THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK Course Number: Course Title: Semester and Year: Time and Location: Instructor: Office Phone: Email Address: Office Hours: SOWO 837 Disability Policy Spring 2016 Mondays: 9:00 – 10:20 am Laurie Selz Campbell, MSW, CPRP 919-843-6394 lauriesc@unc.edu Mondays 12:30 – 1:30, and by appointment COURSE DESCRIPTION: Using an advanced policy analysis framework, this course focuses on strategies for policy change, national and state policy, and legal and socio-political factors influencing financing, access and service delivery. COURSE OBJECTIVES: The student who successfully completes this course should be able to demonstrate understanding of the following issues in regard to disability policy: 1. Identify the principles, foundation and provisions of the primary social welfare programs that affect disability policies in the United States. 2. Demonstrate the analytic, theoretical and value assessment skills that enable social workers to evaluate policies and apply change strategies. 3. Apply concepts and principles of human rights, social justice, and social work ethics to 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. policy analysis, development and change strategies. Understand specific current disability policies regarding financing, ethical, and legal issues related to civil rights, income transfers, education, housing, employment and health care. Explain the interrelationships among disability policies at the federal, state, and local levels. Explain the intended and actual consequences of the major US disability policies. Discuss ethical issues in current disability policy, including individual and family rights, issues of distributive justice, power, discrimination, oppression, culture & race. Articulate both formal and informal disability policy development and strategies at multiple system levels. Develop leadership strategies for planning, developing, and changing disability policies in a context of empowerment and partnership with individuals, families and communities. EXPANDED DESCRIPTION: The ability to understand the complexities of disability policy is crucial for successful professional practice with individuals with disabilities and their families, as social workers shape policy, implement programs, respond to systemic inequities, and assure that services are available for individuals and families who need them. This course will critically examine a number of relevant health and mental health policies and their effects on individuals, families, service providers, and systems. In addition to developing an understanding of the policies that affect individuals with disabilities throughout the life course, this course is also designed to help students develop a set of professional skills. Specifically, students will be able to use a policy framework to develop a detailed analysis of an existing policy in the United States. Furthermore, students will improve their advocacy skills by planning and presenting an advocacy agenda. REQUIRED TEXTS/READINGS: There are no texts for this course. Readings will be available on the internet or posted on Sakai. TEACHING METHODS AND EXPECTATIONS: Teaching methods include lecture/discussion, media presentations, guest speakers, and small group activities. My perspective is that all of us are teachers as well as learners. You are expected to attend classes, to complete readings, and to participate actively in discussions. I ask that you contact me, in advance, if you need to miss a class. Anyone with difficulty with these requirements should speak with me so that alternative contributions can be identified. A note on participation: You will start with a score of 10 points, in recognition of expectations around attendance, engagement, and informed participation. “Informed participation” means that you have completed the readings and that your comments are thoughtful, focused and respectful. Points will be deducted if you miss class without notice, are repeatedly late or leave early, disappear for long periods on break, or are unprepared or obviously disengaged (see policy on electronic devices, below). POLICY ON THE USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CLASSROOM: I expect that we are all invested in creating an environment of respect and engagement. During class, cell phones should be turned off or muted. I welcome laptops or tablets for taking notes or for small group activities; however, I ask that you use them only for relevant activities – not for checking email or surfing the Web. Your attention is an important sign of respect to your colleagues. Please do not have the mistaken assumption that others are unaware if you are disengaged! If distracting use of electronics is observed, I will need to strictly limit their use to specific times during class. ASSIGNMENTS: In addition to ongoing participation, there are three assignments in the course. These are summarized below, with additional details and scoring rubrics to be posted on Sakai. Assignment 1: Disability Policy & Street Level Bureaucracy Due Feb. 29 Using the framework presented by Lipsky (1980), please write a 4-6 page paper that explores how “street-level bureaucracy” plays out in your field (or other) agency. Possible questions to address in your discussion include the following: 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What are some of the major federal, state, or local policies that shape your work with clients (e.g. eligibility, financing, allowable programs/services, others of relevance)? How are these policies “interpreted” or “translated” on the ground? Consider the role of workers in things like: Eligibility – who is favored (or dis-favored) in provision of services? Why? How are clients & workloads “managed”? Are there gaps between policy-as-written and policy-as-performed? What might account for these gaps? What impacts do you see on clients? On workers? In what ways do you observe that the street-level bureaucracy practiced in your agency diminishes or enhances the quality of services? Given the reality of street-level bureaucracy, do you have any thoughts about how you can use your power as a social worker to influence your agency’s policies or practices? Assignment 2: Human Face of Policy Various due dates Please identify an individual who has been impacted by one of the policies scheduled to be discussed in class between February 22 and April 18. We will sign up for these during the first few weeks of class. The individual that you select can be a personal acquaintance, client, yourself, or a family member. You will complete the “Human Face of Policy” worksheet (posted under Assignments on Sakai) using bullet points (no need for a long paper or even full sentences!), and will use it as an outline for a brief (5-10 minutes) presentation to the class. You do not need to provide the worksheet to class members, but should upload it to Sakai on the day of your presentation. Note: If you have trouble identifying a person on which to focus for this assignment, please let Laurie know and we can develop an alternative. Assignment 3: Disability Policy Analysis & Advocacy Plan Due Apr. 21 This assignment will give you the opportunity to analyze a policy of your choice in detail, and, based on your analysis, to generate recommendations and an advocacy plan for policy change. The following is the general structure for the assignment: 1. Define your policy of interest. Provide basic information about the policy, and comment on its importance. For example, if the policy focuses on access to resources or services, outline who is eligible, and which resources or services are made available or constrained. If the policy focuses on expanding or constraining civil rights, outline what rights are expanded or constrained, and for whom. 2. Analyze the policy focusing on the most relevant elements. Review our slides on the rationales for engaging in different kinds of policy analysis, and select 3 of the following dimensions to address. Select dimensions that you believe will help you to more fully understand the policy and will lead to thoughtful recommendations. a. Historical/Political Dimension: • Did the policy arise in reaction to particular historical events? • What need(s) was it intended to address? • Whose voices were represented in developing the policy? Whose voice(s) were missing? 3 • Does the policy as written favor or disfavor the agenda(s) of any groups? b. Economic Dimension: • How is the policy funded? • What costs are associated with the policy? Has there been an estimate of cost or actual data on costs? • Who bears the burden of these costs? • Are there costs that may not be immediately apparent or may not have been intended? • Are there costs associated with NOT implementing the policy? c. Evidence Dimension: • What evidence (if any) supports or opposes the need for the policy? • What is the evidence (if any) of the policy’s impact? Are there differential impacts on different stakeholder groups? • How is the policy implemented in practice? Is it implemented as designed? • Have there been unintended consequences? • What arguments have been made AGAINST the policy as it stands? Do these seem to be founded in (a) evidence, (b) ideology, (c) political agendas, or (d) some combination? Is there evidence that other policies are preferable? d. Ethical Dimension: • What general values are embodied in the policy? • What specific principles embodied in the NASW Code of Ethics (e.g., autonomy, individual rights, safety, well-being, equality) are promoted, or thwarted by this policy? e. Social Justice/Critical Analysis Dimension; • What social constructions are embodied in the policy? • Does the policy ultimately promote or contribute to social justice aims (e.g. equality, respect, dignity)? • Does the policy contribute to continued oppression or discrimination? • Does the policy contribute to the continued “othering” of a particular group? • Are there broader dimensions of oppression reflected in the policy (e.g. sexism, racism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, others)? 3. Recommend: Based on your analysis above, should the policy be continued? Discontinued? Amended or revised? Expanded? What is your recommendation? 4. Advocate: Lay out a brief plan for advocacy • Identify your focus (legislature, school system, legal system, agency leadership, other) • What opposition do you anticipate? What might be your approach to addressing this opposition? • How will you (or will you) involve consumers? Family members? Additional Notes: You can write this analysis as succinctly as possible –it might help to think of it as a somewhat detailed “fact sheet” or “policy brief.” Feel free to use single spacing, 4 bullet points, graphics, or other organizational strategies (in other words, this does not need to be a double-spaced, APA-formatted paper). Be sure, however, to appropriately cite information, and to include a list of references at the end. In terms of sources, you should use the scholarly literature, and/or data from government, think tank, or advocacy websites. If you need a bit of help choosing or accessing these, please let me know and I’d be happy to help out! While a strict number of sources is difficult to specify, you might aim for 5-6, as long as they are fairly substantial. SCORING & GRADING: Points will be assigned as follows: Participation Disability Policy & Street Level Bureaucracy Paper Policy Analysis & Advocacy Plan Human Face of Policy Presentation & Worksheet Total 10% 35% 40% 15% 100% Grades will be assigned as follows: H: P: L: F: 94 and above 93-80 79-70 69 and below EXPECTATIONS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS You are expected to adhere to scholarly writing guidelines and to use APA formatting in all of your written work (unless otherwise specified). Please use the resources available to you to ensure your success in this area. The web sites listed below provide additional information: http://ssw.unc.edu/index.php?q=students/academic/advising (resources from the School of Social Work, including an APA quick reference guide) http://www.apastyle.org/apa-style-help.aspx (APA Style basics) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_apa.html (general information about APA style). You are also encouraged to review the section on plagiarism, as it constitutes academic dishonesty and will have significant consequences. POLICY ON INCOMPLETES AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS: Assignments are due at the beginning of class on the day noted. You must notify me at least 2 days before a due date if you would like to request an extension. If this does not happen, you will lose 5% of the assignment’s points per day (including weekends, and including the date on which the assignment was due, if you submit it after the beginning of class). Incompletes may be granted if there are extreme and unforeseeable circumstances that affect your ability to complete the semester’s work. An Incomplete requires that we develop a contract that specifies the timeline for completing your work. POLICY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: I assume that all students follow the UNC Honor Code. Please include the Honor Code statement “I have neither given nor received any unauthorized assistance in completing this assignment”, on all assignments. If reason exists to believe that academic dishonesty has 5 occurred, a referral will be made to the Office of the Student Attorney General for investigation and further action as required. POLICY ON ACCOMMODATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: If you have a disability that affects your participation in the course and you wish to receive accommodations, you should contact the University’s Disabilities Services. They will notify me of the documented disability, and we can design the appropriate accommodations to support your learning. TOPICS & READINGS Date Week 1 Jan 11 Topics Addressed Introductions & Overview Jan 18 Week 2 Jan 25 Readings None Martin Luther King Day – No Class Framework & Context: Defining disability Historical views of & approaches to disability Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The social model of disability: Dichotomy between impairment and disability. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38(4), 441-459. Barton, B. (2009). Dreams deferred: Disability definitions, data, models, and perspectives. Journal Of Sociology & Social Welfare, 36(4), 13-24. Braddock, D. & Parish, S. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds). Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Read pp. 23-66. Choose ONE of the following according to your interest: Corrigan, P. W., Watson, A. C., Byrne, P., & Davis, K. E. (2005). Mental illness stigma: Problem of public health or social justice?. Social Work, 50(4), 363-368. Forhan, M. (2009). An analysis of disability models and the application of the ICF to obesity. Disability & Rehabilitation, 31(16), 1382-1388. Krcek, T. E. (2013). Deconstructing disability and neurodiversity: Controversial issues for autism and implications for social work. Journal Of Progressive Human Services, 24(1), 4-22 Week 3 Feb 1 Framework & Context: Disability rights & independent living movements Family advocacy Browse the following consumer and family advocacy websites: www.arcnc.org www.naminc.org www.disabilityrightsnc.org Braddock, D. & Parish, S. (2001). An institutional history of disability. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds). Handbook of 6 Date Topics Addressed Readings disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Read pp. 66-82, focusing on understanding of broad trends. Cohen-Rottenberg, R. (2014, June 10). Doing social justice: 10 reasons to give up ableist language. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com Woodword, J. (nd). A disabled manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.disabilityoptionsnetwork.org/manifesto.php Optional Reading: Friedman, M. & Beckwith, R.M. (2014). Self-advocacy: The emancipation movement led by people with intellectual & developmental disabilities. In L. Ben-Moshe, C. Chapman, & A. Carey (Eds.), Disability incarcerated: Imprisonment and Disability in the United States and Canada (pp. 237-254). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Week 4 Feb 8 Framework/Context: Street-level bureaucracy Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Selections posted on Sakai. Week 5 Feb 15 Framework/Context: Policy analysis Policy Analysis Framework Readings to be posted on Sakai. Week 6 Feb 22 Lifespan Issue: Early Childhood & Disability Diagnosis Access to healthcare & early intervention Haley, J. & Kenney, G. (2007). Low-income children with special health care needs: Why aren’t they enrolled in public health insurance programs?, Pediatrics, 119, 1, 60-68. Skim Introduction, Results, & Discussion sections. Halfon, N., Houtrow, A., Larson, K., & Newacheck, P. W. (2012). The changing landscape of disability in childhood. Future Of Children, 22(1), 13-42. Skim for understanding of current trends. Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., & Kahn, L. (2012). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s early childhood programs: Powerful vision and pesky details. Topics In Early Childhood Special Education, 31(4), 199-207. For an overview of the Early Intervention program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, review “The Basics” section on the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center web page: http://ectacenter.org/partc/partc.asp Optional Readings: Parish, S., Ghosh, S. & Igdalsky, L. (2013). Hardship among low-income US families that receive children’s Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Research brief retrieved from: http://lurie.brandeis.edu/research/briefs.html 7 Date Topics Addressed Readings Parish, S. L., Magaña, S., Rose, R., Timberlake, M., Swaine, J. G., & Fichtenbaum, R. (2011). Latino children with autism and other developmental disabilities experience disparities in access, utilization, and quality of health care. Research brief retrieved from: http://lurie.brandeis.edu/research/briefs.html Week 7 Feb 29 Lifespan Issue: School-Age Children with Disabilities U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services (2010). Thirty-five years of progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Washington, DC: USDOE. Review for a basic overview of IDEA & IDEIA Policy: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Readings to be split among students: Bowen, S. K., & Rude, H. A. (2006). Assessment and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges with educational reform. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 24-30. Palley, E. (2008). Federal school law and social work practice. School Social Work Journal, 33(1), 16-34. Summers, A. P., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2000). Implementation of the IDEA by school psychologists: An exploratory study using the theory of street-level bureaucracy. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(3), 255-278. Disability Policy & Street Level Bureaucracy Paper Due Week 8 Mar 7 Contemporary Policy Issues for Youth with Disabilities: School-to-prison pipeline Racial disproportionality Victimization Readings to be split among students: Ahram, R., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2011). Addressing racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education: Case studies of suburban school districts. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2233-2266. Beratan, G. (2008). The song remains the same: Transposition and the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Race, Ethnicity And Education, 11(4), 337-354. Erevelles, N. (2014). Crippin’ Jim Crow: Disability, dis-location, and the school-to-prison pipeline. In L. Ben-Moshe, C. Chapman, & A. Carey (Eds.), Disability incarcerated: Imprisonment and disability in the United States and Canada (pp. 81-100). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Fitzgerald, T. D. (2009). Controlling the black school-age male: psychotropic medications and the circumvention of Public Law 94-142 and Section 504. Urban Education, 44(2), 225-247. Mallett, C. (2009). Disparate juvenile court outcomes for disabled delinquent youth: A social work call to action. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26(3), 197-207 Son, E., Parish, S. L., Peterson, N. A., & Igdalsky, L. (2014). Targeted 8 Date Topics Addressed Readings bullying intervention strategies needed urgently for young children with disabilities in the united states. Retrieved from http://lurie.brandeis.edu/research/briefs.html Happy Spring Break: No Class Mar 14 Week 9 Mar 21 Contemporary Policy Issues for Young Adults with Disabilities: Transition to adult systems of care Transition from foster care system Readings to be split up among students: Bates-Harris, C. (2012). Segregated and exploited: The failure of the disability service system to provide quality work. Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 36(1), 39-64. Friedman, N. D. B., Warfield, M. E., & Parish, S. L. (2013). Transition to adulthood for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Current issues and future perspectives. Neuropsychiatry, 3(2), 181192. Heflinger, C. A., & Hoffman, C. (2008). Transition age youth in publicly funded systems: Identifying high-risk youth for policy planning and improved service delivery. Journal Of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 35(4), 390-401. Hill, K. (2009). Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999: What are the policy implications for youth with disabilities transitioning from foster care?. Child Welfare, 88(2), 5-23. Luecking, R. G., & Wittenburg, D. (2009). Providing supports to youth with disabilities transitioning to adulthood: Case descriptions from the Youth Transition Demonstration. Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30(3), 241-251. Osgood, D. W., Foster, E. M., & Courtney, M. E. (2010). Vulnerable populations and the transition to adulthood. Future Of Children, 20(1), 209-229. Wilson, M. G., Hoffman, A. V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2009). Preparing youth with disabilities for college: How research can inform transition policy. Focus On Exceptional Children, 41(7), 1-12. Week 10 Mar 28 Lifespan Issues: Adulthood & Disability Policies: Americans with Disabilities Act Guardianship policies & care for adult children For a user-friendly overview of the ADA, go to http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/disabilitydiscrimination.html and explore “Disability Discrimination Basics” and “The Americans with Disabilities Act,” as well as any others of interest to you. Barnes, J., & Burke, T. F. (2006). The diffusion of rights: From law on the books to organizational rights practices. Law & Society Review, 40(3), 493-524. 9 Date Topics Addressed Readings with disabilities Rozalski, M., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J., Collins, T., & Stewart, A. (2010). Americans With Disabilities Act amendments of 2008. Journal Of Disability Policy Studies, 21(1), 22-28. Readings on guardianship & care for adult children to be added Week 11 Apr 4 Policies Related to Economic Self Sufficiency: SSI & income supports Employment supports For an overview of SSI, go to http://www.ssa.gov/redbook/index.html For an overview of the Ticket to Work program, go to http://www.ssa.gov/work/overview.html For an overview of the SOAR (SSI/SSDI Outreach, Advocacy, & Recovery) program, go to http://soarworks.prainc.com/ Readings to be split up among students: Harris, S. P., Owen, R., Jones, R., & Caldwell, K. (2013). Does workfare policy in the United States promote the rights of people with disabilities? Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(1), 61-73. Martinez, K. (2013). Integrated employment, Employment First, and U.S. federal policy. Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 38(3), 165-168. Neely, B. H., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). In a discussion on invisible disabilities, let us not lose sight of employees on the autism spectrum. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 274-277. Scheid, T. L. (2005). Stigma as a barrier to employment: Mental disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act. International Journal Of Law & Psychiatry, 28(6), 670-690. Sprong, M. E., Dallas, B., Melvin, A., & Koch, D. S. (2014). Substance abuse and vocational rehabilitation: A survey of policies & procedures. Journal Of Rehabilitation, 80(4), 4-9. Week 12 Apr 11 Policies Related to Housing: Olmstead Decision NC DOJ Settlement Read the Statement of Findings from the USDOJ v. NCDHHS Lawsuit. Posted on Sakai. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (2009). Still waiting: The unfulfilled promise of Olmstead. Retrieved from www.bazelon.org/News-Publications/Publications/ Choose ONE of the following 2 articles: Lakin, K. C., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2007). Residential supports for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(2), 151-159. doi:10.1002/mrdd.20148 Nelson, G., & Laurier, W. (2010). Housing for people with serious mental illness: Approaches, evidence, and transformative 10 Date Topics Addressed Readings change. Journal Of Sociology And Social Welfare, 37(4), 123-146. Optional Readings: McCrummen, S. (2014, Dec. 27). In transition to independent living, the ‘dignity of risk’ for the mentally ill. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com Week 13 Apr 18 Lifespan Issues: Aging with disability For an overview of Medicaid, see: Kaiser Family Foundation (2013). Medicaid: A primer. Retrieved from http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-a-primer/ Policies Related to Healthcare: Medicaid Medicare Long term care For an overview of Medicare, see: Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Medicare: A primer. Retrieved from http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-a-primer/ Readings to be split up among students: Bachman, S. S., & Gonyea, J. G. (2012). Improving health care delivery to aging adults with disabilities: Social work with dual eligibles in a climate of health care reform. Journal Of Gerontological Social Work, 55(2), 191-207. Drainoni, M., Lee-Hood, E., Tobais, C., Bachman, S., Andrew, J., & Maisels, L. (2006). Cross-disability experiences of barriers to health-care access: Consumer perspectives. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17, 2, 101-115. Iezzoni, L. (2011). Eliminating health and health care disparities among the growing population of people with disabilities. Health Affairs, 30(10): 1947-1964. Ng, T., Harrington, C., & Kitchener, M. (2010). Medicare and Medicaid in long-term care. Health Affairs, 29(1), 22-28. Week 14 Apr 25 Course Wrap-up Policy Analysis & Advocacy Plan Due 11