Chapter 2

©2011, Cengage Learning, Brooks/ Col©2011, Cengage Learning, Brooks/ Cole Publishinge Publishing

Becoming an Effective Becoming an Effective Policy AdvocatePolicy Advocate

Bruce Jansson, University of Southern CaliforniaBruce Jansson, University of Southern California

PowerPoint created byPowerPoint created by

Gretchen Heidemann, MSW, PhD CandidateGretchen Heidemann, MSW, PhD Candidate

University of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California

School of Social WorkSchool of Social Work


Chapter 2Chapter 2Articulating Four Rationales for Articulating Four Rationales for Participating in Policy AdvocacyParticipating in Policy Advocacy


4 Reasons Why Social Workers 4 Reasons Why Social Workers Should Engage in Policy Should Engage in Policy

ReformReform1. To promote the values that lie at the heart of

social work and that are included in the profession’s code of ethics, such as social justice, fairness, self-determination, and confidentiality

2. To promote the well-being of clients, consumers, and citizens by shaping the human services system to conform to the latest findings of social science and medical research


4 Reasons Why Social Workers 4 Reasons Why Social Workers Should Engage in Policy Should Engage in Policy

ReformReform3. To create effective opposition to groups and

citizens that run counter to the NASW code of ethics and to the well-being of clients, consumers, and citizens, and to put pressure on decision makers to approve and retain policies that advance citizens’ well-being

4. To change the composition of government so that legislators and decision makers are more likely to advance such values as fairness and social justice, and promote the well-being of citizens


The Ethical RationaleThe Ethical Rationale

BeneficenceBeneficence– A moral imperative to enhance clients’ well-

being– All professionals are morally obligated to use

beneficence to advance their clients’ well-being

– This is a clear mandate for social workers in This is a clear mandate for social workers in direct practice, and also for policy practicedirect practice, and also for policy practice



Policy-sensitive practicePolicy-sensitive practice– The first moral obligation– Conducting direct practice while being aware

that the client or patient may also confront negative policy-related consequences

– Requires professionals to take into account their clients’ economic and social realities, many of which derive from social policies


The Ethical RationaleThe Ethical Rationale Policy-sensitive practice recognizes that:Policy-sensitive practice recognizes that:

Some problems reflect situational and environmental pressures rather than deep-seated characteristics.

Some apparent problems or pathologies are functional adaptations to oppressive realities.

Survival skills are as important to people who have been excluded from the mainstream as intrapsychic interventions.

Some persons need help to overcome feelings of inferiority from exposure to oppressive ideology and institutions.

Some people need help to become more assertive.

Empowerment (learning skills that will counter oppressive realities) is often as important as intrapsychic interventions.



Policy-related servicesPolicy-related services– The second moral obligationThe second moral obligation– To provide To provide brokerage, liaison, and case

advocacy services for specific clients



Policy-related services include:1. Brokerage

– Negotiating service arrangements between clients and family members or institutions such as schools, welfare departments, and clinics

2. Liaison– Connecting persons to other persons, networks, or

institutions

3. Case Advocacy– Being personal advocates for clients or empowering

clients to become their own advocates



Professionals who do not engage in policy-sensitive and policy-related activities are morally deficientSocial workers are even more morally deficient than other professionals if they do not engage in policy-sensitive and policy-related practice, because they occupy a unique position in the human services system



Beneficence takes on a broader meaning for social workers than for other professionals because of the profession’s unusual natureMany social work clients are trying to negotiate relationships not just with individuals, but with institutionsBeneficence cannot easily be conceived of in narrow terms



Consider someone who has been disabled in a Consider someone who has been disabled in a car accident car accident He/she will need assistance in:He/she will need assistance in:– renewing his/her family life– obtaining disability benefits– seeking employment– surmounting prejudice against people with disabilities– resolving emotional trauma



He/she may also face:– inadequate disability benefits – denial of those benefits by punitive

bureaucrats– lack of governmental enforcement of the

rights of people with disabilities– inadequate homemaker aides during recovery



No matter how skilled professionals are, they cannot help improve their clients’ well-being without addressing the clients’ dysfunctional relations with their environmentNor can social workers improve clients’ well-being if the clients are continually exposed to oppressive relationships in their families, communities, or jobsEthical social workers also need to empower clients by teaching them skills to help them confront barriers, find resources, and manage their own cases


Toward Policy AdvocacyToward Policy Advocacy

Policy advocacy seeking to advance ethical principles falls in the domain of ALL social workers, no matter what their role in the human services systemMore than most other occupations, social work serves stigmatized populationsBecause of their relative lack of power and because of societal discrimination, these groups most need assistance from government laws, regulations, and programs



Their powerlessness makes them vulnerable to the whims of the broader electorate, government budget cuts, and the backlash in the general public’s attitude toward social programs

Were social workers not to serve as policy advocates for these populations, they would risk the moral charge of not caring about them

No matter how skillful, policy sensitive and policy-related direct service assistance cannot compensate for inadequacies in the broader society



Without policy advocacy, the social work profession becomes, in effect, an apologist for existing institutions rather than a force for social reform


Beyond BeneficenceBeyond Beneficence

We can also justify policy advocacy from the vantage point of social justice, because we find inequalities in society morally objectionable


Varieties of InequalityVarieties of Inequality

1. We can analyze the current status of groups of American citizens on an array of dimensions, such as housing, income, neighborhood amenities, and health

2. We can analyze disparities in current status between specific populations and the mainstream population

3. We can analyze the disparities among citizens by access to opportunities, such as education, health services, assets, networks, and rights


When Inequalities Violate When Inequalities Violate Ethical StandardsEthical Standards

What degrees and kinds of inequalities are morally objectionable?

At what threshold, or degree, is inequality morally objectionable?

Why is inequality objectionable, if at all?

What kinds of policies should be used to reduce inequalities?



We can look to philosophers like John Rawls in We can look to philosophers like John Rawls in A Theory of JusticeA Theory of JusticeTry to imagine society’s internal arrangements Try to imagine society’s internal arrangements through a “veil of ignorance” through a “veil of ignorance” where our personal income and opportunities are not known to usWe will conclude that We will conclude that society should allow only those inequalities that will preserve or further the common good of societyWe would not want to take a chance on being stuck in the lower reaches of a relatively inegalitarian society



Similar to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done to you

If we would not want to live in areas without adequate health care and other amenities, we have a moral duty to try to improve the lot of other persons who experience inequality


Other Arguments for Reducing Other Arguments for Reducing InequalitiesInequalities

The Economic Argument:The Economic Argument:– Extreme inequalities produce undesirable economic effects

on the nation

The Undesirable Social Consequences Argument:The Undesirable Social Consequences Argument:– Vast disparities in status and opportunities leads to alienation

and induces vulnerable groups improve their lot through crime and drug dealing, which harms their neighborhoods and the broader society

The Common Good Argument:The Common Good Argument:– If society fails to fund quality schools and infrastructure, for

example, it jeopardizes economic growth, and alienates persons who believe they cannot improve their lot


Policy Advocacy for Vulnerable Policy Advocacy for Vulnerable PopulationsPopulations

Neither prized things nor inequalities are randomly distributed in the populationOur goal should be to move toward a situation where economic resources and opportunities are randomly distributed in society rather than existing disproportionately in specific out-groupsWe should also work to ameliorate such inequalities, both by getting these out-groups more and better services in specific agencies and by seeking changes in local, state, and federal policies



We can use beneficence and social justice to support such efforts, but we also can draw on the doctrine of fairness – Ex: Head Start– We support the program because it enhances fairness

by giving low-income African American children the educational, health, and child development services many white, middle-class families have long taken for granted

– Expanding Head Start hardly reduces societal inequality on a grand scale, but it does reduce some of the inequalities of low-income African American children



The doctrine of social justice sometimes leads to painful predicaments– Ex: Affirmative Action– To decrease a specific vulnerable

population’s inequalities, we sometimes must take away opportunities from a privileged group, such as white males

– The doctrine of social justice dictates a random distribution of problems, such as unemployment or lower-paying jobs


Other Ethical Principles in Other Ethical Principles in Policy AdvocacyPolicy Advocacy

AutonomyAutonomy– The right to make critical decisions about one’s own The right to make critical decisions about one’s own

destinydestiny

FreedomFreedom– The right to hold and express personal opinions and The right to hold and express personal opinions and

to take personal actionsto take personal actions

Preservation of lifePreservation of life– The right to continued existenceThe right to continued existence

HonestyHonesty– The right to correct and accurate informationThe right to correct and accurate information


Other Ethical Principles in Other Ethical Principles in Policy AdvocacyPolicy Advocacy

ConfidentialityConfidentiality– The right to privacyThe right to privacy

EqualityEquality– The right of individuals to receive the same services, The right of individuals to receive the same services,

resources, or opportunities as other peopleresources, or opportunities as other people

Due processDue process– The right to procedural safeguards when accused of The right to procedural safeguards when accused of

crimes or when benefits or rights are withdrawncrimes or when benefits or rights are withdrawn

Societal or collective rightsSocietal or collective rights– The right of society to maintain and improve itself by The right of society to maintain and improve itself by

safeguarding the public health and safetysafeguarding the public health and safety


Other Types of Ethical Other Types of Ethical ReasoningReasoning

DeontologyDeontology– Moral reasoning that relies on various ethical

principles such as fairness and social justice– (All of the ethical arguments we have discussed (All of the ethical arguments we have discussed

so far are deontological)so far are deontological)

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism– Analyze the likely outcomes or consequences of

specific choices, and choose the option that has the best outcomes

– Evidence-based practice is utilitarian



Utilitarians Utilitarians criticize reliance on ethical principles on the grounds that people often differ on the definitions or weighting of principles, or because the principles sometimes conflictFirst-principle ethicists (i.e. deontologists) criticize utilitarians because good data about the effects of specific proposed policies are often lacking or conflict



Both utilitarians and first-principle ethicists are, in turn, criticized by relativists who contend that most people make ethical choices not through an extended process of reasoning, but through norms they derive from their culture

Some relativists also contend that ethical choices are often shaped by self-interest



Are choices based on self-interest morally flawed? Moral people often couple their personal interests with ethical choices – Ex: Social workers who support expanded funding for

mental health programs– While they take this position partly to advance the

well-being of persons with mental conditions, they also realize that enhanced funding would provide employment for more social workers



Relativists are criticized by other ethicists:

Without any first-order principles or any consideration of consequences, ethical choices would have no basis


Toward an Eclectic Approach to Toward an Eclectic Approach to Ethical ReasoningEthical Reasoning

We should consider the principles that have a wide following, whether derived from a reasoning process or from religious sourcesWe should examine the likely consequences of specific choices, as suggested by utilitariansWe should realize that cultural norms as well as self-interest shape ethical choices, as argued by relativistsWe should not ignore practical considerations, such as the political feasibility of specific options


Ideology and Ethical ReasoningIdeology and Ethical Reasoning

Affiliation with an ideology is an ethical choice because one has to decide which value(s) to emphasizeThis choice has important consequences for the well-being of citizensNo one can be wholly objective when discussing policy issuesSocial workers’ policy choices should be shaped by values as defined in the NASW Code of Ethics



Conservatism:Conservatism:– First principle: Liberty– Maximizes the wealth and status of individual citizens

and corporations; taxes them relatively lightly– Issues relatively few regulations that circumscribe

actions of corporations– Develops a relatively weak set of governments at local,

state, and federal levels by limiting them to housekeeping functions

– Believes that private markets, if left alone, would take care of the economic affairs of the nation in an acceptable manner



Conservatism:Conservatism:– Acceptance of this ideology is a vote for maximizing

the interests of individuals and corporations as they would exist in an unregulated society with minimal government intrusion

– The key ethical problem is that its tenets often lead to policies that disproportionately assist affluent persons while giving less or no help to less affluent persons

– It often denies the use of many of the redistributive and equality-enhancing tools used by government



Liberalism:Liberalism:– More likely to accept a significant role for

government– However, risks other ethical problems:

Sometimes support social policies that have been ineffective, such as large urban housing projects

Like Conservatives, Liberals have also been bought off by corporate contributions, and sometimes succumb to public opinion even when it runs counter to deeply held beliefs


The Analytic Rationale for The Analytic Rationale for Policy AdvocacyPolicy Advocacy

Advocates should support those policies that are supported by social-science and medical research, as well as research by economists

This is an extension of the utilitarian emphasis on the role of research in shaping policy choices


The Analytic RationaleThe Analytic Rationale

Example: SchizophreniaResearch in past 40 years demonstrated that schizophrenia is a complex phenomenon that is not caused by mothers’ behavior, but rather by genetic and physiological causes, Further research showed that the long-term incarceration of people with schizophrenia is harmful and wastefulIn coming years, research findings should reveal the kinds of services and living arrangements that are helpful to schizophrenic people Even these will come to naught if policies and funding do not allow or implement them


The Analytic RationaleThe Analytic Rationale

If policy advocates wish to advance their clients’ or patients’ interests, they must change those policies and treatments that research demonstrates are harmful or ineffective

When less expensive approaches are found to be as effective as or more effective than more expensive approaches, they should favor them to save consumers’ and taxpayers’ resources


Controversy and ResearchControversy and Research

It is incorrect to assume that policy advocates, armed with the latest research, can easily modify all policies

Politicians, bureaucrats, and administrators often choose to ignore research findings that conflict with their ideology, their self-interest, or their customary practices



Research can be misleading, simplistic, or erroneous for a variety of reasons and must be used with caution Researchers may make technical errors in their collection and analysis of data– they may overestimate the effects of certain

variables because they have excluded other factors they ought to have considered

– they may misinterpret their data



Researchers’ ideology may shape not only their research, but their policy conclusionsDifferent researchers often reach divergent conclusions, which sometimes leads to conflict Policy advocates should:– engage in policy debates about the divergent conclusions – take sides, stating why they believe certain research

findings are preferable to others– decide which researcher’s data and conclusions are most

meritorious – become advocates for those policies that rest on them

rather than on non-meritorious research


The Political Rationale for Policy The Political Rationale for Policy AdvocacyAdvocacy

Policy Advocacy is needed because:1. Policy choices that advance fairness and

social justice in American society frequently do not receive a fair hearing because the political system is rigged against poor, oppressed, and powerless groups

2. Powerful interest groups often wish to sustain the status quo or even to roll back social reforms


The Political RationaleThe Political Rationale

Policy Advocacy is needed because:3. Politicians who are pledged to restrict the role of

government - when social programs and regulations are needed to redistribute wealth and to protect oppressed groups - often control pivotal offices or possess a majority in legislative chambers

4. Special interests and wealthy individuals usually provide the bulk of campaign funds for the legislators of both political parties, and often receive policy concessions in return for their contributions



Policy Advocacy is needed because:5. Public opinion is not necessarily receptive to

needed reforms

6. There is a moderate to conservative bias in public opinion, which is accentuated by the disinclination to vote of millions of poor people (i.e. the party of nonvoters)



Policy Advocacy is needed because:7. If Americans who favor social justice or fairness fail

to participate in the political process, they risk increasing the extent to which the political process is skewed against social reforms

8. Persons opposed to social justice love the political vacuum created when other people do not participate in the political process

9. Non-participation is a vote for the values of those who do participate



Social workers need to engage in policy practice precisely because they often bring distinctive viewpoints into the policy-making process

Social workers emphasize cooperativeness rather than competitiveness

Social workers are more likely to identify with the underdogs, the downtrodden, and the oppressed


The Electoral Rationale for The Electoral Rationale for Policy AdvocacyPolicy Advocacy

We won’t gain support for measures that we favor if sympathetic legislators aren’t included in legislative bodies


The Electoral RationaleThe Electoral Rationale

The political party that obtains a majority of the members of a legislative body has extraordinary advantage in shaping legislation– They get the majority of votes– They control the chairs of the legislative

committees– They determine what bills are given serious

attention



The political party that wins head-of-government positions like mayoralties, governorships, and presidencies also has a huge advantage over other parties– They appoint the heads and top staff of key

agencies, allowing them to shape how specific programs are implemented

– They can use the media more easily than other politicians to publicize policies that they favor and to attack opponents’ policies



Presidents and governors appoint many of the nation’s judges, which allow them to have major influence over controversial court decisions

Majority parties in legislatures control how boundaries of political districts are established (so-called apportionment), allowing them to gain seats for themselves by drawing lines in ways that give them an advantage in certain districts



Social workers need to participate in political campaigns to gain passage of propositions that further social justice, while working to defeat ones that do notElectoral politics is NOT unethical or antithetical to professionalismIf persons who are committed to social justice and fairness do not use power, they simply concede to persons who are not committed to these values

Date post:	10-Jun-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	leahrh
View:	492 times
Download:	1 times

Chapter 2

Education