Influencing Policy and Legislation Notes

docx

School

Griffith University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

CCJ10

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by HighnessSparrow939

Influencing Policy and Legislation Notes Week 1- Introducing Social Policy and the Australian Political and Legal System 1.2 Introduction to Social Policy What is social policy and why is it important to us? Social policy is often described as being very hard to define, however, the general aim of social policy can be defined as being " to improve people's well-being " especially for " those who experience some form of disadvantage " (McClelland, 2021, p. 3). As emerging human service workers, this should help to reinforce why we should take a keen interest in social policy. A quick review of the opening statement of the 2020 AASW Code of Ethics notes that: Social workers work with, and on behalf of, individuals, families, groups and communities to: • enhance their individual and collective wellbeing and social development • resolve personal and interpersonal problems • improve and to facilitate engagement with the broader society • address systemic barriers to full recognition and participation • protect the vulnerable from oppression and abuse. (AASW, 2020, p.5) So, perhaps the first thing for us to note is that in order for us to " protect the vulnerable from oppression and abuse " we should actively develop an understanding of how social policy is impacting on vulnerable members of society. Is it " enhancing their individual and collective wellbeing "? If the answer we come back with is that the current policies are not enhancing wellbeing, in order to meet our professional goals, we need to understand how to most effectively do something to change it. We need to understand how to become effective advocates for social policy change. However, as we will see, advocating for changes to social policy can be very challenging and change often happens slowly and only after much effort and sacrifice. While this may seem daunting, if we look at history, we can see that policy advocacy has been instrumental in improving the lives of all Australian's. For example, Australia was one of the first nations to grant women's suffrage (the right to vote). Australia has also been at the forefront of improving working conditions (via the eight-hour day movement and seminal welfare judgments that provided for state-funded welfare). Australia's health system is also regarded as one of the most equal in the world. All these landmark social policy outcomes contribute significantly to the lifestyle that we all take for granted as Australian citizens. While these achievements are rightly celebrated, we can also see that social policies are sometimes used as a way to further injustice against marginalised communities (e.g. the 'White Australia' policy or Australia's current policy settings in relation to offshore detention). Moreover, powerful interests can seek to challenge and erode social policy in service of their own needs (e.g. environmental policies that serve the interest of the fossil fuel lobby or ongoing efforts to privatise Medicare from lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry). Therefore, if we hope to be effective advocates for vulnerable and oppressed peoples, we need to understand the policy process and how to build coalitions in order to improve our chances of advocating for changes that will improve the wellbeing of all. This will be the focus of the social policy component of this course.

The Australian system of government was largely imported from? England Jurisdiction literally means…..? The Law Speaks Laws are created through legislation, but they are also created through? Decisions made by courts. The three wats that courts impact on wider law is by? Interpretating legislation, filling gaps and, developing common law. According to McClelland (2021) social policy can be defined as being? To improve people’s wellbeing especially for those who experience some form of disadvantage. What are Richards Titmuss’ three major categories of welfare? Social welfare, Fiscal welfare and Occupational welfare Esping-Andersen identified three types of welfare states: Liberal, Corporatist, Social Democratic According to Carson and Kerr (2020), the five central debates that underpin the development and implementation of social policy are: Risk, responsibility, entitlement, eligibility, redistribution According to Carson and Kerr (2020) a society that aims to treat everyone in the same way, whatever their circumstances, follows a principle of: equality According to Carson and Kerr (2020), a major issues for any welfare system is the extent to which assistance should be: selective or universal. Topic 2 – The role of values and beliefs in social policy When you are working face-to-face with a client as a human service worker, the intimate nature of this interaction can give the illusion that you are operating independently to make rational decisions about the best course of action (hopefully with the client being actively involved in the decision- making process). However, a major theme of this week’s course work is the importance of recognising that your interaction with a client is, and has been, shaped by a complex web of other values and perspectives that shape and influence these interactions. One aspect of this web is the influence of government policies and decisions of the courts, which are influenced by historical, social and cultural factors. Another is the policies and values held by the organisation for whom you are working which are influenced by similar factors. As Carson and Kerr (2020, p.39) note in this week’s required reading “When delivering services, [human service workers] are effectively operationalising a chain of decisions that have often been made by others, and those others have brought their own values and beliefs into the process". Another aspect are our own individual ethics, values and beliefs stemming from our personal experiences, familial and cultural background. Understanding these complex values and perspectives — and then developing a personal philosophy of practice that allows you to critically evaluate them — is a key component of professional practice and will allow you to make better decisions with respect to policy action. 2.2 Historical, social and cultural factors that impact on social policy Social values and beliefs are constantly undergoing change and this, in-turn, impacts on social policy. In order to gain some understanding of these changes, it can be useful to look at historical factors that clearly illustrate how social attitudes have changed and at how the echoes of these social values and beliefs still impact on our present day understanding.

The influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs One of the historical factors that has had the strongest impact on social policy is the influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs on Western societies, such as Australia. In week one, we defined social policy as attempts to improve people’s well-being, especially those who experience some form of disadvantage . The Judeo-Christian beliefs that dominate Western societies provide a moral framework that has had a lasting influence on how we view well-being and disadvantage—in both positive and negative ways. From a positive viewpoint, the motivation to help those less fortunate than ourselves is a motivation that is strongly grounded in Judeo-Christian moral philosophy and one that has had a lasting impact on the human services. The foremothers of Social Work and Human Service practice (Mary Richmond and Jane Addams) were in large part motivated to act by their Christian beliefs. Many positive actions in relation to social policy since Federation have stemmed from Judeo-Christian moral philosophy. However, these broadly positive aspects of Christian philosophy must also be balanced by the negative influence that more simplistic/fundamentalist interpretations of scripture and mixed moral motivations (such as securing a place in heaven) have had on Australia’s approach to social policy. Two examples of the negative impact of Judeo-Christian moral philosophy with respect to social policy in Australia can be seen in the history of Australian forced-adoption policies and policies that led to the criminalisation and persecution of members of the LGBTQI community. While it can be tempting to think that modern Australian society is now secular and therefore less influenced by Christian values, it is worth emphasising that forced-adoption policies were in place until the 1980s and homosexuality was only decriminalised in Tasmania in 1997 (marriage equality legislation passed in December 2017). Finally, it is important to note that one of the most enduring influences of Judeo-Christian values in Australian social policy is the tendency to make distinctions between those who ‘deserve’ or are ‘undeserving’ of welfare support (see Chapters 2 and 3 of Carson and Kerr for more exploration of this concept). We continue to see the influence of Christian values in our current social welfare system in Church-aligned Human Service organisations, such as; the Salvation Army, the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, St Vincent de Paul (Vinnies) and Anglicare who employ many human service practitioners. Many Australian politicians and judges also hold strong Christian beliefs, and this inevitably impacts on their views regarding social policy. The influence of colonisation The assertion of Terra Nullius (land belonging to no one) which was used to justify the systematic “dispossession, dispersal, and inhumane treatment of First Nations peoples” and the rejection of their laws and rights in the colonies that were to become Australia is without doubt our ‘original sin’ and one that continues to influence social policy in contemporary Australian society (Australian Museum, 2021). It is impossible to fully comprehend the devastating impact that colonisation has had on First Nations peoples in Australia, nor explore these impacts in detail in this short primer (see chapter 12 of Carson and Kerr, 2020 for a good introduction). However, it is important to note that under the influence of ‘colonial paternalism’, First Nations peoples have been subjected to systematic social control measures (including forced relocation, slave labour, segregation and restrictions on travel), and Draconian assimilation policies that led to the forced removal of Aboriginal children and placement in homes where they were to be socialised into white society. Despite these traumatic policies, First Nations people continue to fight for recognition — most recently via the 2017 Uluru Statement of the Heart Links to an external site. that sought formal recognition of First Nations people in the Australian Constitution, formal recognition in the Australian parliament and the establishment of the Makarrata truth telling commission. While these efforts continue to be resisted at the Federal level, some progress toward reconciliation is being

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

made at the State level, including Victoria’s commitment to a truth telling assembly and the negotiation of a formal treaty with Victorian First Peoples Links to an external site. . It is also important to recognise that the impacts of colonisation continue to influence other aspects of social policy in Australia. Colonisation was accompanied by insecurity about our place in the world and this has led to the implementation of social policies that restricted access to non-white citizenship (the White Australia policy) and policies that reflect a deep-seated fear of invasion which continues to influence immigration policy. 2.3 New Public Management and its impact on Human Services in addition to the broader historical social and cultural factors that impact on our work in the human services, the policies and practices of human service organisations themselves can similarly impact on our practice. Unless we are able to critically evaluate these policies and practices, we can easily find ourselves implementing social policies that are more aligned with social control, rather than positive social change. Beginning in the 1980s, Australian approaches to social policy have increasingly been influenced by a neoliberal worldview. In the human services sector, this has meant an approach to service provision that is aligned with new public management propositions. Under this system, rather than governments providing social services, governments contract NGOs and private (for profit) organisations who compete in a quasi-free market to deliver services, a process called ‘competitive tendering’. Under this system, governments retain power—by specifying in the contract who should access services and under what conditions—but rely on the NGOs and private organisations to enforce these rules. Increasingly, as part of the competitive tendering process, human service organisations must agree to contract provisions that limit their ability to raise issues or speak critically about the policies they are contracted to provide. This has had a serious ‘cooling effect’ on human service organisations—and their workers—ability to advocate against unjust policies. Week 2 Workshop According to Russel Marks, those on the political right in Australia see the not-for-profit sector as: self-interested rent seekers. During the 1960’s, several factors came together which offered new ways of conceptualising social issues. Ones of these was: The emergence of mass social movements. According to 2014 report detailing the self-assessed health status of people experiencing homelessness, one in four reports: Their health as being fair to poor. Those who consider all values to be valid and impossible to adjudicate between are known as: cultural relativists. According to Carson and Kerr (2020), if human service workers rely on a common sense conception of work, they: will be in a weak position to defend their decisions and actions. According to Meacham (2007), ethics are: professional obligations and rules of conduct. Mary Richmonds approach to human service practice was a more: explicitly scientific method and medical model. When did New Public Management begin to influence human service delivery in Australia? 1980s

In the United States of America and the United Kingdom, the life expectancy of those experiencing homelessness is: more than 30 years lower on average What, according to Carson and Kerr are a good starting point for a worker’s development of a good philosophy of practice? The codes of ethics of AASW and ACWA Positivist world view – view social problems as existing independently and thus not being influences by the person observing them Example: High rates of incarceration of First Nations peoples. For a positivist, to solve this policy issue, we need to rationally analyse the facts consult with ‘experts’ and devise an optimal policy that responds to the issue. Positivists are not primarily concerned with structural factors such as colonisation or endemic racism. They are less concerned with varying viewpoints on the issue as they view central facts as being independent from the observer. Some of the reasons this model is so enduringly popular is that:  It is clear ‘rational’ and (relatively) uncomplicated.  It aligns with a scientific approach that has been so successful in many areas of the ‘natural’ sciences.  Typically, more cost effective  It relies on experts and is ‘top-down’ in its structure.  It fits well with managerialism and neoliberalism. Orientated more toward a post-positivist worldview The human service profession has a long history of critiquing the positivist world view and is more commonly associated with post-positivism (interpretist/constructionist). Post-positivists, view social problems not as being independent, but as being shaped by the experience, values and beliefs of those observing them. Also, huma service professionals tend to work ‘at the coalface’ of social policy and are therefore first-hand witnesses to the problems that are associate with the positivist approach. Example: High rates of incarceration of First Nations peoples When a post-positivist looks at this policy issue, they see factors such colonialism, endemic racism, paternalism and class as being very much related to the policy issue. They also see that the way we view the issue will be influences by who is observing it (for example, a First nations elder is likely to see the problem very differently than a non-indigenous policy officer). They want to try and understand the issue from these various standpoints and may privilege some viewpoints over others. Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) Rooted in ‘a long history of Black feminist writing, Indigenous feminism, third world feminism, and queer and postcolonial theory” (Hankivksy et al., 2014, p. 3-4)

IBPA is an iterative, participatory process. Consists of two core components: 1) A set of guiding principals 2) A list of 12 overarching questions to help shape policy analysis. Questions are divided into two categories: descriptive and transformative. The first set of descriptive questions aims to: “Generate critical background information and policy problems in their full context, with specific attention to the processes and mechanisms by which policy problems are identified, constructed, and addressed. Their purpose is to reveal assumptions that underpin existing government priorities, the populations targeted for policy interventions, and what inequities and privileges are created”. (Hankivksy et al., 2014 p.5) The second set of transformative questions aims to: Assist with identification of alternative policy responses and solutions specially aimed at social and structural change that reduce inequities and promote social justice. The questions in this section prompt users to consider actions that will ensure meaningful uptake of equity-focused policy solutions as well as the measurement if the impacts and outcomes of proposed policy responses”. (Hankivksy et al., 2014 p.5) Some of the reasons post-positivist models are less popular is that:  More complicated and harder to understand and explain.  Associated with a less ‘scientific’, less ‘evidence-based’, approach.  Less cost-effective as it most likely involves a lot of consultation and potentially radically different approached in different communities.  Is critical of experts and is bottom-up in its focus (challenges those in power)  Is incompatible with a managerialist, neoliberal approach. Topic 3 – The policy Process 3.1 Introduction Once we have this understanding, we will be in a strong position to examine how we can become effective social policy advocates and this will be the focus of weeks five and six. However, before we move on to policy advocacy, it is important that we develop our ability to analyse the steps in the policy process and the policy actors—individuals or groups that participate in any stage of the policy process— involved, so that, as Carson and Kerr (2020, p.91) state, we can "reflect on the appropriateness and effectiveness of policies, programs and services in relation to their intended outcomes". 3.2 Developing an understanding of the policy process

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

There are a great many ways to examine and model the policy process and this can at first seem quite 'academic' and daunting. However, from our perspective as emerging human service practitioners, the value of policy models is that they form part of a toolkit that all human service professionals can employ to influence social policy and legislation. However, models do not need to be overly complex. In the following (4-minute) interview, Karen Struthers Links to an external site. , discusses both why human service professionals (she uses the term social workers, but this advice applies to all human service workers) have a crucial role to play in social policy development and provides a simple five-step model for understanding the policy process. The model involves: 1. Identifying need 2. Having evidence that supports this need 3. Forming a policy response 4. Consultation about the proposed policy response, and finally 5. Implementation of the policy and ongoing review. 3.3 The Rational Model There are a number of different approached understanding the policy process. One commonly cited model is the Rational Model. The advantage of using the Rational Model is that it presents a clear and systematic process wherein policy actors (i.e. all those with an interest in participation in the development of a policy) canvas 'all the relevant issues and [proceed] through tightly specified steps' (Carson and Kerr, 2020, p.96). The rational model starts with the key question of - How would policy be made if policy makers were capable of complete rationality? This may sound like a strange question because of course policy makers are capable of rationality. However, most policy making happens within a context or within an environment, such as the political environment. If you’re in government and you’re developing a policy, you will of course be looking at it from a rational context but you will also be looking at it from the values and ideologies of the political party in power. Rational choice involves selecting alternatives from all of the available options. To develop policy, you would need to considering values and options together by:  Intelligence gathering  Identifying all options  Assessing consequences of options  Relating consequences to values  Choosing preferred option There are some criticisms of the Rational model, including that it is overly linear and simplistic and promotes top down planning and decision-making (see Carson and Kerr, 2020, p.102-103). In this model, there is no imperative to consult with other stakeholders and for this reason it can be seen as a ‘top down’ process. The model also suggests that all the options can be identified and evaluated when in reality this may prove too timely and costly to do thoroughly. It can also be a problematic model if the problem you are seeking to solve is a ‘wicked problem’ in that it is an ill defined, complex and inter-dependent social problem (as many social policy problems are). You may remember wicked problems if you completed 2013HSV Social Construction of Welfare. Some problems are too complex to be addressed by a Rational model. Let’s look at one Rational model in more detail – Jamrozik’s 4 step model (2009). The 4 steps of this model are:

3.4 The Incremental Model We will now look at the Incremental policy making model. This model is in some respects the more common approach that you will see in practice. The Incremental Model involves change in very small steps over a long period of time. Using this Model, a clear statement of a big goal is often not made in favour of small goals that over time lead to significant change. Let’s take tobacco smoking as an example of change under the Incremental Model of policy making. We’ve known for a long while that smoking causes significant health problems and major costs to our health system. Under a Rational policy making Model, you would use the clear evidence of health costs and create a large new goal aimed at smoking cessation, such as making tobacco illegal or taxing individuals who smoke. The politics of this option would make it incredibly difficult to implement because it would be highly unpopular and too far ahead of public opinion. Tobacco smoking as a rational model: What has actually occurred with policy in relation to tobacco smoking fits more neatly with the Incremental policy making Model, such as increasing the costs of cigarettes, plain packaging, designated no smoking zones and public health notices to warn about the dangers. These changes are all policy instruments. This ‘chipping away’ has led to change in public opinion about smoking over time. It’s now accepted that smoking is not desirable on public transport, in restaurants or in children’s playgrounds, all locations where people smoked 20 years ago.

Tobacco smoking as an incremental model: As noted in the section looking at the rational model, the incremental model can also be criticised as being top down. In the required reading this week, Carson and Kerr (2020) discuss the critiques associated with top down approaches in more detail and also discuss bottom up approaches to policy analysis and we will look at these in more detail in the week three seminar. According to Karen Struthers, social policy is simply a statement of intent or action on a particular issue. The short film “1999 House of Tomorrow” was made in 1967. According to Carson and Kerr (2020), both rational and incremental policy models are criticised in technical terms for their positivism. The fight for women’s suffrage began in the mid-1800s in Europe. According to Carson and Kerr (2020), in most planning models, implementation forms: a separate stage in the policy process Between the mid-1980’s and the late 2010s, Australia experienced the implementation of neoliberalism. The four steps of Jamrozik’s rational policy model are, planning; formulation; implementation; evaluation According to Carson and Kerr (2020), a common first step in the policy process is identification of the issue. According to Carson and Kerr (2020), the concept of evidence-based policy is not well defined. Critics of a top-down approach to policy claim that evaluation should be carried out by service users. Two of the ways that Power Influences and Corrupts Policy  Political Lobbying  Political donations Other issues with political donations  Only released once per year in one dump o We do not know who donated to election campaigns until 9 months after election.  Only donations over $14,000 are declared.  Separate donations from related parties are not collected. What can be done?  Lower declaration limit to $5000  Real, or near real time declaration of donations

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

 Publicly funded political parties (e.g. Norway) o Norway 74% of funding comes from public funding.  Federal Anti-Corruption Committee (mid-2023)!! The three biggest grievances people have with politicians are: They are not accountable for broken promises. They don’t deal with the issues that really matter. Big business has too much power (Liberal and National Party voters identify trade unions instead of big business). People who are more likely to feel satisfied with the status quo include those aged over 55 (Baby Boomers), those earning more than $200,000 a year and those who vote for the National or Liberal parties. They are more likely to be male and an immigrant, because those born overseas tend to be more stratifies with Australian politics than native-born. Those who are most likely to be unhappy are Australian-born, female, aged in their 40’s (Generation X) and struggling on less than $50,000 a year. They are more likely to identify with minor political parties like One Nation, Centre Alliance or independents. Appetite for democratic reform is extremely strong Our survey revealed a significant appetite for reform. Nine out of 15 proposed reforms received net agreement rates above 50%. The top five reforms favoured in the survey were: 1. Limiting money donated to parties and spent in elections 2. The right for voters to recall ineffect9ive local MPs 3. Giving all MPs a free vote in parliament 4. Co-designing policies with ordinary Australians 5. Citizen juries to solve complex problems that parliament cant fix. Topic 4: Politics, power and social policy 4.1 Introduction W hile critically evaluating these values and beliefs and developing our personal philosophy of practice is a vital precursor to becoming an effective policy advocate, it is also important to have a clear understanding of the ways that our political systems—and the powerful individuals and groups who have access to them—can corrupt or subvert the policy process to support their interests. This is an important consideration for us as emerging policy advocates because it is unlikely that social policies will achieve their goal of improving the wellbeing of those experiencing some form of disadvantage if they are corrupted in the service of rich and powerful individuals or groups. By developing our understanding of the corruptive influences on social policy, we will be better able to advocate for macro-level policy changes that seeks to improve the quality of our democracy, and in turn, meet the true goals of social policy. This will be the focus of the content in this topic. It is also important that we understand the history of social policies in Australia in order for us to gain a better understanding of how we ended up with the policies we have. In this week's required reading, Carson and Kerr (2020), describe the development of social policy

from before federation through to the conservative approaches that were established in the 1980s and prevail to this day. Once we have cemented our knowledge about these two topics, we will be well placed to begin discussing policy advocacy in the weeks ahead. 4.2 Trust and Democracy One of the goals of this course is to make that case that critically analysing and becoming involved in the policy process is a core skill for all human service practitioners. Even if we learn fantastic counselling and interpersonal skills, know our codes of ethics backwards, and have a highly developed understanding of the human service sector, it will be of no use to us, or to our clients, if we use those skills in the service of bad social policies that control or repress disadvantaged people rather than supporting, encouraging and empowering them. However, a common comment from students is that they do not want to get involved in policy as they have no trust in the democratic process. Statements such as "what's the point in advocating for changes to social policy, they (politicians) are all corrupt and I cannot do anything about it" are common. This is reflective of a broader lack of trust in the political system in Australian society. Research conducted by the University of Canberra Links to an external site. has shown a continuing erosion of trust in the Australian democratic system over many years with the most recent data from 2018 suggesting that the level of satisfaction with democracy in Australia has fallen to around 40%, down from 86% in 2007. Young people, in particular, are the least satisfied with democratic politics. According to University of Canberra, the percentage of citizens satisfies with the way democracy works in Australia in 2018 had fallen to? Around 40% According to the Big deal documentary, the largest political donors in Australia are? The fossil fuel industry. At the time of colonisation, Australian welfare operated on a? Charity model How many people area as a result of the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria? 173 According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, over the past 110 years, Australia’s climate has warmed by? 1.44 degrees Celsius The Commonwealth Court of Reconciliation and Arbitration in 1907 established the first wage- setting system in Australia known as the? Harvester Judgement Australian research has estimated that how many of the total number of heat related deaths between 1991 and 2018 are as a result of climate change? One third. In what year was the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) introduced? 1989 Which Prime Minister introduced the “Pacific Solution” policy aimed at stopping so called “boat people” from arriving in Australia? John Howard In 2010, who established the ‘Gonski Review’ that recommended significant increased funding for education? Julia Gillard

Meso- Level advocacy “Meso-level social policy concerns the writing of legislation or reports containing recommendations for intervention” Carson and Kerr Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead Never depend upon institutions or government to solve any problem. All social movements are founded by, guided by, motivated, and seen through by the passion of individuals. Margaret Mead Practical advice for meso-level advocacy  Differentiating between ‘ideal types’ and a real-world submission  Evaluating some real-world submission examples  Our discussion of real world submissions is not a direct discussion of the 2000-word assessment which we cover in the second half of the workshop. Policy submissions Differentiating between ‘ideal types’ and a real-world submission Submission 197 ACOSS  Follows ‘ideal type’ quite closely…….except  No dot-points used in summary section  10-pages! (not the recommended 3-4) Submission 147 Grattan Institute  No introduction nor information about the organisation  No dot-points used in summary section.  Nine by two-column pages (plus two-page bibliography)  Virtually all background research except for two short paragraphs on the final page. Submission 344 Ms Georgia Delves  Styled as a letter to the committee (actually an email)  No introduction, no summary, no research, no recommendations  Focussed purely on personal experience.  One and half pages What could be an effective lone human service worker’s approach (or small group of workers)  Letter with simple introduction of who you are.  No background research other than to point to others like ACOSS who point out how inadequate current payments are.  ‘Applied research’ I asked service users who live on income support to speak about their experiences, here is what they had to say.  6-8 real world quotes from service users about their real-world experiences (ideally co- signatories of the letter)  Remind the ministers that there are thousands of service users facing these issues because of inadequate funding of income support.  Recommend that the Government listens to these voices and heeds advice from ACOSS etc. about what a fair payment would be Topic 5 Advocacy Defining meso-level policy advocacy

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Carson and Kerr (2020, p.92) define three levels of the policy process, micro, meso and macro (as shown in the figure below). In week five, we will be concentrating on advocacy at the meso level, which Carson and Kerr (2020) describe as the level in which "social policy concerns the writing of legislation or reports containing recommendations for intervention" (p.93). Figure 4.1 Policy Levels (Source: Carson & Kerr, 2020, p.93) Unlike micro and macro approaches to policy advocacy (which we will look at in week 6), meso level advocacy is more formal and more likely to be seeking to influence the top-down policy process. Individuals and groups can be involved in meso-level advocacy. In addition, there are human service jobs within both the government and non-government (NGO) sectors whose focus is policy advocacy at the meso level. Peak bodies (such as AASW, ACOSS and QCOSS), unions and "quasi-government" agencies (such as the productivity commission) are also responsible for policy advocacy at the meso level (Carson & Kerr, 2020, p.93). In developing the legislation and reports associated with advocacy at the meso level, these organisations seek to compete and bargain for the attention of government regarding the best policy options. Government is still ultimately in control of making the final decision about the best policy options to implement, but it uses this process to capture the "skills and expertise" of a range of stakeholders that can help to "legitimise" the decision once it is made (Carson & Kerr, 2020, p.93). As we saw in our examination of New Public Management in week two (topic 2.3) a challenge related to this model is that regulation of the non-government sector can have a 'cooling effect' on NGOs ability to advocate due to a fear of having service contracts cancelled if their meso-level advocacy is judged to be too critical of current government policy. While it is important to acknowledge these limitations, meso-level policy advocacy via submission and reports can be a very effective way of influencing policy decisions. With that in mind, let's look more closely at meso-level advocacy. Targets of meso-level advocacy If meso-level policy advocacy can be described as writing "reports containing recommendations for intervention" (Carson & Kerr, 2020, p.93), an initial question we might ask is 'where are all these reports sent?'

In Australia, two of the most common meso-level policy advocacy pathways are to direct a submission to a parliamentary committee (whether State or Federal) or Royal Commission. There are other avenues for meso-level advocacy, including; sending an uninvited submission or sending a submission in response to a Green Paper, White Papers or Discussion Paper, though some have suggested these are less common in the Australian context (Lundie & Horne, 2020). Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary committees are comprised of groups of politicians who are appointed to investigate "matters of policy or government administration or performance" (Parliament of Australia, nd). As it would not be possible for the formal chambers of parliament to thoroughly investigate every policy issue, committees are deputised to conduct this work and report back to the parliament. This allows multiple committees to be operating at the same time examining multiple policy issues. Committees have extensive powers to call for people and documents to come before them to offer community and expert views. Not withstanding the corruptive influences that we examined in week four of the course, the aim is that by consulting with community members (whether individuals of groups) and experts who share an interest in the policy topic being examined, the reports from committees will allow parliaments to enact better policy and legislation (Parliament of Australia, 2018) There are two main avenues to policy advocacy via parliamentary committees, submitting a paper to the committee for review, or appearing as an in-person witness. Submissions to parliamentary committee Once a parliamentary committee is formed, and the terms of reference for the committees enquiry have been set, the committee advertises for people or organisations to prepare submissions for review by the committee (or their staff). Information is also typically sought from relevant government departments or agencies (Parliament of Australia, nd). As you can see from the embedded GIF below showing submissions to the 'Inquiry into Homelessness in Australia', Committees typically receive large amounts of submissions from a wide cross-section of the community. These submissions are made available to the public, though you can request details to be made private or to be allowed to submit anonymously. Human service agencies and peak bodies routinely submit to parliamentary committees and this is a common way that human service workers can become involved in policy advocacy at the meso level. We will look more closely at the structure of a policy submission in section 5.4. The GIF below shows the most recent policy submissions made by the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) and this gives a good appreciation of the wide variety of issues they sought to influence via their policy advocacy. People who appear before parliamentary committees are referred to as 'witnesses'. While anyone can be called on to be a witness at a parliamentary committee (i.e. individual citizens can apply to be witnesses), the committee members have control over who is called and this often means that witnesses are key stakeholders, such as; public servants, peak community organisations and business representatives and lobbyists who are seeking to influence the committees report and thus the resulting legislation. Hearings from witnesses at a parliamentary committee are open to the public and are typically also broadcast live and recorded so that interested parties can view the hearings at a later date. Below, is a short excerpt from a public hearing in the Queensland Parliament for the 'Inquiry into social isolation and loneliness in Queensland', which is available via 'Parliament. TV'

Royal Commissions In Australia, Royal Commissions are non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigations that are called to enquire into "matters of public importance" (Royal Commission, nd). Royal Commissions have broad investigatory powers including the power to summon witnesses and to request that individuals or organisations provide documents as evidence. Royal Commissions are independent of government, but the end results of Royal Commissions are reports containing a list of recommendations that are delivered to government that detail what should be done in response to the commission. Royal Commissions are conducted by 'commissioners' who are typically composed of former judges, retired public servants and notable public figures. As with parliamentary committees, Royal Commissions are governed by terms of reference that are set by government. Traditionally, Royal Commissions in Australia have been only been established in rare and exceptional circumstances (for example after a significant disaster), and governments have been reluctant to call them fearing that the findings will cause them embarrassment due to them frequently being critical of ineffective public policies. However, in recent times, Governments have increasingly established Royal Commissions in order to try and deflect criticism by appearing to do something to address the problem. The political reasoning has been that by the time the Royal Commission has been completed, public debate will have moved on to other matters and the commissions reports can be 'buried' or the recommendations ignored or only partially accepted. Despite these worrying developments, Royal Commissions have traditionally led to significant policy reforms, and as such, they remain important avenues for individuals and groups to advocate for policy change. Information about current and historical Royal Commissions can be found by visiting https://www.royalcommission.gov.au Links to an external site. Advocacy and contributing to a Royal Commission There are varied ways that you, your organisation, or a client you support, could contribute to a Royal Commission depending on the terms of reference. However, typically, advocacy will take place by making a submission. Submissions While submissions are very often written, there is scope for evidence to be collected via other methods. In the video below, we can see details of the varied ways that submissions can be made at the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. While many written submissions are made to the Royal Commission initially, public submissions can also be received that respond to the interim reports delivered by the commission. As such, there are multiple chances to advocate throughout the commission process. As the image below from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability demonstrates, Royal Commissions process a great many submissions and issue papers and reports throughout the life of the commission (note: this commission was not completed at the time of capturing the image below so the final submission count will be much higher).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Appearing as a Witness at a Public Hearing Unlike, parliamentary committees, members of the public cannot apply to appear before a Royal Commission. However, people who provide submissions may be called on to give evidence. Public hearings for Royal Commissions are typically held in varying locations throughout the duration of the commission. Witnesses are summoned in a similar way to a courtroom hearing and a range of supports are provided in order to assist witnesses in making their appearance. As with parliamentary committee hearings, public hearings during Royal Commissions are recorded and are made available to the public on the Royal Commission's website. In the excerpt below, we see a short section of a public hearing for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Developing policy submissions In the previous topic, we established that meso-level policy advocacy is often directed to parliamentary committees and Royal Commissions and have looked at the options available for policy advocacy at these bodies. Hopefully, you are now inspired to take part in policy advocacy at the meso-level, whether it be individually, collectively, or within the context of your role in a human service organisation. One of the things that we learned in the previous topic was that parliamentary commissions and Royal Commissions receive hundreds and in some cases thousands of submissions. Therefore, in this topic, we will ask the question, how do we give our submission the best chance of making an impact and influencing the policy debate? 'Rules' for an effective policy submission In their book 'Writing skills for social workers', Karen Healy and Joan Mulholland describe four features of effective policy proposals (Healy & Mulholland, 2012). While these are covered in more detail in this weeks required reading, it is worth briefly noting the four features in order to begin to understand the unwritten 'rules' to follow in order to give your submission the best chance of success. Healy and Mulholland state that for a policy proposal to be effective, it must be: 1. Engaging • The proposal is accessible, use headings and a clear structure • The proposal must be well written and well structured to maintain the interest of the reader, remember you are one of hundreds of submissions that the government will look at. • Be passionate, but demonstrate that passion through your research and clarity of expression 2. Credible • Clearly articulate what gives you the authority to speak on the issue • Use evidence, and consider a wide range of sources, not just journal articles. 3. Focused • Be as clear as possible, what are you asking the government to do? • Present the most amount of information with clarity and brevity • You are trying to convince someone who doesn’t agree, consider this is in all your arguments 4. Feasible • Government is always working under constraints • The feasibility of your proposal is tested in the recommendations you put to government. • It is up to you to demonstrate how your proposed solution addresses the problem and how they may be practically implemented Let's reflect further on some of the lessons we can learn from these 'rules'.

Rules 1 and 3 emphasise the importance of understanding your audience and writing with empathy and understanding. All written communication is improved by considering the intended audience. In the case of a policy submission, this means recognising that a parliamentary staffer, committee member, commissioner or counsel assisting a commissioner is likely to be reviewing large numbers of submissions. Therefore, it is vital that your submission is very clearly structured and written with great clarity. If the person reading your submission cannot quickly identify what your key policy recommendations are, your submission is unlikely to have much impact. Rule 2 stresses the importance of saying why your voice deserves to be heard in the policy debate. For human service workers, one of our superpowers is that we are on the ground and see the impacts of social policy on the lives of our clients, who, due to their current circumstances may be unable to advocate for themselves. We have the power to tell their stories (with their permission) and advocate on their behalf. This is an excellent strategy for elevating your submission to a place of prominence. This rule also reminds us that a policy submission, unlike an academic assignment, often incorporates evidence from a range of disparate sources. For example, a local news story that describes how a policy issue is impacting on local residents can be a very effective inclusion in a policy submission as it grounds your submission in real world experience, not abstract policy-speak . This is not to say that more formal evidence is not also of value, just that a mix of sources may prove more effective in many cases. Finally, rules 3 and 4 emphasise that when you are writing your submission, you need to consider that while we, as emerging human service practitioners, may be primarily concerned with issues such as social justice and equality, governments and other stakeholders may not value these concerns as much as we do, or may value them less than other factors, such as; economic growth, improving the budget figures, or maintaining their ideological position. While this does not mean we should ignore our values, it does stress the need to try to understand these other positions and look to frame our arguments in ways that are persuading to others who may not share our views. For example, if our policy proposal will help to save money, while also meeting our values, we should emphasise this. We might even consider partnering with an economist who can produce a report showing these cost savings in order to strengthen our submission. Alternatively, if the local business community is also in favour of our proposed policy solution, we would do well to mention this and perhaps even invite a local business person (or persons) to be named in our proposal. Below are three resources that might help you when looking for evidence to support your policy submission: Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO) Links to an external site. is a clearing house that makes policy research available to the public. Research is collected into research topics and this can be a good way of finding resources to support your submission. ABC Social Policy Links to an external site. . The ABC has a website that collects all stories from ABC news that relate to social policy. This can be a good source of stories that relate to a particular policy area. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Links to an external site. collects a lot of information that compares and comments on policy outcomes in the worlds developed economies. This can be a great place to see which countries policies are most effective in your area of interest, to see where Australia ranks when compared to other countries on the policy issue, and to research factors that contribute to good social policy measures around the world. Finally, Google Scholar Links to an external site. is a great place to look for academic writing and reports related to a particular policy issue. Consider using these tips Links to an external site. to help refine your search. In particular, consider using the date range feature to ensure that you are only reviewing recent research on your topic.

Submission Structure Now that we have the 'rules' necessary to ensure we give our policy submission the best chance of success, let's look at the basic structure of a typical policy submission. While there are many variations on the structure of a policy submission (for example, in the policy advocacy assignment for this course we follow a varied structure aimed at providing clarity in the context of a 2000-word limit), there are core elements that are included in most submissions. The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) have a PDF guide on 'How to develop a policy submission' Links to an external site. that includes a 'template' for structuring a submission that is sub-divided into three main sections. Introduction As we have mentioned, it is important that the person reading your submission understands why you are making a submission and why your views should be taken into consideration. Your introduction should begin with a brief statement that demonstrates these points. The introduction should then include a summary (dot-points) that lists your main arguments. The template recommends only using about four points. Response This is the section that contains the main substance of your proposal. Remember the 'rules' we have discussed earlier when preparing this section. In particular, focus on clarity of expression and consider using headings, so that a reader can quickly identify main sections. A possible structure could be to:  Begin by explaining the nature and extent of the problem that the submission seeks to address, and explain the significance of the problem. Why is this problem deserving of attention (why this problem, and why now)?  Provide analysis of why the problem is happening and research and analyse options to tackle this problem.  Recommend your preferred approach to tackling this problem.  Discuss any implementation considerations that the decision maker needs to be aware of. The AASW template recommends that this section be no more than three to four pages in length. Conclusion This section should contain a brief concluding statement that reinforces to the reader what the focus of your submission is. What are Healy and Mulholland’s four ‘rules’ for an effective policy proposal? Engaging, credible and feasible Meso-level policy advocacy can be described as writing? Reports containing recommendations for interventions. Two of the most common venues for meso-level advocacy are? Parliamentary committees and royal Commissions

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

There are two main avenues to policy advocacy via parliamentary committees, submitting a paper to the committee for review, or? Appearing as an in-person witness One of Healy and Mulholland’s tips for identifying opportunities for policy change is. Join relevant ‘policy alert’ mailing lists. Parliamentary committees are comprised of groups of politicians who are appointed to investigate? Matters of policy or government administration or performance. Instructions for what a parliamentary committee has been formed to investigate are known as the terms of reference. Royal Commissions are non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigations that are called to enquire into matters of public importance. At a royal Commission hearing witnesses are summoned in a similar way to a courtroom hearing The end results of Royal Commissions are reports containing a list of recommendations that are delivered to government. Working through the social work advocacy practice model Topic 6 Policy Advocacy Introduction and defining micro and macro level policy In our first week looking at policy advocacy, we looked at meso-level advocacy and how we can best try to influence policy via submissions to parliamentary committees and Royal Commissions. In this, our final week focusing specifically on social policy, we turn our attention to micro and macro level advocacy. In the image below, we return to Carson and Kerr's three policy levels. While meso-level advocacy has a focus on "reports containing recommendations for intervention", what we might think of as the more formal aspect of policy advocacy, in our topic this week, we look at micro-level and macro- level advocacy which is typically less formal and more varied (Carson & Kerr, 2020, p.93).

Defining micro and macro-level policy advocacy Let's start our discussion by briefly defining what we mean by micro and macro level advocacy. Carson and Kerr (2020) describe the micro policy level as being concerned with policy that is "most likely to benefit local communities" (p.93). If we translate this into the advocacy context, we can define micro-level policy advocacy as being advocacy that is local in nature and designed to address the needs of local communities. In the context of human services work, in many cases, this type of advocacy might be more focussed on changing organisational policies and campaigning for improvements to local services and infrastructure. In contrast, macro-level advocacy will necessarily be interested in social policy issues that are relevant to many groups throughout society. Carson and Kerr (2020) describe macro social policy as being interested in "broad issues, concepts and values" (Carson & Kerr, 2020, p.92). Social policy areas, such as, homelessness or domestic and family violence, and broader philosophical debates, such as, the impact of neoliberalism on disadvantaged populations, are examples of macro-level policy issues. Translated into the advocacy space, we can define macro-level policy advocacy as being action that seeks to influence broad issues, concepts and values related to the wellbeing of society as a whole or at the very least significant groups in society who are currently disadvantaged. While the definitions above might at first give the impression that micro and macro level advocacy are distinct and unrelated, an interesting characteristic of these approaches to advocacy is that they are often closely related. While this might seem counterintuitive at first, it makes sense that local issues are often reflective of broader issues in society, such as income inequality or a lack of services due to the impacts of neoliberalism. Similarly, while meso-level advocacy can be characterised as seeking to influence top-down policy formulation, both micro and macro advocacy are most commonly bottom-up, seeking to draw on grass roots support in order to bring about change. Therefore, we might consider micro and macro policy advocacy as existing on a continuum as represented in the image below

Now that we are clear about the definition of micro and macro level advocacy and their relationship on a continuum, we will now examine policy advocacy at these levels in more detail. References Carson, E., & Kerr, L. (2020). Fundamental Debates in Social Policy. In E. Carson and L. Kerr (Eds), Australian Social Policy and the Human Services (pp. 11-38). Cambridge University Press Micro-level and Macro-level advocacy It is highly likely that whatever practice area you work in—whether it be healthcare, family services, domestic and family violence, education or community services—you will see local issues that are impacting negatively on your clients or on the local community. When this happens, taking action at the local community level to try and address this issue is the hallmark of micro-level advocacy. What are the five stages of Bliss’ (2015) Social Work Advocacy Practice Model? Causes, Outcomes, target, audience, strategies, and tactics, evaluation. What was the micro-level advocacy campaign that Griffith Students developed with Karen Struthers? R for Respect What was the campaign that first triggered Stacey Gordon’s interest in advocacy? The veterans ‘chalk challenge’ According to Bliss, advocacy strategies will change over time, or will need to be modified? In order to achieve desired outcomes in long campaigns. According to Bliss (2015), one of the reasons that advocacy like that done by Jane Addams does not happen in modern times is that people like Addams had the financial means to not fear for their jobs.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

According to Bliss (2015) knowing your target audience is important because changes are ultimately produced by people. What do both Catherine King and Karen Struthers examples of micro level advocacy have in common? A reliance on collective action According to Catherine King MP, what is the most effective local form of advocacy? Personal stories from service users told to local MPs One of Bliss’ (2015) process questions related to outcomes is are these outcomes short-term, long- term or both? One of the factors that Bliss (2015) identifies for social works decreased interest in advocacy is changes in the political environment during the 1980s and 1990s Topic 7: The law/human service nexus Human services and the legal system Courts and lawyers interpret the laws, but human service workers also need to be able to understand and interpret them. This is especially the case for those laws that impact upon the lives of the people with whom we work. It’s important that you learn about the legal system so that you can be effective in supporting clients as they come into contact with this system. In order for you to be effective, you will need to have some understanding of the characteristics of the legal system and how it operates in practice. Some client problems may have legal dimensions and certain social groups are over-represented in prisons, care and psychiatric hospitals. Additionally, your employing organisations are bound by laws, including Occupational Health and Safety, employment law and industrial law. Laws may also govern aspects of your work, such as funding arrangements, licensing and standards. You will have learnt more about these laws if you undertook 2031HSV Working in Organisations. There are some laws that human service workers and social workers will deal with frequently. These include laws that relate to Child Protection, Youth Justice, Mental Health, Domestic Violence, Tenancy, Social Security and Anti-discrimination. Areas of intersection between human service work and the legal system include: One way of thinking about the legal landscape is as a continuum between a legalistic point at one end, and a humanistic point at the other end. At the legalistic end of the spectrum we see legal language, laws/rules and culture dominate. This end of the spectrum may be quite alienating and unfamiliar to human service workers. At the human service end of the spectrum, we see human services language and theory. Work in a community centre, refuge or within aged care might be examples of working within a legal framework that is more familiar to human service values, as it may focus more on advocacy and human rights work.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

As future human service workers, it’s important that you are able to see the legal landscape as a continuum and not an ‘either/or’ or ‘us and them’ scenario. The image below is a helpful way of locating some different human service roles relative to the law ethos and human service ethos as well as looking at the difference between direct service delivery and indirect human service work. For example, if you look at Child Protection work in the upper right quadrangle, you’ll note that it is both influenced by a law ethos and involves direct service work. A Child Protection worker is an authorised officer under the Act, has powers under the Legislation and must have good knowledge of the law. They will commonly have contact with the police and the Court system. Law from a Human Service Gaze The legal system can look quite alien from a human services perspective. When we think of the law and legal system, we may be confronted by a number of stereotypes that may intrude on our ability to work effectively within it. For example, the law is sometimes seen as difficult to understand, focused on individual need, punishment, protection and control. These can be seen to be at odds with human services, which promote rights and collective interests. Lawyers are sometimes seen as uncaring, whilst stereotypes around human service workers are that we are ‘bleeding hearts’. However, in order to work for the best interests of our clients, we must move beyond simple stereotypes and rather adopt an interdisciplinary approach. Falk (1977), in his seminal work on interdisciplinary practice in social work, defines interdisciplinary practice as; "professional activity by

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

two or more practitioners in an interdependent work relationship, within a common work system and spanning two or more fields of learning and professional activity" (p.31). He goes on to state that in order for interdisciplinary practice to be effective, a human service professional must maintain a commitment to their professional values and ethics, while acknowledging that the clients interests will be best served by recognising the importance of other professionals expertise so that they can take a holistic approach to client problems. What does this mean in relation to interdisciplinary practice in the legal system? Kennedy (2013) identifies a range of basic competencies that a human service worker will need in relation to the legal system. These include being able to:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Workshop 9 When can a Magistrate preside over a murder trial? Never This type of serious offence can only e tried in higher courts. The Magistrate’s court is the gateway for prosecuting? More serious crimes which may then be referred to higher courts. Which of the following courts does NOT have the option of trial by Jury? Magistrates Court QCAT stands for Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal What are the three common roles a Human Service professional plays in the Magistrates Court? Support person, advocate, report writer The three primary levels of the Queensland court system are Supreme court, District court and Magistrates courts. Queensland magistrates Tina Previtera is currently serving at the Murri Court Which court in the Queensland court system hears civil cases between $150,000 and $750,000. The district court. Which court in the Queensland court system hears civil cases of more than $750,000? The supreme court According to Kennedy and Richards, tribunals commonly deal with the outcomes of administrative decision making. Topic 8 The Queensland Court system Introduction to the Magistrates Court The Queensland Court System includes the Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court and each of these Courts hear civil and criminal cases. Civil cases are those that deal with disputes between two or more parties for the recovery of money for contractual disputes, personal injuries, defamation and debts. Criminal cases are offences against individuals and members of the broader community. The Supreme Court has a Trial Division, that hears serious criminal offences and civil cases of more than $750,000. The Court of Appeal hears appeals from the Supreme Court and District Court decisions (civil and criminal) and QCAT. Mental Health Court determines if an offender was of unsound mind at the time of committing an offence; and the lawfulness of patients’ detention in mental health facilities. The District Court hears serious criminal offences not dealt with by the Supreme Court and civil cases between $150,000 and $750,000. It includes the Planning and Environment Court, which hears disputes over land, such as objections to rezoning and subdivisions. The Children’s Court of Queensland hears matters relating to juvenile justice, such as bail and sentence reviews, child protection and juvenile justice appeals from the Magistrates Court. Roles for Human Service Practitioners in the Magistrates Court

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

A support person carries out the following tasks:  Shares knowledge/explanation of court processes and court spaces/places of safety  Obtain background information  Listen Carefully/Communicate clearly  Confidentiality  Reality Test  Encourage/support the client  Refer to service providers  Seek court’s leave to speak Advocates share similar responsibilities to a Support Person, but additionally complete the following tasks:  Be clear with yourself, the client and the court about your role  Obtain written authority from client and provide it to the court  Objectivity/Client’s best interests  Make sure the client understands  Encourage client to provide feedback  Withdraw if there is a conflict of interest  Accurate record keeping Report Writers must:  Acknowledge your instructions and sources of information  Obtain detailed background information  Accurate recording/direct quotes/descriptions  Reality testing  Consider all options and justify your position/opinion on each Workshop 10 Slides According to Kennedy and Richards, human service workers who decide on matters outside their legal authority are said to be ultra vires or beyond power

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and restorative justice are attempts to resolve some of the tensions that exist on the continuum between the justice model and the welfare model. Restorative justice approached attempt to reconcile the needs of the ‘offender’ the ‘victim’ and the broader community. The Murri Court is a Queensland based example of an alternative justice approach. According to Kennedy and Richards the principal of the law that was often previously referred to as ‘natural justice’ is now more commonly known as procedural fairness. The Murri Court came into existence in Queensland as a result of the rising rated of incarceration of Indigenous people as well as the recommendations from the report into aboriginal deaths in custody. What first motivated Tina Previtera to become a magistrate? Her early experience working for legal aid. What was something that Tina Previtera struggled with when first becoming a magistrate? Taking into account both sides of the story not just one. One of Tina Previtera’s tips for human service workers supporting someone in the court is to understand the court spaces and procedures. One of Tina Previtera’s tips for human service workers advocating for someone in the court is to have the persons written authority to act as an advocate. Topic 9 – Alternative Justice Models In our introduction to this section of the course in week seven, we considered some of the tensions that exist at the nexus of law and human service practice. It was clear from this material (and from our discussion of the Queensland court system in week eight) that while there are aspects of traditional legal and court room practices that are quite foreign to the worldview of us as human service professionals. The legal community is also aware of the need for approaches to justice that begin to address some of the common criticisms of the justice system and have begun to incorporate alternative justice models that seek to address some of the common criticisms and shortcomings of traditional legal proceedings. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice In topic seven, we acknowledged that the legal system can seem alienating to a human service professional, but that it is vital that human service professionals can work in an interdisciplinary way with colleagues in the legal system in order to improve the outcomes for our clients. We also discussed the fact that a continuum exists between human service work and the law and that it is helpful for us to be able to situate our work on this continuum. In this topic, we examine some of the ways in which the legal system is beginning to incorporate ideas drawn from the human services/social sciences into its process in order to address some of the common criticisms levelled at it. Traditionally, the judiciary's role has been to "determine the facts and the law, apply the law to the facts and determine a legal outcome" (King, 2008 p.1118). The wellbeing of those affected by these proceedings have been seen as being a seperate matter for other professionals. However, in recent decades, as the courts have become more aware of the negative aspects of this approach on outcomes on 'victims' and 'offenders', a number of alternative approaches have begun to gain

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

traction. We will consider two such developments; Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ), and Restorative Justice (sometimes referred to as alternative dispute resolution). Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) examines the role of the law as a therapeutic agent in relation to legal rules, legal processes and the role of the legal profession (King & Auty, 2005). One of the principles of TJ is that the way the law is implemented can increase, decrease or have a neutral effect on well-being. It looks at the consequences and the implications of how the law is implemented. Related to this is the idea that there are moments of crisis in peoples’ lives and the law can be involved in these moments. TJ holds that:  The law should capitalise on the moment that offenders are brought before it to trigger a pro-social lifestyle. If you have completed 3036HSV Social Work 1, you might remember Crisis Intervention theory. This theory holds that a moment of crisis can be very significant in terms of the trajectory that a person takes post-crisis. If a person has a successful experience through a crisis, this can have a major influence on their life direction. With support through a crisis, a person’s future behaviours may be shaped in a positive direction. Alternatively, if someone has a negative experience through a crisis, this can have a negative lasting impact on future behaviour. The point of TJ is that the law should consider this and take advantage of this crisis point to shape future experience and the possibility of future offending.  Another principle of TJ is that the law should be a multidisciplinary endeavour with psychology and law cooperating to enhance well-being. The court process should be informed by input from other professional disciplines.  Finally, TJ supports the view that the law balances community protection (justice principles) against individual needs (therapeutic principles). A good example of this is the current Juvenile Justice Act, which is driven by a number of principles including that the young people need to take responsibility for their behaviours and that the community has a right to be safe from crime. This Act also states that young people are vulnerable and in transition in terms of making good decisions and this needs to be taken into account. This is an example of how TJ doesn’t ignore either individual responsibility or the factors that may negatively impact on a person’s decisions. It attempts to incorporate both. Restorative Justice is in some sense a reaction to the realisation that the plight of those impacted by crime was not being recognised in the traditional adversarial justice model. It proposes processes whereby "all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future" (Marshal, cited in King, 2008 p.1102). Restorative justice approaches attempt to reconcile the needs of the 'offender', the 'victim' and the broader community. Much of the pioneering work done in restorative justice has been driven by the leadership of first nations people. A range of types and degrees of restorative justice practices are represented in the figure below.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Influencing Policy and Legislation Notes

Related Documents