Suchergebnisse

This article describes the 1996 reform of US welfare and reviews its consequences, concluding that the evidence so far is encouraging, but that the full effects of reform are still unknown. It demonstrates how much the essential character of US welfare has altered: the emphasis on changing behaviour rather than making cash payments; the shift in responsibility from federal government to frontline administrators; the move to discretionary rather than rights based decision-making; and the stress on performance rather than on process. Finally, it notes that the language of political debate takes little account of what has already been achieved.

"The traditional story of how we do social policy in this country reveals a disconnect between the research community, that is producing hundreds of studies relevant to public policy, and the policy community, that is making hundreds of decisions that would benefit from research evidence. This second edition tells an even stronger, more substantiated story of all it will take to connect researchers and policymakers: A fresh look into what policymakers and the policy process are like, as told by policymakers themselves and the researchers who study and work with them An elaboration of Community Dissonance Theory, which points to culture as the culprit for why conflicts and miscommunication occur between researchers and policymakers New insights on the purposes for which policymakers use research Innovative best practices for engaging policymakers from those who excel at doing it and studying it Guiding questions for deciding whether to approach policymakers as an advocate or educator This book brings new ways of thinking about evidence-based policymaking- by advancing two theories, one that predicts policymakers' use of research and another that explains why research is underutilized in policymaking. This book holds the potential to advance the study of evidence-based policymaking- by proposing how policymakers use research for achieving policy ends, and also for achieving more immediate means to accomplish their long-term ends. This book also envisions a new future for evidence-based policy- by looking to the roots of what it would take to create cultural competence now and in the preparation of the next generation of researchers. This story is compelling because much of it is told in the voice of policymakers themselves by drawing on an unusual new study of state legislators. Moreover, it includes the studies and stories of two authors who have spent their

AbstractCan alternative ways of administering and guaranteeing the flow of child support payments enhance the welfare of children of separated or divorced parents?

Thesis--Catholic University of America. ; Bibliography: p. 217-237. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article explores growing pessimism among those scholars who wish to see rigorous research used more frequently to formulate public policy. That commonsense aspiration is threatened by the impoverished dialogue between the communities that conduct studies (researchers) and those that apply them to decisions (policymakers). To examine this disconnect, the authors advance community dissonance theory, which proposes that a better understanding in the research community of the inhabitants, institutions, and cultures of the policy community could increase communication and trust. Community dissonance theory extends earlier two‐communities theories by deconstructing the cultural impediments to optimal communication. Building on previous literature and supported with in‐depth interviews of state policymakers, this article examines professional culture and institutional culture (e.g., preferred decision‐making processes, interactional preferences, favored epistemological frameworks, dominant influence loops, salient goals, salient stakeholders). The article presents several frictions that occur when cultures clash, discussing their promise and peril for improving research use in policymaking.

Families have long been recognized for the contributions they make to their members and to society. Yet families are seldom substantively incorporated into the normal course of policy and program development, implementation, and evaluation. We propose the family impact lens as one way to shift the rhetoric from appreciating families to prioritizing them as worthy of study, investment, partnership, and political action. This paper provides the theoretical and empirical rationale for the family impact lens and introduces a toolkit for professionals who conduct or manage programs, teach about families, communicate with policymakers and program administrators, or evaluate programs and policies. Five guiding principles comprise the core of the family impact lens—family responsibility, family stability, family relationships, family diversity, and family engagement. To operationalize these principles, three methodologies are proposed—Family Impact Discussion Starters, the Family Impact Checklist, and Family Impact Analysis. Next steps are proposed for implementation and evaluation.

This South Carolina certificate no. 36967 "entitles the bearer to Ten Pounds Current Money." Signed by Gideon Dupont, Aaron Loocock, Thomas Corbett, William Parker, and Edward Blake. ; https://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/littlejohnmss/1295/thumbnail.jpg