Preface |
|
xi | |
|
PART ONE CREATING THE CONTEXT FOR SOCIAL POLICY ANALYSIS: THE SOCIAL PROBLEM CONTEXT |
|
|
1 | (26) |
|
1 Analyzing the Social Problem Background of Social Policies and Social Programs |
|
|
7 | (20) |
|
The Nature of Social Problems |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
|
9 | (12) |
|
|
10 | (4) |
|
|
14 | (3) |
|
|
17 | (2) |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
Using the Conclusions of Social Problem Analysis to Design Social Policies and Programs and to Judge Their "Fit" to the Social Problem |
|
|
21 | (4) |
|
|
25 | (2) |
|
PART TWO A STYLE OF POLICY ANALYSIS FOR THE PRACTICAL PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST |
|
|
27 | (138) |
|
2 An Overview of a Style of Policy Analysis: A Value-Critical Approach |
|
|
29 | (11) |
|
The Policy and Program Analysis Process: An Overview of the Six Fundamental Policy Elements |
|
|
33 | (4) |
|
Criteria for a Value-Critical Appraisal of Social Policy and Programs |
|
|
37 | (2) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
3 The Analysis of Policy Goals and Objectives in Social Programs and Policies |
|
|
40 | (23) |
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
Definitions and Basic Concepts for Analysis of Goals and Objectives |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
Different Types of Goals and Objectives |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
Long-Term/Short-Term Goals and Objectives |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
Goals Differ from Latent Social Functions |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
Distinguishing between Goals and Objectives |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
Objectives (Not Goals) Must Contain Target Group Specifications and Performance Standards |
|
|
45 | (3) |
|
Why Have Both Goals and Objectives? |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
Setting Goals and Objectives in the Personal Social Services |
|
|
48 | (2) |
|
Social Control and Program and Practice Objectives |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
Goals and Objectives Vary According to the Developmental Stage of the Program |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
Methods of Identifying Goals and Objectives |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
Step 1 Locate the Enabling Legislation |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
Step 2 Locate Legislative History |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
Step 3 Locate Staff and Committee Studies and Reports |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
Step 4 Check Other "Official" Sources |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
Locating Sources for Goals and Objectives in State-Administered and Private Social Programs |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
Evaluating Program or Policy System Goals and Objectives: A Value-Critical Approach |
|
|
52 | (3) |
|
Evaluating the Fit between Goals and Objectives and the Social Problem Analysis |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
Evaluating Goals and Objectives against Traditional Economic Criteria: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency |
|
|
56 | (2) |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Equity with Respect to Goals and Objectives |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
Efficiency with Respect to Goals and Objectives |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
Some Evaluation Criteria Unique to Goals and Objectives |
|
|
58 | (2) |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
Concern with Outcomes, Not Services Provided |
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
The Analyst's Own Value Perspectives in Evaluating the Merit of Goals and Objectives |
|
|
60 | (2) |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
4 Who Gets What: The Analysis of Types of Benefits and Services |
|
|
63 | (16) |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
A Classification Scheme for Benefit and Service Types |
|
|
64 | (4) |
|
Summary of Types of Benefits and Services |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
Multiple and Interrelated Benefits |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
Criteria for Evaluating the Merit of Benefit and Service Types |
|
|
69 | (4) |
|
Stigmatization, Cost-Effectiveness, Substitutability, Target Efficiency, and Trade-Offs |
|
|
69 | (2) |
|
The Political and Public Administration Viewpoint |
|
|
71 | (2) |
|
Criteria for Evaluating the Merit of Benefit Types: Consumer Sovereignty, Coercion, and Intrusiveness |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
Criteria for Evaluating the Fit of the Benefit/Service Type to the Social Problem Analysis |
|
|
74 | (3) |
|
Criteria for Evaluating the Merit of Benefit Forms: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
|
78 | (1) |
|
5 Who Gets What, How Much, and Under What Conditions: Analysis of Eligibility Rules |
|
|
79 | (28) |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
Types of Eligibility Rules |
|
|
81 | (8) |
|
Eligibility Rules Based on Prior Contributions |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
Eligibility by Administrative Rule and Regulation |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
Eligibility by Private Contract |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
Eligibility by Professional Discretion |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
Eligibility by Administrative Discretion |
|
|
84 | (2) |
|
Eligibility by Judicial Decision |
|
|
86 | (1) |
|
Eligibility by Means Testing |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
Establishing Attachment to the Workforce |
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
Eligibility Inclusion and Exclusion |
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
Criteria for Evaluating the Merit of Eligibility Rules |
|
|
89 | (5) |
|
Fit with the Social Problem Analysis |
|
|
89 | (2) |
|
Criteria Specific to Eligibility Rules |
|
|
91 | (3) |
|
Trade-Offs in Evaluating Eligibility Rules |
|
|
94 | (1) |
|
Overwhelming Costs, Overutilization, and Underutilization |
|
|
95 | (3) |
|
Work Disincentives, Incentives, and Eligibility Rules |
|
|
98 | (3) |
|
Procreational Incentives, Marital Instability, and Generational Dependency |
|
|
101 | (3) |
|
Opportunities for Political Interference via Weak Eligibility Rules |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
|
105 | (2) |
|
6 Analysis of Service-Delivery Systems and Social Policy and Program Design |
|
|
107 | (31) |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
Social Policy and Program Design |
|
|
108 | (6) |
|
Program Theory (the Logic Model) |
|
|
111 | (2) |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
Some Different Types of Administration and Delivery of Social Service Programs, Benefits, and Services |
|
|
114 | (13) |
|
Centralized Service-Delivery Systems |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
Client-Centered Management and "Inverted Hierarchy" Service-Delivery Systems |
|
|
116 | (1) |
|
Federated Service-Delivery Organizations |
|
|
117 | (1) |
|
Case-Management Service-Delivery Systems |
|
|
117 | (2) |
|
Staffing with Indigenous Workers as a Service-Delivery Strategy |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
Referral Agencies in Delivering Social Service |
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
Program Consumer/Beneficiary, Client-Controlled Organizations as a Service-Delivery Strategy |
|
|
121 | (1) |
|
Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Agencies as a Service-Delivery Strategy |
|
|
122 | (5) |
|
Privatization of Service Delivery |
|
|
127 | (2) |
|
Criteria for Evaluating Program Administration and Service Delivery |
|
|
129 | (7) |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
Services and Benefits Should Be Integrated and Continuous |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
Services and Benefits Should Be Easily Accessible |
|
|
130 | (1) |
|
Organizations Should Be Accountable for Their Actions and Decisions |
|
|
131 | (3) |
|
Citizens and Consumers Should Be Participating in Organizational Decision Making |
|
|
134 | (2) |
|
Organizations and Their Staff Must Be Able to Relate to Racial, Gender, and Ethnic Diversity |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
Organizations Must Resist the Temptation to Self-Perpetuate |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
7 How Do We Pay for Social Welfare Policies and Programs? Analysis of Financing |
|
|
138 | (20) |
|
|
138 | (9) |
|
|
139 | (4) |
|
|
143 | (4) |
|
Evaluative Criteria Specific to Financing |
|
|
147 | (10) |
|
|
155 | (2) |
|
|
157 | (1) |
|
8 Analysis of Interactions among Policy Elements |
|
|
158 | (7) |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
|
161 | (2) |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
PART THREE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL POLICIES AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS USING BASIC CONCEPTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA: AN EXAMPLE |
|
|
165 | (22) |
|
9 An Example of Social Policy and Social Program Analysis: Selected Features of Federal Child Welfare Legislation since 1970 Concerned with Child Abuse |
|
|
167 | (20) |
|
The Social Problem Context |
|
|
168 | (6) |
|
Definition of the Social Problem |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
The Ideological Perspective |
|
|
170 | (2) |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
|
175 | (2) |
|
The Social Program and Policy System |
|
|
177 | (8) |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
Form of Benefit and/or Service |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
Administration and Service Delivery |
|
|
180 | (4) |
|
|
184 | (1) |
|
Interactions between Basic Policy Elements and between This and Other Programs |
|
|
185 | (1) |
|
|
185 | (2) |
Endnotes |
|
187 | (8) |
Index |
|
195 | |