Role of Government

The Role of Government in Policy-Making

Josh Denney

HSM/240

January 20, 2013

Terra L. Harris

The Role of Government in Policy-Making In summing up government policy-making the government has three branches responsible for maintaining law and order in America, which are executive, legislative and judicial according to (University of Phoenix, 2013, Week Two, Chapter Two). Each of these branches has criteria separate from each other that shape policy. Judicial branch concerns itself with making judgments relevant to human services; however the executive branch concerns itself with affecting the laws the legislative branch has proposed and enacted. According to University of Phoenix, (2013)“that these laws are put into effect…” (p. 31). This paper will attempt to summarize the role of government and introduce examples of the Keffeler case, University of Phoenix, (2013) and responsibilities in shaping policy. The legislative branch shapes policy first as it starts with concerned people with the same potential problem in common. The Keffeler case is a relevant example of this. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) mentioned in the Keffeler article was formed by legislation and created by lobbyists to get the bill in motion. Legislation creates solutions to support their issue and enlists a legislator. After convincing a legislator they organize committee hearings, and lobby other legislators for funds to support their cause. Foster care is an entity of the DSHS, and the commissioner of the state of Washington appointed DSHS to be the representative payee for social security benefits concerning these foster children (University of Phoenix, 2013). A group of people thought that DSHS in the state of Washington was using social security money fraudulently, and filed a claim in court against the DSHS. The judicial role in this case can influence the ceasing of funds at any time for wrong doing. In addition the judiciaries shape policy by identifying a solid case with two interested parties. According to University of Phoenix (2013) nearly all facets of “…practice are affected by social and organizational policy made by judicial decisions” (p.35). The DSHS has a set of rules and guidelines to follow; however the laws do not outweigh the laws of the federal government. The Commander and Chief (the president) is in charge of all assets of the government offices. Organizations in each state must mandate federal law over their states and local law allowing local and state policy to be over ridden. The state of Washington arranges foster care for children separated from their original families by force for one problem or another, and foster families are reimbursed by DSHS from each child’s social security benefits for clothing, shelter, food, special needs, and current care in the interest of what is best for the child. Not all children have social security benefits. The ones who do receive benefits the state regulates according to (University of Phoenix, 2013, Week Two, Article: Reserve Reading) as permitted by the “social security Act and regulation” (p.1). The judicial system is reluctant to take human service workers seriously because they are trained to think conditionally, for instance “appears like” or “depends on”; nevertheless the courts want truth and facts (University of Phoenix, 2013). A straightforward way to inspect judicial decisions is to follow four basic questions according to (Week Two, Chapter Two): 1. Whether and in what way new judicial decisions negate earlier legislative acts. 2. The degree to which earlier judicial precedents are altered. 3. Determining what specific policy consequences follow from a judicial decision. 4. How new judicial decisions affect future administrative discretion. The law effecting the DSHS organization was not newly designed, however the way the old law stated its use of social security funds was. In the Ketteler case the parameters for agency discretion had no real impact, because years ago according to (Chapter Two, p. 40) in the 1980s the federal appeals court decision forbade Social Security Administration (SSA) to use its psychiatric classification as a bases for awarding…benefits” (p. 40). This encouraged SSA to change to a more contemporary philosophy. This fresher version of SSA is a notable example of how the Ketteler case won the court’s decision in the funding for foster children. Understanding government and how the three branches work is to get involved and experience the power that each section has. Lobbying legislation on a passionate issue of concern would establish how many areas of the government worked. Human service agencies may find it a little hard to fight a case in court, but understanding how the courts work will help in educating them.

References
University of Phoenix.Week Two Chapter Two: (2013). Retrieved from HSM/240 Human Services Management course website

References: University of Phoenix.Week Two Chapter Two: (2013). Retrieved from HSM/240 Human Services Management course website