|
|
Influence
2.2/Fall '98
NATIONAL
CONTEST: STATE POLICY PLUS TWO-1998-99
The Committee
announces the second annual national contest, STATE POLICY PLUS TWO for
the 1998-99 academic year. This exciting contest challenges the creativity
of social work faculty and students across the USA, and, based on last
year's results, it will provide remarkable examples of how social work
students and faculty can make a difference in state policy-making and
the legislative process. (See INFLUENCE, 2(1), Spring, for 1998 winners;
check out our website; and read Student Projects and Faculty Assignments
in this issue to scan many of the 1998 entries). Many state legislatures
meet in the Spring and this year's contest will allow students to participate
actively in these sessions. Go for the cash ($300) and commitment! The
Deadline is April 1, 1999!! Organize your class! Line up your friends!
Rules are included in this issue.
Back
to Top
FROM THE CHAIRPERSON
Welcome
back! After 18 months of initial effort by many, the National Committee
is prepared to continue its mission with vigor and ingenuity. The 50 American
states continue to make policy decisions affecting social work clients
and the professional who serve them (See section below on different state
policies). There is no doubt that social workers need to be active in
influencing state policy decisions because, simply put, if we do not,
someone else most definitely will.
Our particular
focus this year will be on supporting the network of 260 liaisons who
have already been assigned to connect our committee to their faculty
and students. We will also keep on persuading the other programs (about
50%) to name a liaison during the coming year.
In 1998-99, we
invite each liaison to promote faculty and student participation in
the following:
- Entering the
national contest, STATE POLICY PLUS TWO;
- Promoting the
committee's website, www.statepolicy.org/;
- Showing the
new video, Making A Difference: Influencing State Policy, to students;
- Working with
field instruction departments to identify state policy related assignments
for students in their practica; and
- Announcing the
theme, "Policy Affects Practice Daily and Directly," among colleagues,
students, and professional social workers.
Monthly email messages
will be sent to all liaisons with ideas, resources, and examples of how
to highlight these activities in their programs.
1998-99 is a year
in which significant activities will take place. Funding must be stabilized
and in November, a fund raising action will begin. A premiere of the
new video will be shown in San Francisco during CSWE's program in March.
The national contest, STATE POLICY PLUS TWO, will be promoted
until its deadline of April 1, 1999. The website is going to be enhanced
to offer more information and challenges to students. Collaboration
with The Urban Institute will continue. Members and liaisons plan to
submit proposals to several regional and national conferences on topics
related to state policy-making.
In this issue,
I also call your attention to a report submitted by Steve Karp, Executive
Director, NASW-CT. During a pilot year, 1997-98, Steve led an initiative
to work with the programs in social work education in CT and discover
how a state chapter and programs could promote student and faculty involvement
in influencing state policy. As you will see, valuable lessons were
learned and we hope to encourage others to provide similar leadership.
In 1998-99, additional pilot projects are underway at NASW-NC, and VCU
School of Social Work Field Instruction Dept.
I ask each of
us to challenge ourselves this year to pursue strategies that will promote
our mission at each social work educational program. It is difficult
work requiring patience and persistence, but very rewarding when one
sees what students can do and what it means for the future. Yes, you
can make a difference! Yes, you can influence state policy!
Back
to Top
WEBSITE
The National
Committee's website, http://www.statepolicy.org/,
has been available since September 1, 1997. As of September 15, 1998,
over 1,200 visits have occurred and the site was recently updated. Many
linkages to state policy resources are listed as well as contest rules,
social work sites, the newsletters, 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 put the web-address
on their course syllabi. Dr. Wendy Crook (wcrook@mailer.fsu.edu)
of Florida State University School of Social Work is heading up a new
committee to improve and oversee the site. Send in recommended sites to
her or Dr. Schneider.
Back
to Top
FEATURE INTERVIEWS
During
the summer of 1998, INFLUENCE surveyed several professional social workers
who are also elected representatives in their state legislatures. Featured
in this issue are: Representative Barbara H. Richardson of New Hampshire,
Representative Mary-Lou Dickerson of the state of Washington, Senator
Ted Mathern of North Dakota, Representative Michael Brennan of Maine,
Senator Jim Yochim of North Dakota, Representative Barbara Ross of Oregon,
and two returns without a name on the form.
1. How have
social workers, in your experience as a state legislator, demonstrated
a commitment to working in the state legislative or policy arena?
Richardson:
The social workers in the New Hampshire state legislature have worked
hard at promoting statutes that benefit children, families, and social
justice in general. It's interesting that the Democratic party has attracted
social workers in our state. In fact, I know of no Republican social
workers in the New Hampshire State Legislature.
Dickerson: Very few social workers understand or are willing
to participate in the political process. This is ironic since it is
the political process that shapes much of the working conditions of
social workers. There are, of course, some exceptions to this rule.
A few outstanding social workers consistently lobby the Legislature
on behalf of their clients and organizations' interests. They also become
involved in campaigns, an essential part of a strategy for effective
lobbying.
Mathern: Some social workers have demonstrated a commitment to
the legislative arena by working for or contributing money to elections.
The social work organization has sponsored forums about legislative
and social policy matters. Social work educators have invited me and
other legislators to speak about social policy in their classes. The
NASW chapter has hired a lobbyist to interact with the legislators.
Brennan: Social workers have been concerned with welfare reform,
health care, and professional regulation issues. Because of changes
in funding and the growing number of private client practitioners, it
is often difficult to mobilize social workers to be part of the legislative
process. The Maine NASW has made a renewed commitment to working with
the Legislature.
Yochim: In North Dakota there are three social workers holding
leadership positions in administration and policy settings. Three social
workers currently serve in the Legislature and a previous Lt. Governor
was a social worker.
Ross: Very little. They are tired and feel their commitment is
to their program or their clients. Social workers think that lobbying
and policy work is someone else's job. A few in administrative positions
have worked effectively to educate legislators.
Anonymous #1: Social work as an organization is very ineffective
in influencing state policy and legislation. Individual social workers
have worked through other organizations such as women's groups and child
advocacy to be moderately effective.
Anonymous #2: They are developing more of an interest and involvement
in some of the legislation which affects clients.
2. How did your
education and experience as a social worker help or hinder you in your
career as an elected state legislator?
Dickerson:
I had a concentration in community organizing which assisted me in understanding
the fundamentals of political organizing.
Mathern: My own education and experience as a social worker have
helped me be more comfortable with public policy questions. I am able
to consider different ways of problem solving and have acquired facilitation
skills for meetings and confrontations. My experiences helped to clarify
my values, enhancing my decision making and leadership skills. Social
workers, however, are often perceived as impeding the progress of eliminating
government's role in helping people and communities.
Brennan: Many issues which come before the Legislature have important
policy and clinical implications. It has been very helpful to understand
the clinical implications of policies related to health care, education,
and mental health. It is always difficult to try and balance my social
work experience with the potential appearance of conflict of interest.
Yochim: The ability to see problems as multilevel and multifaceted
stems from my social work background. An understanding of systems helps
keep proposed solutions realistically assessed.
Ross: It was very helpful. I was able to put together social
trends, economic conditions, and policy decisions much better than folks
who came directly from the private sector with no similar background.
Anonymous #1: It helped a great deal! As a clinical social worker,
I understand personality and group dynamics that allow me to be persuasive
and empathetic.
Anonymous #2: Experience as a problem solver, community organizer,
and administrator helped me to get legislation through the process.
A major barrier is skepticism [by others] about social work which taints
my approach to solving problems by labeling "common sense" approaches
as "political or liberal."
3. What specific
advice would you offer to programs of social work education in your state
regarding student and/or faculty participation in state legislative processes?
Richardson:
I would hope that social justice and community grass roots organizational
issues would be stressed more fully and strongly in social work education
programs.
Dickerson: Social work educators should encourage participation
in the political process at all levels, including campaigns. All MSW
students should be taught how legislative decisions impact social work
in the state and how to get involved in the process.
Mathern: I believe that social workers need to be further involved
in legislative processes. The code of ethics and social work theory
calls for public policy involvement, but no or few internships are available
in this area. In the twelve years of my Senate tenure, I have had only
one social work class visit the legislature.
Brennan: During the past three years, the state of Maine has
undergone significant changes in its welfare system and mental health
programs. Faculty members and students could have played a major role
in shaping and influencing these changes. Unfortunately, an organized
voice from the social work community was not always available.
Yochim: Encourage social workers to think beyond personal agendas
such as salary or benefit issues to advocate for the well-being of the
general public.
Ross: They need to understand that who gets elected is important,
not just lobbying after the election. If social workers want to have
influence, they need to work during elections for good candidates.
Anonymous #1: Join NASW and the clinical society in your state
to push for changes that reflect the profession's values. Social policy
classes could adopt an issue and organize to push a specific agenda
about it.
Anonymous #2: All students should be required to take courses
in policy and the legislative process as well as social action.
4. In the next
10 years, what do you believe will most affect social workers and/or their
clients?
Richardson:
National health care, including mental health services, will be an issue
of significant importance to social workers and society as a whole.
It is hoped that this would happen before another decade passes.
Mathern: The economy and the human service budgets of the states
will be a major issue for social workers and their clients in the next
ten years. Human services programs and policies are subject to politics,
a process in which precious few social workers or clients are involved.
Brennan: The results of welfare reform need to be closely monitored.
Several states are leaders in welfare reform while others have used
it to reduce payments and participants. Managed care is still evolving
in many states. Policies affecting social workers and clients could
have enormous impact.
Yochim: Maintaining focus on the well-being of clients will become
increasingly difficult in this time of managed care and contracted services.
Ross: The economic system in our country is crucial. Will the
gap between rich and poor continue to widen?
Anonymous #1: Issues include: managed health and mental health
care, lack of funding for living wages for social workers, and lack
of education for clinical social workers to deal with the wave of new
personal/social problems.
Anonymous #2: Defunding of human services and "blame oriented"
policies appears to be the direction of our state. We see mental health
patients housed in jails or homeless.
Back
to Top
NEW VIDEO: MAKING A DIFFERENCE: INFLUENCING STATE POLICY
The 1998
Millennium Project 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. The committee has produced a broadcast quality, 28 minute video
featuring social work students and faculty involved in legislation and
policy-making in several states. The video illustrates how policies affect
clients everyday and how the legislative process of making state laws
works. Specific examples of how students and faculty can influence state
policy are provided. National distribution of the video (no charge)
to all social work education programs through their liaisons or program
directors will occur after November 1, 1998. Liaisons will want to
promote its viewing among their students, faculty and social work professionals.
Do not forget the video's premiere in San Francisco on Friday, March 12,
1999 at 6:45 PM during CSWE's annual meeting!
Back
to Top
DIFFERENCES AMONG STATE POLICIES
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.
In Virginia, the Child
Day-Care Council revised regulations allowing one teacher to monitor 15
children ages 3-6 in a balance mixed age group. Educational and training
qualifications were reduced. The state secretary of health and human resources,
Claude Allen, put the $37 million surplus from welfare reform into a rainy-day
fund instead of investing it in job training or earned-income tax credits.
New Hampshire
was number nine in 1996 in per capita income in the United States, but
ranked 50th in tax dollars spent on higher education.
By 1996, ten states
ran casinos; 36 states and the District of Columbia operated lotteries;
six states ran video poker; and 24 allowed Indian-run gambling. In 1994,
Americans spent $482 billion on gambling.
The Oklahoma House
of Representatives voted in 1998 to preclude public schools from hiring
or contracting out to anyone who is gay or lesbian.
Minnesota now
requires employers to set aside a private spot "other than a toilet
stall" for nursing mothers who want to pump milk during unpaid breaks.
Minnesota also exempts public breast feeding from indecency measures
as do 16 other states.
Teenage pregnancy
rates dropped 3% in Arkansas and 20% in Vermont between 1992-1995.
In Oklahoma, WIC
recipients cannot use their benefits to buy any brand name of cereal
such as Cheerios or Kellogg's Raisin Bran because generic brands are
usually cheaper. In Texas, they can buy Cheerios, but not the 10 oz.
box.
In state welfare
reform efforts, two-thirds of new jobs are at suburban sites, but 75%
of welfare recipients live in central cities or rural areas, few own
cars, and half lack access to transit systems.
In 1995, Florida
cut its payments to Medicaid HMOs by 14%. Ohio dropped its rates 19%
from 1994-1997. New York City cut monthly per-member rates to HMOs between
1994 and 1997 by 29%. The effect of these cuts has made some HMOs abandon
the poor.
New York and New
Jersey require their agencies to track the names of those who test positive
for HIV and to notify individuals whose past or current partners tested
positive for HIV.
In Massachusetts,
a commission has issued its first year report on responsible fatherhood.
Their primary focus has been on the best interests of the children,
the responsibilities of parents, and not parental rights.
The top ten states
for job growth ranked by percentage annual rate of growth from March,
1997 to January 1998 are: Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Texas, Utah, Colorado,
Delaware, Georgia, South Carolina, and California.
To review the
states' provisions of welfare reform for immigrants, go to website:
www.StateServ.hpts.org/
and click on the heading Welfare Reform and Immigrants.
Back
to Top
FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS
A brief
description is provided below of some entries from the 1998 national contest,
STATE POLICY PLUS ONE. For current listings, check the website
at www.statepolicy.org/
under Faculty Assignments.
- An MSW faculty
member from Massachusetts required students to integrate human rights
principles with state initiatives that have the potential to impact
social policy. The purpose of the assignment was to familiarize students
with human rights instruments and their ability to affect social policy
on the state level. Students tracked state legislation and participated
in lobbying efforts, comparing state implementation instruments and
mechanisms with human rights instruments. Students reported success
in creating awareness among policy makers that human rights violations
occur not only in foreign countries, but in the state and local arenas.
- An MSW faculty
member from New York required students to participate in a group effort
to influence or advocate for a state social policy or state legislation.
The assignment consisted of five task force groups which addressed
issues related to aging, child welfare, adolescents, women, and substance
abuse. Students identified an issue of concern and developed a strategy
for planned change. After evaluating the outcome of their efforts,
students analyzed the factors which inhibited or contributed to their
efforts.
- A BSW faculty
member from New York created a senior level field placement with the
state chapter of NASW. Two students were in the first unit and focused
their attention on issues related to families and children. They met
with PACE, the political action committee of NASW every month. Students
also worked on behalf of NASW endorsed candidates running for election
in the fall. They have distributed materials on policy issues to their
faculty and classmates. They also helped to organize the state NASW
rally day.
- An MSW faculty
person from Utah required students to complete assignments regarding
the impact of "Welfare to Work" legislation at the micro, mezzo, and
macro level. On a micro level, students assessed how Welfare Reform
would affect actual clients. On a mezzo level, students examined Welfare
Reform's impact on agency functioning. Students addressed the issue
on a macro level through direct lobbying of the state legislature
regarding issues generated by their micro and mezzo level assignments.
Students participated in "advocacy learning" by linking with existing
coalitions, mobilizing the media, utilizing the internet, and empowering
"client lobbyists".
- MSW faculty
members from Ohio and Tennessee developed a policy practice and advocacy
assignment designed to help students plan, implement, and evaluate
a strategy aimed at promoting change at the organizational, community,
and state level on behalf of families and children. The project emphasized
persuasion, coalition building, and task group development. Projects
included tracking legislation, planned change, organizational change,
and community-wide education campaigns. Students gained competency
in working with task groups and committees, utilized problem solving
models and gained experience in advocacy and resource mobilization
tasks.
- A BSW faculty
member in California designed an assignment for 5 senior level students.
The primary purpose of their efforts was to learn how to build a grassroots
coalition. They assisted poor women on public assistance in fashioning
strategies to affect the decisions of the state legislature. They
sponsored four rallies at the state capitol in the spring semester.
They arranged meetings with state representatives to speak with them
about the issues. Student spoke about their project on local radio
several times, wrote press releases, and held interviews with two
local newspapers and one TV station. They also organized four fund
raising events. They also formed coalitions with several other groups.
And all in the spring semester!
- An MSW faculty
member developed an assignment in which students participated in the
restoration of a disability program for low-income persons in Maryland.
Students played an active role in strategizing a winning campaign
to restore the program. Students attended coalition and activist meetings
and planned and implemented activities such as a march through the
statehouse, and a mock funeral procession at a disabilities forum.
The student's efforts, in coordination with other campaign members,
were successful in persuading the Governor to restore cash assistance
on a limited basis.
- A BSW faculty
member in Michigan required students to write and present a position
paper on Michigan's welfare reform bill. Student presentations were
videotaped for viewing and assessment by classmates. Student were
then required to submit a revised version of the paper in a written
letter or e-mail to the Governor or a legislator. Students who received
responses to their letters were able to submit these responses at
the final exam, in lieu of an exam question.
Back
to Top
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
INSTITUTE
In late
July, 1998, the College of Social Work of the University of South Carolina
sponsored an institute on social welfare policy and services in historic
Charleston. Several committee liaisons and members were active in presentations
and discussions about integrating policy practice and political content
into social work courses. Janet Dickinson previewed the committee's video,
"Making a Difference: Influencing State Policy." Allen Vogt presented
a paper, "W-2 Welfare Legislation: A Case Study in Social Policy Analysis
and Practice." Terry Carrilio spoke about "Developing and Implementing
a Statewide Model for Supporting Overburdened Families." Tracie Hoffman
and David Derezotes discussed "Clinically Focused MSW Students Working
with State Legislatures: Making Policy Practice Relevant." Kathy Byers
and Jill Nielsen presented findings on "Preparing Activist Practitioners
to Influence State Policy." Mary K. Rodwell. ? Preliminary discussions
for a future conference include the National Committee as one of the planning
partners. Attendees were very pleased with this institute and its opportunities
to discuss policy.
Back
to Top
STUDENT PROJECTS
There are
many creative ideas that can be developed by social work students that
will truly make a difference for clients or a cause. Below are examples
from the 1998 national contest, STATE POLICY PLUS ONE. Visit the
website at Student Projects to see other examples.
- An MSW student
in Texas served as an intern in the Public Policy office of the local
United Way, acting as an informational liaison between the Texas legislature
and social service professionals, non-profit agencies, and community
leaders. The student produced public policy bulletins and a handbook
explaining how to communicate with elected officials. The bulletin
was faxed to 400 service providers, agencies, and community leaders
throughout the state. The development of the bulletins involved researching
state and federal legislative processes, tracking progress of bills
and activities in the Texas State Legislature, and disseminating the
document to service providers and community leaders.
- An MSW student
in New York combined her field placement in the New York Comptroller's
Office with a project to influence the legislature and Governor as
they debated the future of New York's welfare programs. The student
issued a report, outlining the need for evaluation as part of any
reforms. In addition, the report explained how evaluation could be
done and suggested legislative language to include in the bill. The
report was published and Speaker of the New York Assembly endorsed
the inclusion of evaluation in welfare reform.
- MSW students
in Virginia participated as members of the Advisory Council on Aging
and produced a packet of information about issues that affect elderly
Virginians. The packet provided information on state aging services,
baby boomers, retirement services and resources, elder care, community
care, physical and mental health issues, Medicaid, and elder abuse.
The packet was used to educate a 1997 gubernatorial candidate about
aging issues during the election and has the potential to impact social
policy and legislation that will be passed during the new administration
and in the future.
- Three BSW students
in Pennsylvania lobbied the state legislature to change the criteria
for advanced education for welfare recipients in order that they obtain
and maintain self-sufficiency. The students wrote a position paper
stressing the need for education and skills training within workfare
programs. They submitted this paper to a state representative. Along
with classmates from their Social Change class, the students engaged
in a letter writing campaign to raise the issue with state legislators.
In addition, the students used their Research and Statistics class
to develop surveys targeted to welfare recipients, employers, and
social service agencies in an effort to educate the public and private
sectors about the status of education and career opportunities for
welfare recipients.
- An MSW student
in Houston, Texas expanded a student coalition to preserve affirmative
action programs in Texas. The coalition organized a demonstration
at City Hall, held discussion panels and university rallies. Efforts
of the coalition contributed to the defeat of a proposition which
would have ended affirmative action programs in Houston. The outcome
of the vote in Houston had statewide implications as passage might
have fueled further anti-affirmative action sentiment throughout the
state.
- An MSW student
in Missouri participated in a policy development practicum which involved
writing legislation and organizing sponsors in the state legislature
in favor of a bill that would institutionalize Family Development
Accounts (FDAs) throughout the state. FDAs provide the mechanism for
low-income families to accumulate assets and invest in life goals
such as education, job training, small business development, and home
ownership. The student's lobbied key senators and representatives
and their efforts led to the introduction of supportive legislation
in both the House and Senate with bi-partisan cosponsors.
- A group of MSW
students from Tennessee compiled a summary report on the outcome of
the Healthy Start Program, a preventive parent education and support
program begun in Tennessee in 1995. The primary target audience for
the report was state legislators and other stakeholders who have influence
over future funding for the program. The report documented positive
outcomes of the program for first-time mothers, their babies and the
communities in which they live. The summary report described who benefits
from the Healthy Start Program and how the program influences local
communities.
- As a leader
in Austin Interfaith, an affiliate of Texas Interfaith, a Ph.D. student
advocated to have surplus funds from TANF block grants be allocated
for job training for welfare recipients. Together with other member
of Austin Interfaith, the student lobbied legislators, analyzed welfare
reform outcomes, and organized voters. Austin Interfaith's efforts
culminated in a rally of fifteen hundred members converging on the
state capital. As a result of their grassroots organizing, the group
was successful in getting $12 million appropriated to job training,
with access to a $70 million contingency fund.
- An MSW student
in North Carolina arranged a joint placement as an intern at the NC
General Assembly and the government relations for the NC chapter of
NASW. The student used this placement to follow lobbying efforts for
welfare reform in the state legislature and observed its implementation
in several counties in the state. The student then prepared a needs
assessment proposal for one of the counties to incorporate the needs
of recipients into their welfare reform plans.
- In Tennessee,
a group of MSW students conducted a pilot study examining the relationship
between a polluted river and health problems among citizens living
near the river. Students designed a survey pertaining to individuals
and their families' contact with the river and their health status.
The group then organized an e-mail campaign to raise awareness of
the pollution's adverse effects on the lives of community members.
The group promoted a university wide campaign in which e-mails were
sent to Tennessee state officials, Vice President Al Gore, and EPA
Administrator Carol Browner, voicing concern about the polluted river
controversy. Thestudents' efforts resulted in increased community
awareness about a serious environmental issue in Tennessee.
- On a field trip
to a New Jersey prison for sex offenders, an MSW student learned that
a State Department of Corrections policy allowed for prisoners to
have pornography in their cells. The student wrote to her state senator,
advocating for a change in the policy. While tracking this issue,
the student learned that the state legislature was considering closing
the prison and placing the prisoners in the general prison population.
She wrote another letter to her senator, arguing that while a questionable
policy within the prison needed amending, closing the facility would
be detrimental to the potential rehabilitation of sex offenders.
- An MSW student
in Washington State organized 350,000 Latino residents into a state-wide
Latino organization, "Adelante" ("Forward"). The organization was
formed to develop Latino leadership, public policy, education, and
advocacy. Adelante held a lobby day during the 1997 legislative session
and a statewide Latin Legislative Issue conference. Their efforts
resulted in the passage of the first bill proposed by Latinos. For
the 1998 legislative session, Adelante has expanded its agenda to
include education, civil rights, farm workers, housing, health care,
affirmative action, and welfare reform.
- A group of MSW
students in Massachusetts collaborated on a project for their Social
Policy and the Addictions class. The students participated in an effort
to establish a new policy aimed at preventing substance use among
pregnant adolescents. After researching the issue, the students developed
a community service model for the prevention of substance abuse by
this population. They then drafted letters to legislators advocating
for more comprehensive programs for pregnant adolescents.
- A BSW student
in Tennessee served as an intern to a state legislator who asked him
to assist small day-care operators in preparing to give testimony
to a special committee of the state legislature. The student helped
them do research, rehearse testimony, alleviated fear and anxiety,
and coordinated many aspects of this effort.
Back
to Top
NASW-CONNECTICUT PILOT PROJECT RESULTS
Under the
leadership of Steve Karp, MSW, Executive Director of the state chapter
of NASW in Connecticut, a pilot project involving programs of social work
education and the state chapter produced some challenging results during
its initial year, 1997-98. NASW-CT met with faculty from all five BSW
programs and one of the two graduate programs in order to create methods
of collaborating on student involvement in influencing state policy in
CT. Here are some of the lessons learned:
- You need a committed
faculty member with contacts with students to get them to participate.
If you want to be sure students will become involved, a required assignment
is necessary. Otherwise, students with the time or inclination to
act are few. Most have no experience in lobbying or electoral work.
- It became obvious
that many students and faculty did not see the connection between
policy outcomes and legislative lobbying and electoral campaigns.
- Students who
took the plunge into legislative processes found it to be empowering
and positive. Many said they never knew how easy it was to gain access
to a legislator.
- Different educational
programs had different ideas about involving students: one program
worked through the student organization and another built the project
into specific classes. Flexibility was important.
- Finding time
to coordinate a meeting(s) among the programs and NASW-CT was difficult.
Some programs only teach policy in the fall although the legislature
meets in the spring. NASW-CT got very absorbed in the legislative
action in the spring and found it difficult to find time to assist
students.
- Other obstacles:
Some programs were reluctant to require students to travel to the
capital; lobby days and rallies, while experiential and visible, may
not be the best use of scarce resource to teach effective influencing
of policy; and faculty were poor at distributing legislative alerts
to students.
Finally, there were
these inspiring examples of successful student involvement:
- Every program
of social work education had students present for the NASW-CT Lobby
Day.
- Several students
testified at public hearings on a bill.
- Others brought
clients to the capital to meet with legislators or to testify.
- Students staffed
a phone bank to mobilize NASW members.
- A class distributed
legislative "alerts."
- Some BSW program
required students to track a bill and find out who their representative
were.
NASW-CT is working
again with the programs in the state and will build on the previous year's
experience. For more information, email Steve Karp at naswct@worldnet.att.net
or phone at 860.257.8066. Many thanks to Steve and the CT programs!
Back
to Top
MENTAL HEALTH
PARITY ACT
In the
Spring issue of INFLUENCE 2(1), we alerted readers to the federal Mental
Health Parity Act that went into effect in February, 1998. The intent
of the legislation is for employers to offer the same dollar amount of
health insurance for mental treatment as they do for physical ailments,
surgery, and all covered diseases. A large loophole has been uncovered
that changes dollar caps to visit caps. It will allow employers to limit
the number of hours patients can spend with therapists or days they can
be hospitalized. There are other loopholes: exempting companies with fewer
than 50 employees, allowing insurers to assess clients higher copayments
and deductibles for mental health, and excluding substance abuse treatment
from the equal spending requirement. An employer may also simply decide
to stop providing mental health benefits altogether. Check your state's
laws and see what is happening.
Back
to Top
UPCOMING EVENTS
- Fall, 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)
- October 7-11,
1998. Committee meeting at annual BPD conference in Albuquerque,
NM for liaisons and interested BSW faculty. Discussion of plans, issues,
and national contest.
- Fall, 1998.
Distribution of 28" video, Making a Difference: Influencing State
Policy, to all 600+ social work educational programs in the USA.
See your program's liaison or dean/director about its availability.
- March 11,
1999, Thursday, Noon to 1:00 PM. Lunch session with Board of Advisors,
liaisons, and members to discuss future plans and recommendations.
CSWE Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Location: TBA
- March 12,
1999, Friday evening from 5:30 to 6:30 PM. Annual Member/Liaison
Meeting of Influencing State Policy. Open to all. Discussion of future
plans, call for feedback, leadership opportunities, funding, etc.
CSWE Annual Meeting in San Francisco. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND! Location:
TBA
- March 5,
1999, Friday evening from 6:45 to 8:00 PM. "Premiere" of video,
Making a Difference: Influencing State Policy. Introduction
by noted social work "star." Open to all. CSWE Annual Meeting in San
Francisco. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND! Location: TBA
Back
to Top
DID YOU KNOW....
The University
of Houston's MSW Political Social Work concentration, The Association
of Baccalaureate Program Directors, and the University of Connecticut's
Institute for the Advancement of Political Social Work are co-sponsoring
the $300 awards (6) for the 1999 STATE POLICY PLUS TWO national
contest. Such support is highly appreciated and our heartfelt thanks goes
to each of these organizations.
New Hampshire
has a 424 member legislature--the largest in the nation.
As of September
10, 1998, there are approximately 260 liaisons , each of whom has been
assigned by their Dean or Director to the National Committee. This crucial
network is the sine qua non of our strategy to promote learning about
the state legislative processes. Recruitment of the approximately 250
remaining programs remains a high priority. Please encourage your program
to appoint a liaison(s). We want 100% eventually. [See following section
on Liaisons]. There are 46 members (not official
liaisons, but supporters) and 19 Board of Advisors.
Several pilot
projects are planned for 1998-99. The NASW chapter in North Carolina
is developing a plan to collaborate with the state's social work educational
programs in order to promote state legislative initiatives between the
chapter and schools. The field instruction department at Virginia Commonwealth
University School of Social Work is exploring methods of incorporating
state policy issues into student agency assignments. The field instruction
departments at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University,
and Western Michigan University are discussing strategies for including
state policy issues in student's assignments in practica. Learning from
these pilot projects will assist the committee's efforts to help other
programs in the future.
The National Committee
has published a handsome brochure available to anyone who would like
copies. While supplies last, they are available on a first come, first
served basis.
Ms. Beth Morley,
a graduate student at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Social
Work has joined our committee as a new member of the Board of Advisors.
She replaces Ms. Betsy Cook who graduated in May, 1998, whom the committee
thanks for her service, commitment, and insights.
During the summer,
the Committee cooperated with The Urban Institute in Washington, D.
C. by sending to all members several policy briefs developed from research
by the Institute's Assessing the New Federalism project. Researchers
are examining the effects of welfare reform in 13 states in particular
and have data from all 50 states as well. Future collaborations are
possible. See their website at: www.urban.org.
Dr. Joseph Wronka,
one of our liaisons, of Springfield College in MA has published (1998)
Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
There is an email
address at majordomo@colossus.net
that examines the way American government operates including how the
national agenda is set, debates on interpreting Supreme Court decisions,
and dealing with public apathy. Another email address is corp-welfare@ursus.jun.alaska.edu
for those who may want to compare how our nation supports corporations
versus its low income citizens.
A national survey
of MSW programs is near completion regarding the level of emphasis currently
placed on state social policy in social work curricula. Results will
be published in our next newsletter. If interested, email Dr. Jim Reinaidy
of the University of Minnesota (MSW) at reina004@maroon.tc.umn.edu
National surveys of BSW and Ph.D. programs are underway and interested
researchers for these two levels can contact Dr. Janet Dickinson of
Appalachian State University, (BSW) dickinsonjc@appstate.edu
and Dr. Kathy Byers of Indiana University (BSW) kvbyers@ucs.indiana.edu
or Dr. Tracie Hoffman of the University of Utah (Ph.D.) thoffman@socwk.utah.edu
Call Dr. Robert Schneider at 804.828.0452 for general information.
Funding our committee
is a major priority. Another grant application to the National Association
of Deans and Directors (NADD) was sent in early September to help us
with operational costs. In late fall, 1998, a fund-raising drive with
the goal of collecting a $25 annual membership fee from each of the
Board of Advisors, liaisons, and members will take place.
By the CSWE meeting
in March, 1999, in San Francisco, the committee will change its name
from the current descriptive, but cumbersome one to something shorter
such as Influence State Policy and Legislation! (ISPAL!) or Students
and Faculty Influencing State Legislation (SFISL). Please be creative
and let me know if you have alternative names very soon at rschneid@saturn.vcu.edu
I need to finalize it by October 1 in order to change letterhead and
the brochure. The name of the newsletter will remain INFLUENCE.
Back
to Top
FACULTY LIAISONS: CENTERS FOR SUCCESS
The National
Committee continues to develop 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
(over 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 260
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.
During the 1998-99
academic year, all liaisons are asked to focus their efforts on at least
one of the following strategies in order to promote the mission of our
committee:
- Announce and
promote the national contest, STATE POLICY PLUS TWO through
flyers, posters, class assignments, projects, field tasks.
- Inform students
and faculty of our website's address and contents at www.statepolicy.org/
- Collaborate
with your field instruction department in identifying student assignments,
projects, and activities related to state policy in the agencies.
- Promote the
theme, "Policy affects practice daily and directly," among
your students and colleagues through articles, examples, talks, and
curriculum development.
- Make sure that
all students and faculty view the new video, Making a Difference:
Influencing State Policy, when it comes to you in Nov.
Below are listed some
of the TACTICS that liaisons are encouraged to try in order to promote
faculty and student participation in state-level policy-making. Experience
from 1997-98 indicates that three main points of entry can lead
to a successful campaign to promote involvement: clear, expressed sanction
from top administrators; faculty requiring students to enter the national
contest as a course requirement; and distribution of materials and examples
to faculty that assist them in course preparation, provide content on
state policy, and offer ideas to field instructors.
- Ask your Dean
or Director to make announcements by memo or at meetings about the
committee's mission and the national contest. Their support is very
crucial for promoting participation.
- Use the national
contest and student projects as applied ways to inject policy and
macro content into field practica and agency assignments. Such projects
are ready-made assignments for busy field instructors.
- Announce by
email or memo to your colleagues and students that you are the LIAISON
for the committee at your school or department.
- Make extra copies
of the newsletter, INFLUENCE, and distribute to all faculty
and students.
- With a computer/projector,
invite faculty and students to a presentation of our website. This
meeting will introduce participants to the Committee's mission and
you can illustrate the number of resources available to them. [www.statepolicy.org]
- Suggest to faculty
colleagues that they incorporate the triad of problem, policy, and
practice into their assignments or lectures.
- Distribute a
sheet of sample student projects to class sections. See the website.
- Invite a selected
group of faculty to a special meeting in order to ask for their ideas
and recommendations about incorporating the contest or state policy
content into courses. This will increase a sense of ownership on their
part.
- Identify faculty
representing all or many areas of the curriculum to a meeting in order
to show them how state policy can be a part of their instruction.
E.g., HBSE, research, direct or clinical practice, social justice,
macro practice, field instruction.
- Sponsor a local
, school version of the national contest among students. If a group
of students can discuss ideas and see others involved in a project,
it may increase overall participation.
- Meet with the
leaders of student associations to explain the contest. Ask to attend
a general meeting of the association to provide more details.
- Attempt to incorporate
the contest and state policy content into existing events, structures,
assignments and program activities. Rallies, retreats, forums, panels,
guest speakers, alumni gatherings, school newsletters, field agency
fairs, etc.
- Distribute national
contest flyers to each faculty member or at faculty meetings.
- Send in a copy
of the contest flyer to your local or state chapter of NASW.
- In your program's
curriculum committee, build support for a review of course content
on state policy in course syllabi.
- Distribute the
Committee's Rationale handout to faculty and students in order to
provide them with the significance of the projects and content.
- Identify local
agencies that are involved in lobbying or influencing state policy
and explore the development of field placements for students with
them. These may be new agencies for the program to consider for practica.
State chapters of NASW are excellent opportunities as well as other
organizations such as NAMI state chapters.
- Recommend to
students that they volunteer to work in an upcoming political campaign.
- Using former
graduates of your program, plan a seminar for students and faculty
that focuses on the impact of social policy on social work practice.
- Distribute individual
copies of the national contest flyer to students by giving colleagues
sufficient copies to pass out in their class sections.
- With other social
work educational programs in the state, plan a rally day for social
workers at the state capital or during the state legislative session.
- Invite state
legislators who are social workers or who support human service priorities
to your program for an opportunity to speak formally or informally
with them and to recognize them for their efforts.
- Offer to speak
briefly in colleagues' classes about the projects, contest, or Committee.
- Share newspaper
or journal articles with colleagues on issues about state policies.
- Invite students
to a brown bag lunch session in order to talk with them (BSW, MSW,
Ph.D.) about the contest or projects in which they may be interested.
- Be sure to give
to faculty the address to the Committee's website and suggest that
they include it on their course syllabi each semester. [www.statepolicy.org]
- Design a state
policy project or initiative that includes the field instructor and
the student.
Back
to Top
FEATURED PAPER
"Shaping
the Future of State Policy: What Are We Doing?"
by Mr. Edward Feaver,
Secretary of the State of Florida
Department for Children and Families
This
session, "Shaping the Future of State Policy: What Are We Doing"
was sponsored by The National Committee for Educating Students to
Influence State Policy and Legislation at the Council on Social Work
Education Annual Meeting in Orlando, FL 3/8/98.
Good morning! I
want to thank you for inviting me to be a part of this session. As Secretary
for the Department of Children and Families in Florida I am responsible
for working with people affected by economic instability, abuse and
neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, and developmental disabilities.
Social workers
are the backbone of most of the programs and services we provide or
for which we contract. I am acutely aware, therefore, of the importance
of their preparation for working in the field. Though I am not a trained
social worker, I have been exposed over the years to many who are
and have almost always been impressed with the dedication and commitment
they bring to their work. I want to thank all of you for your part
in preparing such fine people for some of the most difficult work
our society has to offer.
You asked me
to address several questions that relate to the role of social
workers in society and the role of social work educational centers
in preparing them for this work, all within the context of "the new
federalism" or "decentralization." I would like to use quotes
from two social workers in our department to frame this issue:
"The
basic principles of social work are to help clients realize their
aspirations, to alleviate distress and to advocate for them. We counsel
them and manage their cases and service delivery, but leave advocacy
for others to do."
"The devolution
of public assistance programs means that social workers no longer
have to worry so much about how to develop policy "clout" at the
state or federal level. Their influence can be felt much closer
to home."
In the first instance,
the role of the social worker is seen as one of service provider;
and in the second, it is perceived as one of change agent within
the context of service provision. This tension between providing
services to persons in need and participating in developing the policies
and structures that can eliminate or reduce the need for services is
certainly not new, but the theater where it is being played out has
shifted over the last eighteen years (not the last two, as some folks
contend) to the local level, a level where being an advocate has the
potential for significant change. It is no longer possible for social
work as a discipline to simply prepare people to provide services and
expect to be relevant. (This does not mean that service provision
is any less valuable than it ever was, but it does mean that service
provision has to be conducted in a new context, with new objectives,
and with new skills, all of which demand advocacy and participation
in the political process.)
Social workers
today need:
- to be prepared
to accomplish outcomes, not just to provide services;
- to understand
the difference between caring for people in need, and enabling people
to overcome the need for care; and
- to hold the
community as well as the individual responsible for failure to meet
outcomes. The community includes politicians, business folks, educators,
neighbors, churches, and other interest groups.
To do this effectively,
schools of social work need to help social workers understand the concept
of achieving outcomes--of improving the condition of the individual
and the community in which she or he lives. (This sounds simple, but
I am constantly amazed at how difficult it is for most of us to think
in terms of outcomes and positive change.) Programs must also provide
social workers with analytical tools which help them think about
root causes of problems, enabling them to outline the process they use
to deliver services and to determine if/how their work has the potential
of contributing to positive outcomes. Social workers need to use data
as the basis for making decisions about appropriate interventions and
help them measure what they do. Schools should prepare them to work
in partnerships with a host of diverse organizations, people and services
that are focused on outcomes.
Let me cite
just a few examples from our work where the provision of services
and participation in the political arena and the development of policy
are inextricably bound together:
Welfare
reform: This area illustrates well the shift that has occurred
in the perception of what government should be doing. One positive
view is that people have value and should be provided the tools and
be expected to be productive -- employment and self-sufficiency are
the intended outcomes. An alternate, maybe equally strong view: welfare
was an opportunity for individuals to take advantage of society, to
be irresponsible. Therefore, just eliminate it (welfare)--reduction
in participants is an end in itself.
The role of
the social worker is to shift from determining eligibility to assessment,
case planning, facilitating, and coaching. Social workers must also
advocate for the supports that are needed to achieve the outcomes
of employment and self sufficiency -- to build coalitions with labor,
education, child care and employers.
Child protection
is an equally strong example. The social worker has to respond to
some of the most difficult human situations society presents and
make incredibly difficult decisions often without community consensus
as to mission or outcomes. At the same time, social workers have
to be able to engage the larger community in what they are doing
if they are going to be successful. They have to interact with the
community to own the problem of abuse and neglect, to participate
in framing the solutions. They are the experts whose voice is often
missing in state and local policy and priority setting discussions
because many are not prepared to do this.
Mental
health and developmental disabilities. The issue here is not
only the provision of service but building networks of care that
insure continuity and that build support within communities for
persons with mental illness and developmental disabilities to live
in communities.
In all of
these examples in Florida, service delivery design is shifting from
the state to the local level, including local wages coalitions,
privatization of child protection services and the linking of law
enforcement, the courts and service providers and shifting mental
health service delivery from clinics to communities.
In addition
to increased localization of service delivery design, we are actively
involved with the legislature in what they call performance based
budgeting, which is really performance based management,
emphasizing outcomes and performance indicators negotiated annually
and included in the Appropriations Act. The intention is to eliminate
programs and services which do not accomplish outcomes.
Examples of what
we are doing with schools of social work and other educational efforts
to prepare social workers for effective service and change roles include:
Education
and Training. In 1996, the Legislature required the schools of
social work to modify social work curricula to include a focus on
child protection, and it required the department to give hiring preferences
for child protection jobs to social work graduates who have a concentration
in child protection. Nine schools of social work and two schools with
social work studies are involved in this process. Two private schools,
Barry University and Nova University have reduced their tuition to
attract department employees to attend child protection related programs
at their university.
We are also
working closely with the School of Public Health and the Florida
Mental Health Institute, both at the University of South Florida,
on research and outcome studies as well as the design and implementation
of prevention programs for all of the target populations served
by the Department. 12% of child protection staff are trained social
workers; we have an objective of increasing this to 50% by 2001.
We expect to have 150 interns this year, a number that continues
to grow each year. Competency-based pay and promotion plan are being
developed. We require training by our professional development centers
which are based in universities, and pay and promotion are keyed
to successful completion of classroom and field training. Schools
of social work have formed an alliance with these centers and now
provide much of the required training as part of the social work
curriculum. This training, combined with an internship reduces the
required training time from 12 weeks to four weeks and results in
a much better prepared person.
Research
and Evaluation. The schools of social work can play a significant
role in this arena, particularly if they tie research and evaluation
to the preparation of practicing social workers. One of the best
ways to prepare students to think about outcomes and the importance
of measuring results is to get them involved in applied research,
even at the undergraduate level. For example, we would welcome the
participation of students in field research related to the effect
of welfare reform on employment of participants, on attitudes of
employers toward public assistance recipients, on duration of stay
of public assistance recipients who have joined the labor market,
on the impact on children when mom goes to work. and on the importance
of support services to continued employment and to the progress
of children. There are equally interesting research issues related
to mental health, substance abuse, child protection and developmental
services.
Advocacy.
Schools of social work must develop advocacy as part of the discipline.
There are very few entitlements left for the poor, for children,
for the mentally ill, and for the developmentally disabled. Social
services has to compete for resources far more aggressively than
it did when most of the so-called social service safety net was
created. There is much more skepticism about the effectiveness of
what social services try to do and doubt as to whether government
should be involved in these services in the first place. It is irresponsible
to train social workers to provide services without also helping
them understand the relationship between individual need and social/
economic systems and power. It is critical that they see that part
of their job is to advocate for the people they serve and to build
community support for solving social problems. This kind of preparation
should happen in schools of social work now.
Back
to Top
BOARD OF ADVISORS
- Ms. Nancy
Amidei, University of Washington
- Dr. Darlyne
Bailey, Case Western Reserve University
- Dr. Ruth
Brandwein, State University of New York at Stony Brook
- Ms. Beth
Morley, Virginia Commonwealth University
- Dr. Ronald
Dear, University of Washington
- Mr. David
Dempsey, National Association of Social Workers
- Dr. Diana
DiNitto, University of Texas at Austin
- Dr. Fernando
Torres-Gil, University of California at Los Angeles
- Dr. Leon
Ginsberg, University of South Carolina
- Dr. Lorraine
Gutierrez, University of Michigan
- Dr. Karen
Haynes, University of Houston
- Dr. Nancy
Hooyman, University of Washington
- Dr. Bruce
Jansson, University of Southern California
- Dr. Alice
Johnson, Case Western Reserve University
- Dr. Sheila
Kamerman, Columbia University
- Dr. Ellen
Netting, Virginia Commonwealth University
- Dr. Jack
Sellers, University of North Alabama
- Dr. Michael
Sherraden, Washington University
- Dr. John
Turner, University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill
- National
Chair:
Dr. Robert Schneider,
Virginia Commonwealth University
|
Back
to Top
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
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
Back
to Top
|
|
