SOWK 410 Week 6 DB Forum 3 Example

Discussion Board Forum 3: Thread and Two Replies

SOWK 410 Social Work Macro Practice, Discussion Board Forum 3 (thread and two replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt, the agency and the classmates' posts are composites standing in for the course's own forum; Scripture, the textbook, the book and the journal article are real and described from their published sources; the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for SOWK 410.

Thread

Harbor House, a composite homeless services agency in a mid-sized Southern city, receives about a third of its budget from city contracts. This spring the city council proposed an ordinance banning sleeping in public parks, which would push dozens of Harbor House's clients into ticketing and jail. Staff wanted to oppose it, but the board worried that public opposition could cost the agency its contracts and the shelter beds they fund. The director felt caught between two obligations: the clients who would be ticketed under the ordinance and the clients who sleep in beds the city pays for.

Burghardt (2014) treats advocacy for social and economic justice as a core part of macro practice, not an optional add-on. Yet agencies advocate within real constraints. Mosley (2011) studied human service nonprofits and found that those receiving government funding were often more engaged in policy advocacy, not less, but that they tended to rely on insider tactics such as testifying, serving on advisory bodies and working through coalitions rather than outsider tactics such as protests. Funding drew them into policy conversations while shaping how they spoke.

That finding suggests a path for Harbor House. The agency could testify at the council hearing with data on how many clients use the parks because shelters are full, join a coalition with churches and legal aid so that opposition is not Harbor House alone and propose an alternative, such as funding additional shelter beds or a sanctioned rest area. Insider advocacy of this kind can be effective precisely because funders already see the agency as credible. Council members who trust Harbor House's numbers on shelter use may be more open to its alternative than to the same argument from a group they do not know. The agency could also invite a few clients, with their consent, to describe nights when every shelter bed was full.

There are limits. If insider tactics fail and the ordinance passes, the agency may face a harder choice about louder opposition. Agencies also risk becoming so cautious that they stop advocating at all. The clients' interests, not the agency's comfort, should set the boundary, and the board should decide in advance what outcome would justify taking a public stand.

When do you think quieter advocacy crosses the line into complicity?

Reply to Andrea

Andrea, you argued that Harbor House should advocate but needs a plan, and a framework can help. Schneider and Lester (2001) treat advocacy as representing clients or a cause before a body that makes decisions, in a planned effort to move a system that is unjust or unresponsive, and they lay out a sequence of steps that includes identifying the issue, getting the facts, planning strategies, supplying leadership, getting to know decision makers, building support and evaluating. Applied to the camping ban, Harbor House would first gather data on shelter capacity and park use, then meet individually with council members before the hearing, since relationships often matter more than testimony delivered in a crowded chamber. Building support might include inviting clients to share their own experiences, with their consent, which makes the issue harder to dismiss. Evaluation, the last step, matters too: whatever the outcome, Harbor House should review what worked so its next campaign starts stronger.

Reply to Marcus

Marcus, you wrote that Harbor House should oppose the ordinance loudly regardless of the funding risk, and I respect the conviction behind that. Jeremiah 22:3 calls rulers to do justice and righteousness and to deliver from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed, doing no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless or the widow (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016). The passage makes justice for the vulnerable a duty, not a preference, and people sleeping in parks are among the most vulnerable residents of any city. Still, Mosley (2011) suggests that insider credibility is itself a tool of justice. I would propose a sequence: testify and build a coalition first, and if the ordinance advances, be ready to speak publicly, accepting the cost. Courage and strategy need not be opposites. Nehemiah, after all, prayed and planned before he went to the king, and his boldness was more effective for being prepared.

References

Burghardt, S. (2014). Macro practice in social work for the 21st century: Bridging the macro-micro divide (2nd ed.). SAGE.

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Mosley, J. E. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 435-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009346335

Schneider, R. L., & Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy: A new framework for action. Brooks/Cole.