SOCW 6361 Walden University Social Science Policy Alternative Paper

Assignment: Final Project Milestone 4: Policy Alternative

As an astute social worker and professional policy advocate, once you have selected and identified a social problem, you begin the process of creating and implementing a policy that addresses that social problem. One of the first things you do in the implementation process is an analysis of the social policy you identified. There is always the possibility that the policy created and implemented to address the social problem you identified is not viable for a variety of reasons.

In this case, you must explore a policy alternative.

In Part 4 of your ongoing Social Change Project assignment, you will identify a policy alternative to better alleviate the social problem you identified.

To Prepare:

Review your previous Final      Project Milestone Assignments and your Instructor feedback. Consider the      following: Identification of a Social       Problem (Week 2) Food Insecurity! (attached)Issue Statement (Week       4) Food Insecurity! (attached)Identification of a Policy       (Week 4) Food Insecurity! (attached)Social Advocacy Proposal       (Week 6) Food Insecurity! (attached)

By Day 7

Submit a 3- to 4-page paper that addresses the following:

Special Section
Is Social Work Advocacy Worth the
Cost? Issues and Barriers to an Economic
Analysis of Social Work Political Practice
Research on Social Work Practice
21(4) 397-403
ª The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1049731510386624
http://rsw.sagepub.com
John McNutt1
Abstract
Advocacy is central to the social work profession’s commitment to social betterment and justice, yet much of what we know
about it is based on conventional wisdom. We have little evidence on the effectiveness of interventions and even less on the
costs and benefits of advocacy campaigns. This article discusses some of the conceptual and methodological issues involved
with advocacy research and provides some direction for combining research on the effectiveness of advocacy with research
on its cost utility.
Keywords
community intervention, community organization, community practice, evidence-based practice, policy analysis, policy evaluation,
preexperimental design, program evaluation, quantitative, quasi-experiment
Advocacy is important to the social work profession. In many
ways, it enacts social work values concerning social and economic justice (Ezell, 2001; Haynes & Mickelson, 2000; Reeser,
1992; Schneider & Lester, 2001). The responsibility to advocate is prominent in the Code of Ethics (National Association
of Social Workers [NASW], 1996), and it is taught as a core
value in social work education. Thus, even if there were grave
doubts about its effectiveness, social workers would find it difficult to disengage from advocacy because of its centrality to
professional culture.
Political interventions can also be of immediate practical
value to organizations that are dependent on the benefits of
government funding or regulations (Berry & Arons, 2002). In
tough economic times, it is often essential to be represented
in the halls of power. However, despite the importance of advocacy and the commitment of social workers to it, there is little
evidence about how well different types of advocacy work and
whether it is worth the often considerable costs.
The accountability revolution in human services has reached
a stage in which most organizations and fields accept accountability as a part of program operations (Alter & Evens, 1990).
Public, private, and corporate funders insist on accountability,
and most human services professionals understand it as a feature of ethical practice. Every organization must evaluate each
of its activities in order to understand their contribution to overall impact and to justify the funding that each component
receives. Still, some areas of practice are more difficult to evaluate than others. Advocacy is one of those difficult areas.
There are serious conceptual and methodological issues that
must be resolved before we can properly evaluate whether the
costs of advocacy are reasonable. In the first place, the
effectiveness of various forms of advocacy is far from clear.
Much of the evidence presented in the social work literature
on advocacy is based on practice wisdom. This is also true in
much of the advocacy literature in related disciplines. If we
cannot establish that advocacy is effective, then we cannot
measure whether its efficacy is worth the cost. There are severe
challenges that must be overcome in order for us to draw a
nexus between activities that organizations engage in and the
impacts that they seek.
Second, the concrete benefits of advocacy are difficult to
establish in the manner preferred by most policy practitioners.
In some cases, for example, the objective of an advocacy campaign is to pass a law. The value of such an action depends on
the implementation of the law and then on the primary and secondary impacts that occur. These kinds of variables clearly
exceed what an advocacy campaign may be reasonably
expected to control or anticipate.
Third, there is the issue of determining what a campaign or
technique actually costs. This process is straightforward from
the perspective of cost accounting and economic analysis, but
a few issues remain unaddressed. For example, in many nonprofit organizations, the threat of losing tax-exempt status
1
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
Corresponding Author:
John McNutt, GRAHAM Hall, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Email: mcnuttjg@udel.edu
398
motivates managers to report as few funds as possible as
devoted to lobbying. Instead, some of the items that are often
considered advocacy might be located in other areas of the
organization’s budget.
Finally, the costs of advocacy’s potential side effects,
including those that affect third parties (what economists call
externalities), should be considered. Although some of these
are positive (such as empowering a population or creating a
sense of hope), others are not so desirable (such as bad publicity and loss of funds).
This article will deal with these issues and explore their
ramifications. We will first look at the advocacy enterprise.
We will explore the costs of advocacy efforts and examine
some of the issues involved. Next, we will look at the methodological challenges involved in evaluating advocacy. These
are daunting challenges, but some recent signs give cause for
hope. Finally, we will deal with the issue of applying economic
analysis (which differs from cost analysis) to advocacy.
Social Work Advocacy Considered
Advocacy is a core function in social work. It is also an important part of the organizational life of many social workers. As a
professional community, social workers hope that they can prevent a range of social ills and reinforce social work’s place in
society. While not every social worker is comfortable with integrating politics into their professional practice (see Haynes &
Mickelson, 2000), others are committed to the changes that
advocacy can bring.
Social workers who engage in advocacy usually differentiate between case advocacy (advocacy for an individual or family) and cause advocacy (advocacy for wider social and
community issues). This discussion will deal only with cause
advocacy. This is not to imply that case advocacy is less important to the profession and the people it serves. However, the
focus in this article is not on advocacy that helps a client but
on advocacy that is designed to bring about structural change
and hence more complicated and more difficult.
Some cause advocacy is devoted to expanding rights and
benefits by passing legislation or modifying existing policies.
This type of advocacy harkens back to the profession’s past
glories of helping to create social legislation such as the juvenile court, child labor, laws, and social security. Today, probably more of the profession’s advocacy efforts aim at profession
building and protecting existing funding streams. Although not
as glamorous as more direct advocacy efforts, this is an important work that affects the lives of social workers, their organizations, and their clients. For example, the struggle to attain
social work licensing in every state was a major victory for the
profession. Much of the legislative work is aimed at the last two
goals: sustaining the profession and securing funding.
Defending the profession’s turf is a function that almost all
professions discharge in some fashion. Most of the larger
professions—including business and industry—spend considerable sums of money on lobbying, campaign contributions,
and other types of political action. In 2008, according to the
Research on Social Work Practice 21(4)
Table 1. Political Action Committee Contributions of Various
Professions 2008
PAC
2008 Contributions
American Federation of Teachers
American Assn for Justice (Law)
American Medical Assn
American Psychiatric Assn
American Dental Assn
American Nurses Assn
National Assn of Social Workers (PACE)
Source: The Center for
www.opensecrets.org
Responsive
Politics.
$2,283,250
$2,700,500
$1,464,450
$341,049
$1,923,390
$562,466
$54,400
Open Secrets
http://
Center for Responsive Politics (2009), there were 14,800
lobbyists in America and 3.3 billion dollars spent on
lobbying. Since 2008 was an election year, considerable additional money was donated to candidates and political parties.
Table 1 presents several professions’ political action committee (PAC) contributions in 2008.
Much of the social work literature on advocacy deals with a
range of advocacy techniques, including lobbying, community
organizing, PACs, political campaigning, policy research, and
monitoring (Ezell, 2001; Schneider & Lester, 2001). These are
among the standard techniques used by advocates from a variety of organizations in many sectors. These techniques are
rarely used by themselves; rather, it is much more common for
an advocacy campaign to employ multiple methods.
In the past few years, technology has become an essential
part of both political campaigns and advocacy efforts (Hick
& McNutt, 2002; McNutt & Boland, 1999). What began with
e-mail and websites has now expanded to include blogs, wikis,
and social networking sites. Technology facilitates intervention
research in interesting ways (McNutt, 2006). Computers and
networks produce very good records both of the things that they
do and, in many cases, the responses they receive. We can tell
you, for example, how many recipients of an e-mail message
took the trouble to open the message. This metric, called the
‘‘Open Rate,’’ can give us a very good idea of the impact of our
mailing. This is much more difficult in traditional mailings and
leaflet campaigns.
Advocacy campaigns tend to change quickly as new challenges arise. What Rothman (1987) called ‘‘Mixing and Phasing’’ is characteristic of contemporary advocacy campaigns.
Given the time needed to successfully create major policy
change, this is not surprising. Coalitions are also a feature of
most campaigns, and different actors prefer different methods.
This is especially true in political campaigns, where daily
change is a fact of life (see Trippi, 2004).
Social workers practice cause advocacy in a number of settings including agencies, advocacy organizations, professional
associations, and grassroots organizations. Each of these settings has strengths and limitations for the advocate. Some
offer more resources, whereas others offer a greater amount
of freedom. Membership organizations present specific challenges for certain types of issues. Being a member can mean
McNutt
anything from writing a check to volunteering full time for the
organization’s advocacy team. Berry (1999) notes that many
advocacy organizations have moved away from the membership organization format toward more professionalized political work. The NASW is probably the largest advocate for
professional issues in social work. NASW is a 501 (c) 6 nonprofit organization that was created by the merger of a number
of smaller organizations in the early 1950s. In terms of government relations, NASW has a national staff that deals with a host
of issues, and many states have a full-time governmentrelations position. Some of the smaller states hire a contract
lobbyist to represent their issues, or they depend on volunteer
lobbyists or the executive director. NASW has a modestly
funded PAC (Political Action for Candidate Election [PACE])
that supports national candidates and, through state level committees, state and local candidates (Colby & Buffum, 1998).
Many of the national human services organizations have
large government-relations staff. These organizations often
work together on major pieces of legislation. There are also
other professional social work associations that have interests
in policy issues. In addition, there are a considerable number
of National Advocacy Organizations that deal with social welfare issues. These include the American Public Human Services Organization, the Children’s Defense Fund, Voices for
America’s Children, and a host of other organizations. Some
of their advocates are social workers.
Advocates come in various shapes and sizes as well.
A lobbyist can be anything from a high-powered former political leader to a volunteer social worker with little or no training.
This means huge variations in experience, networks, connections, and political resources. Different forms of advocacy
require different types of expertise. Many of the activities that
advocates engage in require substantial knowledge (such as
issue knowledge and knowledge of lobbying rules and regulations) and a broad set of skills (such as drafting legislation,
organizing constituents, public education methods, and so
forth) to successfully complete. Wanting to be influential is not
the same thing as being influential.
Many advocates learned their craft in an apprenticeship
model of training. This means either working in politics or
learning from an experienced advocate. Many schools of social
work offer their students some basic information about advocacy as a part of the social policy curriculum. Lately, master’s
programs in practical politics have emerged at major universities. Although these programs are not located in schools of
social work, there is no reason that similar programs could not
be developed as a part of social work education.
Advocacy campaigns are often governed by restrictions
placed on organizations by federal law (particularly legislation
related to taxation of nonprofits and political contribution) and
state law (see Berry & Arons, 2002). The states vary greatly in
their treatment of advocacy methods. For example, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) does not consider administrative advocacy (lobbying governmental officials in the executive branch)
to be subject to federal limitations. This is not true in the State
of Delaware. Many nonprofits are not engaged in the policy
399
process. Berry and Arons (2002) found that many nonprofits
do not understand what they can and cannot do under applicable laws and that this often prevents them from taking logical
steps to protect themselves politically.
Most of social workers’ knowledge about practical politics
is practice wisdom (see Green & Gerber, 2004). It represents
the collected experience of practitioners in many fields.
This is not only true of policy practitioners in social work; it
is also true of practitioners from other fields. Although there
is a good deal of academic, social science research on topics
relevant to advocacy, this literature rarely influences practical
decisions. At least some of this translation process is underway,
but we are a long way from an evidence-based practice regime.
If we look at standard models of practice evaluation that are
used successfully with direct practice techniques, some familiar, difficult issues arise. Some of these issues will be dealt with
in the next part of the article.
Evaluating Advocacy
Evaluating advocacy practice is a potentially challenging and
frustrating endeavor. Many of the conditions required for an
effective evaluation are missing. If we assume that an experimental or quasi-experimental design provides the best chance
for establishing a causal relationship between an intervention
and an intended outcome, then we are faced with a number
of significant problems. These include:
 Shifting, Multiple or Unclear Outcomes: Some advocacy
efforts do have clear, easily measured goals. These would
include passing a law (or preventing one from being
passed), preserving funding, and other similar objectives.
Other goals, such as courting political influence and
empowering the constituency, are far less clear. These can
be difficult or even impossible to measure reliably. Even if
the original outcomes are clear and relatively unequivocal, strategic change is always possible if resistance
becomes too severe or the outcome becomes too costly.
These changes in strategy are often unclear because the
compromise outcome will be offered up as the original
goal in order to save face. Since there are usually many
versions of a potential law in a major legislative effort,
it is often difficult for the public to follow which legislation is where and what it contains. There are also times
where a desired piece of legislation is intentionally
defeated because an amendment is attached that would
do serious harm to the bill’s intended beneficiaries. There
are also cumulative change situations. Sometimes a string
of defeats precede a major victory that makes up for the
losses. These changes are nearly impossible to anticipate.
If this seems like a confusing and difficult situation, rest
assured: it is. This muddle often makes traditional
researchers throw up their hands in disgust.
 Unstable Interventions: Advocacy campaigns often shift
their focus. Different methodologies are tried and discarded. There can also be shifts as coalition partners change
400




Research on Social Work Practice 21(4)
and available funding waxes and wanes. Some of this fits
into what Rothman (1987) referred to as ‘‘Mixing and Phasing,’’ a process in which interventions are used together or
in sequence. In phasing, an advocacy group might file a
lawsuit to soften a target for negotiation. This could be followed by another technique, such as lobbying or negotiation aimed at a now more accepting target. The strategy
might be less planned and more reactive in some situations
where changes in policy making occur frequently.
Although it is popular to talk about the turbulent environment of many advocacy programs, they often seem tranquil
against the backdrop of a policy making.
Unclear Causal Mechanism: The dynamics of decision
making are often unclear. The policy process is often
cloaked in secrecy. Decisions are sometimes made in
response to forces that have little or nothing to do with the
issue at hand. This might include party loyalty, friendships,
and campaign funding. Revealing your decision criteria is
not a good strategy in many political environments.
Multiple Exogenous Variables: One of the conditions for
causality is that no external variables can account for the
effect. That is very difficult to establish in political situations.
There are many variables that are clearly outside the control
of the intervention or the practitioner but that can nevertheless be the difference between success and failure. News
events, other legislation, political scandals, and national disasters fall within this category. This happens in many settings, but the impact is greater in political settings because
many of the interventions are dealing with public perception.
The Political Nature of Evaluation: Evaluation research
always has at least some political dimension (see Weiss,
1971). Any process that ultimately deals with resource allocation is likely to have political overtones. Evaluation
research in a political setting is likely to be even more contentious than in most settings. Professional political operatives are comfortable with political battles and have access
to a wide range of political tools and resources. This makes
it likely that they will use this capacity to deal with potentially damaging evaluation findings.
Deceit, Misdirection, and Misinformation: Politicians often
use deception to achieve their ends. This means that many
of the artifacts of decision making (such as documents and
later reflective writings) are untrustworthy and the verbal
statements of the parties may be questionable. It also
means that researchers will have to deal with systems that
can make verification difficult. Although it may be true
that openness and transparency in government are frequently discussed as goals for the future, we are not there
yet. Just from the standpoint of complying with federal tax
law, organizations have an incentive to disguise their
advocacy activities.
In light of these barriers, some of the effort to evaluate advocacy has shifted toward the evaluation of capacity building for
advocacy. This is certainly an important issue, but it begs the
question of outcome measures for advocacy per se.
All of these factors create barriers to understanding the
effectiveness of advocacy interventions in social work and
other fields. They also make the question of costs problematic.
However, there is hope. In the past decade, the movement
toward experimental political science has begun to bear fruit.
Reasonably reliable evaluations of advocacy interventions are
now available (Bergan, 2009; Gerber, 2004; Green & Gerber,
2004). These scholars and their colleagues have begun to
examine political practice in tightly designed experiments.
This overcomes many of the problems that we have discussed
above and offers a new way that represents a comprehensive
body of knowledge at this point. Although there is a long way
to go before we can confidently point to a knowledge base, this
is an excellent start. However, such cutting-edge studies are not
social work focused.
Analyzing the Costs of Social Work
Advocacy
The questions of effectiveness and cost are tightly linked. If an
intervention does not work, then what it costs is really not that
important; it should not be used at all. There are serious ethical,
legal, and political consequences to using interventions that are
known to be ineffective. If an intervention is effective, however, then economic analysis offers a series of tools that can
greatly facilitate decision making.
Many of the economic tools compare costs of a particular
innovation and any side effects to the benefits and other
impacts of an intervention. Although this seems straightforward, there are a number of complications.
Not everything has an actual dollar value or what economists refer to as a market price. In the absence of such a supposedly clear standard, an analyst constructs a shadow price that
approximates the value of the cost or benefit. This is developed
logically from the value of the cost or benefit, often using conventions. If we are talking about the value of a life for example,
two accepted ways of putting a dollar value on a life are the cost
of replacement services or expected lifetime earnings. Even a
market price can be distorted by problems in the market system. Wage discrimination, for example, is a component of the
cost of labor. It distorts the actual value of labor.
In any intervention, there are direct and indirect impacts.
Direct impacts are the intended consequences of an activity and
indirect impacts are the unintended consequences. Some of
these impacts are positive and others are negative. There are
also consequences (again both positive and negative) that occur
to third parties. These are called externalities. All of these
impacts can affect both costs and benefits.
Another issue is that the value of money changes over time.
Analysts deal with this issue by discounting the value of future
dollars according to an expected rate of inflation. This means
that money in the future is generally worth less than money
in the present. Because this is not always clear in advance, a
process called sensitivity analysis considers various possible
rates. In the past, it has generally been reasonable to assume
a consistent rate of inflation. The most recent economic
McNutt
401
Table 2. Hypothetical Costs for a Small Advocacy Effort
Activity
Cost Analysis
Preliminary
research to
support claim
Drafting
legislation
Lobbying
Social media
campaign
Fringe benefits
Indirect costs
Total
Total Costs
Survey and library research,
30 person hours at $25/hr,
$200 in postage and
printing
5 hr at $75/hr for contract
consultant
5 days at $500/day for
contract lobbyist
15 person hours at $25/hr
22% of non consultant
personnel
40% of Costs
$750 personnel,
$200 postage and
printing
$375 consultant
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
is reduced by $10
stays the same
increases by $5
increases by $10
increases by $15
Difference
$10
0
$5
$10
$15
Outcome
Benefit (Based on
6,000 Client Episodes)
Benefit
Less Cost
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
($60,000)
$0
$30,000
$60,000
$90,000
($66,227)
($6,227)
$23,773
$53,773
$83,773
is reduced by $10
stays the same
increases by $5
increases by $10
increases by $15
$2,500 contract
$375 personnel
$247.50
$1,779
$6,227
Table 3. Hypothetical Outcomes of the Policy Process and its Impact
Outcome
Table 4. Costs and Benefits of Hypothetical Advocacy Effort
Result (Based on
6,000 Client Episodes)
($60,000)
$0
$30,000
$60,000
$90,000
downturn has raised serious questions about that assumption; it
is possible, after all is said and done, that some economies will
experience deflation.
In all cases, we need to understand the value of our activities
and results. This requires careful record keeping and, in many
cases, cost accounting. Table 2 contains a hypothetical cost
analysis for a small-scale advocacy effort. The campaign lobbied to pass a bill in the state legislature that would raise reimbursement for social work mental health services by 10 dollars
per unit of service:
The potential benefit for the agency is calculated by taking
the total number of service units and multiplying them by the
increase (or decrease) in funding. This total is then compared
with the costs. There are three hypothetical outcomes for the
policy process: the amount increases, the amount decreases,
or the amount stays the same. The first two possibilities are
clearly losses, whereas the third can be a loss or a win
depending on the increase. It is always possible that we will
get a larger increase than we wanted, Table 3 presents those
possibilities:
If we compare the data in Tables 2 and 3, we can see the
relationship between the costs of the advocacy effort and its
potential benefits. Table 4 presents those results:
The first two possibilities involve losses to the agency. The
three other possibilities all involve gains. Part of the calculus
that is not included is the likelihood of success. If it is likely
that we will succeed, the advocacy is a good choice. If it is not
likely, it is clearly a bad choice in this context. Those decisions
are usually political decisions.
Because comparisons are often more complex than what we
have discussed thus far, analytical tools have been created to
ease the process. Among the most commonly used are Return
of Investment (ROI), Cost-Benefit Analysis, and CostEffectiveness Analysis.
ROI:
ROI looks at the total benefits achieved for the amount of value
invested. It is occasionally referred to as the Rate of Return.
ROI is essentially a calculation based on the rate of increased
value of an investment. In order to calculate a ROI, you first
calculate what an activity actually costs.
A number of articles have appeared (see Rampell, 2009)
advancing the view that the benefit an organization receives
from a law can be compared with its lobbying and campaign
expenditures. The more an organization invests in political
muscle, the better the outcomes it receives. Although this
seems to be straightforward, it presupposes that advocacy was
the cause of the award or benefit. This is a huge leap of faith
and one that makes correlation equivalent to causality.
Rampell (2009) argued that institutions of higher education
received more earmarks as a function of their lobbying efforts.
She used these earmarks to calculate an ROI. Some institutions
did not spend any money on lobbying and were therefore
excluded from her analysis. She concluded that:
By back-of-the-envelope calculations, these universities got a
pretty good return on their lobbying investment. The University
of Alabama, for example, spent $360,000 on lobbying, and
received earmarks totaling $40,550,000. That is a return of
11,163.89%—or $112.64 in earmarks for every dollar spent
on lobbying activities.
This presupposes that there is a causal nexus between lobbying
expenditures and receiving earmarks. Since there are quite a
few schools that did not spend money on lobbying and still
received earmarks, the data itself calls into question the
assumptions of the article. This might be considered a ‘‘free
rider’’ problem (organizations that do not contribute but benefit
just the same; Olsen, 1965), except that earmarks are a specific
benefit, not a general benefit. Given the uncertainty about what
legally ‘‘lobbying’’ is, how well it is connected to the actual
benefits, and the host of possible alternative explanations (such
402
as a strong center or program), it is difficult to have complete
faith in this analysis.
A better use of ROI is presented by Green and Gerber
(2004), who tied cost data to effectiveness data from experimental studies. This clearly provides a better perspective to
evaluate the economic worth of an intervention. There is evidence of worth, and the results of the cost analysis can be readily compared. In Rampell’s analysis, the effectiveness of the
lobbying effort is only assumed.
ROI might be a better tool in cases where there are intermediate objectives. In place of getting a bill passed, for example, we can evaluate the ROI of getting people to write letters to
their representatives as compared to the number of letters written. This type of effort analysis makes the process straightforward because not outcome is actually assumed and the writing
of letters is an end in itself.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis ties costs of an intervention to the
outcomes of two or more potential interventions (see Levin,
1983). For example, if we have two potential interventions with
a known level of effectiveness, we can compare them directly
on the basis of costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is, in the end,
a measure of efficiency that presupposes effectiveness. Alternatives are assessed based on that metric. This means that the
alternative that most efficiently arrives at a given objective will
be selected based on cost-effectiveness analysis.
For example, in an advocacy campaign, we might be faced
with a choice between direct mail and e-mail to deliver a message. E-mail is considerably cheaper, so if the effect is the
same, e-mail will be selected.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Cost benefit analysis looks at costs and benefits over the life
cycle of a project (see Young & Steinberg, 1995; see also
Handy and Mook in this issue). It is one of the most comprehensive approaches to project selection, and it requires a considerable amount of data and effort.
The analyst begins by projecting the project life cycle and
then determining cost and benefits at each point. There is usually a start-up period in which the project is getting organized.
During this period, the project incurs costs but does not generate benefits. The operational project generates benefits and
eventually reaches the ‘‘break-even point’’ where costs and
benefits are even. The benefits obtained in the later stages of
the project are discounted against the costs incurred earlier in
the project. Finally, a ratio between the total costs and benefits
is created. Sometimes, this process results in a number referred
to as NPV or net present value. Cost benefit analysis is frequently conducted using projections prior to selecting a project.
If costs exceed benefits, the project is usually not implemented.
Cost benefit analysis requires a substantial amount of
resources, but it provides a much clearer picture of the economic
situation of a real or potential project. However, because of the
Research on Social Work Practice 21(4)
difficulties involved in a full analysis, many organizations settle
for one of the other analysis techniques.
Economic analysis offers a substantial toolbox for examining resource issues in advocacy settings. This is a capacity that
can help social work advocates realize their mission and
achieve their ends.
Discussion
The principle issue for economic analysis of advocacy practice is that we must have evidence that the interventions are
actually effective before any type of examination of the costs
and benefits is possible. Water is cheaper than gasoline, but
most cars will not run on it. The cost differential is thus irrelevant. The same is true for advocacy interventions—if they
do not work, it does not make any difference how much or
how little they cost.
This seems like a simple and self-evident truth. If advocacy
is important to the profession, then it is important that it be
done well. We cannot insist on evidence-based practice in other
areas and not insist upon it for social work advocacy as well.
There are many other fields involved in this sort of practice, but
the literature that goes beyond practice wisdom is still less than
extensive.
Another reality is that contemporary social work has made
very little use of what economics offers—a substantial body
of knowledge and tools to improve our decisions about
resource issues. If we consider advocacy important and understand the scope of the threats to social and economic justice, we
should want to use the limited resources that we have as well as
possible.
At one time, social work and economics were allies. Simon
Patten, an economist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Finance, coined the term ‘‘social
work’’ (Austin, 1986). Many of the early pioneers of the profession had training in economics, including John Commons and
Edith Abbott. Economics is arguably the dominant social science discipline in the policy arena. We cripple our own work
in the policy arena by ignoring the contributions of economists.
It is important for social work to conduct competent,
evidence-based advocacy activities in pursuit of our professional
values and goals. It is also critical to use our advocacy-focused
resources in the most productive way possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Alter, C., & Evens, W. (1990). Evaluating your practice: A guide to
self assessment. New York, NY: Springer.
McNutt
Austin, D. M. (1986). A history of social work education. Austin:
University of Texas.
Bergan, D. E. (2009). Does grassroots lobbying work? A field
experiment measuring the effects of an e-mail lobbying campaign on legislative behavior. American Political Research, 37,
327-352.
Berry, J. (1999). The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen
groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute .
Berry, J. M., & Arons, D. (2002). A voice for nonprofits. Washington,
DC: Brookings.
Center for Responsive Politics. (2009). Lobbying database. Retrieved
October 4, 2009, from http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/
Colby, I. C., & Buffum, W. E. (1998). Social workers and PACs: An
examination of National Association of Social Workers P.A.C.E.
committees. Journal of Community Practice, 5, 87.
Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Gerber, A. S. (2004). Does campaign strategy work? American
Behavioral Scientist, 4, 541-574.
Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2004). Get out the vote: How to
increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings.
Haynes, K., & Mickelson, J. (2000). Affecting change: Social
workers in the political arena (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hick, S., & McNutt, J. G. (Eds.) (2002). Advocacy and activism on the
internet: Perspectives from community organization and social
policy. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Levin, H. M. (1983). Cost-effectiveness: A primer. Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE.
403
McNutt, J. G. (2006). Building evidence based advocacy in
cyberspace: A social work imperative for the new millennium.
Journal of Evidence Based Practice, 3, 91-102.
McNutt, J. G., & Boland, K. M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by
non-profit organizations in social welfare policy. Non-profit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 432-451.
National Association of Social Workers. (1996). The Code of Ethics.
Washington, DC: Author.
Olsen, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the
theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rampell, C. (2009, August 21). Are earmarks for universities
‘pork’? New York Times. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/are-earmarks-foruniversities-pork/
Reeser, L. C. (1992). Professional role orientation and social activism.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 19, 79-94.
Rothman, J. (1987). Three models of community organization practice,
their mixing and phasing. In F. M. Cox, J. L. Erlich, J. Rothman, &
J. E. Trotman (Eds.), Strategies of community organization (4th ed.).
(pp. 3-26). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Schneider, R. L., & Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy: A new
framework for action. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Trippi, J. (2004). The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the
Internet and the overthrow of everything. New York, NY: Reagan
Book/Harper Collins.
Young, D., & Steinberg, R. (1995). Economics for nonprofit managers.
New York, NY: The Foundation Center.
Weiss, C. (1971). Evaluative research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
1
Final Project Milestone 1: Identification of a Social Problem
NAME
Walden University
SOCW 6361: Social Policy: Analysis and Advocacy
December 12th, 2021
2
Introduction
Food security can be defined as the condition in which people cannot access enough food
for their daily consumption. These can be caused by natural disasters such as drought and
conflicts. It can lead to psychological effects such as anger on the victims. The populations
vulnerable to this social problem are at the lowest point in the income circulation, especially
those who lack jobs and the disabled. People earning low incomes cannot afford food hence go
hungry and thirsty. Food insecurity mainly affects groups such as people living in remote areas,
small children who live in poor conditions, African Americans living in the United States, and
other parts of the world. People from Latin are also vulnerable to social problems.
Historical background of food insecurity
It is reported that in 1970 there was an eruption of food crisis. That is after the president
of the United States of America realized that hunger was highly increasing among the residents
of the United States. That is also after the Second World War, where different approaches in
agriculture commenced. After the rising prices of oil in the 1970s, Henry (US secretary) is
believed to be the one who named food security. He worked under President Richard Nixon,
realizing the emanating global challenge and pandemic caused by inadequate food within the
region. In the 1960s, hunger cases in the United States became more profound. In 1980 the
president of the United States of America introduced a task force called food assistance as they
tried to bring to halt this pandemic. That invented the use of vocabularies such as poverty and
unemployment. Those food insecurity programs endorsed by the United States marked the onset
of realization and fight against food insecurity (Washington, 2019).
Change in population faced by food insecurity
Food security impacted a lot of negative effects on the population that faced this global
issue. Food insecurity led to a change in the mode of living of these people affected. It reduced
3
the standards of living of these people. That is because the people suffered psychological hunger,
stress, and malnutrition. Among children, it led to a high increase in malnutrition-related
diseases. The diseases erupted and were widespread between children and different
Communities, leading to modalities. These food-related diseases such as marasmus became a
growing threat in the lives of young children. Lack of food also leads to migration of these
populations affected. It also led to agricultural businesses’ implementation to cater to their needs.
This population used fertilizers and seeds to grow crops that would sustain them, I.e., and They
became farmers. It also led to the growth of ill conditions like diabetes and hypertension (PayneSturges et al., 2018).
Food insecurity incompatibility with social work values
Decision problem known as food insecurity causes major social workers’ values failure.
That is because the social problem is the major cause of the vulnerable population in society. It is
logical that when someone does not take enough food to sustain their living, the weekend I’ve
been weak and unable to participate in social works. Food insecurity can also lead to the eruption
of criminal activities such as theft of goods and robbery. The criminals involved in these
activities are people trying to get their daily Bread after going several hungry nights. That
hinders social values and ethics in society. To work, they need to take food which is necessary
for energy-giving frequently. Once this food becomes scarce and inadequate, it will lead to
incapable people lacking the necessary labor for use in social works. These criminal cases prove
that food insecurity leads to a decline in social values and ethics.
Steps to identify suitable policy
Essential steps are needed to develop policies that will help overcome these social
problems of food insecurity. Every community member needs to be educated on the importance
4
of not wasting food. Education is critical and essential in ensuring that food insecurity is
eliminated. The following steps are necessary when developing the policies; educating the
community on food security causes, effects, and dangers. Some regulations to ensure that no
food is wasted need to be installed. Incorporating different people and the government to manage
food insecurity is another step in developing the policy. The government needs to lessen the
policies for everyone to make them fair to everyone. Issuing seeds and fertilizer to different
Farmers and encouraging them to practice farming on a different type of crop is another step in
making these policies. The policy needs to be amended as part of the government’s regulations so
that everyone has to follow them to the latter (Loopstra et al., 2019).
5
Reference
Washington, K. N. (2019). Using a rule-driven race equity reform approach to mitigate the
effects of America’s history of racism on food insecurity. Professional agricultural
workers journal, 7(3).
Payne-Sturges, D. C., Tjaden, A., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., & Arria, A. M. (2018).
Student hunger on campus: Food insecurity among college students and implications for
academic institutions. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(2), 349-354.
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., & Tarasuk, V. (2019). The rise of hunger among low-income
households: an analysis of the risks of food insecurity between 2004 and 2016 in a
population-based study of UK adults. J Epidemiol Community Health, 73(7), 668-673.
1
Policy Review
NAME
Walden University
SOCW 6361: Social Policy: Analysis and Advocacy
December 29, 2021
2
Policy Review
This past March, The Election Integrity Act of 2021, a historical voting policy, was
developed in Georgia. This policy was developed by lawmakers as they desired change, which
was election reform. This was primarily prompted by the historic election cycle experienced in
Georgia as well as the rest of the United States. During elections, Republicans lost unexpectedly
regardless of Georgia’s historic stronghold with the Republican Party. However, during this time
Democrats carried the majority of votes. Therefore, Georgia’s state legislature was impacted by
this voting policy. Governor Kemp signed the law in March which entailed various changes to
the Georgia’s voting practices moving forward. Ultimately, Georgia’s voting policy sought
control of the election processes moving forward in the state.
Social Problem(s) Addressed in the Policy
There are several problems stemming from Georgia’s voting policy to include voting, as
well as election processes. Several irregularities in voting were experienced in Georgia such as
the voting window for mail ballots was extended by allowing up to six months prior to the
election day for voters to request mail in ballots (Georgia General Assembly, 2021). This
extended window of time created space for election fraud. Additionally, there was multiple
voting ballots among some voters. Furthermore, the policy added days for voters in rural areas.
Social workers through the standards of NASW ethics, would have ethical concerns with the
irregularities and illegalities of this voting process which can lead to harmful conflict. The
conflict may escalate to actual conflict where people are injured, and others are displaced.
Because of this, social workers need to be engage in conflict resolution for the purpose of
providing ongoing care to populations affected (Bawn et al., 2019). Furthermore, disputes
regarding the election process are detrimental as they cause tension which disrupts social,
3
political, and economic order. Social workers should worry about all the systems affected due to
this conflict. Additionally, Georgia’s voting policy creates issues with voter access while the
policy allows access to some of Georgia’s residents and yet greatly reduces the access to others
(Bartels, 2016). Due to this the policy has become controversial since the policy impacts positive
increases to voter access and yet restricts access to voters residing in rural areas of the state
(Bawn et al., 2019). Ultimately the negative impacts outweigh the positives as minorities are
further oppressed through this policy.
Population Impacted by the Policy
The new voting policy affects only a small part of Georgia’s 7.4 million voters and while
the policy unifies election processes it still negatively impacts minorities (Bawn et al., 2019).
The policy lowers voter turnout in minority groups of African Americans as well as the Latinex
communities in Georgia. Therefore voter suppression is an ongoing problem due to this policy
(Bartels, 2016). The restrictions developed by the policy includes the ability for minorities to
exercise their democratic right to vote. Markedly, it requires the voters to have IDs which is a
requirement that directly affects minority groups. Therefore, this policy creates further barriers
with groups of Americans who are already systemically oppressed. The Georgia voting policy
eliminates the use of signatures in confirming the voter’s identities. The Georgia voting policy
takes the minorities’ population into consideration. Immigrants in the U.S. have a history of
discrimination. The Georgia lawmakers knew that the immigrants in Georgia having IDs are few.
The law would bar the minorities from registering as voters which further secures the historic
Republican stronghold of the state.
Summary of the Excerpt from the Policy that Needs Change
4
Stricter ID measures can help to control voter fraud. Reports of people voting multiple
times was reported. Therefore, the policy requires presentation of ID while voting (Bawn et al.,
2019). The second strength is that the policy allows various identification documents to include a
state issues photo ID, drivers license as well as a voter identification card (Georgia General
Assembly, 2021). A voter can lack one document but have the alternative therefore more people
are eligible to vote. Nonetheless, change is needed in this policy provision since a large
population of immigrants doesn’t have any of these essential documents.
The policy limitations include discriminatory practices with oppressed populations of
Americans. Once the policy increases voter access to some people, it reduces voter access to
other people (Bawn et al., 2019). Hence, the policy creates disparity. On expanding voting, the
policy adds a voting day to people in rural counties. Additionally, the policy provides multiple
drop boxes during an election (Georgia General Assembly, 2021). Certainly, this will ensure that
more people vote. Limitations of the policy include eliminating mail in ballots.
This is a challenge to people who cannot be able to vote physically. Moreover, the policy
disfranchises minority voters. In alleviating the voter access problem with minorities, I would
recommend the removal of the voter ID requirement as this change should be suspended until all
Georgian voters have required documentation.
Conclusion
Public policies are created to address root social issues. Public policies should be
equitable though sadly, the benefits of the Georgia Voting policy are not equitable. Minority
groups are affected through the policy and lack of requirements without solution is presented.
Ultimately, fairness should prevail in public policies.
5
References
Bartels, L. M. (2016). Elections in America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 667, 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662035
Bawn, K., DeMora, S. L., Dowdle, A., Hall, S., Myers, M. E., Patterson, S., & Zaller, J. (2019).
Policy voting in U.S. House primaries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties,
29(4), 533-549.
Georgia General Assembly. (2021). SB 202: Election Integrity Act of 2021.
https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/59827)
Final Project Milestone 2: Issue Statement and Identification of a Policy
NAME
Walden University
SOCW 6361: Social Policy: Analysis and Advocacy
December 26, 2021
2
Issue Statement
Social Problem
Food insecurity is a big problem in many communities across the globe as it results from
many factors. The production of crops and animals is the primary food source for human beings.
However, several factors limit food production, including drought and changing climatic
patterns, floods, pests invasion, diseases, and wildfires. It is further necessary to understand that
most of the world’s population purchases food from farmers and other food vendors. The urban
dwellers are the most affected by this trend as they need money to purchase food for their daily
survival. However, a large portion of the urban population are low-income earners and
significantly struggle to afford food. According to National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, food insecurity affects Latinos and Black Americans instead of Whites (Myers &
Painter, 2017). It is necessary to establish the connection between ethnicity and food security.
Critical Reasons for Advocating for Change
There is a need to advocate for the policy on food security since it harms the children and
deprives the adults of the energy needed for their daily activities. Food is a vital requirement that
every individual should access. When children get malnourished due to food insecurity, they are
likely to contract several diseases that might become fatal when they fail to receive the prompt
intervention. Food insecurity also leads to several criminal activities such as theft as people
become violent in searching for food. Hatred among different communities might also arise
when one feels that the other is responsible for their suffering. Policies targeting intervention on
food insecurity are likely to create cohesion in the society and develop a healthy population with
low crime rates (Myers & Painter, 2017).
What Happens Upon Achieving the Goal?
3
Upon realization of the goal to alleviate food insecurity, the world will have a healthy
population free from various illnesses that arise from malnutrition. Many people, especially
children, develop various diseases due to malnutrition. Besides, some hungry individuals might
steal from their neighbors to access food. Such behavior raises the rates of crime and leads to an
insecure society. Upon realizing food security, society will be secure with low crime rates. The
children will also be free from diseases as healthy eating boosts the immunity of humans. There
will be a happy society where people love each other and interact positively. The government
will also have an item of reduced expenditure on the health sector as the need for treatment and
hospitalization will reduce due to a healthy society.
The Policy
The selected policy is by state statute and not local statute. There is a need for a healthy
nation, and the local statute might only consider a small region of the country and leave the rest
in the same state that has significantly affected their health. However, the state statute has for a
long time considered the agricultural subsidies while giving little consideration to the food
policy. Therefore, the policy has provided a significant percentage of the subsidies for the food
products consumed mainly by animals or used to produce fuel such as corn (Loopstra, Reeves, &
Tarasuk, 2019).
How the Policy Address the Issue Statement
Most of these agricultural products only produce junky foods that further lead to health
complications. Hence, there is a need for a food policy that promotes healthy food products.
Different Components of the Policy
The food policy addresses agricultural production in general. A clause subsidizes the
large-scale production of various agricultural products, including food components such as corn.
4
The policy further advocates for healthy eating that requires the citizens to consume many
vegetables and fruits to have a healthy body.
How the Current Policy has been in place
The current policy has tried to promote agricultural production instead of focusing on
access to healthy foods. Despite the current subsidies on agricultural production, most Americans
continue to lack food while others can only afford unhealthy foods that further endanger their
lives.
The Period in which the policy has been in place
The food policy has been in place for several decades. It started before the Obama
administration. However, there have been various amendments to the food policy, which have
not yielded many results.
Who Supports or Opposes the Current Food Policy
The nutritionists have opposed the food policy that provides subsidies on agricultural
production without researching its impact on modern society. The government needs to promote
healthy eating by ensuring the population access healthy foods. However, the policy that
promotes food products such as corn while leaving the vegetables and fruits is unhealthy. It
ensures that the population only access unhealthy food products while finding healthy ones quite
expensive to access (Loopstra, Reeves, & Tarasuk, 2019).
The Amendments
They have been various amendments to the food policy, such as those specifying the
percentage of various food components that people should consume. However, there has been
little effort in its implementation. Therefore, the proposed food policy should emphasize the
production of healthy foods so that every citizen can stay healthy.
5
How the Policy Affects Clients
Finally, it is evident from the current policy that it promotes the production of animal
foods and junky foods for human consumption. Hence, people will continue to eat more animal
products since they are produced cheaply. However, animal products such as meat and chicken
plus junky foods always lead to obesity. Hence, the patients visiting healthcare centers are likely
to suffer from obesity-related illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure (Washington,
2019). Besides, malnourished children are likely to develop illnesses such as kwashiorkor or
marasmus. Although healthy eating is the most appropriate solution, these diseases can be fatal
and lead to early deaths. Hence, as a social worker, it is necessary to advocate for change in the
food policy to ensure that every citizen accesses healthy meals at affordable prices. The most
significant barrier to healthy food has been poor food policy that promotes the production of
unhealthy foods while making the healthy foods highly unaffordable to many citizens.
6
References
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., & Tarasuk, V. (2019). The rise of hunger among low-income
households: an analysis of the risks of food insecurity between 2004 and 2016 in a
population-based study of UK adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 73(7), 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211194
Ana McCormick Myers, A. McCormick Myers, & Matthew A. Painter II, M. A. Painter II.
(2017). Food insecurity in the United States of America: an examination of race/ethnicity
and nativity. Food security, 9, 1419-1432. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0733-8
Washington, K.N. (2019).Using a rule-driven race equity reform approach to mitigate the effects
of America’s history on racism and food insecurity. Professional agricultural workers
journal,7(3). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/301207/?ln=en