| Course | MSW 513 Policy II: Soc Pol & Soc Just |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Policy analysis paper |
| Length | About 570 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 513 Week 2
Policy Analysis of a Uniform Foster Home Licensing Standard Applied to Relatives: The Theory Hidden in the Bedroom and Training Rules, a Payment Gap and Its Cause, the Reunification Finding That Complicates It and What Practice Shows
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 513: Policy II: Soc Pol & Soc Just
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Policy Analysis of a Uniform Foster Home Licensing Standard Applied to Relatives: The Theory Hidden in the Bedroom and Training Rules, a Payment Gap and Its Cause, the Reunification Finding That Complicates It and What Practice Shows
The Theory Buried in the Rule
The state's licensing rule never says why a grandparent must meet the same room sizes and complete the same 30 hours of pre-service training as a stranger. Read closely, it assumes two things. The first is that physical features of a home stand in for safety, so that a home meeting the measurements is safe and one that misses them is a risk. The second is that fairness means identical treatment, so that a lighter standard for relatives would be a lower standard for children. Neither assumption appears in the text. Both can be tested.
A Disparity With a Cause Attached
Federal figures show the gap. In fiscal year 2019, 27.6 percent of children placed with relatives were in placements that drew federal foster care funding, against 47.7 percent of children in other foster homes, and the federal government attributed nearly all of that difference to the use of the same licensing standard for both kinds of home (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023). One commenter on the federal rule reported that unlicensed relatives in that state received $654 a month in cash assistance for three children against $2,016 to $2,430 in maintenance payments for a licensed home. The gap is not a measure of need. It follows from the licensing decision.
One Rival Explanation, Taken Seriously
The rival view is that many relatives choose not to be licensed because they want less agency involvement, and that the gap reflects preference. There is some support for this. In one state's administrative data, children with unlicensed relatives were more likely to reunify with parents than children in licensed relative or licensed non-relative homes (Ryan et al., 2016). That finding cuts both ways. It suggests unlicensed kin care is not worse for children on reunification, which weakens any claim that the measurements protect them, and it means some relatives may lose something if licensing brings closer oversight. The analysis has to hold both.
Entitled, or Made to Prove It
Under the uniform rule, a relative must prove the home before receiving support; a non-relative recruits through the same gate but chose to stand at it. Relatives arrive in a crisis, often the same night. The rule treats a grandmother's spare bedroom as an application rather than a placement already made.
What the Evidence on Kin Placement Adds
A Cochrane review of 102 quasi-experimental studies found children in kinship care had fewer behavioral problems and less placement disruption than children in non-kinship foster care, with no difference in reunification (Winokur et al., 2014). The study designs are weak, but nothing in them suggests room measurements predict those outcomes.
What Practice Makes Visible
At the navigator program, the bedroom rule and the training hours are the two points where families leave the process. Neither is a safety finding.
References
Ryan, J. P., Perron, B. E., Moore, A., Victor, B., & Evangelist, M. (2016). Foster home placements and the probability of family reunification: Does licensing matter? Child Abuse & Neglect, 59, 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.07.006
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Separate licensing or approval standards for relative or kinship foster family homes (Final rule, 88 FR 66700). Federal Register.
Winokur, M., Holtan, A., & Batchelder, K. E. (2014). Kinship care for the safety, permanency, and well-being of children removed from the home for maltreatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), Article CD006546. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006546.pub3
The Chamberlain MSW 513 Week 2 instructions
The week 2 assignment is an analysis of one policy through a social justice lens, and it differs from description. Start by stating the policy's theory of the problem in your own sentence, because most rules never write theirs down. Then test that theory against data, usually a disparity between two groups. A gap on its own is a measurement; the paper must say what produced it and set aside at least one competing explanation with evidence, not a clause. Ask whether the policy treats people as entitled or makes them prove something first. Draw sources from more than one side, and trace any figure to where it was first published. Close with what your practice setting shows that the published data cannot. Keep eligibility and funding detail to what the argument uses.
How the MSW 513 Week 2 example is put together
The paper first states two hidden assumptions in the state rule: that room measurements stand in for safety, and that fairness means identical treatment. The disparity section uses federal fiscal year 2019 figures from the 2023 rule, 27.6 percent against 47.7 percent, and a commenter's report of $654 in cash help for three children against $2,016 to $2,430 in maintenance payments, then argues that the gap follows from licensing, not need. The rival section takes the view that relatives choose to stay unlicensed and gives it evidence from Ryan et al. (2016), where unlicensed relative care showed higher reunification. An entitlement section contrasts crisis placement with planned recruitment. The paper adds Winokur et al. (2014) on kin outcomes, noting weak designs, and ends with the two points where families leave the process at the navigator program.
MSW 513 Week 2 rubric: what full points look like
The heaviest weight in this analysis falls on whether the rule's theory is stated and then tested. A paper that walks through who is eligible and how the program is funded, then offers a judgment, earns limited credit however accurate it is. The next block of points goes to the disparity: faculty want a figure with a source and an argument about what caused it. A rival explanation must be engaged with evidence, and the paper should say what that evidence costs its own case. Sources from organizations on one side only are marked down. The entitlement question and practice implications carry the remaining content points, while APA format, a reference list that matches every citation and clear writing are assessed throughout. Instructors also notice whether figures came from the original publication or a secondary summary.
MSW 513 Week 2 help from the desk
The analysis that loses most is a four page description followed by a one paragraph verdict the evidence never reached. Close behind is a table showing a gap between two groups with no account of its cause. A third problem is a rival explanation dismissed in half a sentence, which reads as though the writer never considered it. Students also borrow figures from advocacy summaries without checking where they came from. If your assigned policy is different, perhaps a housing authority screening rule, a school funding formula or a Medicaid renewal process, the method holds: state the theory, find a disparity, attach a cause, test a rival and say what practice shows. A custom analysis built on your policy would trace each figure to its source and give the rival view enough room that a skeptical instructor would accept it.
Get a MSW-513 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions and the policy your section assigned, and a custom example is written against those instructions and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. What the policy assumes, and whether you think the assumption survives, remains your own argument to make.
More MSW 513 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 513 Week 1: Hardship Versus Injustice Post
- MSW 513 Week 3: Policy Brief
- MSW 513 Week 4: Stakeholder Analysis
- MSW 513 Week 5: Legislative Testimony Draft
- MSW 513 Week 6: Discussion Post
- MSW 513 Week 7: Advocacy Plan
- MSW 513 Week 8: Policy Change Presentation
- MSW 514 Week 2: Developmental Stage Analysis
- MSW 512 Week 2: Intervention Model Write-Up
- MSW 511 Week 2: Cultural Self-Assessment Reflection
- MSW 509 Week 2: Mood Criteria Analysis
MSW 513 Week 2 questions, answered
Is this the same analysis I did in the earlier policy course?
It shares the vocabulary and very little else. The earlier one asks what a policy does and measures it against criteria. This one asks what the policy believes about the people it acts on, and whether that belief holds up. A paper that produces a criteria table here is usually answering the previous course's question and loses points for it.
Where do I find data on the disparity?
Federal and state administrative reporting, program evaluations and peer reviewed work all serve, and the choice matters less than what you do with the number. Whatever the source, the paper states the measure, the years, the comparison group and who collected it. A figure quoted from an advocacy summary without its original source behind it is the version that draws a comment.
Do I have to say the policy was designed to harm people?
No, and papers that assert intent usually cannot support it. Most of what this course examines was built with a stated purpose somebody believed in, and produces its damage through the assumption underneath it rather than through malice. Tracing harm to a design decision is stronger than attributing motive, because a design decision can be shown and then changed.
Where can I find a free MSW 513 Week 2 sample paper?
A complete MSW 513 Week 2 policy analysis of a kin foster home licensing standard is posted here, with margin notes on the buried theory, the disparity and the rival explanation.
What rival explanation does the MSW 513 Week 2 sample take seriously?
That many relatives choose to stay unlicensed to avoid closer oversight, supported by a state study where unlicensed relative care showed higher reunification, which the paper says weakens part of its own case.