Friday, August 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
UPDATE ON STUDENT PRESENTATION SCHEDULE FOR WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY
Each student should speak for about 10 minutes, touching upon all four parts of the project (idea, supportive research, existing legislation, and family impact checklist/program evaluation). The use of PowerPoint in the presentations is optional.
As we've discussed, one of the learning experiences we're seeking from this activity involves the ability to negotiate and find common ground in a (pretend) legislative setting (thanks to Dr. Bogenschneider for this suggestion during conversations I had with her a while back).
The main way I feel we can accomplish this is by grouping proposals on similar topics to be presented back-to-back (where possible). These proposals may have some similarities, but will differ on one or more important details. We can pretend that one version has passed the House of our legislature and the other, the Senate. The class can then serve as members of the conference committee, who work to come up with a singular version of the bill to move toward final passage.
Here are the assigned presentation times, by student initials. Please e-mail me immediately if there's a problem with your assigned time (I was able to accommodate most people's preferred times).
WEDNESDAY -- FIRST HOUR
LK, MD (federal sex-education policy)
SW (childcare center accreditation)
WEDNESDAY -- AFTER THE BREAK
MC (definition of "family" for purposes of benefit packages and other areas)
EB (incorporating college education into PRWORA/TANF)
KN (parenting classes for adolescent parents)
THURSDAY -- FIRST HOUR
MNX, ML, JG (adoption, same-sex parents, second-parent)
THURSDAY -- AFTER THE BREAK
LD (same-sex marriage)
AM, GG (minimum age for marriage)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We left off yesterday in the middle of discussing the four features of successful government programs from the Bogenschneider book (pp. 162-164), based on the writings of Theda Skocpol (updated Tuesday evening):
1. The program's benefits are seen as a reward for service to society (e.g., GI Bill for military veterans) or at least as something that is expected to lead to future contributions to society (e.g., public schools for children). An alternative term I suggested for what underlies this line of thinking is deservingness. If a widespread perception takes hold that a program is providing rewards to undeserving recipients, that program will likely become endangered.
2. The program is universally available to a wide cross-section of citizens (e.g., Social Security, which all workers pay into and all draw benefits upon retirement). The opposite of universality, as we discussed, is means-testing. The latter says that higher-income citizens, those who already have substantial "means" to support themselves, shall be excluded from receiving the program's benefits (or receive them only in limited form). Though means-testing may promote the financial security of a program by curbing expenditures, program advocates are generally reluctant to recommend means-testing, for fear the program may come to be seen as a "welfare" program.
3. Another strength of a governmental program, according to Bogenschneider, is that it has grown out of voluntary, non-governmental organizations (NGO, such as the PTA) and remains interlinked with the voluntary association. I suggested that this might be less true today than in the past, for a couple of reasons. First, prior to FDR's New Deal programs of the 1930s, government was involved in many fewer areas than is true today, so NGO's would have been needed more to provide social services. Second, participation in traditional, organized community groups has been declining in recent decades on a per-capita basis, as documented in Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone. An interesting discussion ensued in class, about whether today's young people lack the communitarian orientation of their elders, or still have it, but just express it differently (e.g., online chat boards).
4. The final component, for which we ran out of time, is that a program has a secure funding base.
Today, in our final day of lecture/discussion before we begin the presentations of students' legislative proposals, we will focus on Family Impact Seminars, including listening to audio clips from some actual ones.
Each student should speak for about 10 minutes, touching upon all four parts of the project (idea, supportive research, existing legislation, and family impact checklist/program evaluation). The use of PowerPoint in the presentations is optional.
As we've discussed, one of the learning experiences we're seeking from this activity involves the ability to negotiate and find common ground in a (pretend) legislative setting (thanks to Dr. Bogenschneider for this suggestion during conversations I had with her a while back).
The main way I feel we can accomplish this is by grouping proposals on similar topics to be presented back-to-back (where possible). These proposals may have some similarities, but will differ on one or more important details. We can pretend that one version has passed the House of our legislature and the other, the Senate. The class can then serve as members of the conference committee, who work to come up with a singular version of the bill to move toward final passage.
Here are the assigned presentation times, by student initials. Please e-mail me immediately if there's a problem with your assigned time (I was able to accommodate most people's preferred times).
WEDNESDAY -- FIRST HOUR
LK, MD (federal sex-education policy)
SW (childcare center accreditation)
WEDNESDAY -- AFTER THE BREAK
MC (definition of "family" for purposes of benefit packages and other areas)
EB (incorporating college education into PRWORA/TANF)
KN (parenting classes for adolescent parents)
THURSDAY -- FIRST HOUR
MNX, ML, JG (adoption, same-sex parents, second-parent)
THURSDAY -- AFTER THE BREAK
LD (same-sex marriage)
AM, GG (minimum age for marriage)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We left off yesterday in the middle of discussing the four features of successful government programs from the Bogenschneider book (pp. 162-164), based on the writings of Theda Skocpol (updated Tuesday evening):
1. The program's benefits are seen as a reward for service to society (e.g., GI Bill for military veterans) or at least as something that is expected to lead to future contributions to society (e.g., public schools for children). An alternative term I suggested for what underlies this line of thinking is deservingness. If a widespread perception takes hold that a program is providing rewards to undeserving recipients, that program will likely become endangered.
2. The program is universally available to a wide cross-section of citizens (e.g., Social Security, which all workers pay into and all draw benefits upon retirement). The opposite of universality, as we discussed, is means-testing. The latter says that higher-income citizens, those who already have substantial "means" to support themselves, shall be excluded from receiving the program's benefits (or receive them only in limited form). Though means-testing may promote the financial security of a program by curbing expenditures, program advocates are generally reluctant to recommend means-testing, for fear the program may come to be seen as a "welfare" program.
3. Another strength of a governmental program, according to Bogenschneider, is that it has grown out of voluntary, non-governmental organizations (NGO, such as the PTA) and remains interlinked with the voluntary association. I suggested that this might be less true today than in the past, for a couple of reasons. First, prior to FDR's New Deal programs of the 1930s, government was involved in many fewer areas than is true today, so NGO's would have been needed more to provide social services. Second, participation in traditional, organized community groups has been declining in recent decades on a per-capita basis, as documented in Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone. An interesting discussion ensued in class, about whether today's young people lack the communitarian orientation of their elders, or still have it, but just express it differently (e.g., online chat boards).
4. The final component, for which we ran out of time, is that a program has a secure funding base.
Today, in our final day of lecture/discussion before we begin the presentations of students' legislative proposals, we will focus on Family Impact Seminars, including listening to audio clips from some actual ones.
Monday, August 4, 2008
After our quiz today, we'll take up the topic of how to work within the political system to get legislation passed. This material draws heavily from Dr. Bogenschneider's book. I've also compiled some links about the "art of compromise" in trying to get bills passed.
“Perfecting the Art of Compromise” (aimed at interest groups or associations hoping to get legislation through Congress)
Indiana U. Center on Congress, Essay by former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) (see especially, the bottom of paragraph fourth from bottom)
Bill to allow adoption by gay people in Florida appears to seek limited scope
A couple of links on the 1983 Social Security Study Commission (to advise Congress), which brought together prominent figures from both major parties
Official report from the Social Security Administration
Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) reminiscing on how he and the late former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) helped “break a legislative stalemate”
“Perfecting the Art of Compromise” (aimed at interest groups or associations hoping to get legislation through Congress)
Indiana U. Center on Congress, Essay by former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) (see especially, the bottom of paragraph fourth from bottom)
Bill to allow adoption by gay people in Florida appears to seek limited scope
A couple of links on the 1983 Social Security Study Commission (to advise Congress), which brought together prominent figures from both major parties
Official report from the Social Security Administration
Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) reminiscing on how he and the late former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) helped “break a legislative stalemate”
Friday, August 1, 2008
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING THE FINAL SECTION OF YOUR LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL PAPER
An estimated budget for your proposal is no longer required. Most of the areas in which students are proposing their legislation are non-monetary, so budgets would not be that central to your ideas. If your topic does involve a funding aspect (e.g., making some services available to residents of a state), you can simply write a few sentences about how much money your program might cost -- but nothing too detailed.
As a result of dropping the budgeting requirement, there are now two elements needed for the final paper:
1. A completed Family Impact Checklist. You should write short answers (perhaps two or three sentences) for each of the six major Principles (e.g., Family Support, Family Stability, Vulnerable Families). If any principle does not appear relevant for your policy, you can write "Not Applicable." The form for the Family Impact Checklist is available here, whereas samples of completed checklists are available here.
2. A proposed research design for a Program Evaluation study of the effectiveness of your policy. In general, this would involve exposing half of your research participants (or half of the counties in your state) to your new policy, and the other half to the existing policy, and then checking back after a number of years to see if the people exposed to your new policy (the "experimental group") exhibit more favorable outcomes (e.g., lower divorce rates, better health) than the people not exposed to your policy (the "control group"). The experimental and control groups should be created at random, to ensure that there are no systematic differences between the groups (e.g., one has higher average income than the other) prior to the beginning of the study. These lecture notes on program evaluation from my Texas Tech research methodology course may be helpful.
The major links I've provided above are also available in the Policymaking and Analysis notes from my Texas Tech family policy page.
The deadline for receipt of your papers with no point penalty will be Tuesday night at 9:00 pm. This will give me some time to read your papers before we begin the presentations on Wednesday.
An estimated budget for your proposal is no longer required. Most of the areas in which students are proposing their legislation are non-monetary, so budgets would not be that central to your ideas. If your topic does involve a funding aspect (e.g., making some services available to residents of a state), you can simply write a few sentences about how much money your program might cost -- but nothing too detailed.
As a result of dropping the budgeting requirement, there are now two elements needed for the final paper:
1. A completed Family Impact Checklist. You should write short answers (perhaps two or three sentences) for each of the six major Principles (e.g., Family Support, Family Stability, Vulnerable Families). If any principle does not appear relevant for your policy, you can write "Not Applicable." The form for the Family Impact Checklist is available here, whereas samples of completed checklists are available here.
2. A proposed research design for a Program Evaluation study of the effectiveness of your policy. In general, this would involve exposing half of your research participants (or half of the counties in your state) to your new policy, and the other half to the existing policy, and then checking back after a number of years to see if the people exposed to your new policy (the "experimental group") exhibit more favorable outcomes (e.g., lower divorce rates, better health) than the people not exposed to your policy (the "control group"). The experimental and control groups should be created at random, to ensure that there are no systematic differences between the groups (e.g., one has higher average income than the other) prior to the beginning of the study. These lecture notes on program evaluation from my Texas Tech research methodology course may be helpful.
The major links I've provided above are also available in the Policymaking and Analysis notes from my Texas Tech family policy page.
The deadline for receipt of your papers with no point penalty will be Tuesday night at 9:00 pm. This will give me some time to read your papers before we begin the presentations on Wednesday.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Today, we will cover policy issues affecting the elderly. Many areas are encompassed, including health, long-term care, age discrimination, and grandparent visitation rights (see my Texas Tech lecture notes).
We'll probably spend the most time in class discussing Social Security, however, as it's an intergenerational program that affects workers and retirees of all ages. One student has already commented to me about the rules governing divorced spouses of Social Security recipients (described in the Polikoff book). Here are some helpful links:
How much money is coming into the federal government's Social Security Trust Fund each year and how much is going out to pay benefits to retirees
(a key distinction to keep in mind is that between each year's incoming and outgoing money, and the cumulative surplus that has built up at any one time)
How much money is deducted from each of your paychecks under "FICA" (Social Security and Medicare) payroll tax
Article on projected trends regarding Social Security's long-term solvency
Polikoff's book cites a report (p. 206, footnote 37; p. 240) by Favreault and Steuerle on ideas for changes to Social Security; I was able to find a PowerPoint slide show by these authors.
UPDATE: This is the article on long-term care that we discovered during today's class (see also p. 100 of the Bogenschneider book).
We'll probably spend the most time in class discussing Social Security, however, as it's an intergenerational program that affects workers and retirees of all ages. One student has already commented to me about the rules governing divorced spouses of Social Security recipients (described in the Polikoff book). Here are some helpful links:
How much money is coming into the federal government's Social Security Trust Fund each year and how much is going out to pay benefits to retirees
(a key distinction to keep in mind is that between each year's incoming and outgoing money, and the cumulative surplus that has built up at any one time)
How much money is deducted from each of your paychecks under "FICA" (Social Security and Medicare) payroll tax
Article on projected trends regarding Social Security's long-term solvency
Polikoff's book cites a report (p. 206, footnote 37; p. 240) by Favreault and Steuerle on ideas for changes to Social Security; I was able to find a PowerPoint slide show by these authors.
UPDATE: This is the article on long-term care that we discovered during today's class (see also p. 100 of the Bogenschneider book).
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
For the first half of class today, we'll finish up Welfare Reform. Then, for the second half, we'll cover the Family and Medical Leave Act, a federal law enacted in 1993.
In the Bogenschneider book, she discusses Welfare Reform within the broader context of family poverty. Specifically, on pp. 103-104, she talks about the role of economic mobility. If a family is poor, what are the prospects of the children, through education, hard work, and creativity, moving up the economic ladder? This document (particularly Figure 4) provides some useful information.
Regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act, states are permitted to enact more generous leave policies than available in the FMLA, but not ones that are less generous. Here are a couple of web links for further information:
List of states with FMLA provisions more generous than federal version (this list pre-dates the passage of paid leave by a few states)
Wisconsin version of FMLA
In the Bogenschneider book, she discusses Welfare Reform within the broader context of family poverty. Specifically, on pp. 103-104, she talks about the role of economic mobility. If a family is poor, what are the prospects of the children, through education, hard work, and creativity, moving up the economic ladder? This document (particularly Figure 4) provides some useful information.
Regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act, states are permitted to enact more generous leave policies than available in the FMLA, but not ones that are less generous. Here are a couple of web links for further information:
List of states with FMLA provisions more generous than federal version (this list pre-dates the passage of paid leave by a few states)
Wisconsin version of FMLA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
