Influence 2.1/Spring '98

Influence 2.1/Spring, '98

CONTENTS:

National Contest Winners
From the Chairperson
Website
Mission, Goals and Objectives
Differences Among State Policies
Feature Interviews
Upcoming Events
Board of Advisors
State Policy Plus Two Contest-99
Did You Know?
Student Projects
Faculty Assignments
Membership Application

FIVE NATIONAL CONTEST WINNERS: STATE POLICY PLUS ONE-1998
Top

The National Committee sponsored the first annual state policy contest, STATE POLICY PLUS ONE, during the fall, 1997, and is pleased to announce the following winners and a brief summary of their entries. Congratulations!!

BSW Student: Mr. Robert E. Whittle, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, BSW Program. Mr. Whittle was a student intern in Fall semester, 1997, to a state legislator who asked him to assist small daycare operators in preparing to give testimony to a special committee of the legislature. He helped them do research, rehearse testimony, alleviated fear and anxiety, and coordinated many aspects of this effort. Mr. Whittle learned about the importance of planning, cooperation, and the use of research findings in influencing state policy.

BSW Faculty: Dr. Deborah Sturtevant, Hope College, Baccalaureate Social Work Program. Dr. Sturtevant requires students to write a position paper on a legislative bill and present it briefly to classmates while being videotaped for assessment and later discussion. Students must then submit a revised version of the paper in the form of a written or email letter to the Governor or a legislator. Each year, 70% of the students receive a reply which can be submitted at the final exam in lieu of an exam question.

MSW Student: Mr. Daniel Castro Romero, Jr. The University of Washington, School of Social Work. Mr. Romero is establishing a state-wide Latino organization in Washington state to increase the political power of the 350,000 Latino residents there. "Adelante" ("Forward") was formed to develop Latino leadership, public policy education and advocacy. This group organized a Lobby Day and witnessed the passage of the first bill proposed by Latinos. The Governor commended participants and pledged his support. For the 1998 legislative session, Adelante has a new agenda on education, civil rights, farm workers, housing, health care, affirmative action and welfare reform.

MSW Faculty: Drs. Alice K. Johnson, Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences and Cynthia Rocha, University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Professors Johnson and Rocha collaborated on a policy practice and advocacy assignment in which students plan, implement, and evaluate a strategy that promotes change at the organizational, community and state policy level. Students have influenced policies on domestic violence issues, increased access for persons with disabilities, amended day care legislation, and recommended changes in child welfare policy.

Ph.D. Student: Ms. Karen Gray, The University of Texas at Austin School of Social Work. As a leader of Austin Interfaith, an affiliate of Texas Interfaith, Ms. Gray has organized voters, lobbied legislators, analyzed welfare reform outcomes, and, along with others, turned this coalition into an effective grass-roots organization that is well respected by Texas legislators. Issues of job-training are current legislative items. The group has requested that surplus funds from the TANF block grants be allocated to job training.

All entries were reviewed anonymously in January, 1998, by a team of 11 faculty, students and social work practitioners. All entries, in addition to the winners, are located on the website at www.statepolicy.org/ Our thanks to all participants for sharing their efforts on influencing state policy. Remember: now is the time to consider entering STATE POLICY PLUS TWO! See inside this newsletter and the website for details. The cash prizes are up to $300 each!

FROM THE CHAIRPERSON
Top

Actions leap from convictions! During the few short months of the National Committee's existence, many individuals and groups have vaulted onto the steadily spreading effort to assist social work faculty and students in learning how to influence the formation, implementation, and evaluation of State-level policy and legislation. Printed in this issue are positive steps initiated by our committee and others that lead clearly to the following conclusion: social workers recognize the immediate connection between policy(s) and professional practice! These supportive responses, as you will read, are not only verbal, but also expressed by material, financial, and institutional resources. As the sayings go, the committee has "struck a chord," "voiced an idea whose time has come," and "formed a kindred spirit" with many.

Of course, we are still in Phase I of our efforts, commencing to alert social work faculty and students to the importance of knowing how to influence state social policies on behalf of our clients. We are just beginning to provide resources such as the website, a video, the national contest, and sample student projects and faculty assignments. Phase II will require a consolidation of the committee's activities with particular foci on expanding our national network to each and every educational program, establishing a predictable financial base, adding innovative products such as teaching modules, obtaining higher recognition of our mission and goals, and gaining a visible presence at conference sessions and professional meetings. Phase III will be occupied with collaborations among educational programs and state chapters of NASW and other associations such as NAMI and service agencies. During the next few years, an on-going assessment of committee goals will be conducted so that we distinguish between the outcomes we desire and those we actually achieve.

As I promised in the previous edition of INFLUENCE, 1(1), here is an analysis of the current strengths and trends that will assist us in promoting a social work emphasis in affecting state policy. Likewise, I suggest forces that will obstruct or prevent us from influencing state policy decision-making. Readers who also contributed to this analysis include: Michel Coconis, Grand Valley State University; Nancy Cook, Virginia Commonwealth University; Wendy Crook, Florida State University; Karen Haynes, University of Houston at Victoria; Sheila B. Kamerman, Columbia University; Wayne Munkel, University of Missouri at Saint Louis; and Ellen Netting, Virginia Commonwealth University. My thanks to each of them.

Here are some of the positive forces in our society, our profession, and our era that will strengthen, promote, support and enhance our mission of persuading students and faculty of the necessity of influencing state policy:

The NASW Code of Ethics requires social workers to advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions and promote social justice.
Many programs of social work education are located in capital cities with simple and immediate access to state legislative arenas.
Social Policy is a required CSWE Accreditation Standard for all programs.
The instructional integration of policy and practice (policy practice) is gaining increased acceptance.
Many field instruction agencies partake actively in formulating state policies and students can participate as a part of their practicum requirements.
More than others, clinical social workers have first-hand knowledge of how policies affect individual clients.
Many state NASW chapters are becoming more politically sophisticated.
Welfare reform is increasingly decided at the state level, compelling social workers to take action or be left on the sidelines.
Most social workers are educated specifically in grassroots-mobilization, community organization, communications, public relations, and lobbying.
In day-to-day realities, social workers are affected significantly by state policies which regulate their practices and their clients.
The "devolution" movement is a driving force that promotes curricular changes in social work education involving macro practice.
In some states, voters are electing social workers in increasing numbers to state offices, local boards, city councils, and jurisdictions.
Some faculty are involved in legislative coalitions, state policy-making and applied research, serving as role models for future generations of social workers.

Here are some of the negative forces in our society, our profession, and our era that will restrain, prevent, and complicate our mission of persuading students and faculty of the necessity of influencing state policy:

The majority of students initially prefer a clinical approach to social work rather than a policy or macro one.
Many faculty (HBSE, research, clinical, macro) are not yet convinced of the value of teaching an integration of policy with practice.
Social Work is often under-represented in state legislative and advocacy coalitions.
Students and faculty often fear getting immersed in state political and legislative processes.
Some social work education programs are not geographically located near a state capital.
Many practicing social workers lack training and skills in state policy-making and legislative processes.
Like the general public, social workers often believe that, as individuals, they do not have the power to make a difference in state policy-making.
Social workers are perceived as representing people who are disenfranchised, and therefore do not have a strong, voting constituency.
The complexity and controversy of current social service issues intimidates social workers, faculty and students.

For now, I will leave the required implications of this analysis to you. I welcome any and all suggestions that you care to forward to us. Please assist us with your ideas of how we can best build upon the positive elements and overcome the impediments. I will publish your ideas in the next issue.

ROBERT L. SCHNEIDER

WEBSITE
Top

The National Committee's website, http://www.statepolicy.org/, has been available since September 1, 1997. As of February 15, 1998, over 700 visits have occurred. Many linkages to state policy resources are listed as well as contest rules, social work sites (including social work jokes!) and breaking news stories about state and national policies. Sample student projects and faculty assignments are posted for all to review and use. Some faculty are putting the address on their course syllabi. Let us know what you think and send in recommended sites to Dr. Schneider.

MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
Top

See About Us on this webpage.

DIFFERENCES AMONG STATE POLICIES
Top

One of the predictable outcomes of shifting social policy decision-making to each of the 50 states is considerable variation in benefits, eligibility, compliance penalties, and priority-setting. Listed below are some examples of how states are establishing their own social policies and priorities.

The state of Idaho has set child-care standards that allow one (1) adult to care for 12 babies, nearly twice the limit in the next-most-lenient state.

Welfare reform has become fiscal relief for the states. With welfare rolls down, states are taking advantage of federal welfare aid, which is based on peak caseloads, and most are not spending more state funds than the minimum needed to avoid federal penalties. This windfall gives the states between $3 to $4 billion. New York used $268 million for state and local fiscal relief. Texas is siphoning off $152 million for "other purposes." Ohio used $200 million toward a state income-tax cut. Even though Ohio increased its cash welfare benefits by 6%, by dropping its welfare spending to 80% of previous levels, it has freed up about $100 million for other state uses. Connecticut transferred $24 million from its TANF block grant into its social services block grant and then withdrew an equivalent amount from its social services spending to return to its general fund.

Maryland now requires insurance companies to cover insulin and equipment that measures blood-sugar levels for the state's 190,00 diabetics.

Oregon and Idaho are taxing lottery winnings over $600. It will bring in $3 million annually.

Illinois is barring insurance companies and employers from using genetic tests such as DNA exams to deny health coverage or jobs.

Insurers in New Hampshire must consider the symptoms that send people to the emergency room, not just the final diagnosis, when deciding whether to pay emergency room claims.

In Texas, the state legislature voted in 1995 to contract out the jobs of about 13,000 eligibility workers to a private company. Fears exist that profit-making companies in charge of welfare programs will twist the incentives from assisting the poor to making money. Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin are also considering use of private companies.

In Florida, St. Johns County welfare officials have ordered that anyone applying for county assistance for certain medical care first submit to urine screening for illegal drug use. If they fail the test, they will be denied services.

In South Carolina, welfare clients, including those on AFDC, who have a drug or alcohol related arrest, reveal evidence of illegal drug use, or show maternal drug abuse must be evaluated by the state's alcohol and drug abuse department. They may be ordered to seek treatment and if they refuse, they can be denied assistance.

Alabama has capped the number of people with AIDS and HIV who can enroll in drug assistance programs. South Dakota and Wyoming have set ceilings on the amount spent for each patient's drug costs. Florida has limited the number of people who may receive protease inhibitors. Only New York and North Carolina cover all available protease inhibitors and other antivirals. Arkansas, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota do not cover any of the protease inhibitors.

FEATURE INTERVIEWS
Top

INFLUENCE conducted interviews with social work experts in several fields of practice and asked them what major issues are mounting in light of "devolution" or the "new federalism," i.e., allowing states to have primary policy and decision-making responsibility. Their remarks follow below.

Dr. King Davis, Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Social Work, former Commissioner of the Virginia Dept. of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse. Topic: mental health managed care.

For decades, numerous studies have shown disproportionate health and mental health risks and higher insecurity among the poor generally, and in the black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, and rural, white populations specifically. As part of the current conservative Republican contract, devolution of mental and physical health care raises intense concerns about equality of access, standards, and quality of care for populations of color and the poor. The historic problem of inequity of access for the poor may not disappear under a devolutionized managed health care scenario, but may in fact intensify as the focus shifts dramatically towards the singular issue of containing costs. As state acquire unilateral power to reinvent Medicaid and mental health services, it is unclear whether states can be entrusted to make decisions about eligibility, benefits, access, standards, and quality without reverting to policies that support inequity.

Prior public mental health policies [institutionalization, deinstitutionalization, community mental health], which were implemented as singular strategies for lowering costs, resulted in inequity of services for populations of color and the poor. It is unknown whether managed health care can produce quality, savings, equity of access, and culturally relevant community-based care to recipients. Helping managed mental health systems find balance is a key task for social work practice and schools of social work

Dr. Sheila B. Kamerman, Professor, Columbia University School of Social Work. Topic: children

The new welfare reform legislation (TANF) offers the states an historic opportunity to "end welfare as we know it," and to create something new: policies and programs that respond to demographic and social change, are alert to labor market realities, and protect the futures of many poor children. The legislation is very direct in the power and prerogatives assigned to the states. There is an invitation here to leadership, creativity, and major innovation. Many observers worry that devolution will stimulate states to a "race to the bottom" so as to discourage an immigration of poor people from other states. I hope that some states consider a "competition for the top," building on their traditions of humane and efficient government.

Other than the tough work requirements (work within two years and caseload quotas for states) and the five-year TANF "lifetime" limit, there are few fixed Federal rules or constraints on the use of TANF funds. There are resources available. First, state finances are currently strong. Second, there are substantial windfalls, allowing the states a financial bonanza which they can use to support their plans. Finally, the states will also free some of their own money in light of flexible maintenance-of-effort requirements.

Dr. F. Ellen Netting, Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Social Work. Topic: aging and long-term care.

There are a number of complex aging and long-term care issues. First, social workers need to be involved in debates about the futures of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs are being debated nationally, and the directions they will take in the future have incredible implications for how we view private/public partnering. Several states are moving toward "integrated" managed care services in which Medicare and Medicaid dollars are merged and fixed capitated payments work requires a knowledge of administration and finance that may not be adequately covered in our curricula. In addition, we must not lose sight of the very vulnerable recipients of these services and the need to advocate for their needs when restructuring of programs has unintended consequences.

Second, devolution requires social workers to coordinate services across state units and mandates. As states become more responsible for additional aspects of long term care such as housing for the elderly, complications could arise. Social workers have to keep an eye on what is happening nationally while at the same time be familiar with what is happening in their own states and others. While one could frame this as an opportunity for creative approaches, it will take tremendous commitment to comprehend fully the implications of these changes for older persons.

Dr. Phyllis Day, Professor, University of Indiana East, Social Work Program. Topic: civil and minority rights.

Devolution can result in the real loss of money to ethnic minority families and single mothers with dependent children. When people lose already limited subsistence, they must concentrate on food rather than on dealing with civil wrongs. This loss will further the breakdown of families, increase emotional problems even to suicide, and foster more violence against one another and against the system.

Loss of care standards in privatized service organizations such as day care, nursing homes and prisons is another concern. This will increase as incorporation and monopolization increase the political power of new "social entrepreneurs" to cut back already minimal b>welfare

In order to respond effectively to devolution, social workers must be able to research the consequences of "welfare reform" and inject students and faculty into the state policy/political culture. Local chapters of NASW and schools of social work are ideally situated to monitor welfare reform at the local level, but few are doing any research. Researchers should be developing questionnaires, gaining access to clients, surveying their experiences and perceptions, and reporting results to the public and decision makers. Of urgent concern is the status of children as their mothers make the transition from welfare to work and the consequences of time-limits.

Simultaneously, social work faculty should be developing special curricula for placing students in the state policy arena. Such students must be particularly capable and motivated. Internships are easy to arrange with legislators and legislative committees, providing MSW supervision is assured.

Dr. Jan Hagen, Professor, State University of New York at Albany, School of Social Work. Topic: domestic violence

The development of services for battered women and their children has occurred primarily as the result of activity at the state and local level. A recent, significant policy development related to battered women and their children stems from the "devolution" of the nation's welfare program. The new welfare law includes the Family Violence Option under its provisions for TANF. This option gives states flexibility in applying TANF rules to victims of domestic violence and allows for supplemental services such as confidential screening and referrals.

Social workers in states which have not yet chosen the Family Violence Option have a role to play through state NASWs and other advocacy networks to encourage the adoption of this provision. In states where the option has been selected, social workers in the field of domestic violence need to be "at the table" as the state develops its implementing regulations. Influencing and monitoring the implementation of the state's response under this option will contribute to the development of meaningful services and interagency linkages that serve battered women and their children.

UPCOMING EVENTS
Top

Spring, 1998-April 1, 1999. National contest, "STATE POLICY PLUS TWO," for all BSW, MSW, and Ph.D. students and faculty. $300 cash awards and engraved plaques to 6 winners. See flyer, newsletter, or website for all rules and deadlines for submission. (http://www.statepolicy.org)

July 19-24, 1998. Faculty Development Institute on Social Welfare Policy and Services sponsored by the College of Social Work, U. of South Carolina. Includes workshops and informational exchanges on teaching and practicing social policy. Outstanding faculty include: Donald Chambers, Phyllis Day, Ron Dear, Diane Dinitto, Leon Ginsberg, Bruce Jansson, Howard Karger, David Stoesz and Kathleen McInnis-Dittrich. Fees: $200 before June 1 (Students: $115). Ph: 803.777.4666. Fax: 803.777.3498. Email: leon.ginsberg@sc.edu

Fall, 1998. Distribution of 28" video about student and faculty participation in state policy and legislation to all 600 social work educational programs in the USA. See your program's liaison or dean/director about its availability.

October 7-11, 1998. Proposal submitted introducing the committee's video submitted to the Annual Meeting of the Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors in Albuquerque.

March 11-14, 1999. Two proposals submitted: 1)Educational Innovation and 2)Policy Symposium submitted to the Annual Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education in San Francisco.

March 11-14, 1999. Annual Membership Meeting of Influencing State Policy. A "Premiere" for the committee's video on state policy in collaboration with University of California-Berkeley School of Social Welfare.

BOARD OF ADVISORS
Top

See About Us on this webpage.

STATE POLICY PLUS TWO
Top

See National Contest, State Policy Plus Two on this webpage.

DID YOU KNOW??
Top

The Millennium Project 1998 of the Educational Policy Commission of the Council on Social Work Education awarded a $5,000 grant to the National Committee through Virginia Commonwealth University's School of Social Work in December, 1997. A broadcast quality, 28" video about student and faculty involvement in state legislation and policy-making is under production with footage coming from several states. National distribution of the video to all social work education programs will occur in fall, 1998. Liaisons will promote its use among their students, faculty and community.

The Connecticut chapter of NASW is spearheading a pilot project with the state's BSW and MSW programs, seeking to determine how educational programs and chapters can collaborate in influencing state social policy. Plans are underway for a Student Lobby Day, training, letter-writing campaigns, phone banks, and lobbying for the NASW/CT legislative agenda. Call Steve Karp at 860.257.8066 or email at naswct@worldnet.att.net for more information.

As of December, 1997, sixty-nine (69) social workers serve as elected representatives in state legislatures. There are 37 females and 32 males, and 51 Caucasians, 9 African Americans, 6 Hispanics, and 3 Asian Americans. For names and addresses, visit: www.naswdc.org/Govwk/offhdr.htm/ Contact: naswdc@.org

NASW is forming a Community Practice Section which will provide a newsletter, linkages to other community practitioners, information on best community practices, a track at NASW conferences, etc. NASW needs 500 members to indicate a interest by writing Marie Flowers at NASW, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4241 or calling at 202.336.8311, ext. 268.

Under the leadership of Drs. Sharon Keigher, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Jim Reinaidy, University of Minnesota, and Jim Kunz, Columbia University, a national survey of MSW programs is underway regarding the level of emphasis currently placed on state social policy by social work program curricula. A national survey of BSW and Ph.D. programs will follow and interested researchers for these two levels can contact Dr. Janet Dickinson at Appalachian State University, (BSW) phone: 704.262.6399 or Dr. Robert Schneider (Ph.D.) phone: 804.828.0452 or Dr. Tracie Hoffman, University of Utah, phone: 801.585.3219.

The National Association of Deans and Directors awarded a monetary grant to the National Committee to support its initial activities. Deans Frank Baskind of Virginia Commonwealth University, Kenneth Millar of Louisiana State University and Patricia Ewalt of the University of Hawaii jointly sponsored our proposal to initiate a website, a newsletter, contest awards, and a national survey.

The Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research, under the leadership of Dr. John Lanigan, sponsored the National Committee's Board of Advisor's and members planning dinner and breakfast at the APM of the Council of Social Work Education in Orlando, March 4-5, 1998. It is also sponsored the expenses of the student member of the Board to attend the meetings. Many, many thanks!

The University of Houston's Political Social Work concentration, the Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors, and The Institute for the Advancement of Political Social Work are co-sponsoring the awards for the 1999 STATE POLICY PLUS TWO national contest. Such support is highly appreciated.

There are approximately 275 Liaisons to the National Committee, each of whom has been assigned by their Dean or Director. This crucial network is the sine qua non of our strategy to promote learning about the state legislative processes. The Liaisons keep students and faculty informed about opportunities to participate in state policy making, teaching resources, the national contest, and related events. Recruitment of the remaining 325 programs remains a high priority. [See section on Liaisons in About Us on this webpage]

Social workers are taking the lead in state level policy development under the leadership of Dr. Michael Sherraden, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis. In the late 1980s, Professor Sherraden proposed raising welfare asset limits and creating matched savings accounts for the poor, called individual development accounts (IDAs). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 gave states the opportunity to create IDAs. An important feature of this law is that any money saved in IDAs is exempt from means testing for all federal assistance programs, thus acknowledging the importance of asset building for impoverished families. MSW students from GWB have worked to assist legislators in drafting and organizing this policy effort. The Missouri legislation, although not yet enacted, has been widely circulated, and has influenced IDA policy in several other states. As of August, 1997, 24 states had included IDAs in their welfare reform plans This is an example of social work students skillfully guiding policy innovation at the state level.

STUDENT PROJECTS
Top

See winners on this newsletter's first page. Also see site called Student Projects on this webpage. A full description student of contest entries from STATE POLICY PLUS ONE can be found under the site STATE POLICY PLUS TWO on this webpage.

FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS
Top

BELOW ARE SAMPLE ASSIGNMENTS USED BY SOCIAL WORK FACULTY TO PROMOTE STATE POLICY INCLUSION IN THEIR COURSES. SEE ALSO THE SITE FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS ON THIS WEBPAGE. ENTRIES FROM THE 1998 CONTEST WILL ALSO BE FOUND AT THIS SITE.

1. Students are asked to write a paper based on their experience tracking a bill or legislative policy during the actual session of the state legislature. Requirements: attend committee meetings; interview patrons of the bill; analyze values, politics, and policy connection to micro practice; and personal critique of legislative processes.

2. Interview a high-ranking policy-maker or policy analyst and discuss the role of a social policy analyst. Write an analysis of the outcomes of the interview. Student must address: theory of policy formulation; value systems and their impact on policy-makers; role of social workers in policy implementation and evaluation; apply findings from literature to your interview data; and recommend methods for improving social work impact on state policy. (Ph.D. level)

3. In a Human Behavior and Social Environment course, students are asked to write a 4-6 paper in which they identify a client, usually from their agency practicum; discuss theoretical perspectives from the human behavior literature and how these theories are reflected in the client's situation; and identify a piece of legislation in the current state legislative session and analyze how it will affect the client's circumstances.

4. Students are required to write a letter to the editor of the major newspaper(s) about a social welfare policy issue that is misrepresented in the paper or magazines. Students are expected to do research and address the other side of the issue. 25% of most student letters are published.

5. Under faculty leadership, students, faculty, and community workers participate in a three (3) hour simulated state legislative session. The basic knowledge of how a legislature operates is presented in an effective learning environment.

6. Students are asked to analyze a contemporary state policy issue in a social work related field such as mental health, social services, substance abuse, etc. The 13 page analysis includes a description of the problem/issue, historical background, intent of the policy, identification of constituents, application of an analytical framework/model, conclusions and personal recommendations. Class presentations are required along with a one-page summary of the policy and issues.

7. Based on an action-oriented approach to curriculum, a year-long assignment to students requires them to participate in the state legislative process and to analyze the process and outcomes of formulating social policies. Assignments are based on the cycle of legislative activities such as pre-legislative tasks, gathering data and research, surveys, lobbying at the legislature of a particular bill, and analyzing effect of the bill on clients.

FACULTY LIAISONS: ADVOCATES FOR SUCCESS
Top

The National Committee is developing a national network of faculty liaisons who implement critical tasks, without which, the mission and goals of the project cannot be attained. Each social work educational program (approximately 600) has been invited to assign one or more faculty members to serve as its liaison to the national committee. Any faculty member is eligible and the committee asks only for a commitment to the following: 1)willingness to distribute information about committee goals and activities to students and other faculty; 2) readiness to respond to questions about the committee, its projects and plans from others; and 3) agreement to respond to an annual survey by the committee regarding successes, failures, changes, and/or planning options. To date, approximately 200 liaisons have agreed to be active links to the committee. Their universities and names are published on the committee website at www.statepolicy.org/ If there is no liaison appointed at your program, consult your Dean/Director or call Dr. Robert Schneider, National Chairperson, 804.828.0452. See Liaisons on this website.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Top

Please send your name, address, phone number, fax number, email address and the annual $25 membership/liaison fee payable to the: "National Committee" to:

Dr. Robert L. Schneider, Nat'l Chairperson
Virginia Commonwealth University
School of Social Work
Box 842027 Richmond, VA 23284-2027

Questions? Please contact Dr. Robert L. Schneider.