311 (PhD Lounge)

Email Address: opollodiana@uta.edu (Best Contact Method)

Office Hours: Mondays 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm, other times by appointment.

SOCW 5303

Foundations of Social Policy & Services

Semester: Summer 2010

Class Time: Monday 6:00 pm to 9:20 pm

Class Location: Social Work Building A, Room: 308

The content of this course is consistent with the requirements of the CSWE Educational Policy and standards (EPAS) Section 4.4 for Social Policy:

4.4 Social Welfare Policy and Services

‘Programs provide content about the history of social work, the history and current structures of social welfare services, and the role of policy in service delivery, social work practice, and attainment of individual and social well-being. Course content provides students with knowledge and skills to understand major policies that form the foundation of social welfare; analyze organizational, local, state, national, and international issues in social welfare policy and social service delivery; analyze and apply the results of policy research relevant to social service delivery; understand and demonstrate policy practice skills in regard to economic, political, and organizational systems, and use them to influence, formulate, and advocate for policy consistent with social work values; and identify financial, organizational, administrative, and planning processes required to deliver social services’ CSWE EPAS pp9-10 Section 4.4.

Graduate Catalog Description SOCW 5303

SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY AND SERVICES

Examines how social goals are met by social welfare institutions. Conceptual schemes are developed for analyzing the structure of social welfare institutions and evaluating social welfare sub-systems. The social work profession also is examined in the context of the evolution and function of the contemporary American social welfare system.

This course is required as part of the foundation MSSW curriculum of all first-year students, prerequisite SOCW 5309 Professional Foundations of Social Work.

Detailed Description of Course Content:

This course introduces students to the foundations of Social Policy. Topics include: the history and current structures of social welfare services; the role of policy in service delivery, social work practice, and attainment of individual and social well being; comparative and international social welfare and other topics. Models for analyzing social welfare policy are introduced, and students apply these models to past policy decisions and current issues. The course emphasizes understanding of current developments in social welfare, including the neo-conservative perspective and the trend towards the privatization of social welfare services. Factors affecting the structure and dynamics of social welfare policies and services and the important role of the social work profession within that framework are identified. Course content builds on a liberal arts foundation and includes social philosophy, values and ethics, social and economic justice, oppression, diversity, populations at risk, and welfare as well-being. Critical thinking skills are emphasized and where available, the course employs an evidence informed practice approach.

Student Learning Outcomes:

By the end of the course, students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate skills of policy analysis, including evaluating social welfare policies and policy processes.

2. Identify and explain the values that underpin American society and social welfare policy.

3. Analyze the implications and applications of values in social policy and social work.

4. Evaluate historical influences in social welfare as they apply to contemporary issues in social welfare policies and services.

5. Critique, from a range of political perspectives, the impact of privatization and devolution of social welfare.

6. Assess how the social work profession influences and is influenced by social welfare policies and services.

7. Synthesize comparative and international perspectives on social welfare in performing policy analysis.

8. Apply the ethical mandates for social justice, advocacy and empowerment in social work, particularly as they relate to oppression, impoverishment, and populations at risk.

9. Research policy source materials using government documents and other sources.

10. Advocate for ethical and effective social policies.

11. Understand and evaluate social welfare policies and policy processes as they relate to diversity and at-risk populations.

The role of the instructor in this course is diverse, including such roles as lecturer, facilitator, a resource person, and a consultant to students. On the part of the student, active participation, independent learning, critical thinking including higher order thinking skills of; comparison, application, analysis, evaluation and synthesis of materials relating to policy issues, conscientious, thoughtful reading and effective library research are encouraged. Contributions to class discussions are essential for a fruitful and productive learning experience.

Required Textbooks and Other Course Materials:

Required

Karger, H. J. & Stoesz, D. (2010). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach, (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Recommended

Karger, H. J., Midgley, J., Kindle, P. & Brown, C. B. (Eds.). (2007). Controversial issues in social policy, (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

House Ways and Means Committee Green Book: This can be accessed at:

Hays, J.R. McPherson, R., & Hansen, V. (2006). Texas Law for the Social Worker: A Source Book. Austin and Houston TX. NASW Texas Chapter, Austin, TX and Bayou Publishing, Houston TX.

Descriptions of major assignments with due dates:

Students will be graded through written assignments, presentations, class participation, and class attendance. An overall grade will be based on the following areas:

I. Policy Analysis Paper (addresses student learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11)

30% of course grade

Due Monday August 2nd, 2010

Students will select the Social Policy analysis model presented and discussed in chapter 2 of your textbook by Karger & Stoesz (2010). You are required to apply the model to a Social Policy in your area of interest, experience or expertise, or to an area in which you want to gain more knowledge. Evaluate the policy according to the guidelines in the model selected. Library research is essential for this assignment, and you should start this assignment as early in the semester as possible and follow the library research guidelines given by Mr. John Dillard, Social Sciences Librarian.(In class session 2).

References should include federal or state laws and budgets; congressional records; federal or state statistics; government white papers; government pamphlets; academic journal articles; books; newspaper articles; and web site references. The paper should be 17-20 pages in length (excluding references) and include a minimum of 20 references

A grading rubric is presented below for your guidance. This will be discussed in detail in class and as questions arise throughout the semester. You are encouraged to engage in co-operative learning with classmates, share resources, and discuss your work with each other.

II. Policy Advocacy Assignment (addresses student learning outcomes 3, 6, 8, 10).

20% of course grade

Due Monday June 28th, 2010

As part of the policy sequence, students are required to undertake an advocacy assignment in this course. Students can do either one of the following assignments for course credit;

a. Write a letter to your Representative or Senator (State or Congressional). The letter should clearly identify a policy or piece of legislation, or issue you would like them to address in the upcoming session. The letter should demonstrate a carefully thought out, well framed and supported position giving references, statistics, and other reasons why you think the representative should support your request. For full points, you must also show a response from the Representative’s or Senator’s office since part of the assignment is learning how to access your Representative or Senator. Starting this assignment early in the semester is highly recommended.

b. Students may attend a City Council or Town Hall Meeting and write a report on your observations. Additional guidance will be given in class for this assignment.

c. Students are encouraged to be creative and to take initiative in finding an alternative advocacy activity that meets course goals 3, 6, 8, and 10 and must be pre-approved by the instructor.

III. Issues Debate Presentation (addresses student learning outcomes 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11).

Due Monday 07/12, 07/19, and 07/26

10% of course grade

Unlike your policy analysis paper, you do not have to follow the policy analysis model. However, you do have to include a comparison with another state, and another country. Students are encouraged to be creative and to build the best scholarly, research-based arguments for and against the Social Policy issue chosen. You can deliver this with a partner or individually utilizing a maximum of 20 minutes (10 minutes for pros and 10 minutes for cons). It is recommended that you use a PowerPoint presentation or an overhead projector in your oral presentation and provide handouts to the class. One good resource to consider is the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health and you can sign up for email alerts by sending an email to Hogg-Comm@austin.utexas.edu

Include the following points in your Issues Debate Oral Presentation

1) History of the Social Policy issue chosen utilizing scholarly, research-based content from peer-reviewed journal articles

2) An outline of presentation to include (PowerPoint, Overhead Projector, Handouts, or write on the blackboard).

3) Organization: Present points in support and in opposition of the Social Policy issue chosen in a rational, logical, and organized way.

4) Prepare a convincing presentation.

5) Compare the Social Policy issue of choice with another state, and another country e.g. Texas, New York, and Canada.

6) Include an advocacy and social change section.

7) References: Present all your references as handouts in APA format to share with the class.

8) Present both sides as convincingly as you can, even if you do not agree with the particular side of the argument you are presenting.

Note:

It is expected that most students will choose the same topic for both their policy analysis paper as well as their Issues Debate Oral Presentation. An example illustrating the differences between the two: A student chooses the topic on the privatization of Social Security in the U.S. In the policy analysis paper, the student follows the policy analysis model, and tries to weave in various issues and points of view in the paper in covering the policy analysis model. In the issue debate oral presentation, the student focuses on the best arguments (1, 2, 3, etc.) for and against (1, 2, 3, etc.) privatization of Social Security in the U.S. Again, you do not have to follow the policy analysis model in the issue debate oral presentation, but you need to include a comparison with another state and another country. Example: In support of privatization of Social Security, Chile has successfully privatized its Social Security system and has been successful for the following reasons, 1, 2, 3, compared to Texas and New York.

IV. Final Exam (addresses student learning outcomes 1 through 11)

30% of course grade

Due Monday 08/09/2010

A comprehensive final will be given at the end of the course to include multiple

choices, filling in the blanks, and short answer questions. A review will be given prior to the exam on Monday August 2nd, 2010.

V. Attendance and Class Participation (addresses student learning outcomes 1 through 11)

10% of course grade

Attendance and participation will be assessed throughout the duration of the course. Students are encouraged to be in attendance for each entire class period and to actively participate in class discussions. Participation of students is assessed through asking and answering questions posed in class, bringing in related materials from the news and other sources for discussion, and sharing resources with their peers.

Weighting of Assignments

|Assignment |Points |Due Date |Learning Outcomes |

|Policy Analysis Paper |30 points |August 2nd, 2010 |Learning outcomes |

| | | |(1,2,3,4,5,7,9,11) |

|Policy Advocacy Assignment |20 points |June 28th, 2010 |Learning outcomes |

| | | |(3,6,8,10) |

|Issues Debate Oral Presentation |10 points |July 12th, 19th,and 26th 2010 |Learning outcomes |

| | | |(2,3,4,6,7,9,11) |

|Final Exam |30 points |August 9th, 2010 |Learning outcomes |

| | | |(I-11) |

|Attendance/ Participation |10 points |Assessed throughout the duration |Learning outcomes |

| | |of the class |(1-11) |

|Total Possible Points |100 points | | |

Guidelines for Policy Analysis Paper and other assignments:

See grading rubric below.

|Assessment Rubric for Policy Analysis |

| | | | | |

|Topic |Unsatisfactory |Marginal |Proficient |Exemplary |

| |(Fail) |(C Grade) |(B grade) |(A Grade) |

| | | | | |

|Model for policy analysis |Model not identified or |Weak rationale for |Model for analysis is |Choice and use of model |

| |followed; not all steps or |model or model chosen |appropriate, explained, |for policy analysis adds |

| |sections included; errors in |is a poor choice for |and followed. Each step |to the student’s and the |

| |logic |the selected policy; |or section is developed; |reader’s understanding of |

| | |model chosen is only |logic is clear. Analysis |the policy and its |

| | |superficially and |is good but not fully |outcomes; each step or |

| | |selectively followed; |comprehensive |section is thorough and |

| | |logic is weak or | |thoughtful and exceeds |

| | |unclear | |expectations; analysis is |

| | | | |thorough; logic and |

| | | | |critical thinking are |

| | | | |evident |

| | | | | |

| | | | |9-10 points |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | |7-8 points | |

| | |5-6 points | | |

|10 assigned points | | | | |

| |0-4 points | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Very brief, no references, |The facts are presented|Good research, good |Comprehensive and |

|The social |shows little understanding of |accurately, but few |facts, good analysis. |extensively researched and|

|issues/problems and the |the complexity of the problem. |references are used. A |References are accurate |referenced from a wide |

|historical background of |Descriptive and uses mostly |linear rather than |and from a range of |range of sources. Analysis|

|the policy |textbook as a source. |complex appreciation of|sources. Analysis relies |includes ideas not |

| | |the issues is evident. |mostly on class materials|available from assigned |

| | |More descriptive than |and written sources. |sources. A well |

| | |analytical. | |articulated and very well |

| | | | |informed perspective is |

| | | | |evident. |

| | | | |9-10 points |

| | |5-6 points |7-8 points | |

|10 assigned points | | | | |

| |0-4 points | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Relies heavily on the textbook |Presentation of the |Describes and discusses |Discusses the policy |

| |or agency handouts/websites and|policy is descriptive |the policy with a |referenced with a wide |

|Statement of the policy |produces a simple version of |with a limited range of|satisfactory range of |range of accompanying |

|and policy goals |the policy. |references. |references from different|government documents, peer|

| | | |sources. |reviewed articles and |

| | | | |other evidence. |

| | | | | |

| | | | |9-10 points |

|10 assigned points |0-4 points | |7-8 points | |

| | |5-6 points | | |

| |Very limited understanding of |Fair understanding of |Good understanding and |Demonstrates understanding|

|Discussion of major |interest groups involved. Not |interest groups |discussion including some|of the major interests at |

|interest groups involved |able to support with |demonstrated |analysis of the interest |work. Uses congressional |

|in this policy and related|references. | |groups and affected |or other similar |

|issues | | |parties involved. |legislative documentation |

| | | | |to evidence interest |

| | | | |groups. |

| | | | | |

| | | | |9-10 points |

|10 assigned points | | |7-8 points | |

| |0-4 points |5-6 points | | |

| | | | | |

|Discussion of Diversity, |No direct discussion of these |Superficial or passing |Significant and well |Very well informed |

|social justice and |topics |reference unsupported |supported discussion. |discussion, well supported|

|ethical interests | |by references | |by a range of references. |

| | | | | |

| | | | |9-10 points |

| | |5-6 points | | |

|10 assigned points | | |7-8 points | |

| |0-4 points | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Discussion demonstrates |

|Discussion of Policy |Relies heavily on textbook. |Adequate discussion |Good discussion and |analysis and synthesis of |

|outcomes |Largely descriptive work with |informed by some |analysis referenced with |materials from a wide |

| |no reference to unintended |broader reference to |evidence from research, |range of sources, and |

| |outcomes. |the literature |government or other data |applications and |

| | | |sets, and other |implications for practice |

| | | |literature. Adequately |of both intended and |

| | | |analysis of unintended |unintended outcomes |

| | | |outcomes (actual |(actual and intended |

| | | |and intent impact). |impact). |

| | | | | |

| | | |7-8 points | |

| | | | |9-10 points |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|10 assigned points |0-4 points |5-6 points | | |

|Global comparisons |Not included |Included in passing |Demonstrates good |Good analysis and |

| | |reference |research and knowledge of|consideration of |

| | | |comparative policy (ies) |applications and |

| | | |with a discussion that is|implications of a global |

| | | |adequately referenced |comparison or comparisons.|

| | | | | |

| | | |7-8 points |9-10 points |

|10 assigned points | | | | |

| | |5-6 points | | |

| |0-4 points | | | |

|Use of written language, |Obvious errors in grammar, |Substantially correct |Very few, if any, writing|Clear, lucid writing that |

|style, and citations |syntax, punctuation, and/or |writing, use of style, |errors; correct use of |adds to the reader’s |

| |spelling; inconsistent or |and citations. |style; accurate and |understanding of the |

| |incorrect use of writing style;|Adequate documentation |correct documentation of |topic; correct use of |

| |incorrect citations or |of sources Presentation|sources |style; accurate and |

| |references. Poorly presented |could be improved |Presentation meets |correct documentation of |

| |with no title page or | |expectations set out in |sources |

| |incomplete title page | |course outline. |Presentation exceeds |

| | | | |minimal requirements as |

| | | | |set out in course outline |

| | | | | |

| | | | |9-10 points |

| | |5-6 points |7-8 points | |

| |0-4 points | | | |

|10 assigned points | | | | |

|Grade is calculated by adding all points gained out of a total of 80 points available. |

Grading Policy:

The grade for work in this course is determined by the total points accrued in the five designated assignment areas, as outlined above. The semester grade is calculated as follows:

|Assignment |Percentage |Points |

|Policy Analysis Paper |30% |30 Points |

|Policy Advocacy Assignment |20% |20 Points |

|Issues Debate Presentation |10% |10 Points |

|Final Exam |30% |30 Points |

|Attendance and Class Participation |10% |10 Points |

|Total |100% |100 Points |

Course Grading Scale

|Letter Grade |Percentage |Total Points |

|A |90%-100% |90-100 points |

|B |80%-89% |80-89 points |

|C |70%-79% |70-79 points |

|D |60%-69% |60-69 points |

|F |0%- 59% |00-59 points |

CLASS SCHEDULE

|Week |Date |Topic |Assignments |

|1 |06/07/2010 |Social Policy and the American Welfare State |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 1 |

| | |Social Welfare Policy Research: A Framework for Policy Analysis |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 2 |

| | |Video: The Women of Hull House Harnessing | |

|2 |06/14/2010 |Guest Speaker: John Dillard “Key Library Sources in Social Welfare Policy”| |

| | |Guest Instructor: Consoler Teboh | |

| | |Religion and Social Welfare Policy | |

| | |Discrimination in American Society |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 3 |

| | | |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 4 |

|3 |06/21/2010 |Poverty in America |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 5 |

| | |The Voluntary Sector Today |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 6 |

|4 |06/28/2010 |Privatization and Human Service Corporations |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 7 |

| | |The Making of Governmental Policy |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 8 |

| | | |Policy Advocacy Assignment Due |

|5 |07/05/2010 |Tax Policy and Income Distribution |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 9 |

| | |Social Insurance Programs |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 10 |

|6 |07/12/2010 |Public Assistance Programs |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 11 |

| | |The American Health Care System |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 12 |

| | | |Issues Debate 1 |

|7 |07/19/2010 |Mental Health and Substance Abuse Policy |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 13 |

| | |Criminal Justice |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 14 |

| | | |Issues Debate 2 |

|8 |07/26/2010 |Child Welfare Policy |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 15 |

| | |Housing Policies |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 16 |

| | | |Issues Debate 3 |

|9 |08/02/2010 |The Politics of Food Policy and Rural Life |Karger & Stoesz Ch. 17 |

| | |The American Welfare State in International Perspective |Karger 7 Stoesz Ch. 18 |

| | | |Policy Analysis Paper Due |

| | |Final Exam Review | |

|10 |08/09/2010 |Final Exam | |

| | |Course Evaluations | |

| | |Wrap up | |

Written Assignments

Effective written communication skills are essential to professional social work practice. Students are therefore expected to present their ideas clearly and to adhere to accepted writing standards. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling are to be correct in all written submitted work and will be considered in grading written assignments.

All written assignments must be in 12-point Times New Roman font with 1 inch margin on all sides. A cover page and reference page(s) are not considered part of written text. Any work containing poor grammar may be returned without a grade. All written work should adhere to the APA style. It is the student’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the APA manual from the UTA bookstore, College Store, or from Amazon.

Students are also encouraged to utilize the UTA Writing Center located in the Central Library Room 411 for assistance in preparing written assignments. The Writing Center staff may be reached at phone: (817)-272-2601 or visit their website at

Late Assignments

All assignments are due before the start of class at 6:00 pm on the due date. Alternatively, those that are absent from class must turn in their assignments to the instructor’s mailbox before class at 6:00 pm on the due date (Turn in assignments to Room 201 in an envelope with your name, instructor’s name, and must have a date and time stamp). Assignments that are late will result in deduction of a full letter grade for each day they are late. No assignments will be accepted one week after the due date or after the last day of class, unless prior permission has been obtained from the instructor.

Attendance Policy:

Class attendance and participation are regarded as necessary for an optimal learning experience, and are an important part of the professional socialization process. I make this class top priority in my schedule and I request that you do the same and plan accordingly. Unexcused class absences will result in deduction of semester grade by 3 points for each absence. A sign-up sheet will be circulated at each class session.

Drop Policy:

If you choose to drop the class, you have the responsibility to complete the paperwork according to the University’s schedule. Not doing so may result in a failing grade.

Americans with Disabilities Act:

The University of Texas at Arlington is on record as being committed to both the spirit and letter of federal equal opportunity legislation; reference Public Law 92-112 - The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended. With the passage of federal legislation entitled Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is renewed focus on providing this population with the same opportunities enjoyed by all citizens.

As a faculty member, I am required by law to provide "reasonable accommodations" to students with disabilities, so as not to discriminate on the basis of that disability. Student responsibility primarily rests with informing faculty of their need for accommodation and in providing authorized documentation through designated administrative channels.  Information regarding specific diagnostic criteria and policies for obtaining academic accommodations can be found at . Also, you may visit the Office for Students with Disabilities in room 102 of University Hall or call them at (817) 272-3364.

Academic Integrity:

It is the philosophy of The University of Texas at Arlington that academic dishonesty is a completely unacceptable mode of conduct and will not be tolerated in any form. All persons involved in academic dishonesty will be disciplined in accordance with University regulations and procedures. Discipline may include suspension or expulsion from the University.

"Scholastic dishonesty includes but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission for credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to another person, taking an examination for another person, any act designed to give unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts." (Regents’ Rules and Regulations, Series 50101, Section 2.2)

Student Support Services Available:

The University of Texas at Arlington supports a variety of student success programs to help you connect with the University and achieve academic success. These programs include learning assistance, developmental education, advising and mentoring, admission and transition, and federally funded programs. Students requiring assistance academically, personally, or socially should contact the Office of Student Success Programs at 817-272-6107 for more information and appropriate referrals.

Final Review Week:

A period of five class days prior to the first day of final examinations in the long sessions shall be designated as Final Review Week. The purpose of this week is to allow students sufficient time to prepare for final examinations. During this week, there shall be no scheduled activities such as required field trips or performances; and no instructor shall assign any themes, research problems or exercises of similar scope that have a completion date during or following this week unless specified in the class syllabi. During Final Review Week, an instructor shall not give any examinations constituting 10% or more of the final grade, except makeup tests and laboratory examinations. In addition, no instructor shall give any portion of the final examination during Final Review Week. Classes are held as scheduled during this week and lectures and presentations may be given.

Librarian to Contact:

Name: John Dillard

Phone: (817) 272-7518,

E-mail: dillard@uta.edu,

Web Page:

Office Location: Social Work Building A: Room A-111.

Office Hours: Monday through Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm

E-Culture Policy:

The University of Texas at Arlington has adopted the University email address as an official means of communication with students. Through the use of email, UT-Arlington is able to provide students with relevant and timely information, designed to facilitate student success. In particular, important information concerning registration, financial aid, payment of bills, and graduation may be sent to students through email.

All students are assigned an email account and information about activating and using it is available at uta.edu/email. New students (first semester at UTA) are able to activate their email account 24 hours after registering for courses. There is no additional charge to students for using this account, and it remains active as long as a student is enrolled at UT-Arlington. Students are responsible for checking their email and are encouraged to do so regularly. Information regarding this course will be sent via the students’ UTA email address only.

Make-up Exam Policy:

No make-up exams will be given unless a true, verifiable, emergency exists at the time of the exam.

Grade Grievance Policy:

It is the obligation of the student, in attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, first to make a serious effort to resolve the matter with the individual with whom the grievance originated. Individual course instructors retain primary responsibility for assigning grades. The instructor's judgment is final unless compelling evidence shows discrimination or preferential treatment or procedural irregularities. If students wish to appeal, their requests must be submitted in writing on an appeal form which is available in departmental or program offices. The normal academic channels are: department chair or program director, and academic Dean. However, before considering a grievance, the department chair or program director will refer the issue to a departmental or program committee of graduate faculty. If the committee cannot reach a decision acceptable to the parties involved, the matter will follow the remaining academic channels. If students are dissatisfied with the chair or director's decision, they may appeal the case to the academic Dean.

Bibliography

To the student:

These titles are included to enable you to supplement your reading of the required texts. Do take the opportunity to read as widely as possible. You are not, of course, expected to read all of these, but you are expected to read some, as titles and subjects interest you. You may not wish to read whole books from this list, but to dip into them and ‘use’ them rather than read them from cover to cover. This list is not intended to replace a proper literature search in the library on your topic for your term paper. This bibliography consists of books and book chapters, that relate specifically to the subject matter of the program in this course, and which are recommended by the policy faculty. You will need to research your policy analysis topic thoroughly and include peer-reviewed journal articles, government documents, technical reports such as those published by various bodies of the United Nations, as well as books and book chapters such as these listed below.

General Introductory Texts on Social Policy

Bardach, E. (2009). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Barusch, A.S. (2009). Foundations of social policy: Social justice in human perspective (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Blau, J., & Abramovitz, M. (2010). The dynamics of social welfare policy. (3rd ed.).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, D. & Wedel, K. R. (2005). Social policy and social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

DiNitto, D.M., & Cummins, L.K. (2007). Social welfare: Politics and public policy (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Dolgoff, R., & Feldstein, D. (2009). Understanding social welfare: A search for social justice. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ginsberg, L. & Miller-Cribbs, J. (2005). Understanding social problems, policies, and Programs. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Jimenez, J. (2010). Social policy and social change: Toward the creation of social and economic justice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Kraft, M.E., & Furlong, S.R. (2010). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Marx, J. D. (2004). Social welfare: The American partnership. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (2009). The handbook of social policy. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Popple, P.R., & Leighninger, L. (2011). The policy-based profession: An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Segal, E.A. (2010). Social welfare policy and social programs: A values perspective. (2nd ed.).Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Van Wormer, K., (2006) Introduction to social welfare and social work: The U.S. in

global perspective. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole

History of Social Welfare

Abramovitz, M. (1996). Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare policy from colonial times to the present. Boston: South End Press.

Axinn, J. & Stern, M. J. (2005). Social welfare: A history of the American response to need, (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Day, P.J. (2006). A new history of social welfare. (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gilbert, N. & Parent, A. (Eds.). (2004). Welfare reform: A comparative assessment of the French and U.S. experiences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publs.

Jansson, B.S. (2005). The reluctant welfare state: American social welfare policies – past, present, and future, (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mink, G. & Solinger, R. (Eds.). (2003). Welfare: A documentary history of U.S. policy and politics. New York: New York University Press.

Mittelstadt, Jennifer (2005). From welfare to workfare: The unintended consequences of Liberal reform, 1945-1965. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press

Patterson, James T. (2000). America’s struggle against poverty, 1900-1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Policy Analysis

Chambers, D. E.  & Wedel, K. R. (2005). Social policy and social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2010). Dimensions of social welfare policy (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Meenaghan, T.M., Kilty, K.M. & McNutt, J.G. (2004). Social policy analysis and practice. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Poverty, Discrimination and Social Justice

Anderson, L. P., Sundet, P. A., & Harrington, I. (2000). The social welfare system in the United States: A social worker’s guide to public benefits programs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Anderson, S.K. & Middleton, V.A. (2005). Explorations in privilege, oppression and diversity. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole 2005.

Barnes, C. & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability.  Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Barry, B. (2005). Why social justice matters. Cambridge, UK. Polity Press.

Breger, M. J. (2003). Public policy and social issues: Jewish sources and perspectives. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Davis, K. E. & Bent-Goodley, T. B. (Eds.). (2004). The color of social policy. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Eitzen, D. S. & Smith, K. E. (2003). Experiencing poverty: Voices from the bottom. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Erenreich, B. (2001). Nickel & dimed: On (not) getting by in America. Henry Holt, Metropolitan Books.

Figueira-McDonough, J. (2007). The welfare state and social work: Pursuing social justice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Gilbert, N. (2002). Transformation of the welfare state: The silent surrender of public responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hudson, M. (1996). Merchants of misery. How corporate America benefits from poverty. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Karger, H. J., Midgley, J. & Brown, C. B. (2003). Controversial issues in social policy, (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Karger, H. J. (2004). Scamming the Poor: the Modern Fringe Economy. The Social Policy Journal. 3(1), 39-54.

Minton, H. L.  (2002). Departing from deviance: A history of homosexual rights and emancipatory science in America.   Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Quinn, P. (1998). Understanding disability: A lifespan approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rank, M.R. One nation, underprivileged: Why American poverty affects us all. New York: Oxford University Press.

Secombe, K. (2007). So you think I drive a Cadillac? Welfare recipients' perspectives on the system and its reform, (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schiller, B. (2004). The economics of poverty and discrimination, (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sherraden, M. W. (2005). Inclusion in the American dream: Assets, poverty and public policy. New York: Oxford University press.

Van Wormer, Katherine, S. (2004). Confronting oppression, restoring justice: from

policy analysis to social action. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work

Education.

Whiteman, V.L. (2001). Social Security: What Every Human Services Professional Should Know. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 0-205-30790-6.

Zepezauer, M. (2004). Take the rich off welfare. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Eitzen, D. S. & Smith, K. E. (2003). Experiencing poverty: Voices from the bottom. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Policy Practice and Advocacy

Graham, B., & Hand, C. (2010). America: The owner's manual making governement work for you. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Haynes, K., & Mickelson, J. S. (2000). Affecting change: Social workers in the political

arena, (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hick, S. & McNutt, J., (Eds.). (2002). Advocacy, activism and the internet. Chicago: Lyceum.

Hoefer, R. (2006). Advocacy practice for social justice: Incorporating advocacy into the generalist model. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Jansson, B.S. (2011). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schneider, R. & Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy: A new framework for action. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schneider R.L. & Netting, F.E. (1999). Influencing social policy in a time of devolution: upholding social work’s great tradition. Social Work, 44(4), 349-357.

Child Welfare

Iwaniec, D. & Hill, M. (Eds.). (2006). Child welfare policy and practice: Issues and lessons emerging from current research. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Lawrence, J. & Starkey, P. (2001). Child welfare and social action in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: International perspectives. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Popple, P. & Vecchiolla, F. (2007). Child welfare social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Marten, J. A. (2004). Childhood and child welfare in the Progressive Era: A brief history with documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martins.

Mather, J. (2007). Child welfare: Policies and best practices. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Basic Books.

Pardeck, J.T. (2002). Children’s rights: Policy and practice. New York: Haworth.

Wulczyn, F., Barth, R.P., Yuan, Y.T., Harden, B. & Landverk, J. (2005). Beyond

common sense: Child welfare, child well-being, and the evidence for policy reform. Chicago: Chapin Hall.

Mental Health

Bell, N. N. & Shern, D. L. (2002). State Mental Health Commissions: Recommendations for Change and Future Directions. [Report]. Alexandria, VA: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.

Bentley, K. (1994). Supports for community-based mental health care: An optimistic review of federal legislation. Health and Social Work, 19(4), 288-294.

Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Ananeh-Firempong, O. (2003). Defining cultural competence: A practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care. Public Health Reports, 118, 293-302.

Callicutt, James W. (2000). Social policies and mental health. In J. Midgley, M.B. MJ., Tracey, & M. Livermore, Michelle, (Eds.), The handbook of social policy (pp. 257-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Coddington, D.G. (2001). Impact of political, societal, and local influences on mental health center service providers. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 29(1), 81-87.

Cohen, C.I., Feiner, J.S., Huffine (2003). The future of community psychiatry. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(5), 459-471.

Cutler, D.L., Bevilacqua, J., McFarland, B.H., (2003). Four decades of community mental health: A symphony in four movements. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(5), 381-398.

Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Public Health Service: (2001). Mental Health: Culture, Race, and Ethnicity: A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General.

Drake, R.E., Green, A.I., Mueser, K.T. & Goldman, H.H. (2003). The history of community mental health treatment and rehabilitation for persons with severe illness. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(5), 427-440.

Foley, H.A. and Sharfstein, S. S. (1983). Madness and government: Who cares for the mentally ill? Washington D.C: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Goldman, H. H., et al. (2001). Policy implications for implementing evidence-based practices. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1591-1597.

Mark, T. L., et al. (2000, July-Aug.). Spending on mental health and substance abuse treatment, 1987-1997. Health Affairs, 19, 108-120.

Ridgely, M.S., Mulkern, V., Giard, J., Shern, D. (2002). State mental health policy: critical elements of public-sector managed behavioral health programs for severe mental illness in five states. Psychiatric Services, 53(4), 397-399.

Rosenberg, J & Rosenberg, S. (Eds.). (2006). Community mental health: Challenges for the 21st century. New York: Routlege.

Rosenheck, R. (2000). The delivery of mental health services in the 21st century: bringing the community back in. Community Mental Health Journal, 36(1), 107-123.

Wang, P.S., Demler, O., Kessler, R.C. (2002). Adequacy of treatment for serious mental illness in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 92 (1), 92-98.

Global Perspective

Alcock, R., & Craig, G., eds. (2001). International social policy. New York: Palgrave.

Armitage, A. (2005). Social Welfare in Canada. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Chua, A. (2004) World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. New York: Anchor Books.

Elliott, D. & Mayadas, N.S. (Eds.). (2000). International perspectives on social work practice. In P. Meares & C. Garvin, The handbook of direct practice in social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gilbert, N. & Parent, A. (Eds.). (2004). Welfare reform: A comparative assessment of the French and U.S. experiences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Hajighasemi, A. (2004). Transformation of the Swedish welfare system: Fact or fiction? Globalization, institutions and welfare state change in a social democratic regime. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International Publishing.

Hokenstad, M.C. & Midgley, J. (Eds.). (2004). Lessons from abroad: Adapting international social welfare innovations. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Lightman, E.S. (2003). Social policy in Canada. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.

Midgley, J. (1997). Social welfare in global context. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Olsen, G. (2002). The politics of the welfare state: Canada, Sweden, and the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reichert, E. (2006). Understanding human rights: An exercise book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reichert, E. (2003). Social work and human rights: A foundation for policy and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Stoesz, D., Guzzetta, C., & Lusk, M. (1999). International development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). Making a European welfare state? Convergences and conflicts over European social policy. U.K.: Blackwell Publishing Limited.

Tripodi, T., & Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2007). International social work research. Issues and prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.

Turner, F. J. & Turner, J. C. (2005). Canadian social welfare. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson Education.

UNICEF (2006). The State of the World’s Children.

UNHCR (2006). The State of the World’s Refugees

UNDP (2006). Human Development Report /

WHO (2006). World Health Report: Working together for Health.

Health Care

Mechanic, D., Rogut, L., & Colby, D. (Eds.). (2005). Policy challenges in modern health care. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Mechanic, D. (2006). The truth about health care: Why reform is not working in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Moniz, C & Gorin, S. (2003). Health and health care policy: A social work perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Women and Family Policy

Abramovitz, M. (2000). Under attack, fighting back: Women and welfare in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Borgenschneidier, K. (2000). Has family policy come of age? A decade review of the state of U.S. family policy in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1136-1159.

Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Briar-Lawson, K., Lawson, H., Hennon, C. & Jones, A. (2001). Family centered policies and practices: International implications. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hallet, C. (Ed.). (1996). Women and social policy: An introduction. New York: Prentice Hall.

Harrington, M. (2000). Care and equality. New York: Routledge.

Midgeley, J., Tracy, M.B., & Livermore, M. (Eds.). (2000). The handbook of social policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shanley, M. L. (2001). Making babies, making families. Boston: Beacon Press.

UNRISD (2006). Gender equality: striving for justice in an unequal world. Policy report on gender and development

Zimmerman, S.L. (2001). Family policy: Constructed solutions to family problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download