Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://testbankfan.com/download/brooks-cole-empowerment-series-becoming-an-eff
ective-policy-advocate-7th-edition-jansson-solutions-manual/
This chapter discusses ethical, analytical, political, and electoral rationales for policy practice
and policy advocacy, the importance of the ethical principle of “beneficence” to the work of
professionals, and the ethical need to incorporate policy-related and policy-sensitive practice in
social work practice. It makes an ethical case, using principles of social justice and fairness, that
social work practice should also include policy practice that seeks to reform policies in agency,
community, and legislative settings. Using examples of social policy research, it discusses how
policy advocates should try to change policies so they conform to social science findings. It
contends that social workers need to engage in policy advocacy to offset or counter special
interests and politicians whose views run counter to social justice policies that help consumers
and out-groups. It discusses why social workers should participate in electoral politics to help
elect public officials with social justice perspectives.
CORE KNOWLEDGE
1. Discuss the assertion: Social workers who focus on their clinical work “ought not be
expected to do more,” since they are attending to their clients’ well-being (or
beneficence).
2. Discuss the ethical rationale for the argument that direct-service work should include
policy-sensitive and policy-related activities and dimensions. Enumerate specific
sensitivities or actions that fall under each of these categories.
3. Discuss the assertion: Without policy advocacy, the social work profession becomes, in
effect, an apologist for existing institutions rather than a force for social reform.
4. Discuss the merits of Rawls’ central argument that the “rational person” would likely
choose to live in a society like Sweden rather than the United States when operating
under the "veil of ignorance."
5. Review Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.2 “Empowering Clients or Citizens to Seek Social
Justice.” Can social workers sometimes help their clients participate in the social-policy
process?
6. How do deontologists and Utilitarians differ in their approach to ethical reasoning? Name
one strength and one weakness of each approach.
7. A dilemma in ethical reasoning is that people often encounter two (or more) “partly-good
options” so that choices are often not clear cut. Discuss this reality with respect to the
merits of active euthanasia or any other controversial policy issue.
8. Discuss some ethical dangers or pitfalls we might experience if we base our ethical
choices entirely on consequences, such as funding only those medical treatments and
procedures that have zero side effects.
9. Compare and contrast the assumptions of radicals, liberals, and conservatives with regard
to government involvement in the economic and social order.
10. With reference to Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.6 (“Ethical Reasoning by Firing-line
Social Workers”), discuss some reasons why staff members do not divulge to outside
authorities the wrongdoing of some of the hospitals’ discharge practices.
11. Discuss the assertion that social workers do not act ethically when they seek to advance
their own, or their profession’s, self-interest.
12. Discuss the assertion that social workers are more likely than other people to emphasize
social justice, fairness, and honesty when they participate in policy practice.
13. Discuss how social-science and medical research has encouraged a revolution in policies
dealing with people with schizophrenia during the past 40 years.
14. Discuss the divergent policy recommendations that Richard Hernstein and Claude Fischer
would support as a result of their different findings in The Bell Curve and Inequality by
Design.
15. Discuss why it is critical that social workers work to change the composition of
government. Compare and contrast policies that emanated from a relatively conservative
and a relatively liberal presidency or governorship to illustrate the importance of ballot-
based advocacy.
POSSIBLE ASSIGNMENTS
1. Take an issue from the current news and ask students to examine it from radical, liberal,
and conservative perspectives. What underlying assumptions and values would shape (1)
perceptions of the issue, and (2) likely solutions?
2. Take an ethical issue in the social services, perhaps a medical issue like euthanasia or the
question of whether to commit some homeless persons to institutions. Identify specific
ethical principles, as well as pragmatic realities, that impinge on the issue. Develop at
least two possible solutions to the ethical dilemma posed by the issue. Discuss the
problems or difficulties you have in resolving this ethical dilemma.
Use Policy Advocacy Challenges to generate take-home or in-class exercises. For example:
Review Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.3 “Imagining a Better Society” and ask students to
identify current, inadequate policies and then to determine how policy advocates might
begin working on initiating change.
Have students view the video clip in Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.5 “Linking to an
Advocacy Group” and ask them to identify why it is difficult for individuals to influence
major policies single-handedly. Ask them to identify a policy that affects a population
with whom they are working and then to connect with a specific advocacy group that is
focused on changing policies relevant to that population.
Ask students to discuss when social workers might ethically engage in whistle blowing
and when this is unethical (Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.6 “Ethical Reasoning by Firing-
line Social Workers”)
Develop and frame a specific policy issue using both conservative and liberal ideology
(Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.7 “Using Different Ideologies to Frame Issues – and
Taking a Position”)
Have students review the causes of homelessness in Policy Advocacy Challenge 2.9 and
then discuss the various ways that policy advocates can intervene to address these root
causes.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Mr. Gibson, of Ohio, Mr. Eagan, of Nebraska, and Mr. Oliver, of
Iowa, and others.
Senator Warner Miller, of New York, presented the name of Hon.
Levi P. Morton, of New York, which was seconded by Mr. Sage, of
California, Governor Foster, of Ohio, Mr. Oliver, of South Carolina,
General Hastings, of Pennsylvania, and others.
Mr. McElwee, of Tennessee, presented the name of William R.
Moore, of that State.
One ballot was taken, resulting as follows:
Morton 591
Phelps 119
Bradly 103
Bruce 11
Thomas 1
Harrison. Cleveland.
California 8 Alabama 10
Colorado 3 Arkansas 7
Illinois 22 Connecticut 6
Indiana 15 Delaware 3
Iowa 13 Florida 4
Kansas 9 Georgia 12
Maine 6 Kentucky 13
Massachusetts 14 Louisiana 8
Michigan 13 Maryland 8
Minnesota 7 Mississippi 9
Nebraska 5 Missouri 16
Nevada 3 New Jersey 9
New Hampshire 4 North Carolina 12
New York 36 South Carolina 9
Ohio 23 Tennessee 11
Oregon 3 Texas 13
Pennsylvania 30 Virginia 12
Rhode Island 4 West Virginia 6
Vermont 4
Wisconsin 11 168
233
168
Harrison’s majority 65
1884. 1888.
Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem.
Maine 72,209 52,140 72,659 49,730
N. Hampsh’e 43,249 39,183 45,728 43,444
Vermont 39,514 17,331 45,192 16,788
Massachus’ts 146,724 122,352 183,447 151,990
Rhode Island 19,030 12,391 21,960 17,533
Connecticut 65,923 67,199 74,584 74,920
New York 562,005 563,154 649,114 635,715
New Jersey 123,366 127,778 144,426 151,154
Penna. 473,804 392,785 526,223 446,934
Ohio 400,082 368,280 416,054 396,455
Indiana 238,463 244,990 263,361 261,013
Illinois 337,469 312,351 370,241 348,360
Michigan 192,669 149,835 236,307 213,404
Wisconsin 161,157 146,459 176,553 155,232
Iowa 197,089 177,316 211,592 177,899
Minnesota 111,685 70,065 136,359 99,664
Colorado 36,166 27,603 51,796 37,610
California 102,416 89,288 124,809 117,729
Kansas 154,406 90,132 182,610 102,580
Nebraska 76,912 54,391 108,425 80,552
Nevada 7,193 5,578 7,238 5,326
Oregon 26,860 24,604 33,293 26,524
Totals 3,608,965 3,153,912 4,081,971 3,610,556
1884. 1888.
Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem.
Delaware 12,951 16,964 12,950 16,414
Maryland 85,699 96,932 99,761 106,172
Virginia 139,356 145,497 150,442 151,977
W. Virginia 63,096 67,317 75,052 75,588
Kentucky 118,122 152,961 155,154 183,800
Tennessee 124,078 133,258 139,815 159,079
Arkansas 50,895 72,927 58,752 85,962
N. Carolina 125,068 142,950 134,784 147,902
Missouri 202,929 235,988 236,325 261,957
Totals 922,194 1,064,794 1,063,035 1,188,851
GULF STATES.
REPUBLICAN.
Territories.
Alaska 2 0 0
Arizona 1 1 0
Dist. of Columbia 0 2 0
Indian Territory 1 1 0
New Mexico 6 0 0
Oklahoma 2 0 0
Utah 2 0 0
Total 535⅙ 182⅙ 182
Absent and not voting, 1⅔.
Reed, of Maine, received 3 votes, and Lincoln, of Illinois, 1.
Major McKinley moved to make the nomination unanimous, and it
was adopted with great enthusiasm.
In response to the unanimous request of the New York delegation,
Hon. Whitelaw Reid was nominated for Vice-President by
acclamation.
[See Book II. for Platform and Comparison of Platforms; Book III.
for speech of Hon. Chauncey M. Depew.]
DEMOCRATIC.
Territories
Alaska 2 0 0 0 0
Arizona 5 0 0 1 0
Dist. of Columbia 2 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 4 1 1 0 0
Oklahoma 2 0 0 0 0
Utah 2 0 0 0 0
Indian Territory 2 0 0 0 0
Total 617⅓ 115 103 36½ 38⅔
Number of votes cast, 909½. Necessary to a choice, 607.
Of the scattering votes Campbell got two from Alabama.
Carlisle got 3 from Florida, 6 from Kentucky, 5 from Ohio. Total
14.
Stephenson got 16⅔ from North Carolina.
Pattison got 1 from West Virginia.
Russell got 1 from Massachusetts.
Whitney got 1 from Maine.
Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois, former Assistant Postmaster-
General, was nominated Vice-President on the first ballot, his chief
competitor being Senator Gray, of Indiana.
[See Book II. for Democratic National Platform and Comparison;
Book III. for Governor Abbett’s speech nominating Cleveland.]
A notable scene in the Convention was created by Mr. Neal, of
Ohio, who moved to substitute a radical free trade plank as a
substitute for the somewhat moderate utterances reported by ex-
Secretary of the Interior Vilas, who read the report of the Committee
on Platform. The substitute denounced the protective tariff as a
fraud.
Mr. Neal made an earnest speech in support of his substitute and
was ably seconded by Mr. Watterson.
Mr. Vilas replied defending the majority report in a vigorous
speech, which was as generously applauded as that which preceded.
The debate was animated and made specially interesting by the
suggestions and calls from the galleries. The substitute was finally
accepted by Chairman Jones on behalf of the committee, but this did
not satisfy the friends of the substitute, who persisted in having a roll
call upon its adoption.
A synopsis of the platform was submitted to and received the
approval of Mr. Cleveland, and it was reported that the Neal
substitute was prepared by the anti-Cleveland leaders, and the fact
that the roll call was persisted in by the anti-Cleveland men gave
color to this report.
There was a great deal of confusion and excitement preceding the
roll call, and its progress was watched with as much interest as
though its result was to decide the nomination. The States at the
head of the roll generally cast their votes according to what was
believed to be the feeling of their delegations on the Presidency, but
later on the order was more varied, States known to be for Cleveland
casting their solid vote for the substitute. New York was loudly
cheered when the 72 votes of the State were given for the substitute.
It was a most inconsistent vote, as Tammany is not regarded as a free
trade organization—rather as one favoring moderate tariffs. A ripple
of excitement was occasioned when Chairman Hensel cast the 64
votes of Pennsylvania against the substitute. Mr. Wallace protested
that 15 of the delegates favored the substitute, and he demanded that
the delegation be polled. A colloquy followed between Hensel and
Wallace on the rules of the Convention, and the point raised by the
former that Wallace’s motion was not in order under the unit rules
was sustained by the Chair.
The result of the vote was 564 for the substitute and 342 against it.