|
|
Influence
3.1/Spring '99
FROM
THE CHAIRPERSON
State legislatures
are in full swing at this time of the year. Issues range from mental health
reform to preventing the sale of dog/cat fur to lowering the age from
18 to 16 in order to drop out of high school to HMO reform. I trust that
you, your colleagues, and students are finding ways to influence what
is happening in your state. With a determined effort, policy skills, and
a good proposal, it is amazing what can happened. Good luck!
Influencing State
Policy (ISP) continues to progress towards its mission and goals, filling
this newsletter with a summary of its activities and plans. One important
item is our interview with some of the leading clinical social workers
in the country and their views about the relationship of policy to clinical
practice. I urge readers to share these insights with our direct practice
colleagues and friends. It seems to me that one of our future strategies
must be to broaden our base of support, and what better group to collaborate
with than clinical social workers who complement our goals and objectives
so well. If readers have additional ideas about such a plan, please
communicate them to me.
Making a Difference:
Influencing State Policy, our recently released 25 minute VHS video,
is being viewed by increasing numbers of social workers and students.
I wish you could read evaluative remarks received in the past month.
It appears that 8 out of 10 viewers find the video highly useful in
making the connection between policy and social work practice. Students
particularly like to see the role models actually influencing state
policy. Many are planning to use the video in the future to increase
student participation in policy-making processes and study. If ISP can
show the video only once in the country's 510 educational programs,
literally thousands of students may be persuaded to join in the fun
and frustration of influencing state policy. If you do not have a copy
of the video, please read on about the features of the video later in
the newsletter.
Another challenge
I would like to toss out to our liaisons and readers is this:
Convince at least one (1) student from your program to enter STATE POLICY
PLUS TWO, our national contest! Think of it this way: if only one student
from each program entered the contest, there would be over 500 social
work students learning how to influence state policy! What easier way
to commit yourself to our mission can you find? And, as a reminder:
start with small successes when you want to change big!
In the newsletter,
there are two Calls for Papers announcements and I urge readers and
members to consider seriously submitting proposals to these important
conferences. In order to disseminate our goals, we must present it in
as many forums and from as many angles as possible. And we have to repeat
it many times. Why not enjoy the weather in South Carolina and the urbaneness
of New York City at the same time?
In closing, I
recall that March, 1999, is our second anniversary and I want to thank
everyone for their efforts to make Influencing State Policy a reality
in our educational programs and profession. We may not always be connected
or interact sufficiently, but together, we are able to create positive
change through our persistence and clear focus. Someday, in the not
so distant future, I hope that influencing state policy will be commonplace
for social workers. For now, please take satisfaction in our current
efforts and continue to strive for progress.
Back
to Top
VIDEO DISTRIBUTED NATIONALLY
Our video,
Making a Difference: Influencing State Policy, arrived nationwide in over
670 mailboxes about January 1, 1999. Approximately 510 liaisons or program
directors of social work educational programs, 50 state chapters of NASW,
and other friends of ISP received without charge their VHS copy and many
are already using it in courses, conferences, and training programs.
The purpose of
the video, funded by the 1998 Millennium Project of the Education Policy
Commission of CSWE, is to educate and inspire social work students,
faculty and professionals to participate in state legislative decision-
making and influence policies that affect our clients. Themes tucked
into the video are: 1) policies impact social work clients daily and
directly; 2) clinical social workers are in a key position to influence
policy, and clinical practice complements policy; 3) policy practice
is a part of the tradition of social work; 4) influencing state policy
is not as mysterious as it looks; 5) the NASW Code of Ethics require
all social workers to advocate for just policies; 6) students are the
future of the profession; 7) if social workers are inactive, others
will step in and set policies; and 8) one person, one coalition, one
group can make a difference.
Among the social
workers "starring" in the video are U. S. Representative Debbie Stabenow,
MSW, D-MI; Texas Representative Elliott Naishtat, MSW; Professors Sheila
Kamerman, Diana DiNitto, Edward Mullen, and Robert Schneider and a cast
of students and social work professionals from VA, TX, MI, CT, NY, WA
including Daniel Romero, an MSW student who organized Adelante to promote
legislation beneficial to over 350,000 Latinos in WA.
The video is scripted
into three parts: I) the current scene of the new federalism and why
social workers need to pay attention to it; II) a basic primer about
how the legislative process works; and III) a call to action including
15 activities that students, faculty and professionals can initiate
in order to influence state policies. It runs 25 minutes and has closed
captioning available on each copy. A set of discussion questions, a
handout, and an evaluation form accompany the video.
In order to use
the video, check with the liaison or program director at a social work
educational programs near you and/or the Executive Director of the state
NASW chapter, all of whom received a copy. To purchase (no rentals)
your own copy, please send $15.00 plus $2.50 handling=$17.50 to Dr.
Robert L. Schneider, ISP, VCU School of Social Work, Box 842027, Richmond,
VA 23284-2027 or call him at 804. 828.0452. Proceeds are going to support
future activities and the STATE POLICY PLUS contest of ISP. Allow three
weeks for delivery.
Back
to Top
PILOT PROJECTS
ISP is
collaborating with three pilot programs which are attempting to learn
more about encouraging social workers, students, and faculty to influence
state policy. On-going reports will be provided in future issues. Below
is a brief summary of their efforts mid-way through the academic year:
NASW-North
Carolina
Ms. Myrna Miller,
MSW, JD, who is the chapter Legislative Director, has been coordinating
much policy activity throughout North Carolina since fall, 1998. She
has organized an email network for policy educators in all BSW and MSW
educational programs in the state through which she has forwarded information
about policy issues, meetings, etc. She has called each program and
identified a faculty member who is willing to participate in her network
and the pilot project. Student participated enthusiastically in an advocacy
training last fall in Greensboro where legislators, the media, lobbyists,
advocates, and others assisted. Myrna is an ISP liaison at North Carolina
State University and requires her students to complete a project that
they could enter into the national contest, STATE POLICY PLUS TWO.
She used the ISP video in her class. In the spring, Mryna is sending
out a packet of legislative advocacy materials to all NC programs and
encouraging students to come to the General Assembly, where she will
meet with them and provide tours. She may plan a rally day for students
and faculty at the capitol and is considering how to plan a meeting
of her network. Contact Myrna Miller at myrnanasw@aol.com/
NASW-Connecticut
Mr. Steve Karp,
MSW, Executive Director of the state chapter, is leading a pilot project
for the second year (see summary of his initial efforts in INFLUENCE,
2.2. p. 5). Based on experience, NASW-CT decided to change approaches
to working with the state's programs of social work education and eliminated
the annual Lobby Day at the Capitol. Replacing this one-day-a-year event
is a project designed around the annual chapter legislative agenda to
involve the students in semester-long activities influencing issues
at the state legislature. NASW-CT staff will visit each program early
in the semester and brief students on various bills, distributing materials
and tips on lobbying. It asks each program to assign two students to
be liaisons between the program and the chapter. Steve and his staff
will also hold a Lobby Training Workshop open to all interested faculty
and students. They will also hold "mini-lobby" days where students can
visit legislators through pre-arranged briefings. Steve believes that
this new approach provides the chapter with more "people power" on key
issues and offers students a more comprehensive and realistic picture
of the legislative process. Contact Steve at: naswct@worldnet.att.net/
Virginia Commonwealth
University
School of Social Work-Field Instruction Dept.
Dr. Robert Schneider,
a classroom macro professor, is collaborating with Dr. Jaci Miller,
Director, and her staff of field instructors and liaisons this year
in searching for ways to promote student learning about influencing
state policies through their field placements. This spring, three advocacy
agencies, The Virginia Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Virginia Mental
Health Association, and the ARC of Virginia (mental retardation) are
coordinating with 22 graduate students to promote their legislative
agendas during the 1999 General Assembly. Each of the agencies has agreed
to work with three teams of 2-3 students each who are assigned activities
or roles to play in order to advance various bills or amendments with
a mental health/retardation focus. E.g., some students are designing
a letter/phone campaign, some are testifying, some are analyzing the
budget impact while other are meeting with legislators' aides, the media,
and coalition members. Exciting opportunities have already arisen: a
deaf student was asked and gave testimony to a legislative committee;
one student's uncle is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee;
students as constituents are receiving special attention from their
legislators, and so on.
The agency staff
coordinates with the students either during a part of the weekly classroom
session with Dr. Schneider or independently as needed. The student assignment
for the graduate foundation macro course requires students to track
legislation, interview patrons or relevant parties and advocates, analyze
the values underlying the legislation, assess the political environment,
determine how many people will be affected by the passage or defeat
of the bill, and point out the connection of the policy to direct or
micro practice. Permission to take time from other field instructional
assignments must be negotiated with field instructors who may not yet
appreciate the importance of influencing state policy. Bob is at rschneid@saturn.vcu.edu/
Back
to Top
UPCOMING EVENTS
March
11, 1999, Thursday, ISP Planning Luncheon. Noon til 1:00 PM. Room:
Union Square 25. San Francisco Hilton and Towers. Open to all ISP members
who RSVP by March 2, 1999 to R. Schneider at 804.828.0452 or email at
rschneid@saturn.vcu.edu/
Costs: Free for first 30 members; $15 after.
March 12, 1999,
Friday, Annual ISP Membership Meeting. 5:30-6:30 PM, Room: Imperial
B. San Francisco Hilton and Towers. Open to all attendees, particularly
ISP board, liaisons, and friends. Help set next year's agenda!
March 12, 1999,
Friday, "Premiere" of ISP video, Making a Difference: Influence State
Policy. 6:45-8:00 PM. Room: Imperial B. San Francisco Hilton and
Towers. Open to all attendees. Recruit your colleagues! Art Agnos, MSW,
former Mayor of San Francisco, has been invited to introduce the video.
March 13, 1999,
Saturday, Session: "www.statepolicy.org--how
to use the website." Room: Continental 9. San Francisco Hilton and
Towers. Open to all attendees, particularly ISP liaisons. Presented
by Dr. Wendy Crook of Florida State University School of Social Work
and Dr. Robert L. Schneider, VCU.
March 24, 1999,
Wednesday, Deadline for proposals to the conference, Politics, Policy,
and Social Change: An Institute for Social Work Educators and Practitioners,
sponsored by the University of South Carolina's College of Social Work
in Charleston, SC from June 26-30, 1999.
April 1, 1999,
Thursday, DEADLINE for entries to STATE POLICY PLUS TWO. (See full
rules and procedures in this newsletter or on the website)
April 1, 1999,
Thursday, Deadline for proposals for CSWE Annual Program Meeting in
New York City.
June 26-30,
1999, Awards presented to winners of STATE POLICY PLUS TWO at the
conference, Politics, Policy, and Social Change: An Institute for Social
Work Educators and Practitioners, sponsored by the University of South
Carolina's College of Social Work in Charleston, SC.
September 1,
1999, Wednesday, Kickoff of STATE POLICY PLUS THREE national contest.
Back
to Top
DID YOU KNOW THAT....
Influencing
State Policy (ISP) is the new name of the National Committee for Educating
Students to Influence State Policy and Legislation. While the previous
name was very descriptive, it was more than anyone could remember. The
name of the newsletter will remain INFLUENCE. There is also a new
logo which the reader can view in this issue.
The National Association
of Deans and Directors (NADD) awarded ISP funds for the second year
to continue its mission and support its activities. Dr. Pat Ewalt is
chairperson of the group and you can thank her on behalf of ISP.
Sponsors who contributed
award moneys for STATE POLICY PLUS TWO are: University of Houston
School of Social Work (Political Social Work concentration); The Baccalaureate
Program Directors Association; and The Institute for the Advancement
of Political Social Work at the U. of Connecticut. Many thanks to each
of them!
The Institute
for the Advancement of Social Work Research, under Dr. John Lanigan,
has contributed funds to ISP for expenses incurred at APM in San Francisco,
March 1999. Many thanks for your second year of support!
There is a new
committee brochure available to liaisons and friends of ISP. Attractive,
modern, and eye-catching, this circular outlines our mission and highlights
the benefits of belonging to it. It is available on request from Dr.
Robert L. Schneider at rschneid@saturn.vcu.edu/
or Ph. 804.828.0452.
ISP now has at
least one liaison in 296 (58%) of the approximately 510 different BSW,
MSW, and Ph.D. social work educational programs in the United States.
Of course, our goal is to have 100%!! Strangely, there are some major
programs that have not assigned a liaison yet.....check and see the
Liaison listing on the website. 242 programs have one liaison. 22 programs
have two. Two have three and one program has 4.
ISP has 380 members
in three categories: 19 Board of Advisors, 296 liaisons, and 65 friends
(who support our mission, but are not liaisons).
An annual membership
drive began on January 1, 1999 with the hope of securing a stable base
of persons and funds for ISP. Liaisons and Friends were asked for a
$25 membership fee which will allow continuance of vital ISP resources
such as the website, newsletter, contest, and future plans. Please consider
joining ISP and assist us in promoting our mission of assisting students
and faculty to learn how to influence state policy and legislation.
As of this date, 65 new memberships are now on file. Please join!
Filmmakers Library,
124 E. 40th Street, NY, NY, 10016 has a public policy video collection
with its latest release being "Ending Welfare as We Know It." The video
profiles families in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Florida. Viewers are
shown the complexities of solutions to welfare dependency. Ph: 212.
808.4980. email: info@filmakers.com/
OMB Watch in Washington,
DC has made available results of an online conference from 1997 called
Devolution and Local Flexibility. It is based on an Ohio project that
discussed important questions regarding the "new Federalism" such as
"What is the impact devolution will have on collecting data? What is
the definition of devolution? How can we improve program performance?"
The 10-page document provides extended results and data and a summary
of findings that would be useful to anyone arguing about the merits
of devolution, e.g., half of the respondents believe that devolution
will lead to privatization while only one in five think privatization
is a good thing.
The Social Welfare
Policy and Practice Group has created a discussion list and updated
their website: www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/gssw/swppg.htm
To join the discussion list, email: majordomo@listserv.bc.edu
and in the message body, type swpolicy plus your email address.
Back
to Top
WEBSITE
The committee's
website, www.statepolicy.org/
is running smoothly. Florida State University's School of Social Work
now provides room for the site on its server and Dr. Wendy Crook, Assistant
Professor at FSUSSW is chairing a subcommittee that is monitoring and
making plans to improve the resources available to students and faculty.
She is ably assisted by other members: Dr. Scotty Cash of FSUSSW, Mr.
Michael Johnson of Tuskegee University, Dr. Alice Johnson of Case Western
Reserve University School of Applied Social Sciences, and Dr. Rich Renz
of Florida International University School of Social Work. The number
of visitors as of February 15, 1999 is 2000+.
The newsletter,
INFLUENCE, has been archived to the website including all back
issues (3). Plans for adding an interactive capacity are underway and
by Fall, 1999, there should be opportunities for social work students,
faculty, and professionals to "chat" or share ideas.
New addresses
and sites: For information on every state's social service agencies
go to www.apwa.org/statenew/statenew.htm
For a just released survey of Congress on the effectiveness of e-mail
from constituents, see: www.ombwatch.org/ombwatch/npt/
[This latter site is the Nonprofits Policy & Technology project helping
nonprofits use info technologies to engage in public policy.] The Welfare
Resource Exchange (WRE) provides a monthly electronic newsletter about
current welfare information with a focus on Internet resources. Sign
up at: kim@ncwre.org/Another site
offers ideas on combatting poverty, illiteracy, hunger and violence
around the world: www.changemakers.net/
Faculty are urged
to use the site to access policy information and state legislation by
posting the address on course syllabi and requiring student to visit
it at least twice. Please send Drs. Crook or Schneider relevant sites
to add.
Back
to Top
FACULTY ASSIGNMENTS
Faculty
(and students) can obtain a free copy of a "Legislative Hotline Directory"
at grs@cjnetworks.com/ by putting
"hotline" (without the quotations) on the Subject line. It lists the telephone
numbers to call for legislative bill status in all fifty states. This
directory is excerpted from the annual State Legislative Sourcebook, a
comprehensive resource guide to legislative information in all states.
For more information, contact Lynn Hellebust, Government Research Services,
214. S.W. Sixth Ave., Suite 301, Topeka, KS 66603-3719. PH: 785.232.7720
or email address above.
Faculty at Rutgers
University-Newark are holding a symposium on Influencng State Policy
in New Jersey on February 26, 1999. The morning session will focus on
how to get students involved in influencing state policy, using the
most effective methods. Later sessions will feature workshops on areas
of student interest such as mental health, children, families, education,
welfare reform and health care. Results from the symposium will be developed
into voter education materials. (Paul Shane at pshane@andromeda.rutgers.edu/)
The faculty at
the University of Missouri-Columbia have developed a policy brief series,
Both Sides Now, with twenty separate briefing documents on a variety
of issues. This is the third year the school has provided leaders of
the legislature with this service. Students at UMC are also in field
placements at the legislature, serve as registered lobbyists, have placements
with the Supreme Court of Missouri, the Lieutenant Governor's office,
the Office of Budget and Planning. UMC also sponsors an interprofessional
legislative seminar with 3 or four students each from social work, health
related professions, counseling psychology, community development, family
studies, etc. Students prepare position papers, testify, work with lobbyists
and hold a dinner for state legislators. Last year 16 senators and representatives
attended the dinner. (email: Paul Sundet at SundetP@missouri.edu)
Dr. Sue Wein and
colleagues at Presentation College of Social Work in South Dakota are
not located in the state capitol of Pierre, but have devised strategies
to influence state policy with their students. They meet nearly every
weekend with their state legislators who are home from the legislature.
They use comressed video, lots of phone calls, faxes, and email. The
Internet allows them to keep up with bills and their progress and they
no longer have to telephone Legislative Services two or three times
a day. Sue can be emailed at wens@presentation.edu/
if you want to discuss her experiences. [Based on such experience, ISP
is planning to run a pilot project or gather materials on how to influence
state policy when your program is located a great distance from the
capital city. Anyone interested in leading or pursuing this very important
issue? It is a good research opportunity. Email Bob Schneider at rschneid@saturn.vcu.edu/]
Readers are encouraged
to visit our website and see other faculty assignments under the About
Us site: Faculty Assignments.
Back
to Top
MSW PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS
In spring,
1998, ISP mailed a survey to all MSW programs in the USA. Its purpose
was to develop a profile and baseline data for program curricula, activities,
assignments, and policy issues related to state policy at the master's
level. Approximately 30% (39) of the 133 programs responded from 24 mostly
eastern US states. A third of these programs were located in the capital
city and the others averaged 98 miles away from the capitol.
Respondents indicated
that foundation policy courses averaged 29% (13.7 hrs.) total contact
hours related to understanding and analyzing state social policies.
These policy courses spent 18% (8.5 hrs.) directly related to how to
influence or change state policies. In foundation methods courses, 12%
of total contact hours were spent in understanding and 8% in skill development
to influence state policies. 29% of the foundation policy courses required
students to participate in one or more assignments related to state
policy while only 6% of foundation methods courses required such an
assignment. Approximately 50% allowed it as an alternative assignment.
During the 1997- 98 academic year, the respondents placed approximately
9% of first year foundation students and 12% of their second year students
in state policy- related agencies.
One quarter of
the respondents held special events on campus to accentuate state policy
such as lectures, workshops, presentations with elected officials, attended
by an average of 30-40 students. Fifty percent of the programs collaborated
with their local NASW chapter for rally days or hearings, involving
40-50 students. Thirty percent of the programs sponsored at least one
event of their own such as developing internships, working on NASW PAC
campaigns, individual faculty collaboration with state legislators,
and on-going meetings with state agencies. The three most frequently
mentioned public policy issues were: welfare reform (50%), child welfare
(40%), and health care (34%).
These data should
be interpreted with care since the sample is not representative. Hopefully,
they are a starting point for discussion about how programs can adjust
their curricula to meet the need for this important emphasis in social
work practice today. A BSW survey is being planned.
Thanks in a special
way to: Drs. James Reinardy, University of Minnesota, Sharon Keigher,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and James Kunz, Columbia University,
all of whom have worked diligently on this study.
Back
to Top
SOUTH CAROLINE POLICY INSTITUTE
Politics,
Policy, and Social Change: An Institute for Social Work Educators and
Practitioners. The University of South Carolina's College of Social Work
and PACE-NASW are sponsoring a national conference in Charleston, SC from
June 26-30, 1999. ISP and ACOSA are affiliating organizations assisting
with the planning and programs. There are many topics of interest to ISP
liaisons and friends: state policy, welfare reform data, innovative teaching
practices, evaluating state policy, social workers in elective office,
policy education, policy practice models, and much more. A call for proposals
is circulating with a deadline of March 24, 1999. Four copies of a one
page summary with presentation time of approximately 50 minutes for a
paper, audio, video, demonstration, computer assisted technique or exhibit
should be mailed to: Policy Conference, College of Social Work, University
of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 or call Bill Belvin at 803.777.4666
or email at: bill.belvin@sc.edu/
for more information, costs, lodging, or a copy of the CFP. ISP members
are strongly encouraged to submit their work, projects, research, and
ideas related to influencing state policy. ISP will also hold a planning
meeting for liaisons and friends. Remember: the winners of the STATE POLICY
PLUS TWO national contest will receive their awards at a special session
of this conference.
Back
to Top
URBAN INSTITUTE: ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM
The Urban
Institute's national project analyzing the devolution of the responsibility
for social programs from the federal government to the states has announced
that it has recently added 130 new variables to its on-line database.
The database, available free of charge at the UI website, www.urban.org/
now contains data for 872 indicators of income security, social services,
health, child well-being, and demographic and economic conditions for
all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data base includes several
years of data for most of the variables.
Back
to Top
FEATURE INTERVIEWS
During
the fall of 1998, INFLUENCE surveyed several leaders of clinical
social work in order to explore their perceptions about influencing state
policy. Featured in this issue are: Dr. Edna Roth, Chair, National Academy
of Practice in Social Work, Dr. Irmgard Wessel, family agency practitioner,
Dr. Florence Lieberman, retired faculty from Columbia University, and
Dr. Jean Sanville, private practitioner in CA.
1. Generally,
how do you portray the relationship between clinical social work practice
and the social policies affecting clients?
Roth: Everyday,
the clinician encoutners the effects of social policies which fall like
rain on client, non-clients, and clinicians themselves. It's a big step
for a therapist to advocate for social policy changes, though history
identifies pioneering practitioners who made such strides.
Wessel: Clinical
social workers tend to be reticent as a group to speak with politicians.
Nevertheless, the Clinical Social Work Federation (CSWF) makes an annual
trip to Capitol Hill and we encourage members to work with local politicians
(who have received us well). We are seen as a divided profession, coming
to the table with confusing requests. At times we are seen as self-
serving rather than serving clients. Before we can influence policies,
we need to learn to unite around what our goals are.
Lieberman: I portray
the relationship between the practitioner and the concern about social
policies as essential. There are many issues of vital concern to the
welfare of clients, discrimination against minorities and women, economic
disparities, educational issues, opportunities for clients of all ages
and necessary social supports. A good clinician must be related to social
policies.
Sanville: I see
most clinical social workers in a state of dismay over their professional
lives. They feel that they have an ever diminishing voice in the policies
that affect their practice with clients. Currently, there is a big thrust
to get everyone off the welfare roles, and social workers are seen as
the agents to accomplish this. However, much more is involved than the
powers-that-be know, so it is not surprising that there are limits to
the success of the announced aspirations. This is partly due to elements
in the socio-cultural surround and partly to the quality of training
offered social workers in much of academia. The clinical element in
schools of social work is much reduced to the extent that social workers
have not learned how to work with the more handicapped and troubled
families. We have sold health care to big business and the business
has "demoted" social workers financially and also disrespects our possible
expertise.
2. Why should
there be more (or less) integration between clinical social workers
and policy advocates?
Roth: Usually,
the clinical social worker is familiar with the post-legislative area.
It is an area of action, reaction, stress, distress, and inevitably,
change. Often, the emotional and family costs are high. We need social
policies and the opportunitiy to be in at the formative stage, the pre-legislative
phase. This is the opportuntiy afforded clinicians and policy advocates.
Wessel: We have
everything to gain by being active in setting policy requests before
our legislators. One problem: who are our advocates? The CSWF has joined
with the National Guild of Medical Professionals for the purpose of
"defending the right to practice a profession in the best interest of
the patient." We have gained some strength this way. We also need to
involve our clients to speak with and for us.
Lieberman: Ideally,
this should be a partnership, working cooperatively. In the real world,
there seems to be distrust by each group of the other. Social workers
who focus on social policy tend to believe that clinicians neglect the
real world, focusing on personality problems, and do not care about
the "real" needs of their clients. Clinicians feel that social workers
with a policy orientation do not understand the importance of all aspects
of a client's needs including the psychological as well as the external
social needs. Clinicians believe the policy folks would benefit from
knowing how to work with individuals and to remember that people do
not live by bread alone.
Sanville: I think
that there certainly should be more dialogue between practitioners and
the policy makers so that somewhat more realistic policies might be
developed. By listening, this may assist those with political power
to come to respect those who are assigned to carry out their plans.
This is not to say that we in this profession have all the answers to
the multiplicity of problems that are rampant in our country. I am particularly
worried about the growing gap between rich and poor which could predict
far worse scenes that we have yet seen.
Clinicians can
be helpful in delineating the needs of their clients on the large scale
and on an individual basis. They can provide the needed illustrations
for political programs. Clinicians should support the work of the social
policy worker, and in turn, they should be respected for their work
with individuals, families, and groups. After all, 80% of all social
workers are involved in direct practice.
3. If you agree,
in what specific ways could clinical social workers and policy advocates
coalesce on the state level?
Roth: Group action
is a necessity. Each clinician has specific knowledge about the effect
of social policy. Working with policy-oriented social workers, a group
of clinicians may be able to present compelling materials to the state
legislature, especially content directed towards children, adolescents,
adults, couples, families, and senior citizens.
Wessel: Clinical
social workers are policy-oriented and should not be seen as "elitists"
by policy-oriented social workers. The leadership of all social work
groups should call a "summit" to set some goals meant to serve the best
interests of our clients. This means focusing, not on one group alone,
but on what is important and humane for all persons.
Lieberman: Each
group should communicate their interests and beliefs about what is needed.
Clinicians should bring problems about obtaining needed services to
those involved in working on social policy issues. E.g., concern about
mental health service or supportive counseling for individuals and appropriate
illustrations could be provided. The two groups can support each other
and work together in the interests of the people of the state. When
programs are proposed on the state level, all social workers should
be prepared to support them in various way if only by writing or phoning
their state officials.
Sanville: The
best place to begin coalescing would be in the schools, but there are
fewer and fewer schools that train both clinicians and policy-oriented
students. I do not see them having much contact with each other as they
work in different settings. A number of us have set up study groups
to remedy this somewhat, but it is not easy going.
4. In the next
10 years, what state policy arena do you believe will most affect clients
served by clinical social workers?
Roth: The expanding,
exploding scientific breakthroughs in the field of biology will place
everyone in positions of having options and wanted/unwanted facts about
heredity and health. Clinicians will need to expand their knowledge
of biological knowledge in order to assist persons struggling with anxiety
and trauma in their lives. States will also need to acknowledge the
revelations of the physical sciences and the emergence of the computer.
Wessel: Clinical
social workers will continue to serve all economic, social and ethnic
groups. Certain benefits are needed by all: confidentiality/privacy,
health care policy respectful of human beings, Social Security benefits,
and environmental issues.
Lieberman: The
most important issue will be the availability of supportive services
related to divorce, illness, loss of a job, relocation, etc. The individuals
concerned may not be mentally or emotionally ill as often demanded by
HMOs and Medicare, but they may need advice and support and opportunities
to consider ways of coping. Supportive services are preventive services.
There is also need for skilled social workers in schools and work with
children and adolescents as prevention. Increased knowledge of the working
of the human mind should lead to better understanding of learning problems.
Also a great need for services geared to many minority and poor children,
providing for all children on an equal basis. Services for the elderly
and their families will be of concern along with child care for young
families.
Sanville: I am
in hope that the shortcomings of managed care will become increasingly
obvious. The companies are getting richer and citizens have little voice
in how their needs are met. In CA, there are increasing complaints from
those who should be served and there is some promise these voices will
be heard. As we become aware of how deficits in our social/economic
structure lead to the profound handicaps suffered by so many persons,
I hope that we will muster our own "reparative intents" and take action
towards changes for the better.
PS Iowan Senator
Maggie Tinsman, MSW replied to the previous INFLUENCE 2.2 interview
after the printing deadline, but her remarks are valuable. Senator Tinsman
strongly urges social work students to become interns for state legislators,
serving on both Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle. She also
notes that social workers-as-legislators do more talking to citizens
than other legislators because we know the "system" in communities and
are very interested in solving social problems. Her social work education
propelled her into politics. U of I professors always preached that
"we must help one another with dignity and not accept the status quo."
Senator Tinsman also admits that the public thinks that social workers
will spend too much money or "take their children away."
Back
to Top
FACULTY LIAISONS: CENTERS FOR SUCCESS
ISP 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 510) 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
355 liaisons have agreed to be active links to the committee. Their universities
and liaison 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.
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 readily assist them in course preparation,
provide content on state policy, and offer ideas to field instructors.
KEVIN.....HERE I WOULD REFER THE READER TO THE "LIAISON" LINKAGE AND
DELETE THE LIST BELOW.....
- 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]
- Show the video,
Making a Difference: Influencing State Policy, to faculty, students,
community social workers, recruitment efforts, etc.
- 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 capitol 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.-DIFFERENCES AMONG STATE POLICIESListed below are exa
mples furnished by ISP liaisons and friends about how states are establishing
their own priorities and shaping social policies to fit them.
Arizona made history
in the November elections by electing women to all five top constitutional
offices.
In South Dakota,
the state Supreme Court recently ruled that a man who fathered a child
in a one-night stand but did not find out about his offspring until
she was 14 does not owe past child-support payments. The Justices differed
sharply about the decision with some stating that it was penalizing
the child just because the mother waited so long to pursue payments.
Nine states have
no income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
State governments
are rolling in money right now. The National Governor's Association
and the National Association of State Budget Officers said that budget
surpluses in fiscal 1999 are projected at $31 billion. This sum is 7
percent of budgeted expenditures, almost twice the surplus percentage
in the federal budget. Hawaii is stuck in the Asian malaise and Alaska's
oil revenues have sagged, but the other 48 states are getting richer.
Two-thirds of
the states cut taxes of some kind or other in 1998.
In Washington
state, inmates under 18 have a right to earn a true high school diploma
in jail, not just a GED degree. A young inmate incarcerated at the age
of 14 sued to get a high school education because he said he wanted
to be job marketable when he was released and the prison system did
not offer him an adequate education. A similar ruling for 21 and under
inmates is being challenged in court.
A report by the
Children's Defense Fund indicated that one-fourth (or 5.5 million) of
children in the southern states are poor, and that 84 of the nation's
poorest counties for children are in the South. One million of those
poor southern children are Hispanic.
In Kansas, a panel
convened to investigate mishandling of foster-care cases closed down
a hot-line that was created to allow professionals such as social workers,
doctors, and lawyers to report alleged mistreatment. Despite a 25% rate
of "red flags," the group said existing problems did not warrant continuance
of a hot line.
Term limits for
state legislators passed in the November elections in Nevada, Idaho,
and Colorado.
In 1999, some
Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) will stop serving the elderly
and disabled in states where costs are high or customers are scarce.
States where most people are affected are: California, Florida, Maryland,
Nevada, New York, Ohio, Texas and Washington state. Utah will not have
a single HMO serving Medicare beneficiaries. HMOs were initiated to
save consumers money and limit government costs. Most participants have
no choice but to return to the traditional Medicare coverage.
Medical use of
marijuana was approved in the November elections in Alaska, Arizona,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.
Michigan unveiled
the Michigan Urban Homestead Initiative that is designed to increase
home ownership in inner cities. Patterned after the Homestead Act of
1862, tenants of public housing could own apartments by meeting certain
criteria like keeping kids in school, being crime and drug free, and
keeping their housing unit well maintained.
The state of Washington
now bars the use of racial or gender preferences by state and local
governments. Voting by mail by any resident in this state in the 1998
election was 47.5%.
In Minnesota,
the state's welfare plan limits education to one year for participating
parents who have an education plan approved. They can attend school
for two years if they pay the state back for the second year.
In California,
newcomers to the state are paid lower welfare benefits than it pays
long-time residents. The difference in payments may violate the constitutionally
protected right to travel and is being heard by the US Supreme Court.
Other states with different welfare benefits for newcomers include:
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin.
New Jersey often
uses "private placements" to circumvent the legal foster care system
that requires an agreement signed by parents or a court order to put
a child with someone other than his parents.
The Governor of
West Virginia authorized additional payments of $44 and $55 per month
to providers statewide who care for elderly and disabled persons in
adult family care and licensed personal care home respectively.
In Illinois, the
Department of Human Services and the Salvation Army have a partnership
in providing free, job-appropriate clothing to TANF clients who are
beginning to work. Three complete changes of clothing, two pairs of
shoes, two belts, three neckties and other accessories as supplies permit.
In Lucas County,
Ohio, there is no reprieve from the Human Services Department rule that
a welfare recipient who leaves a job loses six months of benefits.
In California,
during the last decade, the number of children living in poverty increased
by one-third or 700,000 according to California Report Card "98, released
by Children Now.
Back
to Top
STUDENT PROJECTS
Twenty-two
students at Northeastern State University of Oklahoma successfully assisted
in registering 89 new voters in the fall, 1998.
Students at Presentation
College in South Dakota attended a pre-legislative luncheon with area
state legislators and the Governor as keynote speaker. Another luncheon
is planned. Faculty and students are headed for Pierre, the state capitol,
during the coming session.
At Rutgers University-Newark,
students are researching issues for voter education materials for fellow
students and other organizations such as NASW, League of Women Voters.
Readers are urged
to visit our website and review many other exceptional student projects
at the About Us site: Student Projects.
Back
to Top
FEATURED PAPER
THE
IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO INFLUENCE STATE POLICY
by Dr. Joseph Wronka,
Associate Professor,
School of Social Work,
Springfield College,
Springfield, MA
The commemoration
in 1998 of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United States and the General
Assembly with no dissenting vote in 1948 provides an excellent opportunity
to integrate the idea of human rights into state policy. The world has
come a long way since the Conference of Evian (1938), called by members
of the international community to stop the oppression of the Third Reich's
own citizens. Fearing international approbation, however, for their
own country's human rights abuses, such as racism and poverty in the
United States, colonial domination by the European powers, and the concentration
camps in the Soviet Union, the conference ended a failure, concluding
that no country had the right to intervene with another's domestic affairs.
From the ashes
of the ensuing holocaust, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration,
a "Magna Carta for humanity" as the Chairperson of the drafting committee,
Eleanor Roosevelt, called it. That document, the "authoritative definition
of human rights standards" as stated by the UN and a "common standard
of achievement for all peoples and all nations" as stated in its Preamble
is a mere thirty articles. Briefly, it emphasizes human dignity; civil
and political rights, like rights to expression, worship, and assembly;
economic, social, and cultural rights, such as rights to shelter, health
care, and employment; and solidarity rights, rights to a just "social
and international" order, including, for example, the rights to a clean
environment, peace, and development. Today, with the proliferation of
human rights groups, like Amnesty International and the Fourth World
Movement, no government would dare say that it is against human rights.
In the case of
Filartiga v. Pena (1980, 630 F.2d 884-885), furthermore, the Universal
Declaration was referred to as customary international law. Based largely
on the principles of the Declaration, a US federal court ruled against
Pena-Irala for the torture and wrongful death of Joelita Filartiga,
when he was a police officer in Paraguay. Since, a considerable body
of case law has evolved from what has become known as the "Filartiga
decision," giving hope to human rights scholars and activists that eventually
other rights in the Declaration, such as rights to food, shelter, security
in old age, for example, in addition to the prohibition against torture,
would be considered customary international law, thereby obligating
governments.
Implementing the
Universal Declaration would be pivotal, therefore, in moving toward
a "human rights culture," which I have written about as a "lived awareness"
of human rights principles. To endure, values must be chosen. Policy
often mirrors societal values. Changing values, therefore, would influence
policy. Constitutions, furthermore, (from the Latin, constitute meaning
"to choose" are often predictors of policy. In my book, Human rights
and social policy in the 21st century: A history of the idea of human
rights and comparison of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with
United States federal and state constitutions (1998), I found that the
US Constitution is woefully lacking in the inclusion of economic, social,
cultural, and solidarity rights. There are no statements concerning
rights to shelter, health care, employment, special protections for
children, for example. Such lacks may account, for example, why the
recent Report on Racism in the United States (1995) by Special Rapporteur
Glele Ahanzo reported estimates of "3 to 6 million homeless." State
constitutions, furthermore, which in the words of former Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis ought to "extend rights" not found in the US
Constitution and act as "laboratories of democracy" barely extend these
rights, apart from the right to education. Yet, even here this right
is not implemented as a recent Department of Education (1994) study
found that approximately 49% of Americans are functionally illiterate.
The only state constitution to even acknowledge the right to health
care in the body of its constitution is Hawaii, whose legislature has
the "power to provide for health care." There, surprisingly only approximately
2% of persons lack health insurance.
Generally, Americans
tend to equate human rights violations with countries like China, Cuba,
or Somalia. Apart from the fact that the US Government may have "hidden
agenda" when attacking these countries for their violations, it is also
important to acknowledge with "A Little Humility. Please" as I had recently
entitle an article on the human rights situation in the United States
written for the Harvard International Review, that there are indeed
human rights violations in this own country. This idea of human rights
"moves people" as Eleanor Roosevelt told us. We would be wise to use
it to our advantage, when trying to influence state policy, so that
states do indeed act as "laboratories of democracy."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Fathers
Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement," by Irwin Garfinkel,
Sara McLanahan, Daniel Meyer and Judith Seltzer. See www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/focus.htm
"The Americanization
of British Welfare: A Case Study of Policy Transfer," by Robert Walker.
See www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/focus.htm/
"Teen Pregnancy
Prevention: Welfare Reform's Missing Component," Policy Brief #38
by Isabel V. Sawhill of the Brookings Institute. The brief can be
printed off the web at:
www.brookings.edu/comm /PolicyBriefs/pb038/pb38.htm/
"Year 2000 Computing
Crisis: Readiness of State Automated Systems to Support Federal Welfare
Programs," from the General Accounting Office, POBOX 37050, Washington,
DC 20013. Or download from www.gao.gov/new.items/newtitle.htm.
"Round Two Summary
of Selected Elements of State Programs for TANF," November 4, 1998.
Download from National Governors' Association site: www.nga.org/CBP/Activities/WelfareReform.asp/
"WRP: Implementation
and Early Impacts of Vermont's Welfare Restructuring Project," by
Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. Download at www.MDRC.org/Reports/Vermont%20WRP/wrpex-su.htm
"Inequality
and Poverty in the United States: The Twentieth-Century Record," by
Robert D. Plotnick, Eugene Smolensky, Erik Evenhouse, and Siobhan
Reilly. Focus. Download at www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/focus.htm.
"Can the Labor
Market Absorb Three Million Welfare Recipients?" by Gary Burtless.
Focus. Download at www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/focus.htm.
Abramovitz,
M. (1999). Social work and social reform: an arena of struggle. Social
Work, 43 (6), 512-526.
Back
to Top
NATIONAL CONTEST--STATE POLICY PLUS TWO
The gusto
for entering the State Policy Plus Two national contest is rising.
Entries for the 1999 contest are being received already and many more
are expected. Most state legislatures meet in the Spring, allowing students
and faculty opportunities to participate actively in these sessions. All
BSW, MSW, Ph.D. students and faculty are eligible (see flyer inside this
newsletter or check the website for the contest rules and awards.). If
you need ideas or want to review last year's winning entries, see INFLUENCE,
2.1 and 2.2 or Student Projects and Faculty Assignments on the website.
The $300 cash awards and 6 plaques will be awarded to the national winners
on June 26-30, 1999, at a special session of the South Carolina College
of Social Work conference: Politics, Policy, and Social Change--an Institute
for Social Work Educators and Practitioners. As we have already learned,
making this project a required assignment or voluntary as extra credit
increases student participation (sic)! Please encourage other faculty
and students to enter by April 1, 1999. Go for the cash and commitment!
Back
to Top
EXCERPTS FROM:
Schneider,
R. L. and Lester, L. (pub. date: 2000). This is social work advocacy!
Chicago: Nelson-Hall. From Chapter 7: Legislative Advocacy
Overview:
Figueira-McDonough
(1993) states that social work legislative advocacy in the United States
is practiced only to a modest extent. Wolk (1981) notes that, despite
some political activity such as letter-writing, discussion of issues,
and financial contributions, social work professionals appear to play
a minimal role in shaping policies and decisions at the local, state,
and national levels. Ezell (1993) summarizes recent literature on the
political activity of social workers, stating that there has been growth
in political involvement of social workers since the Reagan years in
office, but he also recognizes that nearly half of the sollicited social
workers could be identified as "politically inactive." Barriers to effective
social work participation in political and policy advocacy are many:
limited knowledge of the legislative process; disdain of politics and
deal-making; impatience regarding the length of time required to make
change; focus on clinical issues and professionalization criteria; and
lack of content on legislative advocacy in professional educational
curricula among others (Mahaffey, 1972; Ezell, 1993).
Jansson (1999)
offers an instructive historical perspective by noting that policy advocates
have considerably improved the well-being of millions of Americans.
He highlights policies like Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Child Care programs.
Even if these policies have had mixed results, the combined effects
have addressed new problems, provided support and resources to disadvantaged
persons, and raised public expectations about the rights and needs of
all citizens. The authors agree with Richan (1996) who implores social
workers to remember that the drama of public policy has no final curtain
call. Without the determined and consistent involvement of social work
advocates representing clients in legislative arenas, responsive and
progressive policies will not likely be developed.......
......In general,
social workers appear very unlikely to give testimony before legislative
committees according to a study by Ezell (1993). In his study of political
activities of social workers, testifying before local, state, or federal
legislative committees was the least frequent political activity. Approximately
91% of the respondents did not give testimony vs. 9% who did. Writing
letters to legislators or public officials was the most frequent activity.
The author notes that, due to the nature of their jobs, macro social
workers testified more frequently than micro workers.
Ezell (1993) does
not suggest any inferences from these data, but it appears that, for
whatever reasons, professional social workers do not use legislative
forums as a means to represent their clients. One could speculate that,
among the reasons, are: 1) continuing ambivalence among social workers
about their role in politics; 2) discomfort with politics because it
deals with power; 3) an unease with politics because it is a "dirty
business;" 4) lack of training in representation during professional
education; and 5) social workers do not believe testimony is very effective...........
........Policy
briefs are one or two-page documents that provide a detailed set of
arguments on both sides of a question with supporting evidence (Richan,
1996; Segal and Brzuzy, 1998). A policy brief comprises an analysis
of existing law, clear statement of the problem, new proposals and points
of view, rationale for changing existing policy, specific recommenations,
and the likely objections to the new proposal (Jansson, 1999; Kaminski
and Walmsley, 1995). Armed with this brief, advocates can confidently
argue a case for a new proposal or effectively oppose existing laws.
Richan (1996)
proposes that a policy brief is made of a series of arguments based
on the following four questions:
- Is there a need
for a change?
- Will the proposed
plan or proposal meet the need? How will it improve things?
- Is the plan
feasible? Cost or constitutional questions often arise here.
- Would the proposed
benefits of the plan outweigh any harmful or unintended consequences?
If advocates prepare
policy briefs using these questions, it will take an equally effective
counter-proposal to stop it.
-Richan (1996)
suggests that advocates think of the brief as a resource paper rather
than a document to circulate among policymakers, unless one wants to
share it with friendly legislators. -Build the policy brief from the
general to the specific. Background information should be brief and
accurate. -Put together as complete and thorough case as possible and
then attack your own case by raising objections and then rebutting them.
-The policy brief should help advocacy groups unify and present a consistent
message to legislators, based on the same facts and arguments.
Ezell, M. (1993).
The political activity of social workers: a post-Reagan update. Journal
of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20, 81-97.
Figueiria-McDonough,
J. (1993). Policy practice: the neglected side of social work intervention.
Social Work, 38, 179-188.
Jansson, B. S.
(1999). Becoming an effective policy advocate: from policy practice
to social justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Kaminski, L. and
Walmsley, C. (1995). The advocacy brief: a guide for social workers.
The Social Worker, 63, 53-58.
Mahaffey, M. (1972).
Lobbying and social work. Social Work, 17, 3-11.
Richan, W. C.
(1996). Lobbying for social change. NY: Haworth Press.
Segal, E. A. and
Brzuzy, S. (1998). Social welfare policy, programs and practice. Itasca,IL:
F.E. Peacock Publishers.
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
|
|
