Purpose

Entering the 21st century, social workers are being buffeted by changes in priorities and legislation that have shaped national domestic policy since the New Deal of the 1930s. Many of these shifts reflect a persistent American history of demanding that poor and disadvantaged citizens pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and stop asking for help, especially help that is unearned or for which they have not worked. A bright spotlight also shines on the current record of programs and services unable to reduce significantly the severity of serious national social problems such as illegitimacy, drug usage, family breakdown, failing inner-city schools, etc. Altogether these demands have created a volatile environment in a cost-conscious nation that is searching for quick solutions to stubborn and complex problems.

In August 1996, President Clinton signed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, ending federal guarantees of assistance to many poor Americans, legal immigrants, and others, bolstering the elimination of Washington as the center of action for social policy and reform. Called an example of the shift to a "new federalism, this legislation gives much greater responsibility and autonomy to states and municipalities for providing services to people in need. In this legislation, it gives states vast authority to run their own welfare programs with block grants of federal money and allows states to use their dollars to design programs that best fit their own needs and economies.

If new federalism" i.e., decentralizing policy-responsibility to the 50 states, is becoming a dominant direction for social policy in the United States, what can one expect to result from this swing of the pendulum from central to decentral policy-making?

• States will be given great flexibility to run their programs within broad federal guidelines. They will create their own programs, set their own priorities and determine their own benefits according to their state economies. A county in Florida now requires a negative drug screening of anyone applying for assistance for certain medical care. New York City is planning to place children in foster care in neighborhoods where they had lived with their biological families. South Carolina is testing the state's 45,000 welfare recipients for drug use.
• Freedom and flexibility for states may become experimentation and lower standards for assisting vulnerable persons. While the "new" federalism presumes and facilitates differences among the states, will policy differences among them widen or converge? If they grow apart, will it be seen as prima facie evidence of injustice requiring a national remedy? Will new gaps in the social safety net be created?
• Current conflict with federal regulations over states' authority and power to use their own money to meet their unique needs will likely continue in the future, creating confusion, frustration, and additional delays in policy decisions. This course of events will be at the human cost of vulnerable children, families, and disadvantaged persons.
• Most states do not have the statistical capacity to analyze the new programs that they are implementing. Oregon is ahead of other states in converting administrative records into statistics that can measure new initiatives. However, it requires enormous expense and time to solve problems like uniform definitions of job "placement" or "income." States are also supposed to collect data on each family receiving Federal aid, but states have every incentive to make it look as if their programs are successful. Unless there is impartial data, it will be impossible to determine whether reforms succeed or fail.
• The new federalism as proposed by Congress will cause significant fiscal stress for most state governments due to their receiving less federal aid. It will eventually force the states to choose between raising taxes and reducing services.
• Devolution, i.e., the shifting of responsibility from the federal to the state level, will have impacts on most state programs, including those not directly affected by large reductions in federal aid. The result will be intensified competition for state dollars among such priority areas as higher education, corrections, and the environment.
• The effects of the new federalism will grow steadily over the years. Some states may be able to absorb initial reductions in federal aid, but states will really feel the effects of block grants when a recession hits and when certain populations such as the elderly increase significantly in the future. Can states be trusted today with protecting the rights of vulnerable citizens?
• At least 21 states are currently under court supervision because they failed to take proper care of children who had been abused or neglected. The use of litigation as a form of child welfare advocacy is almost routine in nearly every state.
• Many states are considering privatizing social and health services, and major companies like Lockheed Martin, Electronic Data Systems, and IBM are bidding to run these programs. It is a reasonable fear that profit-making companies will have every incentive to use the letter of the law to cut people off in an effort to improve their bottom line.

Why should social workers become involved in this new federalism at state policy-making levels (as well as federal levels)?

• This "new federalism" or "devolution" has many implications for the profession of social work. Decisions and policies about social work clients' well-being, agency priorities, funding sources, and professional role(s) in program implementation will all be likely subjects of change as power, decision-making and responsibility move inevitably towards the individual states.
• If social workers do not exert policy leadership, they allow other people with less commitment to the well-being of vulnerable and oppressed people to shape the human services delivery systems. Social workers need to enhance their credibility by making informed contributions to policy discourse in state capitals.
• Social workers, who wish to help their clients, possess a professional duty to try to reform and modify those environmental factors that contribute to the problems of people whom social workers serve. Today, the states are the focal point of change and reform.
• To the extent social workers place relatively more weight than other people on social justice and beneficence, one would expect their policy emphasis to reflect these values in the states where they practice.
• Professional social workers can no longer adhere to the idea of an "autonomous profession," insulated from the external environment and policy-makers at the state level. Changes in existing state policies are occurring now, affecting persons whom social workers serve.

Why should programs of social work education make influencing state-level policy and legislation a priority? How are such programs ideally situated to initiate a state-focused policy and practice education for students?

• To advance the ideals mentioned above, programs in social work education must develop learning strategies to increase the profession's efficacy and presence in influencing state-level policy-making. Through education of faculty and students about state policy-making, it is possible to assure a long-term commitment of professional social workers in current and future decision-making about vulnerable and disadvantaged persons.
• Many programs in social work education are located in the capitals of the states where access to state legislatures, agencies, and policy-makers is immediate and long-term.
• The expertise and knowledge of social work faculty is a powerful resource that state-level decision-makers can draw upon when faced with complex and controversial decisions.
• There are many programs of social work education not located in state capitals which can serve as a resource to local or regional decision-making bodies in the ever-changing arena of priority setting and resource allocation.
• Many social work educational programs already teach about the essential integration of policies and social work practice. If educators provide meaningful learning opportunities about the inseparability of clinical practice and state-level policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation, then future professionals will be prepared to make appropriate interventions.

ISP has been formed to respond to the current state-level realities of social justice, beneficence, and quality of life issues. It recognizes that the National Association of Social Workers is considering a task force that can coordinate state chapter efforts regarding devolution. The committee hopes to collaborate with other groups such as ANSWER, ACOSA, and the Social Welfare Policy and Policy Practice Group.

This essay reflects ideas from the writings of M. Derthink, S. Fountain, S.D. Gold, B.S. Jansson, E. Shanahan, and several journalists.