Why is context important when advocating for change to decision makers?

Submit a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following:

Briefly explain the concept of the agenda funnel.
Why is context important when advocating for change to decision makers?
Using the social problem you identified earlier in the course, explain how the 10 issues Jansson outlined are important when trying to activate change regarding the selected social problem. Provide 23 sentences for each of the 10 issues:

Timing
Coupling
Framing and finding a title
Negotiating and bargaining
Assembling early sponsors and supporters
Routing
Media coverage
Setting key endorsements
Coalition building
Building momentum

Agenda building can be conceptualized as a funnel (see Figure 6.1). We will discuss this agenda-building framework from the top down. Policy practitioners face three challenges when considering specific reforms: they (or their allies) must diagnose the context as they listen to others, soften or moderate the context, and activate change. The top funnel illustrates the process that policy practitioners use to winnow a few issues from the multitude of issues that could be presented for active consideration. At the top of the funnel are the context and the practitioners diagnosing role. Just beneath these are the modified context and the policy practitioners softening or moderating role. The numbers 1 through 10 just above the funnel represent the many potential issues that exist in any setting. Policy entrepreneurs, discussed in more detail later, engage in the activat- ing role when they pull a specific issue (in this case, number 8) into the funnel, where it is placed on the decision agenda when someone or some group prioritizes it for systematic deliberation. (See the decision agenda at the bottom of the top funnel in Figure 6.1.
After an issue is placed on the decision agenda, such as on to the agenda of a meeting or committee, it enters policy deliberations wherein it is waylaid, defeated, or enacted. (See the bottom funnel in Figure 6.1.) This is a second winnowing process; fewer policies are actually enacted than were placed in the decision agenda funnel as decision makers prior- itize only some of them. From Figure 6.1, we can tell the stage at which an issue is by asking several questions: Has the issue been floated with little or no discussion? If so, it is in the original context or the modified context. Has the issue been forwarded to a committee, a task force, or some other deliberative entity for further discussion? If so, it is on the decision agenda. Have systematic deliberations begun? If so, it is in policy deliberations. Has the issue been enacted by deci- sion makers? If so, it is positioned for implementation at the bottom of the second funnel. Policy advocates need to diagnose the context to identify contextual constraints and opportunities as they listen to others. If they decide that specific policies will be extremely difficult to change, they must do considerable work to change the context or to focus on alternative policy changes. When they decide that the contextual opportunities far out- number constraints, they can initiate a policy-changing strategy at once. In some cases, the prognosis will be guarded or unclear. Having diagnosed the context, policy advocates must soften or moderate it; that is, they must make it more amenable to a specific policy initiative. Even when the context appears bleak, they may discover that engaging strategically placed persons will make the progno- sis more optimistic or will indicate that their pessimistic forecast was unwarranted. Or they may work with a coalition or advocacy group to pressure decision makers to take interest in a specific issue, such as by sending a delegation to them or by getting the issue placed on the meeting of a city council or school board. At some point, of course, policy advocates need to activate change. They need to get a community decision maker or legislator to put an issue on the agenda of the other decision makers in the agency, community, or legislative setting. The chairperson might place the issue on the agenda of an agency committee or staff meeting. Perhaps a legislator drafts a piece of legislation and initiates a search for cosponsors. Or maybe a states director of health and human services presents a detailed analysis of a particular problem in the administration of his or her program. Agenda building is, then, often a precursor to other policy-practice tasks, although in some cases policy advocates may proceed with other tasks, such as developing a policy pro- posal, even before decision makers have shown an interest in a specific issue. Even in this case, however, policy advocates must return to agenda building to get the issue on decision makers agendas lest they find their issue stymied for lack of interest by them. And if policy advocates have successfully softened or moderated the context, they may make ultimate s

Last Completed Projects