© 2022 Walden University, LLC

In this case study, focus on the details that indicate where a social welfare program is in place or referenced. Also, focus on more than named policies to determine where a program originates or receives funding. To trace a program to a policy or a federal origination for funding, research similar programs in your community.

The Case of Joe Joe is a 28-year-old male who came to the County Division of Social Services to apply for General Assistance benefits. The General Assistance program in Joe’s state provides cash assistance, Medicaid coverage, and housing for homeless single adults. Joe is in need of Medicaid benefits in order to remain active in his treatment program. Joe is receiving treatment at Hope Center, a partial hospitalization program at the local community mental health center for clients who are dually diagnosed. Joe has a dependence on prescription medications and opioids, although he states that he has stopped using recently. He has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, for which he is being prescribed medication. Joe reports that he is unable to work due to mental illness, and without an income or health insurance, he is unable to obtain his medication. Joe reports that his lack of employment also results from an inability to pass most background checks due to his history of incarceration. He reports that while he was enrolled as a student at the state university, he sold marijuana and other recreational drugs to other college students. He was arrested and convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and served a prison sentence. Joe has had no further arrests; however, he has not been able to secure permanent housing or employment since his release. If he discloses that he was arrested, Joe reports that he is never called for interviews. But when he once failed to disclose the information to a prospective employer, Joe was terminated for lying on his application. Joe believes that he has little hope for future employment. Joe has few natural supports in his life. He reports that following the incarceration, his family members distanced themselves from him, and his girlfriend broke up with him. He reports that his only supports are his local Narcotics Anonymous (NA) sponsor and his mental health counselor. Joe’s mental health counselor from the Hope Springs program has contacted the social worker at the County Division of Social Services to advocate for Joe’s approval for benefits. She explained that under the current state regulations, Joe is ineligible for benefits due to his CDS distribution conviction. The only program options that the County Division of Social Services social worker can offer him are food stamps and access to a homeless shelter outside of the county. The counselor explained that

© 2022 Walden University, LLC

relocation would cause a disruption to Joe’s mental health treatment and would cause him to lose contact with his local NA sponsor. In response to the counselor’s concerns, the County Division of Social Services social worker suggested some possibilities. First, Joe’s mental health diagnosis could qualify him for disability. The social worker also recommended that Joe contact the local faith- based organization, St. Dominic’s New Direction Center, for assistance. Although they do not house single males, they have an extensive network of volunteers, mentors, and donors who may financially support people in need. The County Division of Social Services social worker referred Joe to The Bridge Home, a local organization that helps reduce recidivism by offering reentry assistance to people seeking employment who have been previously incarcerated. They can assign a caseworker to help clients find jobs and they work with employers to hire those seeking reentry. Finally, the County Division of Social Services social work suggested that the counselor research Joe’s ability to remain in treatment at the hospital despite his lack of Medicaid coverage. The counselor agreed to assist Joe with these suggestions.

Policy or Program?

© 2021 Walden University, LLC 1

Policy or Program? Program Transcript RENATA A. HEDRINGTON JONES: The difference between a policy and a program is

that programs are based upon the policy. So the program can only move in the direction

that the policy mandates or dictates.

JOE N. SAVAGE, JR.: Typically, the policy comes first, as it defines the program. It

determines and defines the services that can be provided, who is eligible to receive

those services, as well as any additional eligibility criteria and the intended outcomes.

RENATA A. HEDRINGTON JONES: For instance, I have a program for children. If the

policy says that program for children must have a particular age group of staff working

with them with particular and specific skills, then that is what I must have for the

program.

Program does not dictate policy. Policy dictates how and why that program runs the way

it does and what's necessary to make that policy– or that program receive its licensing

and credentials.

JOE N. SAVAGE, JR.: An example from my field of work that highlights the difference

between a policy and a program is the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Programs

Act. That is a policy that establishes the Continuum Of Care program. And the

Continuum Of Care program is responsible for providing emergency shelter, transitional

housing, permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing assistance to

homeless individuals and families.

The McKinney-Vento Act is what defines what the COC program can do. It defines

who's homeless and what that definition is. It defines how much rental assistance, how

long can their emergency shelter be provided. So the McKinney-Vento Act is the policy

that outlines what the COC program can do, who it can serve, and how much

assistance it can give.

RENATA A. HEDRINGTON JONES: What we really need to understand is policy guides

practice. That program is a practice. That policy tells that practice what's mandated,

what the law is, and how you violate the laws as well. So it's always good practice to

read the policy and procedures manual, so that you are ensured what your roles and

responsibilities are in the specific environment with you are working.

Policy or Program?

© 2021 Walden University, LLC 2

The program provides you the environment. The policy tells you how that environment

is supposed to function, what services it's supposed to provide, how they're supposed to

provide them, and when and how long.

KEN LARIMORE: I want to look at the difference between policy and program. If we

could compare this to a car, the car is the program. And the policy is what drives the

car, or what drives our program. And if our policies are bad, our car is not going to get

where it needs to go, which means our clients are not going to get the services that they

need.

Understanding the Policy Landscape

© 2021 Walden University, LLC 1

Understanding the Policy Landscape Program Transcript JOE N. SAVAGE, JR.: The reason why it's important to understand the policy landscape

in your day-to-day practice as a social work practitioner is because it's the policy that

determines what you can do as a social work practitioner.

As a social worker, you're providing services to clients. The policies are what determine

the services that you can provide. And guess what? Policies change. Congress can

make a change. The state legislature can make a change. Or even your agency can

make a change in its policy. And whenever there's a change in the policy, that impacts

what you do at the front line as a social work practitioner, so you should always want to

stay abreast of current policy as you're serving your clients.

RENATA A. HEDRINGTON JONES: It is good practice, or best practice, to understand

the policy landscape in day-to-day practice because it's your guide. It's your roadmap. It

tells you– for instance, in substance abuse programs, in the beginning, and as most

social workers know, the GIM model– which are your steps, your seven steps– the

General Intervention Model, you are engaging the client, but from day one you are

focused on a termination.

Well, that part of that landscape is telling you that. And when you engage the client, you

notify the client that this program is 28 days long. And during this process, we're going

to conduct assessments. And they can show you, with insurance and the overall policy

of the agency, what services you are going to receive, how, and when, and why they

don't have a voice or say when that 28th day comes and what you need to do.

So the whole idea– let's look at it as a graph. It goes step by step what it is you're

supposed to have and how you're supposed to receive those services. And the ultimate

goal of those services, so goals and objectives, are based on the policies.

KEN LARIMORE: One of the policies that we dealt with in our independent living

program was a policy that was set up by our County Children's Service Agency. And

what they stated was, is that each adolescent, as they were in our independent living

programs, only one adolescent could live in an apartment. They did not want two, or

three, or four adolescents to share the same apartment.

Understanding the Policy Landscape

© 2021 Walden University, LLC 2

Well, what we discovered was most of the apartments that these kids needed to rent

were anywhere from $500 to $750 a month. And we saw that as a bad policy because if

we could put just two kids into an apartment, that reduces their payment for the rent in

half.

And that allows that adolescent– if they're having to work at the same time they're going

to school– to be able to do both.

JOE N. SAVAGE, JR.: When I was working as an advocate and doing coalition building,

the current policy landscape, as it related to homelessness, focused on families,

families and children. And the advocacy work that I was doing was seeking to help

homeless individuals that were living on the street. The current policy, as it related to

families, really pushed all of the funding towards family.

Then all of a sudden, there was some data out of the University of Pennsylvania that

really showed that the individuals who were living on the street, even though they only

made up 11% of the homeless population, they were using over 50% of the resources.

Out of that data, came policy.

And when the policy changed, all of a sudden, the funding shifted towards chronically

homeless individuals, those living on the street. And we got more funding that enabled

us to do more advocacy and more coalition building to get more homeless individuals

off the street and into housing.

KEN LARIMORE: Day in and day out, you know, we need to look at policy. How is this

policy affecting my client? Is it helping him or her to be successful? Is it causing barriers

to where they just get frustrated and want to drop out of the program? It's the backbone

of all that we do.