1.What are criteria of merit that could be used to evaluate social welfare policies and programs?
This discussion question is informed by the following EPAS Standard:
5: Engage in Policy Practice
1.According to our text, “American social policy evolved in stages over roughly 270 years if we begin in 1750” (Jansson, 2019, p. 106). Many advocates help transformed/changed the “Nations social from primitive ones at the local level in the colonial period to a substantial welfare state in 2019 that includes thousands of social policies of local, state, and national governments” (Jansson, 2019, p. 106). These advocates who were involved in wanting changes for policies were participating/engaging in policy advocacy when they realized that ordinary individuals were harmed by newer problems as the nation moved from an agrarian to an industrialized nation. Due to this they initiated a major reform. However, they were against anyone and movements that sought to rescind social reforms with anything that is not proven to be effective. Moreover, people wanted policy change in order to have a better country/nation to fight social justice policies regarding women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, anyone who has a disability, rights of seniors, and rights of workers.
Furthermore, when the Great Depression of 1929 crashed the economy took a major hit in the United States. Therefore, this created issues for programs and and resources made available for the people. Due to this an unemployment rate increased at 25% by 1933 (Jansson, 2019, p. 111). However, the unemployment rate affected the African American population, women, and Latinos the most. Due to this a lot of individuals experienced poverty, health issues from the healthcare system, education, housing, and not having enough food. Further, research states that the Democratic coalition then stepped in and advocated for anyone that was affected by these situations and especially taking a stance on protecting African Americans who were allowed to vote in the North and South. During this time this was led by president Franklin Roosevelt who was a rich man and highly unlikely to advocate for these individuals during this national emergency crisis.
Further, research explains that finally president Franklin Roosevelt developed and nurtured the Democratic coalition as they finally developed the New Deal legislation to get through this emergency crisis. This New Deal program helped provide funding for people a that was called the The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) that helped with grants to provide welfare assistance to those that qualify under state rules. With that said, the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935. There were also many other programs and benefits that followed as well such as the Civilian Works Administration Act (CWA) which hired 16 million individuals who were American citizens for 190,000 work projects, and then came along the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which then gave more jobs for young men that were mostly in rural areas which was under the Army and Department of Interior. There were many other programs that followed behind this as well that was things such as, health, better education, an SNAP benefits as well as the Women Infant and Children (WIC) programs that helped during such a major crisis within the United States.
In conclusion, of this similar situations have happened during the COVID-19 pandemic and when the stock market crashed in 2008. Therefore, it is imperative that there is numerous amounts of healthcare workers and social workers made available for American people to help support to combat these types of situations to reduce homelessness, food scarcity, mental and physical health, and more than ever the housing crisis we are now all facing in the United States. Social workers have to adhere to the Code of Ethics to combat any negative impacts that can ultimately hinder anyone from experiencing mental health issues because when barriers occur it often times can mess with a person’s mental and physical health. Therefore, our job as social workers is to advocate and fight any crisis that happens as well as reducing any impacts.
2. The importance of social welfare policies is evaluated through various criteria. Equity is the degree to which a policy promotes fairness and reduces disparities in society. Effectiveness measures the extent to which a policy achieves its desired outcomes, ensuring equal opportunities and benefits for all individuals. Efficiency evaluates how well a policy utilizes resources to achieve its objectives, maximizing benefits while minimizing costs, waste, and inefficiencies. Sustainability assesses the long-term viability and durability of a policy, ensuring it can be maintained without depleting resources or creating unintended negative consequences. Social impact evaluates the broader effects of a policy on society, focusing on its positive influence on social well-being, community cohesion, and overall quality of life. Stakeholder participation measures the extent to which individuals and communities affected by the policy are involved in its design, implementation, and evaluation. Cost-benefit analysis weighs the costs of implementing a policy against its expected benefits, helping policymakers determine if the benefits justify the costs. Evidence-based policies are more likely to be effective and efficient, building on proven strategies and lessons learned from previous interventions. The relative importance of these criteria may vary depending on the specific context, objectives, and target population of a social welfare policy. Policymakers often consider a combination of these criteria to make informed decisions and continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of social welfare programs (Program Evaluation Guide – Introduction – CDC, 2023).
3. Social welfare policies and programs are axiomatically relevant to the health and efficacy of the undertaking focused on tackling and resolving the myriad of concerns, issues and problems facing the vulnerable members of society, many of whom are clients of professional social workers. Assessing these policies and the programs that implement them is crucial. Criteria of merit apropos to evaluation of social welfare policies and programs include relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, arguably in that order of priority (CDC, 2021). Relevance is a literal measure of merit in that the analysis is centered around whether the policy and executing program are actually reactive and responsive to an identified need. Coherence measures how meticulously the applied policy coincides with the articulated demand, and transitions seamlessly into efficiency which appraises how soundly, and justifiably allocated resources are being applied and utilized. Impact examines the appreciable metamorphosis stemming from the efficient application of relevant policies. Sustainability contemplates longevity of the influence of the policies as well as the resilience of the programs effectuating the proven agendas.
4. To establish their efficacy and impact, social welfare policies and programs must be evaluated using merit criteria. These policies help solve social issues, improve citizen well-being, and promote social fairness. Thus, a structured evaluation methodology that considers several performance factors is important.
Economic efficiency is a key factor in assessing social welfare initiatives. This criterion evaluates a program’s resource efficiency and objective achievement. In an environment with limited resources, efficient programs increase benefit for a given cost or reduce cost for a given benefit (Robinson, Fisher & Strike, 2014). For instance, a job training program for the unemployed should be cost-effective and produce results.
Another important factor is effectiveness. This determines if the program meets its goals. Changes in poverty, healthcare, education, and employment rates can measure effectiveness. A successful social welfare program should improve these metrics, meeting its goals.
Equity and justice underpin social welfare measures. Thus, the equity and fairness criterion evaluates whether the program reduces inequality and promotes social justice. How the program affects demographic groups, especially neglected and vulnerable ones, is crucial. An equitable program reduces wealth disparity and addresses historical injustices to provide everyone a fair chance to progress. Targeting is also important in evaluation (Robinson, Fisher & Strike, 2014). How well resources are allocated to the needy is this criterion. Effective targeting allocates few resources to those who need them most. A food aid program should ensure that food reaches food-insecure households.
A comprehensive review should include a cost-benefit analysis of the program’s advantages and costs. This study informs resource allocation decisions by policymakers and stakeholders. Prioritizing initiatives with a good cost-benefit ratio is easier when quantifying the program’s ROI regarding improved well-being, economic growth, or other outcomes (Rubin & von Sternberg, 2017). Social welfare programs must be sustainable to succeed. A sustainable program can benefit future generations without depleting resources or harming the environment. Sustainability requires careful planning and resource management to maintain the program’s benefits.
Administration efficiency is another evaluating factor. The efficiency of program administration is assessed here. High administrative costs might drain recipients. Thus, an efficient program reduces administrative costs while benefiting people in need. The program’s impact on social cohesion and community development must also be assessed. Social welfare programs should increase individual well-being and community development and cohesion. Community well-being and belonging programs have a greater impact (Rubin & von Sternberg, 2017). Flexibility and flexibility are also crucial in a fast-changing world. Social assistance systems should respond to economic downturns and population shifts. Programs stay relevant and practical by being flexible.
Evidence-based procedures should guide social welfare policy creation and evaluation. Evidence-based policies are more likely to succeed and prevent unintended consequences since they are based on extensive research and established methodologies. Political feasibility should also be evaluated. Policies with broad political support are more likely to succeed and last. The program’s political alignment and stakeholder support must be assessed. Evaluation requires legal and ethical considerations. Evaluators must ensure the program is lawful and ethical. This covers privacy, autonomy, and human rights throughout the program. Assessing the program’s long-term social impact is crucial. Some programs may have short-term benefits but long-term drawbacks. Others may make them more valuable over time by having a lasting beneficial effect.
Evaluation requires transparency and accountability. Transparent programs explain financial allocation, decision-making, and reporting. Mismanagement and corruption should be addressed via accountability procedures to ensure resources are used as intended (Jansson, 2019). The program’s environmental impact is increasingly vital for sustainability. Social welfare programs should reduce ecological damage and promote sustainability to improve everyone’s future.
Discussion :::::this is a great contribution.
Another criteria of merit that could be used to evaluate social welfare policies and programs is outcome or result. But there is complexity and ambiguity in measurement when it comes to result of social welfare policies and programs, even though this criterion is indispensable. All outcomes require thresholds of success and often these thresholds are obscured in practice so that service systems, for example, can report their success using outcomes like employment rates and worker productivity without offering a more valid picture of the actual quality of job outcomes from the perspective of their service recipients (Moxley & Manela, 2001). If the overall objective of social welfare policies and programs is to alleviate poverty and meet the needs of the vulnerable, this objective should be measurable in terms of results among others. Safety nets and every other social welfare program should be a means to an end and not an end in itself especially for able-bodied individuals. From a cultural perspective, human services should make people less dependent on social services and supports, more able to function on their own, and willing to compete in human labor markets(Moxley & Manela, 2001).
2. Questions .Describe the difference between formative and summative evaluation and discuss why both are important when developing and implementing social welfare policies and programs.
1. Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation conducted during program development and implementation, and is a handy tool for direction on how best to achieve the stated program objective and improvement (CDC, 2011). Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation that assesses the development or progress of a project, or program, to identify strengths or weaknesses, and to improve its effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and success (Ashraf et al. 2016). It is done during the development process to provide feedback and make necessary changes before the program is concluded. Formative evaluation deals with the needs assessment, and process evaluation.
While the need assessment is done to determine who needs the program intervention, i.e. the target audience or population, how great the need is, and what can be done to best meet the need. The process evaluation focuses on measuring the effort and the direct outputs of programs/interventions, what and how much was accomplished CDC, 2011).
Summative evaluation is conducted at the end of a program to help decision-makers decide about the future of any program. The findings from summative evaluation could be used to decide whether to continue a program or not, or to justify program money (Ashraf et al. 2016). The summative evaluation focuses on outcome and impact assessment. Outcome evaluation measures effects and changes, it investigates to what extent the program/intervention is achieving its outcomes in the target populations. Impact evaluation, on the other hand, Measures community-level change or longer-term results that have occurred as a result of the program/intervention (CDC, 2011). The main difference is that the aim of a summative evaluation is to report on the program, whereas a formative evaluation keeps an eye on program weaknesses and measures to overcome them (Ashraf et al. 2016).
However, both formative and summative evaluations are indispensable when developing and implementing social welfare policies and programs. They are needed to justify the taxpayer’s money spending on the policies and programs. They are also important to determine the outcome of any program, in other words, both evaluations are used to determine if the overall objectives of the policy program have been achieved. The overall importance of evaluation is that evaluation helps to understand what a program does and how well the program does it, and the results can be used to maintain or improve program quality and to ensure that future planning can be more evidence-based(CDC, 2011).
2. When developing and implementing programs, formative assessments are essential because they offer direction on how to attain or enhance goals. They are most effective when employed early on and are especially helpful during pilot projects or new techniques. The evaluation’s findings enable the required adjustments to boost program effectiveness. These assessments cover aspects like needs analysis and process evaluation, which are crucial to the effectiveness and worth of planned interventions. Many suggestions relating to the formulation and planning of interventions in health policy currently depend on these presumptions. The usefulness and quality of proposed interventions must thus be guaranteed by formative evaluations (Kaczmarek et al., 2020).
Summative assessment assesses the outcomes of a project, program, strategy, or policy by concentrating on the observable influence on specific indicators such as illness incidence. It highlights the logic of the program and distinguishes between causality and coincidence, emphasizing the significance of this judgment (Kaczmarek et al., 2020.
Formative and summative assessments are research objectives that drive design to provide a positive user experience. Summative evaluations analyze a product’s overall usability, tracking its usefulness over time and comparing it to rivals. Formative evaluations are part of an iterative user-centered design process. Overall both have there place depending on whats being assessed.
Requirements: 1000+
The post What are criteria of merit that could be used to evaluate social welfare policies and programs? first appeared on Writeden.