Policy practitioners should know that being forewarned is being forearmed. You should know how to diagnose an audience, devel

Informing State Policymakers: Opportunities for Social Workers

Cynthia Jackson-Elmoore

Colleagues, legislative staff, interest groups, administrative agencies, universities and think tanks,

the media, and constituents are some ofthe more commonly recognized sources of information for state legislators. Results of a survey of 507 legislators in 12 U.S. states reveal that ethnic associations, grassroots organizations, the Internet, local branches of national or state organizations, and conferences are also sources of information for state legislators. The

relative importance ofthe various sources is linked to characteristics ofthe legislators and the districts they represent. This suggests the need for targeted information dissemination strategies

to influence state-level public policy.

KEY WORDS: admcocy; public policy; information; sodat work; state legislatures

W here do state policymakers go for in- formation and what are the implica- tions for social work? For years, com-

munity groups, foundations, and researchers have been looking for avenues to get relevant informa- tion to legislators. Similarly, social work practitio- ners and students are challenged to affect the legis- lative process. However, there is less practical knowledge avaiiabie and easily accessible to the masses about affecting public policy.

Research has demonstrated the importance of various sources of information for state-level poli- cymakers. Fellow legislators, interest groups, state executive agencies, legislative staff, other state and local governments, the media, constituents, univer- sities, and think tanks are commonly mentioned sources of information. However, published re- search has not systematically documented other avenues of information. Nor has much of the lit- erature documented different preferences based on characteristics ofthe legislator or the district they represent.

In this article I report on a study of information sources for 12 state legislators. The findings show that there are additional sources of information that matter to state legislators and confirm anecdotal evidence that the relative importance of these in- formation sources depends on characterisdcs ofthe state legislators and the districts they represent. I

identify several strategies for informing state legis- lators about lessons learned from agency practices, community initiatives, demonstration projects, re- search, and related activities.

LITERATURE REVIEW There is ample evidence of the need and obliga- tion for social workers to inform the public policy process (Dear & Patti, 1981; Ezell, 2001; Haynes & Mickelsen, 2(K)3; Hepworth & Larson, 1986 Jansson, 1999; Schneider & Lester, 2001;Van-Gheluwe & Barber, 1986).To do so, social work students and practitioners need a firm grounding in the policy process and corresponding opportunities to influ- ence it. Several early studies provide insights into the legislative process at the federal and state levels (Lewis & Ellefson, 1996; MacRae, 1976; Pierce & Lovrich, 1983; Ray, 1982; Sabatier & Whiteman, 1985; Songer, 1988; Zwier, 1979). This early re- search should not be overlooked or dismissed when considering how, where, and when to influence the legislative process, particularly with regard to in- formation flows.

Legislative staff and executive agencies have been consistently cited as sources of information for leg- islators. Staff provide key resources and help poli- cymakers draft legislation and sort through the pros and cons of components of legislation. Ex- ecutive agencies are important because they may

CCC Code: OO3T-8O4«yDS (300 O200S National Aswclation of Social Workers 251

propose legislation and are responsible for imple- menting it. Often the institutional memory neces- sary to propel policy solutions forward resides in legislative staff and employees of government agen- cies. Reliance on information from fellow legisla- tors, particularly as a cue for voting is well docu- mented {Entin, 1973; Kingdon, 1989; Kovenock, 1973; Matthews & Stimson. 1975; Porter, 1974; Wahlke, Eulau, Buchanan, & Ferguson, 1962). There is also literature on interest group influence and the prevalence of lobbying in the legislative process {Gray & Lowery, 1995, 2000; Mayo & Perlmutter, 1998; Pierce & Lovrich, 1983; Schlozman &Tierney, 1986;Thomas & Hrebenar, 1999; Ziegler & Huelshoff, 1980). Few would deny that these are useful sources of information for state legislators.

A number of studies have demonstrated ways in which the constituency may affect legislative vot- ing patterns (Barnello, 1999; Herring, 1990; Witt & Moncrief, 1993). Segal and Brzuzy (1998) ar- gued that "constituents who take the time and ef- fort to present their position can make a strong impression, influence the staff person, and thereby reach the elected official…Elected officials have limited time. They are most responsive to those who elect them or will re-elect them" (p. 251).The role ofthe media in providing information to leg- islators (Bybee & Comadena, 1984; Gray & Lowery, 2000; Mayo & Perlmutter, 1998;Riffe, 1988,1990) and the agenda-setting potential ofthe media have also been studied (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Cobb & Elder, 1972; Hays & Glick, 1997). How- ever, much ofthe discussion has focused on main- stream media with little to no consideration of al- ternative media.

Policy diffusion studies (Berry & Berry, 1990; Davis, 1930; Gray, 1973; Mooney, 2001; Walker, 1969) remind us that lessons learned from other state and local governments provide yet another source of information for state legislators. Early speculation was that the increased workloads of legislative staffs would encourage them to turn to academic researchers for quality research without having to expand staff or spend much money. Studies have shown that legislative staff are less likely to rely on information fkim academic sources because ofthe rigidity and inaccessibility of universities and colleges, coupled with the inordinate amount of time it takes most academic researchers to analyze data and publish results (Council of State Govern-

ments, 1972; Hy,Venhaus, & Sims, 1995; Sabader, 1984). Academicians are most likely to have an ef- fect if they can develop personal, informal relation- ships with legislators and their staff and thus be viewed as a knowledge base on specific issues (Hy etal., 1995).

Anecdotal evidence at the street level suggests that state legislators rely on additional sources of information. Some of these alternative sources of information are the Internet, ethnic media outlets, grassroots organizations, ethnic associations, and a host of community and policy-related organiza- dons and acdvides.This study investigated whether there were more sources of information for state legislators than were commonly reported in the research literature and, if so, who uses them.

METHOD Data presented in this ardcle were collected as part of a larger project that I co-managed under a con- tract from the Health Goals Group of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The purpose of the project was to assist in the development of a framework for the foundation's policy education activities. Because much ofthe foundation's granting activities were taking place in communities of color and poor communities, there was a particular interest in mechanisms for communicating with legislators representing these types ofdistricts.The two-prong study focused on (1) information needs of and sources of information for state legislators from communities of color and economically vulner- able communities and (2) the implications of term limits on the information needs of state legislators representing these communities.Twelve states (Cali- fornia, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisi- ana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Texas, and Washington) were included in the study on the basis of existence or nonexistence of term- limit statutes, the harshness of those statutes, geo- graphic and regional variations, and a significant presence of community projects funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

The focus of this article is on the part of the project addressing the W K. Kellogg Foundation's desire to identify ways to inform state policymak- ers about lessons learned from demonstration projects and other granting activities. Of particular concern was the relative importance of ethnic as- sociations, grassroots organizations, the Internet, local branches of national organizations, and

252 SedalWork VOLUME J O , N U M B E R 3 JULY ZOOS

conferences or annual meetings as sources of in- formation for state legislative decision making.The literature does not describe these information sources, nor the variability in usage based on char- acteristics of state legislators or their districts. This research addresses this gap in the literature and ex- amines these information sources in conjunction with sources like legislative staff, the media, and statewide lobby groups.

In-Depth Interviews Phase one ofthe research involved a series of in- depth interviews, conducted in person and by phone, to test themes and anecdotal evidence. One protocol was developed for semistructured inter- views with state legislators and another was devel- oped for semistructured interviews with represen- tatives of policy organizations and ethnic associadons (Table l).The intent was to identify sources of in- formadon for legislators from communities of color and economically vulnerable communities that should be included on a more comprehensive ques- tionnaire. Key informants were asked about the types of information that state legislators from economi- cally vulnerable communities and communities of color use and whether these information sources differ from those used by legislaton from predomi- nandy white or predominandy middle-class com-

munides.They were also asked to identify ethnic associations and grassroots organizations that state legislators rely on.

Twenty interviews ranging between 45 and 60 minutes were conducted between April and June 1997. Four state legislators, eight representadves of nadonal policy organizations, and eight represen- tatives of ethnic associations were interviewed.The original plan called for addidonal state legislators to be interviewed; however, the legislative session pre-empted some of the intervie\^, and attempts to reschedule them were unsuccessful. The state legislators interviewed were randomly selected from a list of 33 Fleming Fellows, from the 12 states, because of their focus on learning more about working with the communities of interest for this study. The Fleming Fellows were state legislators who met three times a year with officials fham the Center for Policy Alternatives for leadership train- ing focused on vulnerable communities and diver- sity issues. The national pobcy organizations and ethnic a.ssociations included in the phase one sample were randomly selected from a list of organizations of interest to the foundation.

All the interviews were taped and transcribed, with the text subsequendy read and then, using a copy and paste strategy when key themes or text were identified, hand coded into broad categories

Table 1: Sample Questions from Phase One In-depth Interviews

Questions ibr State Legtsliitois

" Please describe your legislative district.

• What sources oi information do you go to in order to get a handle on issues?

• Do you rely on ? [executive agencies, constituents, ethnic associations, grassroots oi^anizations, other nonprofir

organizations] If yes, what kinds of information are provided!'

• Please discuss sources of information local versus Capitol based.

• What is the best way to convey intbnnation to yoti?

Questions for Representadves of Policy Organizations and Ethnic Associations

• What types of organi7.ed intere.sts do state legisktoni from | communities of color / economically vulnerable communities) rely on? What kinds of information do these organized interests provide?

• Do the organized interests tliat state legislators from economically vulnerable communities rely on differ from those of state legislators from predominantly white, middle class communities? If yes, explain how.

• Do state legislators from [communities of color / economically vulnerable communities] rely on [ethnic associations, grassroots organizations, constituents, other nonprofit oi^anizations| for information? If yes, which ones?

• Do state legislators from [communities of color / economically vulnerable communities] rely on? If yes, which ones?

• Which state executive agencies do state legislators from [communities of color / economically vulnerable communities] rely on for information?

Not*: lums appearing In parvnthnit wcfa pwad in leparMe questions.

J A C K S O N – E L M O O R E / Injorming State Policymakers: opportunities fi>r Sociai Workers 155

reflecting sources of information and variations in reladve importance of sources of information based on characteristics ofthe state legislator and the dis- trict they rep resented. The data also were imported into the NVivo qualitative software package to verify themes and look for nuances in the data. The software package provided a mechanism for searching text for multiple themes simultaneously and to automatically catalogue themes across mul- tiple interviews.The themes identified by the soft- ware package were identical to the themes identi- fied through the hand analysis. The software package allowed for some rudimentary quantita- tive analysis of trends in the qualitative data. For example, it was possible to determine how many times themes appeared and the frequency with which such themes were reported from certain re- spondents or certain types of respondents.Thus, it allowed a preliminary window into what might be found when the themes were tested with quanti- tative data.

Computer-Assisted Telephone Survey Phase two of the research included the develop- ment and administration of a computer-assisted telephone survey based on insights from the re- search literature and phase one interviews. Mem- bers of the research team designed the quesdon- naire in consultation with staff from the Office of Survey Research at the Institute of Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University. Under a subcontract initiated by the research team, the Office of Survey Research interviewed 507 legislators, between September and December 1997- Some respondents requested a paper copy of the questionnaire. The faxed or mailed survey re- sponses were combined with responses obtained by phone, for a total response rate of 72.4 percent ofthe 700 legislators targeted for the study. Survey pardcipants included 157 ofthe 377 (or 42 per- cent) legislators of color and 339 (or 22 percent) ofthe white legislators in the 12 target states.

The state legislators were asked to indicate if a particular source of information was very impor- tant, somewhat important, not very important, or not important at all to them when making policy decisions. The sources of information included in the instrument were the Internet, ethnic organiza- tions, local grassroots organizations, statewide lobby groups, legislative staff, the media, and conferences or annual meetings. State legislators were asked to

indicate if there were sources of information that had not been mentioned in the survey that they were likely to turn to when facing a pressing issue. This was an open-ended question that was coded into categories after the data were collected. State legislators were asked to verify their gender and identify their ethnicity, party affiliation, political ideology (that is, conservative, moderate, or liberal), and tenure in office. They also were asked about their perception ofthe districts they represented. The state legislators indicated what tbey believed to be the percentage of people of various ethnic groups and socioeconomic status living in tbeir districts, as well as the degree of urbanization and predominant party affiliation of residents in their district.

A limitation ofthe study was the length ofthe computer-assisted telephone survey. The survey typically ran about 10 minutes, whicb may have been fine if the entire dme had been focused on sources of information. However, about four min- utes were devoted to quesdons on sources of infor- mation. Another four minutes addressed issues re- lated to term iimits and potential impacts on informadon. Approximately two minutes were used verifying basic information and obtaining infor- mation on demographics ofthe legislators and their districts.This meant that in the time allowed, it was not possible to probe deeply into the information sources for state legislators or to do comparative rankings witbin the interview. Even so, the study provides a glimpse at a range of sources of informa- don deemed useful by state legislators.Tbe Office of Survey Research managed tbe survey, and the research team performed initial data analysis to in- form W.K. Kellc^g Foundation programming goals. I conducted the data analysis, compared the results ofthe qualitative and quandtadve analyses and found them to be generally consistent.

FINDINGS FROM IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Two themes emerged from the in-depth interviews: (1) sources of informadon for state legislators and (2) mechanisms for information dissemination.Typi- cal sources of information for state legislators in- cluded constituents, colleagues, legislative staff, lob- byists and interest groups, executive agencies, political parties, tbe media, universities, and think tanks. The in-depth interviews also identified eth- nic associations, grassroots organizations, confer- ences, and local branches of national organizations

254 SodalWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R J JULY 2005

as sources of information for state legislators. A number of strategies for information dissemination were identified during the phase one interviews.

Every person interviewed indicated that it was important to get to know legislators personally.State and national policy organizadons were seen as a key resource to help people get access to and, ac- cordingly, get tbe message to state legislators in a manner in which they could digest. Represenu- tives from policy organizations, grassroots organi- zations, and ethnic associations beUeved it was im- portant to use conferences, meetings, and workshops to educate and exchange information with legisla- tors and their staff. The state legislaton tended to value tbe opportunides to interact with people one- on-one on substantive issues.

All respondents noted that local service provid- ers were useful sources of informadon. However, not all state legislators agreed with the assertions made by representatives ofthe policy organizadons and nonprofit organizations that ethnic associations had a key role in providing information to state legislators.The interviews revealed that it was im- portant to use influential people in a state legislator's referent group to disseminate ideas. Repeatedly noted was that information for state legislators had to be presented in a succinct, easy-to-read form that grabbed and held their attention.

Variations were apparent in both themes based on characteristics of the state legislators and tbe districts they represented. For example, it was noted that few policymakers use tbe Internet and that state legislators of color were less likely to use tbe Internet than were other legislators.Tbere viras also a sense that the Internet was used more often by staffen than by the state legislators.Tbe media were viewed as an important source of information for state legislators and their constituents. National Public Radio (NPR),C-Span,and CNN were spe- cifically mentioned as important sources of infor- madon.These pardcular media oudets were named in the same sentence in which the interview re- spondents indicated that mainstream media was important for white legislators or those represent- ing predominantly white or upper-class neighbor- hoods. The foreign language press and television outlets were noted as important sources of infor- mation for reaching immigrant populations. Media outlets that focus on communities of color were noted as being particulariy relevant for legislators of color.

Another consistent theme was the degree to which legislators of color might be disadvantaged when it comes to gaining access to the more tradi- tionally recognized streams of information.This was a particular concern to state legislators serving in part-time legislatures that might not have the staff- ing, computen, and access to informadon of their counterparts operating in full-dme state legislatures. There was also a sense that a lot of informadon gets transmitted among social elites and that under cer- tain circumstances some state legislators might be excluded from this inner circle. Noted also was that legislators of color might gain access to avenues not typically broacbed by other legislators. A rep- resentative of an ethnic association offered this take on the difference in the informadon sources used by state legislators.

Legislators from minority and poor communi- ties tended to rely more on organizations con- cerned with social issues as opposed to eco- nomic issues. These legislators might turn to the Urban League,NAACP.sociai service agen- cies, and labor unions.These last two are espe- cially important for poor districts. In contrast, legislators from predotninantly white districts tend to rely more on lobbying firms, tax payer associadons, and economic development orga- nizations.

FINDINGS FROM THE COMPUTER- ASSISTED TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS State legislators generally used similar sources of informadon.Tbe computer-assisted telephone in- terviews (CATIs) revealed that some information sources were reladvely more important than oth- ers. Legisladve staff and grassroots organizadons were rated as very important sources of informa- don for legislators from all types of communides. Statewide lobby groups and ethnic associations were rated as reladvely important sources of infor- madon for state legislators. In comparison, tbe media and the Internet ranked lower in impor- tance as sources of informadon for state legislators (Figure 1). Otber key information sources included constituents, colleagues, the legislators' own re- search, universities and think tanks, and nadonal associadons (Figure 2).

There were variations in sources of informadon based on the legislators' percepdons ofthe districts they represent (Table 2). Legislators wbo believed

J A C K S O N – E L M O O R E / InformingStau Policymakers: OpportuniHafarSodal Workers 155

Figure 1: Relative Importance of Sources of Information for State Legislators (Rated Somewhat or Very Important)

lOOi

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

n

97 94 89

77 72

63 61

47

3 §

Sources

Note: Local branchei represents local branches of state or national organliationt.

that their district had a large propordon of poor or working-class peopie •were much more iikely to rely on informadon from ethnic associations and grassroots organizations than were other legislators. Ethnic associations and grassroots organizations also were reported to be more important to legislators

who believed that they were representing commu- nities of color rather than other types of districts.

There were also variadons based on characteris- tics ofthe iegisiators (Tabie 3). Legislators of color reiied on a larger variety of information sources than did white legislators. With the exception of

Figure 2: Other Sources of Information for State Legislators

Sources

SodalWork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R 3 JULY 2005

Table 2: Variation in Sources of Information Based on State Legislators' Perceptions of Their Districts

Perceived District Class Structure Perceived District

Racial Composition

Note: LBSNO > local branch of • state or nationil organization. •Denotei ilgnlfkance at the .05 level. •p < .01. " p < ,001.

Iriicrnct

F-rhnic associatiojis

Grasscoot organizations

Interest groups and lobbyists

L^i.staiivp staff

Media

Conferences

LBSNO

P o o r o r Working

3a

43 2!

63 13 47 51 39

Middle %

54

48

26

% 19 52

45 44

Upper Middle or

U|:̂ >er %

41

41 38

65 20

55 39 36

^'Statistic

1,65

11.87**

3.55*

0.98

1.76

1.39

1.32

2.96"

White %

6

21

70 32

75 10 22 21

Not White

%

20

57

75 28

80 11 34

25

19 F-Statlstic

1.26

2.58** 1

1.58*

1.03

0.96

O.')8

1.16

0.77 j

lobbyists and the media, legislators of color rated almost all sources of information as more impor- tant than did white legislators. For example, legis- lators of color rated ethnic associations, conferences or annual meetings, and the Internet as substan- tially more important sources of information than did white legislators. Similarly, female legislators ranked ethnic associations and conferences or an- nual meetings as more important sources of infor- mation than did their male counterparts. Demo- crats were more likely than Republicans to rely on information from ethnic associations, conferences or annual meetings, and local branches of state or national organizations. Liberals were much more likely than either moderates or conservatives to rely on information from ethnic associations or the Internet.

Controlling for the effects of race and other con- stituent and district characteristics, the CATI re- sults indicate that there were state and regional dif- ferences in the relative importance of various sources of information. Legislators from the mid- Atlantic and niidwestern states tended to rank eth- nic a.ssociations, grassroots organizations, and state- wide lobby groups higher than did legislators from other states. In comparison, legislators from the southern and western states ranked local branches of national organizations and the Internet some- what higher than did legislators from other areas. Several trends also emerge based on characteristics of the state legislature.

The survey data su^ested that lobby groups, legislative staff, and the media were more impor- tant sources of information to individuals serving in professional legislatures than for those serving in less professional legislatures. Lobby groups were rated as less important by individuals in nonpro- fessional legislatures, whereas grassroots organiza- tions were rated as important by them. However, none of these marginal differences were statisti- cally significant for the 507 legislators included in the study. Similarly, there were no systematic ef- fects on the ranking ofthe various sources of in- formation based on partisan control of the legisla- ture, calendar length, or size ofthe legislative staff. Overall, the survey data did not reveal any note- worthy effects of the character of the legislative body on the relative importance of various sources of information.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK The in-depth interviews and CATIs confirmed some commonly accepted knowledge about sources of information for state legislators and revealed nu- ances that have not been clearly articulated in the research literature. State legislators of all types, from all kinds of communities and legislatures, rated staff and local grassroots organizations as important sources of information. State legislators rated the media and Internet as less important sources of in- formation. Legislators also valued personal contact with a range of individuals and organizations.

JACKSON-ELMOORE / Informing State Pblicymakers: Opportunitia for Sodai Workers 1S7

Table 3: Differential Preference for Sources of Information Based on Characteristics of the Legislator

Information Source ,e,«,i, > _^.^_ ^_..^ . aiinmmimmm

Legislative staff'

Lobbyists and interest groups

Ethnic associations

Conferences oi annual meetings

Local branch {LBSNO)

Meiiia

Internet

Legislator'^ Race

White Not white "''' -ssw^wMmsT: ^ Statistic

94

93

71

67

60

63

42

98

95

87

98

84

72

59

62

0.71

2.78'

33.53**

5-92**

3.29'

0.11

7.06**

__ Legislator's Ideology

Conservative Moderate Liberal Information Soiu'ce

97

Legislative staff 92

I ohhvi.sts and interest groups 92

i_!hnic associations 60

Conferences 69

Local branch (LBSNO) 65

Media 60

Internet 43

95

90

89

73

61

60

44

1.98

0.66

30.15**

1.25

1.04

1.08

8.37**

Legislator's Gender Male

^%

94

91

77

69

63 59 46

Female %

95 90

86 84

64

69 52

/^Statistic

0.04

0.15

6.95*

10.89**

0.48

3.74'

0,38

95

89

89

77

66

61

53

3.76'

2.65'

26.72*"

6.86**

3.97*

3.20'

2.97'

'denotes lignificance at the O,DS level.

Social workers who encourage and help clients speak on their own behalf or who might approach their own state legislator to express concerns or insights on a specific policy issue should be aware that constituents' ability to provide meaningful in- formation to state legislators may be tied to whether their representative sits on the pertinent commit- tee or has sway with others. Legislators are more likely to use information from their constituents rather than members ofthe general public. As one state legislator said,"I try to go through and search for materials from my constituents." Another state legislator commented that "for me, face-to-face interaction with people from organizations I'm not familiar with is not effective; it needs to be some- one from my district." This means that information from constituents must be targeted to the appro- priate state legislators. It also means that rallying clients behind legislative action remains a valid component of social work.

There are many opportunities for social work- ers to provide information to state legislators. For example,

• getting to know the legislator personally • enlisting the support and resources of policy

organizations • holding conferences, meetings, and work-

shops for legislative staff and policymakers • partnering with local service providers or

local ethnic groups • using influential people in a state legislator's

referent group to disseminate ideas.

Interesting variations occured in the relative im- portance of ethnic associations and statewide lobby groups as sources of information. These contrasts suggest a set of targeted strategies for disseminat- ing informa

---

---

Who We Are

We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?

1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

Need help with this assignment?

Order it here claim 25% discount

Discount Code: SAVE25