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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
FEATURED PAPER
THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO INFLUENCE STATE POLICYby 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.
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!
EXCERPTS FROM:
Schneider, R. L. and Lester, L. (pub. date: 2000). This is social work advocacy! Chicago: Nelson-Hall. From Chapter 7: Legislative AdvocacyOverview:
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:
If advocates prepare policy briefs using these questions, it will take an equally effective counter-proposal to stop it.
- 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?
-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.
BOARD OF ADVISORS
|
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