Week 5 6361 Building An Agenda Readings Day 1 Jansson B S 20

Week 5 6361building An Agendareadingsday 1 Jansson B S 2018beco

Week 5 6361 Building an Agenda Readings Day 1 • Jansson, B. S. (2018). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice. (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning Series. o Chapter 6, “Committing to an Issue: Building Agendas” (pp. ) Day 2 Edwards, H. R., & Hoefer, R. (2010). Are social work advocacy groups using Web 2.0 effectively? Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3/4), 220–239. doi:10.1080/.2010.489037 Policy Agendas Discussion: Many social issues do not receive the necessary attention from decision makers. Why might these issues be cast aside? Some issues lack sufficient support to ensure that they are added to decision-makers’ agendas. Why might this be? Some issues receive significant attention from decision makers. Why might these issues easily find their way onto decision-makers’ agendas? Be sure to support your post with specific references to this week’s resources. If you are using additional articles, be sure to provide full APA-formatted citations for your references.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of setting policy agendas is a critical element of social advocacy and policy development, influencing which issues receive attention and resources from decision-makers. Understanding why certain social issues are prioritized while others are marginalized involves examining various factors, including perceived importance, political support, organizational backing, media influence, and the tactics employed by advocates. This paper explores the reasons behind the neglect or prominence of social issues in the policy arena, drawing upon scholarly resources such as Jansson’s (2018) discussion on building agendas and Edwards and Hoefer’s (2010) analysis of Web 2.0’s role in advocacy.

Social issues often remain marginalized or overlooked by policymakers due to perceptions of their importance or because they lack the political support necessary to attract attention. According to Jansson (2018), one of the initial steps in agenda building involves issues being recognized as important and warranting attention. When an issue lacks visibility, empirical support, or resonates with the prevailing political climate, decision-makers may deem it less urgent or relevant to their priorities. For example, issues that are perceived as controversial, divisive, or peripheral to the immediate interests of powerful groups tend to be excluded from the policy agenda. This phenomenon aligns with Kingdon’s (1984) multiple streams framework, which emphasizes that agendas are influenced by problem recognition, political climate, and available solutions.

Conversely, issues receive significant attention when they are supported by well-organized advocacy groups, possess compelling evidence, or align with the political interests of influential actors. Edwards and Hoefer (2010) highlight that social work advocacy groups leveraging Web 2.0 technologies can effectively mobilize support, disseminate information, and influence policy agendas. These digital platforms enable advocates to reach a broader audience and engage policymakers directly, thereby increasing the likelihood that their issues will ascend the policy agenda. For example, social media campaigns have been instrumental in framing issues like mental health awareness or gun control as urgent matters demanding legislative action.

Organizational backing and resource availability also play crucial roles in whether an issue gains prominence. Well-funded organizations with strategic communication plans can create persistent visibility for their causes, turning issues into widely recognized priorities. The framing of an issue, as described by Jansson (2018), involves constructing a compelling narrative that highlights the significance and urgency of the problem, which can attract media coverage and political attention. Notably, issues that have a clear and tangible solution tend to be more likely to appear on the agenda because policymakers favor actionable items with identifiable outcomes.

Media coverage acts as a powerful catalyst in shaping policy agendas by bringing issues to the public’s attention and influencing policymakers’ perceptions. When issues are sensationalized or linked to widely held values, they are more likely to be prioritized. For instance, social movements that sustain media coverage over time can place significant pressure on decision-makers to act. Conversely, issues lacking media appeal or falling into the realm of “out of sight, out of mind,” tend to be neglected.

The technological landscape, particularly Web 2.0, has transformed advocacy efforts by enabling grassroots movements and issue-specific campaigns to flourish without traditional gatekeepers. Edwards and Hoefer (2010) demonstrate that social work advocacy groups utilizing Web 2.0 platforms can bypass conventional media filters, directly engaging with the public and policymakers. This democratization of communication has increased the visibility of issues that might otherwise remain off the political radar, exemplified by online petitions, social media hashtags, and viral video campaigns. These tools facilitate issue attention by fostering widespread engagement and applying social pressure.

In conclusion, social issues are cast aside or prioritized based on a combination of factors including perceived importance, organizational capacity, media influence, and the strategic use of digital advocacy tools. While some issues conveniently find their way onto decision-makers’ agendas due to active support and compelling narratives, others remain marginalized due to lack of visibility, support, or political relevance. Effective advocacy requires strategic framing, resource mobilization, and leveraging modern communication platforms to influence the policy agenda and address social inequities. Recognizing these dynamics can help advocates craft more effective strategies to bring critical issues to the forefront of policy discussions.

References

• Edwards, H. R., & Hoefer, R. (2010). Are social work advocacy groups using Web 2.0 effectively? Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3/4), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2010.489037
• Jansson, B. S. (2018). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (8th ed.). Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning Series.
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. HarperCollins.
• Berry, J. M. (1997). The interest group society. Westview Press.
• Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models. Routledge.
• Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: The service strategy of nonprofit advocacy organizations. Harvard University Press.
• Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
• McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing. In D. Rucht et al. (Eds.), The social movement society: Contentious politics for a new era (pp. 28-50). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Smith, S. R. (2000). The strategic use of framing in the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 583-603.
• McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (2010). Resources and social movement theory. In D. Rucht et al. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 134-157). Wiley-Blackwell.