Positive Step Towards Participation

I feel that this week's articles actually bring possible solutions to the table in terms of populations that have low levels of political participation. In the Schneider and Ingram piece, it seems as if certain groups of people are damned to whatever social construction is placed upon them by public officials. But the Soss and Mettler pieces propose that a change in the way policy/social programs are implemented and constructed can bring about positive outcomes.

Soss illustrates how clients receiving benefits from the AFDC are much more hesitant to express their concern or disapproval of the agency and how they are treated compared to members of SSDI or even parents involved in the Head Start program. At first, I believed these differences were due to the maintenance of eligibility requirements that AFDC clients are routinely mandated to complete in order to receive aid. However, in light of the Mettler article and how veterans are also required to routinely prove their eligibility and their satisfaction with the GI Bill, I thought differently. Benefits for the GI Bill were administered smoothly and possibly more easily than for the AFDC clients. Also, the parents of Head Start were required to participate in local meetings that allowed them to get involve in the decision-making and policy-making processes. This provided Head Start members with some form of political efficacy which the AFDC members did not have. If social programs can implement their policy and distribute benefits in a more hassle-free method and can also provide ways in which members are informed about the rules of the programs and given opportunities to speak up, then maybe those groups of people placed into the more negative and weak social constructions will be more compelled to participate. Soss makes a point that if policy-making was more responsive rather than directive, then maybe more people will be driven to participate.

Someone had suggested blogs where people can express their concerns and opinions. I think this is great method and can be supplemented by local meet-ups where clients can voice their needs and preferences. This is definitely not a solution that has been well thought out or intricately planned, but it seems that the articles display the differences between certain social programs, and if we could just adopt some of the characteristics of those programs where clients are satisfied, then maybe it can help us get closer to a more participatory public.