Defending Your Policy Proposal wk7 6361 assignment

SOCW6361wk7resource1.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Defending Your Policy Proposal wk7 6361 assignment

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

97 94 89

77 72

63 61

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

43 2!

63 13 47 51 39

Middle %

% 19 52

45 44

Upper Middle or

U|:̂ >er %

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 %

70 32

75 10 22 21

Not White

75 28

80 11 34

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

0.71

2.78'

33.53**

5-92**

3.29'

0.11

7.06**

__ Legislator's Ideology

Conservative Moderate Liberal Information Soiu'ce

Legislative staff 92

I ohhvi.sts and interest groups 92

i_!hnic associations 60

Conferences 69

Local branch (LBSNO) 65

Media 60

Internet 43

1.98

0.66

30.15**

1.25

1.04

1.08

8.37**

Legislator's Gender Male

63 59 46

Female %

95 90

86 84

69 52

/^Statistic

0.04

0.15

6.95*

10.89**

0.48

3.74'

0,38

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 information to specific types of legislators. Ethnic associations are an important source of

258 SocialWork VOLUME J O , N U M B E R 3 JULY 2005

information for Democrats, liberals, legislators of color, and legislaton who perceive their districts to be communities of color or poorer communi- ties. In contrast. Republicans, conservatives, white legislators, and legislators who believe that they represent middle- and upper-class districts are less likely to turn to ethnic associations, but more likely to rely on lobbyists for information.This suggests that it matters who is approached with informa- tion and how.

The degree to which an information source is accepted and used depends on how weU connected the source is and how valid and relevant the legis- lator believes that source and his or her informa- tion are. Therefore, it is important to 6nd the ap- propriate avenue of entry to a legislator or an informadon source that he or she values. As a rep- resentative of an ethnic association said, "using in- dividuals who are in the inner circle is the best approach.You try to fmd a conduit, someone who you know, who knows where the information needs to go." It is just as important to make sure that the information you have to pass on is credible.

It might be assumed that information from uni- versities would be credible and that academic re- search might be particularly useful in informing the policy process. Consistent with other studies, this research demonstrates that few state legislators rely on information from universities and think tanks. And, as noted earlier, the time lag and struc- ture of academic research may limit its utility to legislators given that "significant social science re- search is often measured in years, whereas policy formulation and decision making may be measured in days and weeks" (Gallagher, 1990, p. 1316). And, the manner in which research findings are presented for consumption by academic audiences is not al- ways consistent with the preferences for informa- tion structuring of busy policymakers, which calls for information to be presented in a practical and useful manner (Hanushek, 1990; Levine & Zimmerman, 1996).

To increase the chances that information will be used, particularly information derived in academic or research settings, it is important to make sure that the information is relevant and presented ac- curately and briefly. One- to two-page fact sheets or policy briefings are more effective than lengthy treatises on an issue. Hanushek (1990) suggested that those seeking to provide information to poh- cymakers follow some basic guidelines:

• Present information in a timely fashion. • Present information that specifically and di-

rectly addresses the issue under consideration. • Present information in a form that is easy to

understand and use. • Present information that specifies a clear

course of action, rather than laying out a va- riety of choices.

These guidehnes should be considered neces- sary to increase the utility and relative influence of information presented to legislators.Those seeking to provide information to state Iegisiators would be advised to

• begin or continue to target information to legislative aides and the staff of legislative committees

• invite legislative staff and legislators to work- shops and pohcy forums to inform them of agency and project goals and public poHcy implications

• identify and work with local grassroots orga- nizations to get lessons learned fix>m innova- tive projects to legislators of colors and legis- lators representing communities of color

• partner with national and local ethnic asso- ciations to inform policymakers of color and those representing communities of color about demonstration and community project goals and corresponding policy recommen- dations

• translate research findings to policy briefings, bulletins, and other mechanisms for inform- ing practice and policy making

• build meaningful relationships with legisla- tors who have prior experience and exper- tise in a particular pohcy area.

CONCLUSION Considerable research has demonstrated that legis- lative staff, fellow committees, lobbyists, executive agencies, and constituents are all sources of infor- mation for state legislaton. The 12-state study re- ported in this article revealed that there are addi- tional sources of information on which state legislators rely and that the relative ranking ofthe sources depends to some degree on variations in legislator characteristics (race, gender, party affilia- tion, and pohtical ideology) and district character- istics (racial composition, degree of urbanization,

JACKSON-ELMOORE / Informing State PoUcymakers: Opportunities for Social \(irrkers 259

and income structure). In this article I described how to increase the usability of the information presented to policymakers and provided insights on how state legislators value the various sources of information.

The alternative sources of information for state legislators include grassroots organizations, ethnic associations, conferences and annual meetings, lo- cal branches of state or national organizations, and the Internet.These sources are particularly impor- tant to ethnic minority legislators.The research find- ings are generally consistent with Mooney's (1991) assertion that legislators are more likely to rely on information obtained fiom sources with which they have the most in common.

Results ofthe CATis indicate that state legisla- tors rely on legislative staff and grassroots organi- zations most frequently, and the media and the Internet less frequently Between these extremes, state legislators tended to turn to statewide lobby groups, ethnic associations, conferences, and local branches of national organizations. The data sug- gest that grassroots organizations may have char- acteristics similar or relevant to state legislators to give them a level of access and importance typi- cally reserved for those considered to be inside the legislative process.

Individuals and agencies interested in providing information to state legislators on key lessons learned and successful demonstration projects might consider presenting information in a con- cise and concrete manner to legislative staff; work- ing collaboratively with, or at least through, local grassroots organizations, including churches and neighborhood associations; and using the Internet sparingly. Although the Internet is gaining saliency in an ever-increasing information age, it is not a primary source of information for state legislators.

Although the media may seem like an obvious vehicle for disseminating information, it is less use- ful to state legislators. More targeted sources of in- formation should be considered to influence leg- islative decision making. The sources should be targeted to the audience. For example, ethnic as- sociations are an important source of information for liberals. Democrats, legislators who are not white, and legislators representing communities of color or poorer districts. In contrast, statewide lobby associations are likely to be more important sources for conservatives, Republicans, white leg- islators, and legislators representing middle- and

upper-class districts. Different types of legisla- tors view information sources differently. It is im- portant to keep state and regional variations in mind when strategizing to get information to state legislators.

REFERENCES Barnello. M, A, (1999), Gender and roll call voting in che

NewYork state assembly. Women and Politics, 20, 77-94,

Baumgartner, F. R,, & Jones, B. D, (1993). Agendas and instabiUiy in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

Berry, F. S,, & Berry. W, D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Poiilical Science Rei'iew, 84, 395—415,

Bybee. C, R,, & Comadena. M, (1984), Information sources and state legislators; Decision-making and dependency, Jof^rwii/()/"BrciJ(/f(«(in ,̂ 2S, 333-341.

Cobb, R.W,, & Elder, C, D. (1972), Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

Council of State Governments, (1972). Power to the states: Mobilizing public technology. Lexington, KY: Author,

Davis,A,J, (1930),The evolution ofthe institution of mothers' pension in the United States, American Journal of Sociology, 35, .̂ 73—582.

D e a r . R . B . . & Patti, R,J, (1981). Legislative advocacy; Seven effective tactics. Social Work, 26, 289-296.

Entin.K. (197.3). Information exchange in Congress:The case ofthe House Armed Services Committee, Western Political Quarterly. 26. 427-439.

Ezell, M. (2001), Advocacy in the human services. Stamford, CT: Brooks/Cole.

Gallagher, J.J. (1990), Emergence of policy studies and policy institutes, American Psychologist, 45, 1316- 1318.

Gray,V, (1973). Innovation in the states:A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 61, 1174-1193.

Gray,V, & Lowery, D, (1995), Interest representation and democratic gridlock. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 531-552,

Gray,V,, & Lowery, D, (2000), Where do policy ideas come from? A study of Minnesota legislators and stzffeTi. Journal of Public Administration Research and Tlieory. W. 573-597,

Hanushek. E, A, (1990).The policy research markets. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9, 146- 154,

Haynes, K, S., & Mickdsen,J. S. (2003), Affecting change: Social workers irt the political arena (5th ed.). Boston: AUyn Sc Bacon.

Hays, S, P,, & Glick, H, R, (1997),The role of agenda setting in policy innovation, American Politics Quarterly, 25, 497-516.

Hepworth, D. H,, & Larson,J.A. (1986). Employing advocacy and social action. In D, H. Hepworth & J. A, Larson (Eds.), Direct sociai work practice: Tlieory and skilb (pp, 569-574), Chicago; Dcrsey.

Herring, M. (1990), Legislative responsiveness to black constituents in three Deep South mtes. Journal of Politics, 52, 740-758,

Hy. R, J.,Venhaus. M,, & Sims, R, G. (1995), Academics in service to the legislature: Lfgislativc utilization of college and university faculty and staff. Public Administration Review, 55, 468-474.

Jansson. B, S. (1999). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

2 6 0 Social Vfork VOLUME 50, N U M B E R 3 JULY 2005

Kingdon.J, (1989). Congressmens'voting decisions (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Kovenock. D, (1973). Influence in the U S . House of Representatives; A statistical analysis of communica- tions. American Politics Quarteriy, 1, 407-464.

Levine, 1. S,,& Zimmerman, J, D. (1996). Using qualita- tive data to inform public policy: Evaluating 'Choose to De-Fuse', American Joumal ofOrthopsy- chiatry. 66. 363-377,

Lewis, B. j , , & Ellefson, P,V, (1996). Evaluating informa- tion Hows to policy committees in state legislatures: Forest and natural resources as a case. Evaluation Review, 20(1), 29-48.

MacRae, D . J r . (1976),The university and the utility of policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 5, 286-288,

Matthews, D,, & StimsonJ. (1975), Yeas and nays: Normal decision-making in the U.S. House of Representatives. NewYork:John Wiley & Sons.

Mayo, C. M,, & Perlmutter, D. D, (1998), Media use and disuse by state legislators. Jdurnn/i)/'Su5t'ri»s and Technical Communications, 12, 7 1 - 8 8 .

Mooney, C. Z, (1991). Peddling information in the state legislature: Closeness counts. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 433-444.

Mooney, C, Z, (2001). Modehng regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 103-124.

Pierce,J. C , & Lovrich, N, P., Jr. (1983).Trust in the technical information provided by interest groups: The views of legislators, activists, experts and the general public. Policy Studies Joumal, 12, 626-639.

Porter, H. O. (1974), Legislative experts and outsiders: The two-step flow of communication.^ournnJ of Politics. 36, 703-730.

Ray, D, (1982),The sources of voting cues in three state legislatures,_/t)Hr«di of Politics, 44, 1074-1087.

Riffe, D. (1988), Comparison of media and other sources of information for Alabama legislators, Joumn/iVm Quarterly. 65, 46-53.

Riffe, D, (1990). Media roles and legislators' news media use. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 323—329.

Sabatier, P A, {\'i%i,). Academics and the legislature: Case studies in scientific advice. Davis: University of California, Institute of Governmental Affairs.

Sabatier, P A , & Whitenian, D. (1985). Legislative decision making and substantive policy information; Models of information flow. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10, 395-415.

Schlozman.K. L..&Tierney,J.T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. NewYork: Harper & Row,

Schneider, R. L,,& Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy. Stamford, C T : Brooks/Cole.

Segal, E.A,. & Brzuzy, S, (1998), Social welfare policy, programs, and practice. Itasca, IL; R E. Peacock.

Songer, D. R. (1988),The infiuence of empirical research; Committee vs. floor decision making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 375-392.

Thomas, C , & Hrebenar, R.J, (1999). Interest groups in the states. In V Gray, R. L. Hanson, & H, Jacob (Eds.), Politia in the American states (7th ed., pp, 113-143). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Van-Gheluwe, B., & Barber, J, K. (1986). Legislative advocacy in action. Social Work. 31, 393-395,

Wahlke, J, C . Eulau, H., Buchanan,W, &r Ferguson. L, C. (1962). The legislative system: Explorations in legislative behavior. NewYork:John Wiley & Sons.

Walker,J. L,,Jr, (1969).The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Revicii', 63, 880-890.

Whiteman, D, (1985),The fate of pohcy analysis in congressional decision making: Three types of use

in committees. Western Political Quarterly, 38. 2 9 4 - 311.

Witt, S., & Moncrief, G. (1993). Religion and roll call voting in Idaho:The 1990 abortion controversy, American Politics Quarterly, 21, 140-149,

Ziegler, H,, & Huelshoff, M. (1980). Interest groups and public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 9, 439-448,

Zwier. R. (1979),The search for information; Specialists and non-specialists in the U,S. House of Represen- tatives, Legislative Studies Quarterly. 4. 31-42.

Cynthia Jackson-Elmoore, PhD, is associate professor, School of Social Work and Department of Political Science, Michigan State University. 242 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824;e-mail:[email protected] work builds on research conducted under a contract with the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Additional support was provided by the Vrbatt Affairs Programs and the School of Social Work at Michigan State University. Jack H. Knott was co-principal investigator on the original project, and research assistance was provided by Shelly Arsenault, Susan Silberman, and

John Verkuilen at various stages of the project. 77ie author is indebted to the state legislators, their staff, and the representa- tives of local, state, and national policy organizations and ethnic associations who agreed to participate in the study.

Original manuscript received June 30. 2003 Final revision received March 26, 2004 Accepted June 10, 2004

PRACTICE UPDATES

Are you involved in a program, researchproject, practice innovation,or other ef- fort that may interest readers? Send your ar- ticle (six double-spaced pages or fewer) to Practice Updates, Social Work, NASW Press. 750 Fim Street, NE. Suite 700. Washington. DC 20002-4241.

J A C K S O N ' E L M O O R B / Injhrming State Polkymakfrs: Opportunities for Social Workers 161