SOWO 835
1
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK
COURSE NO. & SECTION:
SOWO 835
COURSE TITLE &YEAR:
Poverty Policy
Spring Semester 2013
MEETING TIME & PLACE:
Mondays 9:00 – 10:20 am, TTK 113/114
INSTRUCTOR:
Amanda Sheely, MSW, MPH, PhD
Tate Turner Kuralt Bldg. Room 417
asheely@email.unc.edu
OFFICE HOURS:
Mondays 10:30 – noon and by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course will provide students with a framework for advanced
policy analysis and strategies for policy change, with a focus on national and state poverty
policy, focusing on legal, socio-political, and economic factors influencing financing, access, and
service delivery. This course explores skills and strategies for policy analysis and change.
COURSE OBJECTIVES: The student who successfully completes this course should be able to
demonstrate understanding of the following issues in regard to poverty policy:
1.
Identify the principles, foundation and provisions of the primary social welfare
programs that affect Poverty Policy.
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
policy analysis, development and change strategies.
4.
Understand different national definitions and trends in poverty and income and wealth
inequality.
5.
Explain the intended and actual consequences of the major US poverty policies.
6.
Discuss ethical issues in current poverty policy, including individual and family rights,
issues of distributive justice, and issues of power, discrimination, and oppression,
particularly with regard to racial and ethnic minorities.
7.
Understand the specific features of US poverty policy in contrast with other nations.
8.
Develop leadership strategies for planning, developing, and changing poverty policies
in a context of empowerment and partnership with individuals, families and
communities.
EXPANDED DESCRIPTION: The ability to understand the complexities of poverty policy
development and implementation is crucial for successful professional social work practice
settings. This is the case because 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 poverty policies in the US in a
cross-national perspective.
SOWO 835
2
In addition to developing an understanding of the policies that affect poor people in the United
States, this course is also designed to help students develop a set of professional skills.
Specifically, at the end of this course, students will be able to use a policy framework to develop
a detailed analysis of an existing policy in the United States. Additionally, students will improve
their public speaking skills by planning and leading a course session on a topic that they choose.
Learning to synthesize and present complex information to others is an important skill that social
workers use when delivering trainings to colleagues, presenting at a national meeting, or
advocating for clients with lawmakers.
REQUIRED TEXTS/READINGS:
Iceland, J. (2012). Poverty in America: A handbook. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Additional readings will be available on the internet or posted on Sakai.
TEACHING METHODS AND EXPECTATIONS:
This class will be primarily structured as a seminar. This means that students are expected to take
an active role in the presentation and discussion of course topics. For each session, a pair of
students will volunteer to be discussion leaders. It is these students’ responsibility to highlight
key points of the readings and to come up with relevant questions to guide the discussion.
During all sessions, you are expected to attend all classes and to complete the readings before
class begins. You are expected to participate in discussions by sharing information from the
reading, field experiences, or current events. Full participation is essential to your learning in the
class, and will allow you to successfully apply the course material in a way that is personally and
professionally meaningful.
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS
Discussion leader:
Students will be responsible for leading the discussion during one class session. The discussion
leaders will be responsible for highlighting the key points of the readings, as well as coming up
with relevant questions to guide the discussion. The format of the session is up to the discussion
leaders. Thus, the leaders may choose to: prepare an outline of the required readings to
summarize in class and then lead a discussion; come up with an activity to cover the main points
of the readings; find a short film related to the topic, tie the film to the readings, and lead a
discussion; or, any other format with which the students feel comfortable. Students are required
to meet with the instructor the week before their presentation to discuss their lesson plan. The
day of your presentation, please bring in a memo outlining the main points that you want to
cover from the readings, your key discussion questions, and the format of your presentation
(including a copy of your PowerPoint, if relevant).
SOWO 835
3
Class participation:
All students are expected to complete the readings and to actively participate in class
discussions. If you do not feel comfortable speaking in class, you may also email me a one-page
reflection paper by 5 pm the night before class. To get full participation credit, you must email
me at least 5 reflection papers over the course of the semester. Alternatively, students may
choose to submit a 500 word op-ed piece to a newspaper on a relevant policy issue. If interested
in this option, please email me for specific guidelines.
Final paper:
For your final assignment, you will pair with other students and write a paper describing the
impact of a local, state, or federal policy on the well-being of an economically disadvantaged
group using Segal’s “Critical Model for Social Welfare Policy Analysis.” You may choose to
focus on a sub-group of people, including poor families, homeless people with severe and
persistent mental illness, disabled adults etc. Examples of policies that could be analyzed are:
Supplemental Security Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Housing
Choice Voucher Program, etc. The paper should offer a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the
policy, relying on: evidence from research studies, an interview with a provider in an agency
implementing the policy, and a recipient of the policy. Based on the information gathered from
these sources, you will analyze the policy and come up with clear recommendations for
improving the policy.
To ensure that you have chosen a good topic and can find enough references, by 5 pm on April 2,
please email me the following:
- Names of people in your group
- Topic of paper
- At least 2 references for each of the sections of Segal’s Model (Social problem; Power
imbalance or struggle; Public reaction; Policies, public laws, or administrative rules;
Implementation of social welfare programs; Actual impact; Legislative intended impact;
Public expectations; Affected populations)
- Name of provider that you will interview
GRADING SYSTEM
Assignments will be scored as follows:
Discussion leader
Class participation
Final paper
H
P
L
F
30 points
10 points
60 points
Clear excellence
Entirely satisfactory
Low passing
Failed
94-100 points
80-93 points
70-79 points
< 70 points
SOWO 835
4
POLICIES ON THE USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CLASSROOM:
I expect that we will all be invested in creating a learning environment of respect and
engagement. I welcome the use of laptops in class for taking notes or completing small group
tasks. 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, and an
important part of your learning.
POLICY ON INCOMPLETES, ABSENCES, AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS:
Assignments are due at the beginning of class on the day noted. Extensions are granted on a
case-by-case basis. If you would like to ask for an extension, you must notify me at least 3 days
before a due date. If this does not happen, you will lose 10% 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).
Attendance at all class sessions is expected; it is important to be on time so as not to disrupt
class. We will be covering a great deal of information in each class. If you will not be able to
attend a class, let the instructor know as soon as possible. It is your responsibility to obtain
handouts, information about class content, and information about announcements, etc., from your
classmates if you are unable to attend a class. Students with more than three absences will
receive an “L” unless they have made prior arrangements with the instructor.
Incompletes may be granted if (a) there are extreme and unforeseeable circumstances that affect
your ability to complete the semester’s work, and (b) you meet with me in advance to develop a
plan and timeline for completing your work.
POLICY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY:
All students must follow the UNC Honor Code. Please ensure that the Honor Code statement “I
have neither given nor received any unauthorized assistance in completing this assignment”, with
your signature, is on all assignments turned in. In keeping with the Honor Code, if reason exists
to believe that academic dishonesty has occurred, a referral will be made to the Office of the
Student Attorney General for investigation and further action as required.
Please refer to the APA Style Guide, the SSW Manual, and the SSW Writing Guide for
information on attribution of quotes, plagiarism, and the appropriate use of assistance in
preparing assignments.
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 then
notify me of the documented disability, and we can meet to design the appropriate
accommodations to support your learning.
SOWO 835
5
WEEKLY READING SCHEDULE
Date Topics Addressed
Readings
1/14 Course overview
Segal, E.A. (2013). Social welfare policies and social programs: A
values perspective (3rd ed). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
 Material covered
Cengage Learning.
 Assignments
* Chapter 4 posted online
 Expectations
Overview of policy
and policy analysis
 What is a policy?
 How do you
analyze it?
1/21 Martin Luther King Jr. Day: No Class
1/28 Factors shaping the
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the
implementation of
individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage
social welfare
Foundation.
programs
* Chapters 1 and 2 posted online
Diller, M. (2001). Form and substance in the privatization of poverty
 Caseworker
programs. UCLA Law Review, 49. 1739-1765.
discretion
 Devolution
 Privatization
2/4
Poverty measurement: Iceland, Chapter 3 (can also skim Chapter 2 to find out more about
historical attempts to measure poverty)
How do you know
Blank,
R. (2011). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: A new tool for
who is poor?
understanding U.S. poverty. Pathways, 10-14. Retrieved January 3,
2012 from:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/media_magazines.html
Wimer, C., Bergman, B., Betson, D., Coder, J., & Grusky, D. (2011). The
future of U.S. poverty measurement. Pathways, 20-24. Retrieved
January 3, 2012 from:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/media_magazines.html
Rector, R. & Sheffield, R. (2011). Understanding poverty in the United
States: Surprising facts about America’s poor. Retrieved January 3,
2012 from the Heritage Foundation website:
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/bg2607.pdf
Supplemental (but highly recommended)
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
*Chapter 4 posted online: Poverty as Capability Deprivation
2/11
Dynamics of poverty
Iceland, Chapters 4-5
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., & Smith, J. (2012). Income, poverty,
and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2011.
Retrieved from the United States Census Bureau website:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
Supplemental Readings:
Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. (2010). Documenting
poverty, economic distress and challenge in North Carolina:
SOWO 835
6
A report for the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. Retrieved
January 3, 2012, from
http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/poverty/publications/doc
umentingpoverty_finalreport.pdf
Johnson, J. (2003). The changing face of poverty in North Carolina.
Retrieved January 3, 2012, from
http://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/article2
_10.pdf
2/18
Social problem: Work
Rank, M. (2005). One nation underprivileged: Why American
poverty affects us all. NY: Oxford University Press.
* Chapter 3 is posted online
Edin, K. & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers
survive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
* Chapter 3 is posted online
Wilson, W. (2009). More than just race: Being poor and black in
the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
* Chapter 3 is posted online
Supplemental
Blank, R. & Shierholz, H. (2006). Exploring gender differences in
the labor market for less-skilled workers. In R. Blank, S.
Danziger, & R. Schoeni (Eds.). Working and poor: How
economic and policy changes are affecting low-wage
workers (pp. 23-58). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s corner: A study of negro streetcorner
men. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company,
* Chapter 2 is posted online
2/25
Policy response:
Education
Kemple, J. (2008) Career Academies: Long-term impacts on labor
market outcomes, educational attainment, and transitions to
adulthood. Retrieved from MDRC website:
http://www.mdrc.org/career-academies-5
Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill
development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics. 1(3): 111-134. doi:
10.1257/app.1.3.111
Schweinhart, L., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W., Belfield, C., &
Nores, M. (2007). The HighScope/Perry Preschool Study through
Age 40: Summary, Conclusions, and Frequently Asked Questions.
Retrieved from:
http://www.highscope.org/file/Research/PerryProject/specialsum
mary_rev2011_02_2.pdf
3/4
Policy response: Work Berlin, G. (2007). Rewarding the work of individuals: A
counterintuitive approach to reducing poverty and strengthening
promotion
families. Future of Children. 17(2): 17-42.
SOWO 835
7
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495059.
Mead, L. (2007). Toward a mandatory work policy for men. Future
of Children. 17(2): 43-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495060.
Mills, G., Compton, J., & Golden, O. (2011). Assessing the evidence
about work support benefits and low-income families:
Rationale for a demonstration and evaluation. Retrieved
from the Urban Institute website:
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412303-Work-SupportBenefits.pdf
Supplemental:
Darity, W. (2010). A direct route to full employment. Review of
Black Political Economy. 37: 179-181. doi: 10.1007/s12114010-9075-x
Johnson, C., Rynell, A., & Young, M. (2010). Publicly funded jobs:
An essential strategy for reducing poverty and economic
distress throughout the business cycle. Retrieved from the
Urban Institute website:
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412070_publicly_funded
_jobs.pdf
3/11
3/18
Spring Break: No Class
Social problem:
Wilson, W. (2010). Why both social structure and culture matter in a
neighborhoods
holistic analysis of inner-city poverty. The Annals, 629(1):
200-219. doi: 10.1177/0002716209357403
Charles, C. (2003). The dynamics of racial residential segregation.”
Annual Review of Sociology, 29: 167-207. doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.1
Kneebone, E., Nadeau, C., & Berube, A. (2011). The re-emergence of
concentrated poverty: Metropolitan trends in the 2000s.
Retrieved from the Brookings Institution website:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/11/03-povertykneebone-nadeau-berube
Supplemental Reading
Bernard P, Charafeddine, R., Frohlich, K., Daniel, M., Kestens, Y.
& Potvin, L. (2007). Health inequalities and place: a
theoretical conceptualization of neighbourhood. Social
Science & Medicine. 65: 1839–1852.
Blank, R. (2005). Poverty, policy, and place: How poverty and
policies to alleviate poverty are shaped by local
characteristics. International Regional Science Review.
28(4): 441-464. doi: 10.1177/0160017605278999
3/25
Policy response:
Neighborhoods
Brophy, P. & Smith, R. (1997). Mixed income housing: Factors for
success. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and
Research. 3(2): 3-31.
Chaskin, R. & Joseph, M. (2010). Building “community” in mixed-
SOWO 835
8
income developments: Assumptions, approaches, and early
experiences. Urban Affairs Review, 45(3): 299-335. doi:
10.1177/1078087409341544
Sanbonmatsu, L., Ludwig, J., Katz, L., Gennetian, L., Duncan, G.,
Kessler, R., Adam, E., McDade, T., & Lindau, S. (2011).
Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration
Program: Final impact evaluation. Downloaded from U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development website:
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pubasst/MTOFH
D.html
* Please read the Executive Summary and Chapter 8
Supplemental reading
Joseph, M., Chaskin, R., & Webber, H. (2007). The theoretical basis
for addressing poverty through mixed-income development.
Urban Affairs Review. 42(3): 369-409.
doi: 10.1177/1078087406294043
Orlebeke, C. (2000). The evolution of low-income housing policy,
1949 to 1999. Housing Policy Debate. 11(2), 489-520. doi:
10.1080/10511482.2000.9521375
Turner, M. & Kingsley, G. (2008). Federal programs for addressing
low-income housing needs. Retrieved from Urban Institute’s
website: http://www.urban.org/publications/411798.html
4/1
The problem: Welfare
DeParle, J. (2004). American dream: Three women, ten kids, and a
nation’s drive to end welfare. New York: Viking.
* Please read Chapters 1, 3, and 4
4/8
Policy response:
Welfare Reform
Danziger, S. (2010). The decline of cash welfare and implications for
social policy and poverty. Annual Review of Sociology. 36: 523545. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102644
Sheely, A. (2012). Devolution and welfare reform: Re-evaluating
“Success.” Social Work. 57(1): 321-331.
doi: 10.1093/sw/sws022
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2009). The new welfare bureaucrats:
Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
* Chapter 5 posted online
Supplemental:
Berlin, G. (2010). Rethinking welfare in the Great Recession: Issues
in the reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families. Retrieved from MDRC website:
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/566/testimony.html
Blank, Rebecca. 2002. Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States.
Journal of Economic Literature. 40(4): 1105-1166.
Bloom, D. & Michalopoulos, C. (2001). How welfare and work
policies affect employment and income: A synthesis of
research. Retrieved from the MDRC website:
SOWO 835
9
http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_393.pdf
Ehrenreich, Barbara. July 11, 2009. “A Homespun Safety Net.” The
New York Times. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12ehrenreich.htm
l?pagewanted=all&_r=0
4/15
The problem: Families McLanahan, S. & Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the
reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology. 34:
257-76. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134549
Edin, K. & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor
women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
* Please read Chapter 4 (Chapter 3 is also posted and
recommended)
Deparle, J. (2012). Two classes, divided by “I Do.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-inamerica-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all
Supplemental
Barack Obama. June 16, 2011. “We Need Fathers to Step Up.” Parade
Magazine. http://www.parade.com/news/2009/06/barackobama-we-need-fathers-to-step-up.html
Wilson, W. (2009). More than just race: Being poor and black in
the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
* Chapter 4 is posted online
4/22
Policy response:
Marriage
Cowan, P., Cowan, C., & Knox, V. (2010). Marriage and
fatherhood programs. Future of Children. 20(2): 205-230.
Retrieved from:
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs
/20_02_10.pdf
Lichter, D., Graefe, D., & Brown, J. (2003). Is marriage a panacea?
Union formation among disadvantaged single mothers.
Social Problems. 50(1): 60-85.
Rector, R. (2012). Marriage: America’s greatest weapon against
child poverty. Retrieved from the Heritage Foundation
website:
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2012/pdf/sr117.pdf
Supplemental:
Casey, T. & Maldonado, L. (2012). Worst off – single-parent
families in the United States: A cross-national comparison of
single parenthood in the U.S. and sixteen other high-income
countries. Retrieved from the Legal Momentum website:
http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/women-andpoverty/resources--publications/worst-off-single-parent.pdf
Gassman-Pines, A. & Yoshikawa, H. (2006). Five-year effects of
an anti-poverty program on marriage among never-married
mothers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 25(1):
SOWO 835
10
11-30. doi: 10.1002/pam.20154
Ludwig, J. & Mayer, S. (2006). ‘Culture’ and the intergenerational
transmission of poverty: The prevention paradox. The Future
of Children 16 (2): 175-196. doi: 10.1353/foc.2006.0017
Wood, R., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., Killewald, A., & Monahan, S.
(2012). The long-term effects of Building Strong Families: A
relationship skills education program for unmarried parents.
Executive Summary. Retrieved from the Administration for
Children and Families website:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/bsf_36_mo_i
mpact_exec_summ.pdf