Brooks Cole Empowerment Series Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate 7th Edition

Jansson
Full download at:
Solution Manual:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-brooks-cole-empowerment-series-becoming-an-
effective-policy-advocate-7th-edition-by-jansson-isbn-1285064070-9781285064079/
Test bank:
https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-brooks-cole-empowerment-series-becoming-an-
effective-policy-advocate-7th-edition-by-jansson-isbn-1285064070-9781285064079/

CHAPTER 7: ANALYZING PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST STEP OF POLICY

ANALYSIS

This chapter discusses how policy practitioners define, conceptualize, and measure social
problems. It also discusses how qualitative and quantitative research is used to analyze the
causes and nature of social problems and how non-rational factors, such as values and culture,
powerfully shape the way in which people define problems.

CORE KNOWLEDGE

After studying this chapter, students should understand:

a. the six-step policy analysis framework
b. the analytic style of policy practice
c. analytic approaches in developing typologies of social problems
d. criteria for selecting one policy solution among many
e. how to use flow charts to analyze social problems, service delivery systems, and
outcomes
f. how to measure the magnitude of problems
g. how to locate social problems in geographic terms
h. how to analyze the causes of problems using various perspectives, such as the ecological,
radical, medical, intrapsychic, behavioral, and deterrent perspectives
i. conceptual problems and ambiguities in defining and measuring social problems
j. challenges for policy advocates in contesting punitive or simplistic definitions
stigmatized problems or populations, in showing that specific problems can be
significantly redressed by social remedies, and that inequalities need to be decreased

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. It is sometimes argued that “the way in which persons define a problem influences how
they proceed to solve or address it.” Discuss this statement as it applies to alcoholism,
substance abuse, or another social problem.
2. Take any major social problem and try to develop a definition of it. Try using both
relative and absolute approaches. How is the definition influenced by values or cultural
predispositions?

3. Discuss the statement, “social workers place insufficient emphasis on public health or
radical paradigms when analyzing specific social problems.”

4. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of several alternative ways of measuring the
prevalence of a specific social problem in a specific community. Is it possible to use
several kinds of information in tandem?

5. Discuss how a specific social problem takes different forms (or manifestations) and has
different causes in specific subsections of the population. Discuss some implication of
these variations for the human services delivery system.

POSSIBLE ASSIGNMENTS

1. Using a social agency with which you are familiar, discuss the influence that conceptual
frameworks, or paradigms, have on how staff perceive and address specific social
problems. Discuss conceptual frameworks that are absent in this setting and speculate
why they are absent.

2. Take any major social problem and try to develop a typology that identifies a variety of
persons who possess it. What problems do you encounter as you undertake this task?

3. As part of a larger research paper, identify how policy makers conceptualized a problem
or issue as they were developing a policy to address it. Critique their approaches to the
problem.

4. Read Policy Advocacy Challenge 7.2 and review the video. Discuss an array of
preventative solutions to help LGBTQQ youth avert serious social problems.

5. POLICY ANALYSIS USING THE RATIONAL POLICY MAKING MODEL

By Michael J. Holosko, Ph.D. and
Marvin D. Feit, Ph.D.
What to Do:
By using the enclosed process questions developed for Stage 1 of the Rational Policy Making
Model (Brooks, 1993), analyze a social policy in your community.
 The Rational Policy Making Model

Stage 1
PROBLEM
IDENTIFIED
Stage 5 Stage 2
POLICY POLICY
EVALUATED FORMULATED

Stage 4 Stage 3
POLICY LAWS,
IMPLEMENTED REGULATIONS
PASSED

Process Questions:

1. Targeting the Social Problem

1.1 Identifying the Social Problem

 What is the problem?
 Define it in measurable terms using empirical indicators?
 How many people are considered affected or at-risk in the target group?
 What is the scope of the problem?

1.2 Achieving Empathy with the Target Group

 How do those affected by the problem view themselves?
 How do others in the community view those affected by the problem?
 Who really cares about the target group and why?

1.3 Define the History of the Problem

 What happened to the target group before this issue came to the fore?
 How were the individuals in the target group previously absorbed by the
existing health or human service systems?
 What empirical indicators could be used to describe the target group
before?

2. Identifying the Causes of the Problems

 2.1 Define Perceived and Real Causes of the Problem
 What are the perceived causes of the problem?
 What are the real causes of the problem?
 How do these causes relate to one another?

2.2 Define Major and Minor Causes

 What are the major causes of the problem?
 What are the minor causes of the problem?
 How do these causes relate to one another?

3. Identifying the Stakeholders

3.1 Define all of the Individual Stakeholders

 Who are the individual stakeholders?
 What do they have at stake (as individuals) as they relate to the problem?
 How do they relate to one another?

3.2 Define all of the Organizational Stakeholders

 Who are the organizational stakeholders?
 What do they have at stake (organizationally)?
 How do they relate with one another?

4. Identifying the Values and Ideologies

4.1 Identify the Values and Ideologies

 What are the broad societal values and ideologies embedded in the social
problem?
 What are the local community values and ideologies?
 What are the existing values and ideologies of the target group?

4.2 Identify Competing and Conflicting Values?

 What competing values are at stake for the target group?
 What conflicting values are at stake for the target group?
 What are the perceived needs of the target group?

5. Identifying the Policy Gaps

5.1 History of the Policy Gap

 What is the history of the policy as it relates to the target group?
 Why is the target group not being cared for by existing policies?

5.2 Defining the Gap

 What is the macro level policy gap?
 What is the mezzo (organizational) level policy gap?
 What is the micro (individual) level policy gap?
What to Read:
1) S. Brooks (1993) Public Policy in Canada: An Introduction (2nd Edition). Toronto:
McLelland and Stewart, Inc. (particularly Chapter 5.)
2) Holosko, M.J. & Au, E. (1996). Social and Public Policy Analysis: A Niche for Social
Work Practice. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 7(3), 65-73.

Rationale:
The purpose of this analysis is to provide a framework for social workers to begin to analyze
social policy earlier on, before the policy formulation process. The proposed outcome of this
analysis is concerned with determining whether the formulated policies/programs affected social
problems and individuals in good or bad ways, that is, do the policies impact how the problem
was identified.

Page Length:
 No more than 20 double spaced pages.
 Append a copy of the policy you are analyzing or the assignment cannot be graded.

ASSIGNMENTS RELATED TO POLICY ADVOCACY CHALLENGES

 Have students diagram a social problem as suggested in Policy Advocacy Challenge 7.3
“Diagramming a Social Problem.”

 Have students develop specific policy suggestions for one of the two groups listed in
Policy Advocacy Challenge’s 7.2 “Preventing Homelessness Among LGBTQQ Youth”
or 7.4 “Developing a Typology of Homeless Persons.” Alternatively, have them suggest
another marginalized or oppressed group. Then have them search research literature to
see if relevant research exists that supports their suggestions.

 Have students address the questions about a prevention program that are posed in Policy
Advocacy Challenge 7.7 “Developing a Prevention Program and Convincing Decision
Makers to Adopt It.”

 Review Policy Advocacy Challenge 7.6 “Designing Services for Homeless Children”,
and ask them to connect their own experiences with the author’s —outlining possible
solutions to the social problems facing the groups with whom they are working.

 Review Policy Advocacy Challenge 7.9 “Analyzing Effects of Concentrated Poverty in

the U.S. and Globally”. Using the first step in the six-step policy analysis framework
(See Figure 7.1), ask students to familiarize themselves with the effects of either
segregation or forced integration on minority citizens, and to come up with possible
solutions.
 INTERNET EXERCISES

 As suggested in Policy Advocacy Challenge 7.1, have students find some statistics
related to their policy issue or interest from the Internet, and have them evaluate its
accuracy as suggested by the criteria.

IN-CLASS EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISES

1. WHAT’S GOING ON? AN EXPERIENTIAL SIMULATION FOR

CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE SOCIAL POLICY ANALYSIS
By Rita Takahashi, Professor
San Francisco State University
School of Social Work

“What’s Going On?” is a simulation that actively engages participants in the process of learning
how one’s knowledge and preconceived beliefs, values, and assumptions shape one’s
interpretations, analyses, and decisions. Conceived and created by Steven E. Aufrecht (1981,
1983) of the University of Alaska Anchorage, the exercise promotes active and experiential
learning. For policy analysis classes, this author modified the original exercise by writing the
policy role descriptions, changing some instructions, and modifying the format and delivery.
Participants find the exercise to be very effective in heightening their awareness of and
sensitivity to factors of multicultural diversity and making them “mindful” of intercultural
communications (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Further, it encourages critical thinking and promotes
analyses of contexts throughout the decision making process.

The complexities of policy and policy making processes are experienced in this exercise.
Although such complexities are conveyed in books and courses, the reality is rarely understood
in depth without actual experience. Aufrecht’s exercise, which involves a simple mechanical
process with four main participants, helps students internalize their knowledge and skills. One
designated participant, person C (see Appendix 2), touches his or her left or right ear
periodically. Depending on which ear is touched, participant F (a robot) extends their left or
right hand, and participant E (also a robot) picks up one of two colored chips, walks forward, and
drops it into the extended hand. When the supply of chips runs low, participant D collects them
from the container (where participant F dropped them after receipt) and places them next to
participant E.

The rest of the class is divided into two groups. Group A includes policy analysts who are
assigned the task of finding out what is going on in the room. Observing them is Group B, who
is studying how the policy analysts find things out. For more detail about the exercise set up and
process, see Appendix 1. Role descriptions and instructions are in Appendix 2.

Although what is going on is very simple, the dynamics of the groups become highly complex.
Participants tend to read a lot more into the situation based on acquired or expected “expertise”
as social policy analysts and on their own cultural interpretations and perceptions. In addition,
the methods they use to find things out as analysts are shaped by their cultural biases and
practices.

Points for Follow-Up Discussion

The strength of this simulation is in the debriefing and discussion following the exercise. Ample
time must be given for a thorough analysis of the decision and policy making processes and
diversity principles and concepts that were raised. In fact, it is a good jumping off point for a
lecture right after the exercise and participant discussions, and for additional ones throughout the
course.

Different variations of this exercise have been used by this author in social policy analysis
courses for twenty-one years. Throughout this time, the presenting scenarios were changed for
almost each student group, depending on political and economic context of that time and the
composition or interests of the class. This exercise provides an excellent avenue for students to
have a cross cultural experience that heightens their awareness of their own practices and skills.
It generates lively follow-up discussions and provides an opportunity to highlight a range of
content relevant to social policy and policy making processes, twenty of which are identified in
this paper. Without exception, the following dynamics were manifested each time the simulation
was used in the classroom or in other settings with social service providers.

1. Communications: Participants (most of whom are U.S.-born) tend to rely on oral

communications to gather information, assess, and make decisions – which is typical in
many fields and professions. In all the exercises this author facilitated, no group sat back
quietly, observed, and allowed matters to evolve. According to Edward T. Hall (1977),
this “low context” pattern of communication is consistent with many Western societies
like the United States. Information is garnered through overt, scripted and oral means.
This exercise reveals that, used in the wrong context, it will not yield the desired results.
In fact, it may lead one astray, and it will likely offend the recipient.

If the participants’ cultural backgrounds were high context, and if they were more attuned
to paralinguistic dynamics, perhaps they would have spent less time talking and being
obtrusive and more time quietly observing, reflecting, and understanding subtle
nonverbal cues and scoping out the context.

2. Dominance: Persons who freely verbalized, displayed assertive behaviors, and seemed
confident emerged as dominant forces in the group. Participants tended to give power to
such a person, and they deferred to them as leaders. This is consistent with the value
given to oral communications and assertiveness in western societies. In other cultures, the
same behaviors may be shunned and resisted because it may be perceived as brash,
arrogant, and simply out of line.

3. Kinesics: Focused on verbalizations and physical action, participants tend to short-change

attention to kinesics. They lose sight of the powerful messages that can be garnered from
such matters as body posture, hand/feet movement, facial expressions, eye movements,
and other nonverbal signals. This exercise helps participants realize that, for culturally
 sensitive problem-solving and decision-making, one should adjust and balance verbal and
nonverbal communications according to the culture, situation, and context.

4. Chronemics: In today’s fast-paced world, there is some uneasiness with a slower-paced

and more subtle and quieter approach. Participants confirm that they are uncomfortable
with silence, and they certainly illustrate this. When they came into the room and
observed the robot going back and forth in total silence, and when the entire room was
silent, they felt compelled to start asking questions within a short period of time.
Participants tend to be impatient throughout the process of observing, collecting
information, and assessing.

5. Language Barriers: In response to questions, the robots deliver answers that make little
or no sense to the questioner. The one-word answers reveal minimal information, and the
“yes, no, yes-no, and maybe” responses confuse those not used to such language.
Participants become frustrated, annoyed, and oftentimes angry with the language barrier.
Failing to comprehend the communications, participants usually interpret and find
meaning from their own cultural lens. Inevitably, they project their cultural and value-
based interpretations on the robots as if they were from backgrounds similar to their own.

Being human, participants tend to be egocentric, making it even harder for them to
understand language, cultures, and behaviors outside their own. Participants not only tend
to recognize only their own form of communication, but they also have little propensity
to understand others. Totally outside their domain of thinking are other forms, such as
touching one’s left or right ear to get the robots to move.

6. Attention: Participants attend to visible and action-oriented dynamics but tend to ignore
the more invisible domains. Both groups (policy analysts and observers) paid special
attention to the robots but ignored much of the less visible dynamics. The policy analysts’
eyes were on the robots, and little time was spent on finding out what everyone else in the
room was doing (e.g. the unobtrusive and quiet person whose ear-touching motions
initiated the robots’ actions). This is similar to the policy agenda setting process, where
the “squeaky wheel” captures the attention.

7. Individualism: In the U.S., citizens tend to be on the individualism end of the value
continuum and some distance away from collectivism. This comes out in the exercise.
Seldom do the participants engage in collaborative and cooperative collective behavior.
In the exercise, people tend to decide for themselves what they will do to solve the
problem. Therefore, many take individual action without consulting the group. An
individual person, for example, may decide to start asking questions without seeking a
collective decision from the group. This illustrates the significance of values and the
policy making process. Groups tend to neither strive for consensus or to reach a reasoned
majority opinion.

8. Group Think: Within the group, participants often go along with an idea or approach,
especially if it is stated or suggested by an assertive person or respected leader. This is
not a contradiction of individualism. While operating as an individual, the person is
 highly influenced by the ideas of others, particularly when it seems to reflect that of the
majority. Independent thought falls prey under group pressure. In some instances,
participants were close to explaining what was going on, but they abandoned their idea or
explanation when others went down a different track. Without support from the group,
individual ideas, regardless of merit, fall by the wayside.

9. Incrementalism: Rather than looking at the entire room with all the actors and observing
it holistically, many participants viewed it incrementally – one piece at a time. Each
dynamic tended to be seen as a separate entity rather than as a part of the interconnected
whole.

10. Focus: When the participants are cast into this uncertain and unrecognizable situation,
they lose sight of their purpose and objective. They fall back on an image they wish to
project (professional social workers and competent policy analysts) and lose sight of their
simple instructions—to find out what is going on. Instead, they frequently engage in
experimentation and analyses based on models and frameworks they have been studying.

The observers (Group B) also lost sight of their role and purpose. Instead of observing
the analysts, many turned to the robots and tried to figure out what was going on. Many
also became obtrusive and experimental, trying things out to see what would happen.

11. Obtrusiveness: When the policy analysts could not understand why the robot was going
back and forth and why another was sitting there receiving chips, they started
experimenting and altering the context. Their tactic for gathering information was not
only to ask questions, but to act aggressively and obtrusively. Among the actions were:
blocking the robot’s path, moving the robot’s starting point, taking the chips away,
dropping their own chips in the robot’s hands, and attempting to redirect and move the
robots. These culturally bound actions and behaviors are significant in all decision-
making settings, and they are very relevant to culturally sensitive and ethically-based
social work practice.

12. Stereotype: Even if the participants in each role are selected randomly, that did not stop
people from stereotyping the actors. In many instances, the participants made
assumptions about the robots based on their ethnic and cultural backgrounds. When the
two robots were persons of color, the policy analysts noted their “race” and assumed they
were on public welfare. The outstretched hand receiving the chips represented receiving
public assistance from the government. The fact that they received only one chip at a time
represented minimal benefits. They further interpreted that the people of color faced
discrimination and oppression.

13. Interpretation and Imposition: Participants tend to interpret matters from their own
cultural beliefs and value sets and then project or impose them on others. Even when it is
obvious that such projections do not apply to this population, context or situation, such
explanations and applications are nevertheless made. From this exercise, participants
come to understand the creation of so-called reality and the forces contributing to the
social construction of ethnicity and race (Ferrante and Browne, 2001).
 The context and cultural environment the participants encounter in this exercise are very
different from their own. This is similar to what many policy analysts face. In their
attempt to explain and get in control of the situation, they might project explanations
from their own value sets, use insensitive and inappropriate methods, and impose their
beliefs and standards.

14. Compliance and Deference to Authority: The only instructions participants received were
the ones written on their respective role sheets. Yet, throughout the exercise, participants
created rules in their mind that did not exist, and then proceeded to comply with them.
For example, nowhere did it say they had to sit in certain chairs or that they had to keep
them exactly as placed. Yet, many deferred to authority (the instructor) and assumed they
had to comply.

15. Assumption: Participants tend to make a lot of assumptions that throw off their ability to
observe, analyze, and solve problems. Some assumed, for example, that they must
dutifully remain in select areas, even if their view was obstructed, making it impossible
for them to see what was going on in the room.

Each person, regardless of position, tends to assume that everyone else was privy to
information denied them. Group A, for example, assumed everyone else had the
information they needed, and that they were the only group out of the loop. The same
was true of Group B – they assumed that the robots and others in the room (except for
Group A) knew what was going on. Actually, none of the participants knew anything
about others’ roles.

Throughout the exercise, participants made many other types of assumptions, including
those involving their role as policy analysts. In that position, they assumed they must
follow and implement the methods and approaches addressed in their professional
training. In fact, they felt compelled to prove themselves by implementing the skills and
demonstrating the knowledge learned from social work courses. When they encountered
a situation not fitting their textbook methodology, they still fell back on and clung to
them.

16. Information Control and Competition: Groups A and B tended not to share information
with each other. With no instructions about this, the groups could decide to do as they
wished. Most opted to keep their roles and work a secret. In fact, many embellished and
exacerbated the air of secrecy. In some instances, the groups went outside the room
during the observation period to “covertly” discuss amongst themselves. Most groups set
up a “them” versus “us” air of separateness. There also appeared inter- and intra-group
competition.

17. Rigidity: Before the groups enter the designated room where the robots are, the two
groups meet in separate rooms to respectively plan their approach and establish their
action plan. When they get into the room, any plan they had was probably irrelevant to
the situation and context at hand. Nevertheless, they often rigidly adhere to the original
 plan. This exercise brings out the tension between rationally planned versus evolved
decision-making processes.

The unwillingness to abandon ideas or plans after time was spent developing them is
similar to policy arenas. After expending time and resources, it is difficult to face the
possibility of being off-base and to adjust or revamp. Oftentimes, the more time and
resources expended, the greater is the rigid adherence to the idea or plan. This exercise
brings out the significance of the iterative policy-making processes.

18. Follow-Up Assessment: Throughout the exercise, participants tend not to follow up on
possible leads. Some come from fellow participants, while others exist in the context.
Regardless, many clues are divulged, but participants tend to expend little time and energy
to follow up by investigating, verifying or rejecting evidence, leads, and information.
Rather, there is a tendency to move on, quickly, without thorough assessments.

19. Defense and Aggression: Typically, when participants fail to understand the situation,
they feel out of control and become defensive. As a result, some become hostile, angry,
and aggressive. During the exercise, some become so exasperated by their inability to
understand the culture and context that they aggressively lashed out in all directions,
trying to modify the environment and impose new modes of operation. Some also
verbally expressed their anger and frustration.

20. Justification: Oftentimes, participants feel the need to justify their inability to solve the
problem (find out what’s going on). The most common justification is that forces beyond
their control precluded their ability to move forward. Many blame external factors,
including the role descriptions themselves. Some say that the group instructions and their
group identity led them to believe they had to act a certain way, which some found
deceiving. Some say they felt tricked, not realizing how the exercise mirrors what
actually happens in the real world. One is constantly bombarded with information, much
of which may be false, misleading, or extraneous to the policy issue. Easily, one can be
led astray if one does not critically check assumptions and thoroughly assess values,
beliefs, and contexts (including cultural, social, political, economic, historical, legal, and
environmental factors).

Closing Comments

“What’s Going On?” has been effectively utilized in social policy analysis courses. It is a
dynamic and experiential simulation that heightens participant awareness of their approaches to
problem solving and decision-making. As a result, it makes participants more mindful of the
choices they make and the implications the decisions have on multicultural diversity. This paper
addresses 20 of the many critical issues and principles that arise cross-culturally.

Steven Aufrecht’s original simulation offers a great deal of flexibility because the role statements
(Groups A and B) can and should be modified to address the content of the course, geographic
location, professional environment, and situational context. Other adjustments can be made
according to the course objectives, number and perspectives of students in the class, and amount
of time one has to run the exercise. This is precisely what this author did in revamping the
simulation for social policy analysis courses. For more information, readers should consult
Aufrecht’s article and follow-up publication about this exercise, which are cited in the reference
section.

The amount of time needed for this exercise depends on how much additional time is spent on
discussion, analysis, and lecture. The instructor, for example, can use the exercise as a spark to
engage students in critical analyses followed by lectures and discussions on culturally-
appropriate policy and decision making. To accomplish this, approximately 2.5 – 3 hours or
more will be needed.

The exercise set-up and processes are described in Appendix 1 below. Exercise instructions and
role descriptions are provided in Appendix 2. Although these are quite similar to those originally
presented by Aufrecht, they have been modified somewhat by the author.
Appendix 1

Exercise Processes

To begin the exercise, participants randomly draw for Groups A (policy analysts) and B
(observers), -- about 5 to 10 people in each – and for the 4 main positions (C, D, E, and F). Once
all students have a randomly-assigned role, Group A is taken out of the room first and handed
their role description. Then Group B is taken to another room and given their role assignment.

While groups A and B are out of the room reading their role sheets and planning how they will
work together, persons C, D, E, and F are in the designated exercise room reading their
respective instructions, preparing, and practicing their roles. Meanwhile, the instructor sets up
the room, arranging chairs in two rows facing the standing and sitting robots and placing a tape
arrow in front of the standing robot. After the room is set up and while persons C, D, E, and F
are playing their roles, the instructor brings Group B in first. They usually sit in the back row,
but they are not told to do so. Once they are settled in, the instructor brings Group A into the
room to find out what is going on. This group usually dutifully takes the front row chairs
without instructions to do so.

After the in-class observation period ends, Group A discusses their observations and prepares
their report. They do this openly where others in the class can hear what they say. Upon
completion, they deliver their report and findings formally to the rest of the class. Similarly,
Group B discusses, prepares, and delivers its report while others are listening to the entire
interaction. After the reports, each group and persons C, D, E, and F read their respective roles,
aloud to the class. Typically, participants are shocked to hear the role descriptions, especially
that of the robots and their initiator (person C).

Before engaging in the large-group discussion and analysis, each group is given the opportunity
to react, respond, and debrief. After groups A and B do so, persons C, D, E, and F explain what
they observed and felt from their role positions. All this is followed by the entire group’s follow-
up reflection, interaction and assessment.
 Appendix 2

Exercise Instructions and Role Descriptions

GROUP A

You are a group of social policy analysts, all specialists in policy models as they affect
historically oppressed and under-served populations. You pride yourselves in addressing social
justice issues, and you are especially proud of your reputation as experts in the areas of
multicultural diversity, civil rights, and ethics.

As a result of your work, many federal and state policies, all reflecting sensitivity to and respect
for diversity, have passed and become law. Frequently you are employed by politicians and
policy-making agencies and institutions to help them plan and implement initiatives that promote
greater equity and social justice for persons who have been historically oppressed, under-
represented, and under-served. You have been known for your proactive abilities to promote just
policies that lead to exceptional social programs and human service practices.

You are employees of Just Policies, a non-profit organization in San Francisco. Its central
purpose is to advocate policies and programs that promote worldwide equity and justice. Each of
you is a policy analyst committed to policy and program changes leading to greater equity and
social justice.

Through the years, Just Policies has experienced a drastically changing market. When they first
incorporated this organization, they were unique – just about the only organization with this
focus. Now, they have found that they will have to innovate or go out of business because of
keen competition. You have been called to a large federal agency to compete for a contract as
policy analysts. It is your understanding that there will be three other organizations vying for
this contract.

Before giving you the federal contract, they want to test your abilities as policy analysts. They
also want to check the way you operate as a team, and they wish to review your knowledge and
skill with respect to policy analysis. To garner this information, they established an exercise
with the following instructions:

“GO INTO THE DESIGNATED ROOM (AFTER BEING CALLED BY THE INSTRUCTOR)
AND FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON’

You have approximately 15 minutes to prepare yourselves outside the room, up to 30 minutes in
the room, to complete your task and ready yourselves for a five to ten minute presentation of
your findings (conveying what you found out about “what is going on” in the room). Remain in
the room where you have been taken until a facilitator comes and takes you to the designated
room.

GROUP B
Group A is a team of social policy analysts. They have a reputation for promoting social justice
and equity agendas in all policy arenas. They are diversity experts in assessing what is needed to
promote social justice and to open access to historically oppressed, under-served and under-
represented populations. They have been asked to come into the room and “find out what is
going on.” You are to observe them in an attempt to learn how these policy analysts find things
out. You are to note their processes, methods, skills, and practices. Your group is expected to
give a five to ten minute report on the activity of Group A.

You have approximately 15 minutes to prepare yourselves outside the room and to plan how you
will work as individuals and a group. Remain in the room you are taken to until a facilitator
comes and takes you to another room.

PERSON C

Every now and then touch your left or right ear. Make this action at least once every thirty
seconds but not more than once every fifteen seconds (approximately).

If you are asked questions, you may answer them. You need not tell the truth. Do not let anyone
read this instruction/role sheet.

PERSON D

Every now and then, when the chips are low, you are to replace them to the original position.
Please sort the green and purple chips and place them in the original place where they were at the
beginning of this exercise.

PERSON E

You are a robot. Your READY POSITION is at the tape arrow, standing with one foot on each
side of the line, facing the direction of the arrow head.

You receive your instructions from C when you are in the ready position and only when you are
in the ready position.

1. If C touches his/her left ear, count to 10 (to yourself), and then take a green chip from the
pile. Walk in the direction of the arrow until you reach a person sitting with one arm extended,
hand palm up, at a desk with a container or cup. Drop the green chip into the extended hand.
Return to the ready position.

2. If C touches his/her right ear, follow the same procedure as #1 except take a purple chip
instead of a green chip.

3. If you run out of chips, remain in the ready position until there are new ones.

4. If there is some obstacle in your path, return to the ready position.

5. If the conditions are not as specified (i.e. no person, not sitting, two hands, etc.) continue until
your path is blocked by some obstacle (a desk, a wall, a person, etc.). Then return to the ready
position.

6. If you are asked a question, you may answer if it requires a yes or no answer. If you do not
know the answer, say "yes-no." If it is not a yes-no type question, answer "maybe."

7. Do not respond to any directions except those from C. If someone tries to physically move
you, do not resist, but as soon as you are free, return to the ready position.

8. If a second arrow is made, always return to the original ready position, unless it is removed.
Then go to the nearest arrow, which becomes the new ready position.

9. You may consult this paper whenever necessary, but do not show it to anyone.

PERSON F
You are a robot.

Your READY POSITION is sitting at the table with the container or cup, with your arms folded.

You receive your instructions from C when you are in the ready position and only in the ready
position.

1. If C touches his/her left ear, immediately extend your left hand in front of you, palm up.

2. If C touches his/her right ear, immediately extend your right hand in front of you, palm up.

3. If a chip is placed in either hand, drop it into the container or cup and return to the ready
position.

4. If you are asked a question, you may answer it if it requires a yes or no answer. If you don't
know the answer, say "yes-no." If it is not a yes-no type question, answer "maybe."

5. Do not respond to any directions except those from C. If someone tries to physically move
you, do not resist, but as soon as you are free, return to the ready position.

6. You may consult this paper whenever necessary, but do not show it to anyone.

References

Aufrecht, Steven E. (1981, May). “What’s going on? A learning simulation” presented at the
4th National Conference on Teaching Public Administration, Lexington, KY.

Aufrecht, Steven E. (1983). “Inquiries: Observing and building hypotheses” in J.

William Pfeiffer (Ed.). (1983). A handbook of structured experiences for human
relations training. Volume IX. San Diego: University Associates.
Ferrante, Joan & Browne, Prince Jr. (2001). The social construction of race and ethnicity
in the United States (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hall, Edward T. (1977). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

2. THE POVERTY GAME:

TEACHING STUDENTS ABOUT POVERTY MEASUREMENT
By Susan D. Einbinder, Ph.D.

Social Policy materials increasingly contain quantitatively sophisticated, intellectually rigorous,

and downright dull-as-dirt issues that can challenge the most enthusiastic Social Policy
instructors. These circumstances can easily become exacerbated when MSW students we stand
before are convinced that they cannot possibly understand complex, technically mystifying
details, nor is mastery of the materials necessary for the clinical/counseling careers they plan to
pursue. Devised to overcome these very concerns, The Poverty Game illustrates
clinical/individual aspects of poverty measurement, engages a roomful of students (of all ages!),
and, best of all, has proven a reliable and enjoyable “trick” that I devised in my teaching
portfolio.

REQUIREMENTS: Chalkboard & Chalk (or their equivalents)

Hand-held calculator
Current federal poverty thresholds1
Lots of energy!!

TIME REQUIRED: Can vary from 1 to 3 hours

There are 3 sequences to The Poverty Game, which are numbered one, two and three.

Sequence One: Suspend Disbelief

Ask the students to “suspend disbelief” a bit while you play this sequence of the game, much the
same way that we do when we go to the movies or a play (or at least try to), by overlooking
obvious errors, inaccuracies, etc. Then, let them know that the local Chamber of Commerce has
hired the class, after intense competition for the contract, to devise a budget for a family moving
to the area. We know little about this family, except that its members are “typical” Americans.
They live a “standard” middle-class lifestyle in Podunk, and are eager to move to this new city.
Although three-quarters of all families with children in the U.S. are two-parent families, I have
always made this family a single-mother family (and, whenever possible, work these

1
This information can be found on the US Census Web HTTP://WWW.CENSUS/GOV. Annual estimates of poverty
prevalence are calculated every spring, when the poverty thresholds are updated by the overall annual increase in the
Consumer Price Index and published in the Federal Registrar. CAUTION: Do not reveal this information to the
students until the END of the game!
demographic statistics into the game). While we do not know precisely what employment the
mother has obtained, we do know that it is a “good” job.

This extremely vague set-up gets The Poverty Game started. The class is asked to devise a budget
for this “typical” family, ostensibly for the Chamber of Commerce to provide to them to
facilitate their move.

To set the tone of the exercise, I ask the students to name the family members, letting them know
that one child is a toddler, while the other is school-aged or a teenager. Although I have never
dictated the gender of the children, students always opt for one girl and one boy in the family.
Once names are chosen, I tell the students that “typical” families have pets, and ask if they know
what animal is the most popular choice. So far, no one has guessed that the correct answer is a
cat. A name for this creature is also solicited. By now, some degree of engagement has been
initiated.

Next, I ask the students to generate categories of expenditures, or descriptions of costs that our
family can anticipate. They identify a variety: Shelter; Utilities; Food; Transportation; School;
Child Care; Clothing; Entertainment; etc. These should constitute a minimum; although students
have suggested Savings; Vacation Funds; Taxes; and other relevant categories, I specify that the
budget should reflect the “day-to-day” costs of life for the family. This also avoids the issue of
whether the non-custodial father pays child support, which is fairly unlikely, anyway.

Once the categories of expenditures are defined and written on the board, students are asked to
specify the items and monthly costs of each good in each category. This part of the exercise
requires a good sense of humor and an ability to mediate and pull what you determine to be
relevant information from the class. Often, students who are parents offer especially useful
information here, but the estimates of their colleagues are equivalently important.

Coax, cajole, prompt and question them about each item, and its estimated monthly dollar costs,
keeping in mind that you have “suspended disbelief”, and are describing a “normal” middle-class
American lifestyle, akin to what is portrayed on television and movies. This standard of living is
increasingly out of reach of many Americans, and subsequently, more than a few of the students
in the class. Still, remind yourself, and your students, that you are behaving according to current
ideological images.

Once students buy into this playfulness, they will announce that a family with children “should”
live in a relatively safe neighborhood, in a home with a security system, a garbage disposal,
indoor parking, central heat, etc. Since our family is not familiar with the area, it will rent an
apartment first (thus avoiding the challenges of calculating home buying!). Ask students how
many bedrooms the apartment should have, and how much it costs to rent such an apartment in
an “upscale” neighborhood on a monthly basis. Repeat the same procedure with telephone bills
(which might be extensive, since Mom will be calling Podunk a lot!), electricity, gas, etc.

Each category of expenditures introduces possibilities to push toward quantifying the costs of the
American Dream. For example, students often suggest that Mom go to a fancy retail chain,
purchase a slew of new clothing, and charge it all, adding a monthly payment amount under the
Clothing category. Since I spill coffee all the time (and they apparently do not), I always ask
them to consider the price of dry cleaning, as well. Sports uniforms for the kids (to prompt
responses, I usually suggest ballet lessons for the boy; soccer for the girl) also cost money.
Healthy children grow quickly, and often require new clothing; which stores will Mom shop?
Certainly, her kids have to keep up with the trends, so K-Mart or other bargain stores or discount
stores are not acceptable.

The food category can also provide grist for challenging assumptions. You can remind students
about over-the-counter medications, as well as prescription drugs – where do those costs fall?
Most fun, though, is to ask whether the family ever goes out to eat. Students overwhelmingly
allot them funds to go to McDonalds or Burger King about 2-6 times a month, and, after serious
debates, decide that these costs belong under Entertainment. Another query that initiates
reactions asks whether the Mom will ever go out to eat. Without fail, a student will state that if
she does, the man will pay for her meal. This is a superb opportunity to ask why the student
assumed that the Mother is a heterosexual, first, or that she ascribes to traditional notions
regarding dates. Students usually have some fun discussing vagaries of the dating world and
eventually realize that Mom needs money of her own for eating out, as well as for
Entertainment—and a babysitter to be able to step out on the town.

Transportation should include the actual costs of leasing a car, as well as gas, maintenance,
insurance, and, if applicable, parking (meter as well as work-site). Students always put the
family into a “standard” American sedan that is safe, but still attractive.

Entertainment might include the costs of Cable TV, which some students classify under Utilities,
but others insist belong here. Often, students will add additional stations that increase the price
of the subscription. One to four afternoons at the movies per month usually get added, too. I
always add a monthly excursion to the budget as well, justifying this approximately $100 cost as
necessary to help the family “adjust” and learn their new area. This, actually, is about the cost of
a day at Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, or other “family entertainment” venues springing up
throughout the country. Museums are another option, but they, too, charge entrance fees which
must be included in the category.

These examples can shape the items your class identifies, and the costs that are associated with
each of them. Once the categories are filled, total up the monthly costs for each, and then
calculate a sum (but do NOT erase what is on the board). When you (or someone who
volunteered to do this with the calculator) calculate a sum, write it down. Then, divide it by
0.66, which is the approximate amount of take-home income that “typical” middle class families
have for consumption after taxes. Multiply by 12 to get an annual figure. Then, write this figure
on the board, too; it has ranged from $75,000 to $120,000 in the five years that I’ve used this
exercise in about 12 classes.

Give the students a few minutes to let this astronomic number sink in. This is also an ideal time
for a break, should one be necessary or required. Then, move on to Sequence Two.

Sequence Two: Unemployment!

Tell the students that the great job that was awaiting our Mom fell through, and she is
subsequently unemployed. Since she earned far too much income to quality for any cash
assistance programs, and did not work long enough to quality for Unemployment Insurance
(actual figures can be provided here), the Chamber of Commerce has graciously offered to
support the family until Mom finds another job. They have returned to us to ask us to CUT the
budget to its bare bones, removing any and all frills.

Students have moved the family to a less expensive apartment, and required both children to
sleep in the bedroom of the one-bedroom apartment, while Mom sleeps on the fold-out couch in
the living room. When they are informed that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development considers housing “crowded” if there is more than one person in a room, and that
society believes that siblings of different genders should not sleep in the same room, they express
an amazing and surprising lack of sympathy. They have suggested that the Mom stop paying for
car insurance, turn in her car & utilize public transportation, get rid of television altogether,
never take the children to McDonalds, pull the kids out of lessons, the cat be given away, etc.
Reminding them that Mom will have to be looking for work and might subsequently need child
care falls on suddenly deaf ears, as well. This pejorative and controlling reaction is absolutely
essential for this sequence – cut, cut, cut that budget. When students are finished, tally up costs
once again, and write them on the board. In the past, annual costs ranged from $25,000 to
$40,000.

Sequence Three: The Poverty Thresholds

Write down the dollar amount of the Poverty Thresholds for a family of three, and watch
students’ reactions. Add the figures for families of different size, too.

Describe how Mollie Orshansky developed the poverty thresholds in the 1960s not as actual
poverty measures, but as indicators of economic status. She estimated that a 1950s family of
four could survive on a bare-bones diet that cost about $1,000 for the year. Then, she multiplied
this figure by 3, which represented the proportion of food costs in all households’ budgets in
expenditure studies from the 1950s. This calculation created a figure of $3,000 per year, which
became the poverty threshold for a family of 4 in 1963 when the federal government adopted an
official set of measures. Today’s Poverty Thresholds, aside from minor changes, are the very
same figures of that time, although they have been updated every year by the increase in the
overall cost of goods, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Supplementary information
that is far more detailed is available in various social policy texts and elsewhere.

You can point out that the children in the family were healthy; neither had debilitating health or
mental health difficulties that required additional medical expenditures. Also, the budgets
developed in class assumed that the family owned furniture, pots & pans, and other household
necessities, which may not have been the case. Ask the students if they can identify additional
assumptions about the standard of living that led them to overlook other necessities, too.
Students will probably generate questions & comments of their own that embellish future use of
this exercise; I welcome your feedback and suggestions for its improvement.
 3. VARIANCES IN DEFINING SOCIAL PROBLEMS: AN EXERCISE TO DEVELOP
AWARENESS ABOUT HOW A DEFINITION CAN AFFECT OUTCOME
By Bruce Jansson, Ph.D.

Purpose: The purpose of this exercise is to observe the different ways a social problem can be
defined and to explore how it affects outcomes.

To Do: This exercise has three parts:

Part One: Read case example entitled “ Analyzing Effects of Concentrated

Poverty on African Americans in New Orleans (PAC 7.9 p. 253). Within your
group, discuss conflicting views of effects of concentrated poverty

Part Two: Discuss how different theories of effects of concentrated poverty

could lead to divergent policy solutions for post-Katrina New Orleans. This is
about expanding your thinking and to look at “the problem” in perhaps an
unobvious way. Remember, “carpe diem”.

Part Three: Take a position based on your group’s views – or, if you cannot
agree – develop divergent positions.

Next: Select a spokesperson and be prepared to present your discussion in class.

4. THE FOUR X FOUR X FOUR EXERCISE

By Bob Deaton, MSW, Ed.D.

Policy Skill Exercise: The four X four X four exercise for students to determine multiple causes
of a social problem.

How it works: The exercises provides a means for people working in small groups to do an
accurate assessment of multiple causes and finding those groups of people affected by a social
problem. The second step is to take the data from the A and B steps to make judgments about
the kinds of programs and services most likely to solve the problem and meet the needs of target
client groups identified. Finally, the student writes down other information they need about the
problem, target clientele, or solutions (programs and services.)

Purpose of the exercise: Students new to social welfare policy and analysis as well as the
general public tend to see social problems and those affected in simplistic terms. The perceived
behavior of criminals and welfare clients are prominent examples of oversimplifying cause and
effect in social welfare.

FOUR X FOUR X FOUR

A model for analyzing and planning a social economic, or environmental problem:

How many versions of the problem are there?

1.
2.
3.
4.

What else about the problem and its cause do we need to know?

How many kinds of people are affected by the problem?

1.
2.
3.
4.

Are there some people we do not know about?

How many kinds of solutions or programs are there, besides doing nothing?

1.
2.
3.
4.

Do I need to know more about a solution?

Are there other possible solutions?

My solution from the 4x4x4 results: