Sowk- Social policy and social welfare
This paper is using a pending pill form the Maryland General Assembly Website in relation to a previous paper I will provide. Since the topic of the last paper was head start programs I had an idea of using bills in relation to transportation for these programs because not all of them provide it. You don’t necessarily have to use it if you have a better idea. You only have to follow directions from the memo section of the prompt.
its 3pages single spaced so i need 6 pages double spaced
Hi! so I’ll give you the link to the Maryland General Assembly website. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Search/Full… I was thinking about the first two bills after doing research about head start programs and seeing that they aren’t required to provide it. But to work the website, you just need to type something in up top. The link is what came up when I typed in Head Start
SOWK 600: Social Welfare and Social Policy
with Steven Rivelis – Spring 2021
Social Policy – Pending
Memo: Due – Session 10 [3/30/2021] – 20 points
Advocacy Product and Journal: Due – Session 12 [4/13/2021 – 15 points
Briefing: Due – Sessions 13 & 14 [4/20 & 27/2021 – 5 points
: The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate the relationship between social policies and social work practice – specifically, how policies affect the lives of clients, the programs agencies develop, the communities in which social workers work, and the roles which social workers play in social service/social change organizations – by providing an opportunity track a bill in the state legislature and participate in its development as a social policy.
: Related to the issue you identified in Assignment 3. Social Policy – Past, identify a bill that is being considered by the Maryland General Assembly in 2021 which is important to the constituency with which you, your agency or your affinity group works, or which you want to work with after graduation; track and keep a journal on the bill’s progress throughout the legislative process; and complete the following components.
· Memo: In preparation for a meeting with the leadership of one of the concerned organizations/coalitions, write a 3-4 page memorandum to the Executive Director/Steering Committee, due prior to the start of Session 10 on 3/30/21 for 20 points, outlining the impact of the proposed legislation that includes these elements:
· Summary – of the social issue addressed by the pending bill
· Overview – a brief description of the pending bill
· Significance & Impact – an explanation of why the proposed policy is significant to the agency and the clients/community it serves … and an analysis of how the proposed policy will affect/impact the agency and the clients/community it serves
· Framework – what policy framework can be used to better understand this pending bill and why?
· Supporters & Opponents — an assessment of what entities might support this bill and why … and what entities might be against this bill and why
· Recommendation — what position should the leadership and organization take on the proposed bill … and why?
· A brief discussion of the strategies and actions the agency should take to respond to the proposed policy
· Advocacy: At a key point in the legislative process …
· Create an advocacy product [1-2 pages] – a Fact Sheet, Talking Points for Senator/Delegate visit, Letter to your Senator/Delegates, Letter-to-the-Editor, etc.
· Participate in an advocacy activity to help advance/kill the bill
· Write an entry in your journal discussing your advocacy activity – what was it, why you chose that activity, and what was its strategic timing?
· Submit your advocacy product and journal entry via an email to the instructor, due prior to the start of Session 12 on 4/13/2021 for 15 points.
· Briefing: Present a brief [5-10 minute] update to the full class on the bill you have been tracking … provide an overview of its intent, outcome, lessons learned from your advocacy activity, and recommended next steps (suggested strategy for next year if the bill failed, strategy for implementation/follow-up, evaluation if the bill passed). Briefings will be held during Session 13 on 4/20/2021 and Session 14 on 4/27/2021 for 5 points.
: All written communications shall be single-spaced, double-spaced between block paragraphs, using Calibri 14 pt. font, and 1” margins.
For this particular exercise, a “policy” is defined as an action of government that has the effect of law and that affects either the nature/amount of resources provided to the agency or its clients and/or the types of activities in which the agency can/cannot be involved.
To the extent possible, use actual data pertinent to the constituents and organizations impacted by this proposal. As such, you may need to review documents related to this proposed law as well as conduct a key informant interviews with individuals involved with this pending policy. Make sure to cite the sources of your data.
You may also make some assumptions that are necessary to draft the memorandum, as long as they do not contradict the data you have collected, the policy itself, or current conditions in/activities of the agency.
Running head: HEAD START 2
Social Policy- Past: Analysis Paper
Head Start: The Answer to Alleviating Poverty and Women Empowerment
University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Social Work
Social Welfare and Social Policy
Professor Steven Rivelis
Head Start: The Answer to Alleviating Poverty and Women Empowerment
Understanding Head Start
Various research on early childhood development has found a positive relationship between engagement in high-quality classrooms and intellectual outcomes (Irwin et al., 2016). The social issue addressed by Head Start is poverty being a barrier towards attaining an education. A secondary issue for the policy is the lack of employment in low-income families due to child care. Head Start addresses these interrelated issues by giving all children in the United States an equal chance to thrive in their education regardless of their economic background. Also, this allows parents to focus on securing employment to support their children.
An Overview of Head Start
The Head Start policy started as a series of educational programs for children between the ages of 3 and 4 from low-income families. However, the policy was changed to include children from birth to the age of 5 from low-income families and provided them with services such as preschool education and health care. Various programs have since been developed in numerous settings to facilitate the program’s goals. The policy purposefully structures the programs in a manner that benefits the children, parents, and other key family members in three aspects, namely, early learning and development, health as well as family well-being. These programs provide not only the children with services for a head start in education, but they also allow the provision of tax credits for their families (Lane et al., 2020). Individualized programs provide learning experiences that support children emotionally while introducing them to language, mathematics, and science. In this way, children have a smooth transition into kindergarten and elementary school. Morris et al. (2018) comment that the program considers the unique culture and language of each child. Also, children receive health screenings like mental screenings as well as nourishing meals to aid their development. Head Start keeps itself afloat through federal grants, which are granted openly and grants from private non-profit and for-profit organizations (Irwin et al., 2016).
The History and Goals of Head Start
President Kennedy initially brought up the issue of poverty, and President Johnson lessened it with Head Start. The government realized that they needed to break the poverty cycle in low-income families. Also, the feminist movements of the time were putting pressure on the government to recognize the strain that working women were under in taking care of their families (Lane et al., 2020). Walinsky (1969) documents that Walter Heller soon after brought Kennedy’s program to Johnson who, then prepared for congress to pass the program as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Daniel P. Moynihan opposed the program, saying that the government was not considering practicalities (Walinsky, 1969). But Head Start strived to offer early educational experiences to children from pre-kindergarten to kindergarten years who faced the possibility of not attaining an education because of poverty. The program allowed all children to start school with the same fundamentals which middle-and-upper-class families supply to their children. The policy assumes that poverty causes barriers to education and parents to worry about caring for their children, which exacerbates unemployment. Irwin et al. (2016) understands the policy as aiming to provide early childhood education to counteract the effects of poverty.
Several ideas and actions propelled Head Start, most notably The War on Poverty and the tax code provision. Former President Lyndon Johnson understood that children from impoverished backgrounds are at risk of being excluded from educational institutions. To prevent this, Head Start rolled out, and funding for early education channelled through the policy. Women dependent on benefits received subsidized child care in the 1960s to lessen their financial stress. This allowed more children to access day-care programs (Lane et al., 2020). Although this gave the policy some reinforcement, more financial action was needed. It was only after the altering of policies in the financing of early education that change began. The tax code provision laid a stable foundation for Head Start to ensure that children accessed education by giving low-income families tax credit if they had children under 13. This strategy not only lessened the financial burden on struggling families but also uplifted the economy as families had another reason to seek employment to qualify for the tax credit. From a feminist perspective, this was a tremendous win for women to be financially independent.
The Impact of Head Start
Through Head Start, many pre-kindergarten students accessed affordable care and education. It made it possible for them to receive high-quality care in centers as opposed to home care. The time that children spent in these centers helped develop their cognitive and social skills (Morris et al., 2018). Learners in elementary schools saw an improvement in their academic lives as they had support from their parents. Interestingly Morris et al. (2018) notes that parents who benefitted from Head Start, as children, develop a more hands-on approach to their children’s education. From an economic standpoint, parents have been able to seek and retain employment as the stress of caring for their children has lessened through Head Start. Yet, the prolonged impact for Head Start lies in the accessibility for pre-kindergarteners to move with ease through the education system. The skills acquired from centers place them on the same level as learners from middle-and-upper-income families. Therefore, these learners can learn at the same pace as other learners. But Head Start does more than address the issue of poverty. It also strengthens family bonds by empowering parents to provide their children with a better future.
Assessment of Head Start
Head Start shows signs of horizontal inequality in providing low-income families with a tax credit, unlike middle-and-upper-income families. It does, however, have vertical equity as the tax credit bridges the gap between the rich and the poor. The policy also scores high on social equity as it addresses the financial imbalances that pose barriers to education. But it does not pay attention to the uniqueness of the societies it operates in as the policy is implemented in a one size fits all approach. In its quest for inclusiveness, it focuses heavily on giving low-income families educational opportunities. Meanwhile, middle-and-upper-income families are experiencing rising costs in child care. Therefore, these groups also need assistance for the policy to achieve social inclusion. Historically, White American children have had the privilege of having sufficient resources to aid their education. Head Start addresses these social and racial injustices by setting up centers in low-income areas populated by minority groups. Morris et al. (2018) discovered that minority groups not only have access to education through the policy, but Spanish-speaking children learn English and subsequently become bilingual. Thus, they can adjust in kindergarten and elementary school at the same pace as English-speaking learners.
Policy Alternatives Considered.
The Military Child Care Act is a similar policy but differs by accommodating the children of military personnel (Lane et al., 2020). Like Head Start helping parents to keep their jobs, the Military Child Care Act retains military workers after having families. By knowing that their children receive care, military personnel can focus more on their jobs. But more specifically, in the Head Start policy, Lane et al. (2020) recorded that federal governments are paying attention to middle-and-upper-income families to redistribute the Dependent Tax Credit. These changes present a new perspective to the social problem by proving that parent absenteeism negatively affects the quality of education and care that a child receives. Furthermore, poverty is no longer an issue solely faced by low-income families but an issue confronting all families in various degrees. Head Start’s demographic of low-income minority groups certainly changes to include a larger demographic. With new developments in society, a new demographic of low-middle-and-upper-income families has emerged.
Feminism and Head Start
A feminist perspective best understands this policy as it touches on the injustices of women. For many years, women stood in the shadow of men, given roles only in domestic affairs. From the 1960s, as noted by Lane et al. (2020), dramatic changes happened which saw women having a presence outside of the home and in the workplace. But women experienced strain in managing careers with an uneven distribution of family responsibility. The Head Start policy addressed these issues in several ways. Firstly, it motivated women to seek employment to qualify for tax credits and gave them economic freedom instead of dependency on state benefits. It also drastically changed their role by empowering them to meet the educational needs of their children. However, from this feminist perspective, there are drawbacks to the advancement of women. In most of the Head Start centers employing women, they are severely underpaid. In these pink-collar occupations, women have their financial liberty taken away in the low salaries they receive.
Head Start has a place in society to continue providing access to child care and education to families. With the issue of poverty impacting families regardless of their income, this shows that the policy has a lot of work it needs to tackle. Nonetheless, it is unwise to implement this policy across the country in a standardized way without considering the locations it functions in. Children growing up in urbanized areas have more resources at their disposal than those in rural areas. Therefore, policymakers should bear this in mind and possibly allocate funding to areas lacking resources. There is also validity in the feminist argument that jobs performed by women offer little financial freedom. To close the gender wage gap, the government should reconsider the salaries provided to women. In doing so, they will realize the vision of The War on Poverty in providing access to education and financial liberation to all.
Irwin, C. W., Madura, J. P., Bamat, D., & McDermott, P. A. (2016). Patterns of classroom quality in Head Start and center-based early childhood education programs (REL 2017–199). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education and Regional Assistance. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569186.pdf
Lane, S. R., Palley, E., & Shdaimah, C. (2020). Social welfare policy in a changing world. SAGE Publications.
Morris, P. A., Connors, M., Friedman-Krauss, A., McCoy, D. C., Weiland, C., Feller, A., Page, L., Bloom, H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2018). New findings on impact variation from the Head Start impact study: Informing the scale-up of early childhood programs. AERA Open, 4(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418769287
Walinsky, A. (1969, February 2). Maximum feasible misunderstanding. The New York Times.