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