Elder Rights and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program

Netting, F. Ellen; Huber, Ruth; Paton, Ruth Nelson; Kautz, James R.

doi:10.1093/sw/40.3.351

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, there was no database to collect outcome data in a uniform manner for a long time, which meant that the state programs remained relatively independent of one another. Although both a database and reporting mechanism have since been developed (Trends, 1999), providers continue express uncertainty about many of the program's goals and objectives and, whether or not they truly understand, as these have not been clearly described to them (Harris-Wehling et al, 1995;Netting et al, 1995). In practice, this makes it particularly challenging to assess the program and to contribute to policy modifications that ultimately impact older adults.…”

Section: Language Of the Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Workers’ Impact on Policy Through Regulations: A Case Study of the U.S. Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program

Beltran

Miller

Hamler

2021

Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Involvement in the political process in the United States is critical for social work professionals, as social policies dictate funding and programming in social work practice. Yet, there is little to no focus given to the regulation writing process in the social work literature in the United States. This article contributes to the scant body of knowledge that addresses the regulatory process from a social work perspective. A brief overview of the regulation writing process is provided, followed by a case study using the regulations for the U.S. Older Americans Act Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program to illustrate the process. Findings A total of 85 comments, submitted to the Federal Register docket, were analyzed using content analysis. Findings reveal that comment submissions varied greatly in terms of length, source, and input. Notably, findings indicate low participation from the social work profession. Application The open comment period of the regulation writing process offers a free, but effortful, window of opportunity for social workers to engage in post-legislative advocacy. There is a need to support the involvement of the social work profession in the regulation writing process, through practice and training enhancements.

show abstract

Section: Language Of the Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Workers’ Impact on Policy Through Regulations: A Case Study of the U.S. Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program

Beltran

Miller

Hamler

2021

Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Victims, targets, protectors, and destroyers: Using disputant accounts to develop a grounded taxonomy of disputant orientations

Harrison

2003

Conflict Resolution Qtrly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of dispute resolution have generally neglected the perspective of the disputant in favor of the perspective of the dispute handler. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect studies have addressed some of the circumstances under which individuals give voice to their grievances, but these have generally neglected the area of voice beyond offering predictions of when it will be used. This paper examines how forty‐five disputants express voice as they pursue grievances through an ombud's office. The data yielded a grounded taxonomy of disputant motivations with placement of blame and desired outcome as underlying dimensions. Seven categories of disputants emerged from the data: information seekers, exception seekers, victims, enforcers, protectors, targets, and destroyers. In addition to expanding our understanding of voice, the focus of this research on disputant accounts, motives, and desired courses of action has implications for the strategies dispute handlers choose in managing grievances and may lead to the development of better organizational disputing systems.

show abstract