1. Given our local economy, high unemployment, crime and budget concerns address how the "culture of poverty" has become an established cycle in Detroit. Pick one suburb where this does not exist and provide a contrast between the two cities. What makes them different?
Karger and Stoesz (2008) define culture of poverty as specifically poverty traits that are transmitted inter-generationally in a self perpetuating cycle (p.111). This culture of poverty has become established in Detroit for various reasons. Some of those reasons include the loss of industrialization and flight to the suburbs, which decreased tax base significantly allowing for less quality schools and governmental services. Furthermore, Detroit has been subject to institutionalized racism and polices that have set back this community for decades to come. Examples of this can be seen in the highways that were built in the middle of neighborhoods, as well as placing an incinerator that has contributed to city having one of the worse asthma rates in the nation.
Negative media messages perpetuate this culture of poverty and reinforce its centrality as existing mainly in Detroit. Often, the narrative around the city is one that espouses a story of hopelessness and despair while the opposite is true. High unemployment, crime, and budget concerns are problems that are certainly not reserved for a city like Detroit. These problems can occur in many cities across America. One such example of this is the city of Sterling Heights. Sterling Heights along with several other suburban Detroit communities have seen significant increases in child poverty rates between 2008 and 2011, in which their rates rose by about 14 percent (Jones, 2012). Sterling Heights and Detroit share similar characteristics as struggling cities with unemployment and budge concerns. However, Detroit is different in that it has longer history of these issues and a stigma that is well connected with them, versus the image that Sterling Heights brings to mind. A study from the nonprofit research institute Data Driven Detroit compared poverty rates in 1999-2000 with those in 2011-2012 using Census Bureau Data and other statistics. The report found sharply higher child and household poverty rates in the suburban communities surrounding Detroit, demonstrating that poverty in southeastern Michigan is no longer concentrated in the city of Detroit, but has spread to the suburbs and now, in fact, surpasses that of Detroit (Jones, 2012).
2. Explain why poor and minority populations are
typically not well represented by Super PAC’s or lobbyists. Do you feel
the PAC concept considers the oppressed and those in poverty? Given the
actions of recent legislative decisions (2010) restricting Super PACS-who
stands to benefit?
Poor and minority populations are typically not well represented by Super PAC’s or lobbyists because the way the overall governmental decision making process is structured hinders representation of these populations. The most influential players in the social policy game are executives and professionals. While groups lower on the social stratification scale such as the poor and minorities have considerably less influence, and their interests are largely placed in the hands of professionals who work through advocacy organizations (Karger & Stoesz, 2008, p.221). However, many advocacy organizations do not always wield enough political influence to compete with many corporations and other special interest groups.
This hierarchy of influence is crucial as it pertains to Super PACs attempting to influence the formation of legislation. This can be seen in that the astonishing number of paid lobbyists and contributions made by PACs to support certain polices all of which welfare and social advocacy organizations with shrinking budgets cannot compete with. The whole concept of PACs does not consider the oppressed and those in poverty, especially with the actions of recent legislative decisions. These federal court decisions found that restrictions on individual contributions to organizations, as well as limits on corporate and union spending to influence elections unconstitutional. The main issue with these rulings is that corporations and another wealthier entities have always had the advantage with regards to money and politics and now will continue to have this unfair advantage in sponsoring candidates to federal office that support their particular interests. This will only continue to reinforce the social stratification of the political process as a whole and further marginalize the voices of oppressed groups. With no process of checks and balances, those with more money will have more political power, and can almost completely detract what little influence social advocacy organizing possibly had, a move that will no doubt negatively affect minorities and the poor.
3. Discuss the four structural interests within the U.S social welfare system. Define each one and describe what makes each different. Which of the four do you feel best meets the needs of the social welfare system and clients-or it is a combination of providers?
1. Traditional Providers: see Social Work as deeply rooted and connected with other community institutions. According to them, voluntary nonprofit agencies have the advantage of a strong community and neighborhood identity that espouse a concern for the well being of the community over personal gain (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). Since many of these agencies are rooted locally, they are different than other structural interests in that they have much more freedom to develop programming according to needs and priorities in their specific community, and also change it when need be.
2. Welfare Bureaucrats: are big proponents of governmental involvement and believe that federal intervention is much more effective than other forms of authority because it centralized with standardized guidelines, along with benefits that are allocated according to principles of equity and equality (Karger & Stoesz, 2008, p. 147). They are unique in that they advocate for a well coordinated and planned system for delivery of services, assigning the state as the vehicle for social reform. Furthermore, perceiving the state as the administrative apparatus to unite fragmented services and ensure the continuation of principles of social welfare (Karger & Stoesz, 2008).
3. Clinical Entrepreneurs: are professional service providers who are not salaried employees, but instead work for themselves. Their ranks might include psychologists, physicians, and social workers. What makes them quite different from the other three structural interests is that they have the advantage of the establishment of a professional monopoly. This offers them much autonomy and freedom to set their own prices, as well security through professional membership since their practice is restricted to those licensed by the state, limiting much competition (Karger & Stoesz, 2008, p.148).
4. Human Service Executives: share similar characteristics to clinical entrepreneurs in that they both operate in a market economy. However, human service executives are salaried employees of for profit firms and therefore have less autonomy (Karger & Stoesz, 2008). As executive officers of large corporations, they favor market rationality in allocating resources and evaluating programs. This approach is also what has led them to establish prominent positions in the human service markets. Furthermore, since they hold strong place in many of the markers they serve, they are in position to influence those very same markets as well as governmental policy, drastically distinguishing them from the other structural interests because of this ability (Karger & Stoesz, 2008).
While I believe it is a good to have a healthy proportion of all of them since each has its advantage and disadvantages, I am personally prefer the traditional provider type of structural interest. In Social Work practice the concept of meeting clients where they are is critical, and in the same way we should meet communities where they perceive their needs to be. Traditional providers allow for much room to accomplish this as there is usually less bureaucracy and more informality. I may be biased in this perspective since most of my experience has been in this type of structural interest, yet I have found the freedom and flexibility of adapting to changes in your local community more valuable than all the other advantages the other structural interests bring.
4. Identify the two advantages and disadvantages of the privatization of welfare services.
Advantages
1. Flexibility
Proponents of privatization would argue that it allows room for much more flexibility regarding organizational structure versus governmental agencies which have numerous processes and protocols for service delivery. One way this flexibility is manifested is that privatized agencies have more access to capital and in fact can access it faster than government agencies that must undergo lengthy public expenditure authorization processes (Karger & Stoesz, 2008, p.175). A competitive environment through a market based approach can provide incentives for organizations to become more innovative, from the way they deliver services to the way they reward employees. Many times, large bureaucracies can hinder agencies that attempt to make immediate changes to meet their consumer needs. Privatization can cut administrative costs needed to manage this bureaucracy, while at the same time having the flexibility to adapt quicker to changes in their market.
2. Access to Cutting Edge Information on Organizational Improvement
Corporations lead the way in cutting edge info regarding organizational improvement, since they are in constant competition with their competitors. Many non-profits are increasingly adopting practices that can be found in corporate organizations, from complex information systems, to team member’s personality and leadership assessments. The nonprofit industrial complex essentially has slowly become a copy of corporate America in its organizational culture. However, corporations still have the lead with this regard because they are usually well funded and can operate in higher capacities, allowing them to have some of the best practices for optimizing organizational and employee performance.
Disadvantages:
1. Profit over People Mentality
The application of market principles to client services introduces strong incentives for agencies to differentiate between their client base, and cater to patients who can increase their profit margin. This practice is also referred to as preferential selection and can further limit access of the most oppressed and marginalized clients from receiving services, since more attention is given to wealthier clients versus those with lower socioeconomic status (Karger & Stoez, 2008). Furthermore, agencies may take other measures so that the agency does not operate in a deficit. This can include cutting staff or replacing them with lower wage or inexperienced workers to save costs. A basic market principle is to produce as much as possible under the lowest cost. This can entice agencies to employ standardization techniques in which there is a uniformity of care philosophy that standardizes care for all patients. While standardizing care may cut costs, it also can dramatically decrease the quality of service and especially the quality of individualized service to meet specific needs of each client/patient (Karger & Stoez, 2008). Our book captures this point best:“If a publicly traded corporation’s profit is linked to reducing welfare rolls the incentive to deny aid will be significant. Such companies cannot be expected to protect the interests of the needy at the expense of their bottom line if they have an expectation to maximize share holder profits “(Karger & Stoez, 2008, p.171).
2. Less Public Accountability
Under a privatized system, the government has less power to control the prices charged by contracting agencies as they would have been able to with governmental agencies directly under their control (Karger & Stoez, 2008). This risks the formation of oligopolies which than are in a strong position to shape the narrative as well as the direct policies around social welfare. When the market is controlled by few providers, it leaves less room for the public to voice their concerns regarding policies, and to even hold some of these private agencies accountable in the same way that would have if they were under governmental control.
5. What should an effective policy description include prior to moving to the legislative phase? Outline the necessary steps for developing an effective policy.
According to Karger and Stoesz (2008), an effective and detailed policy description includes the following:
1. How the policy is expected to work 2. Resources or opportunities the policy is expected to provide 3. Who will be covered by this policy and how 4. How will this policy be implemented 5. The expected short and long term goals and outcomes of the policy 6. The administrative auspices under which the policy will be lodged 7. The funding mechanism, including long term and short term 8. The agencies or organizations that have overall responsibility for overseeing, evaluating, and coordinating the policy 9. The criteria used to determine the effectiveness of the policy 10. The length of time the policy is expected to be in existence 11. The knowledge base or scientific backing for the policy (p.30).
All of this makes for quite a comprehensive description which is critical when developing an effective policy. Along with the list above, to develop an effective policy there are some necessary steps that must be taken. The first understands similar policies in the past and how they are have fared, along with exploring the problems that necessitated the passing of the original policy. Without a good understanding of this history, many policy makers risk reinventing the wheel, versus fine tuning it or building a better one for that matter. The second step would involve answering and exploring all of the questions above which requires generating much research and careful analysis of alternative models of different policies. The third and final step in developing an effective policy before it can be proposed to decision makers is making sure the policy is politically, economically, and administratively feasible. All three are required for a policy to be able to have a better chance of passing through. Policy effectiveness as Karger and Stoesz (2008) define it is based on the likelihood that the policy will accomplish what its designers intended, making it even more critical for policy makers to appraise and seek to answer all of these questions (p.31).
Works Cited:
Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2008). American social welfare policy: a pluralist approach (Policy Update Research Navigator ed., 5th updated ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon..