HELP WITH DISC (2) due in 24 hours

COMMENTARY

Political Social Work: History, Forms, and Opportunities for Innovation

Suzanne Pritzker and Shannon R. Lane

Over the past 50 years, national organiza- tions have sought to engage social work- ers in political activity. The National

Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2015) Code of Ethics has specified social workers’ responsi- bility to the community and broader society since its adoption in 1960, and in 1996, strengthened its call to require all social workers to “engage in social and political action” to “expand choice and oppor- tunity” and “equity and social justice for all people” (p. 27). To fulfill these obligations, social workers must have both the capacity and the drive to engage in the political processes that create policies. Political social work practice, focused on navigating and influencing power and political dynamics associated with social change, is therefore an essential compo- nent of our profession.

POLITICAL SOCIALWORK: HISTORY AND FORMS Early social work education viewed policy as dis- tinct from practice. However, in the mid-1990s, political social work emerged to focus on political mechanisms for eliciting social change. Political social work directly alters the power dynamics in policymaking through strategies such as staffing campaigns, registering and empowering voters, serving as political appointees, and running for and holding elected office. The two central models have long been the Humphreys macro-oriented model, focused on working full-time in political arenas (Lane & Humphreys, 2011), and the Fisher (1995) model, which emphasizes power, politics, and a change orientation across methods.

Questions surrounding social workers’ political roles have persisted throughout the profession’s history, including concerns about partiality, profes- sionalism, status, potential harm to clients, and per- ceptions of legal restrictions (Fisher, 1995). Many

argue, however, that these concerns leave social work “on the margins of political discourse” (Reisch, 2000, p. 293). Although the profession struggles with its political role, individual U.S. social workers have influenced the power dynamics involved in political decision making. From social work’s earliest years, Jane Addams influenced candidate selection and candidates’ policy agendas. Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, and Mary Church Terrell, among others, advocated for suffrage in the women’s movement. Decades later, Richard Cloward continued the emphasis on suffrage, cofounding a national coali- tion dedicated to voter registration and the federal National Voter Registration Act. The first female cabinet member, Frances Perkins, played a pivotal role in the Social Security Act, after her appoint- ment in 1933. The first woman elected to the U.S. Congress, social worker Jeanette Rankin, was elected in 1916. A century later, former congressional staffer turned congresswoman Barbara Lee chairs the Congressional Social Work Caucus. As of 2011, at least 467 U.S. social workers had sought local, state, or federal office (Lane & Humphreys, 2011).

Although professional social workers are more politically active than the general U.S. public, Ritter (2007) and Rome and Hoechstetter (2010) identi- fied just 46 percent to 47 percent of social workers as active or very active politically. In fact, one-third of social work educators and field instructors see no role for social work in political contexts (Mary, 2001). Social workers rarely engage in political participa- tion that requires taking initiative, wielding power, or engaging with conflict (Rome & Hoechstetter, 2010). Aside from voting, professional social workers and students engage in activities requiring limited effort (Pritzker & Burwell, 2016; Ritter, 2007).

African Americans, macro practitioners, NASW members, and more educated social workers par- ticipate more actively than other social workers

doi: 10.1093/sw/sww072 © 2016 National Association of Social Workers 80

(Rome & Hoechstetter, 2010). These findings are consistent with political science’s civic voluntarism model, which has guided substantial research on social work political activity (see, for example, Ha- milton & Fauri, 2001; Lane & Humphreys, 2011; Ritter, 2007). The model suggests three key factors that influence political participation: resources to engage in political activity (that is, time, money, and skills), psychological engagement with politics, and recruitment. Political efficacy, the belief that one has the capacity to affect political processes and that political processes will be responsive to one’s efforts, plays a critical role in this model and in social work research. Furthermore, interpersonal recruitment has been found to strongly predict students’ political par- ticipation—when their networks foster participation, participation happens (Swank, 2012). Hoefer (2016) and Gal and Weiss-Gal (2015) have suggested mod- ified versions of this model specific to social work advocacy and political participation, with added emphasis on the organizations within which social workers advocate.

In contrast to scholarship focusing on the participa- tion of social workers, minimal research has examined their role in empowering clients’ political engage- ment. Just 28 percent of Rome, Hoechstetter, and Wolf-Branigin’s (2010) social work respondents agreed that “social workers should domore to involve clients in the political process” (p. 213), and some explicitly expressed discomfort with encouraging clients to be politically active.

Over the profession’s history, social work educa- tion has been criticized for inadequately preparing social workers to engage with policy and politics. In fact, nearly half of Ritter’s (2007) sample felt that they had not been prepared to participate in politics, and just 36 percent of social workers reported re- ceiving sufficient education about political engage- ment (Rome & Hoechstetter, 2010). Given these concerns, it is imperative to consider the literature that has established that educators play a critical role in developing students’ political participation (see, for example, Hamilton & Fauri, 2001).

Social work education has taken three main ap- proaches to preparing students for political engage- ment. The cross-method model prepares students to integrate political skills and an understanding of power into arenas of practice as diverse as commu- nity organizing, organizational development, and clinical practice (Fisher, 1995). Illustrative of this model is the University of Houston’s cross-method

Political Social Work specialization and its Austin Legislative Internship Program, which places micro andmacroMSW students as full-time legislative staf- fers in Texas. The macro specialist model trains stu- dents to be full-time practitioners in political action. Often connected with community organizing or policy practice concentrations, this model is exem- plified by the Campaign School for Social Workers at the University of Connecticut, which has trained social workers to lead campaigns and run for elec- toral office since 1996. The occasional model inte- grates content on political processes and potential political social work roles into single curriculum components. Students may gain efficacy and skills through voter registration drives, participatory learn- ing strategies, elective coursework, or in field.

POLITICAL SOCIALWORK: OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION To facilitate social change, the social work profession needs social workers who can lead political efforts and a social work population capable of engaging with politics and empowering clients to leverage their political voices. We propose an intentional model of political social work that incorporates the strengths of all three models described in the previ- ous section to achieve both of these goals.

Social workers across methods need to feel em- powered, efficacious, and obligated to contribute to positive social change. A concerted effort to engage students and professionals across methods and settings with the political context and associ- ated power dynamics is essential to increase their preparation for political engagement. Educating students across methods to gain fundamental knowl- edge about political systems and to analyze and navi- gate power dynamics should be explicit in future education policy and accreditation standards (EPAS). Of note, the word “political” appears only three times within the 2015 EPAS and the word “power” just twice (Council on Social Work Education, 2015). The experiential teaching techniques and hands-on exposure to political action commonly used in the occasional model are critical for teach- ing political skills and efficacy in the classroom and can benefit NASW chapters and other organiza- tions across the country interested in expanding practitioners’ involvement. Exposure to electoral processes belongs in the implicit curriculum, and assessments of power and the relevance of political context to client experiences may fit well not only

81Pritzker and Lane / Political Social Work: History, Forms, and Opportunities for Innovation

in policy courses, but also within theory, diversity, and oppression coursework.

Renewed emphasis on educating, training, hir- ing, and supporting politically oriented macro spe- cialists is key to ensuring that change efforts are collaborative, effective, and guided by social work values. Perceptions among social work students and faculty about barriers to macro careers such as licen- sure, competition with other disciplines, availability of jobs, and salaries must be addressed. Literature on macro graduates finds success in these areas (Pritzker & Applewhite, 2015); but more research is needed, particularly around the effects of licensure laws in various states, to understand how to best support students interested in pursuing policy careers. Stu- dents and practitioners need intensive, focused edu- cation and networking opportunities, including political field placements and continuing education, to increase their skills as they advance in the field. Leaders must identify core competencies and create resources for macro-level political social work prac- tice. Identifying social workers who are currently in political specialist positions and ensuring that they are incorporated into programs’ field networks, alumni outreach, and career development can help develop networks for more social work students to move into careers involving political social work leadership.

CONCLUSION The intentional model of political social work can ensure that social work’s values and principles guide future societal change. All social workers, regardless of field or method, should possess core political knowledge and skills, while a subset of social workers lead in this area. All social workers must work together to ensure that the true experi- ences of those served by social work are repre- sented within the political process. A renewed commitment by the profession to political social work practice is needed, preparing social workers for the challenges ahead. SW

REFERENCES Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational

policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/file.aspx?id=81660

Fisher, R. (1995). Political social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 194–203.

Gal, J., &Weiss-Gal, I. (2015). The ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of policy practice: An eight-country comparison. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1083–1101.

Hamilton, D., & Fauri, D. (2001). Social workers’ political participation: Strengthening the political confidence

of social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 321–332.

Hoefer, R. (2016). Advocacy practice for social justice (3rd ed.). Chicago: Lyceum Books.

Lane, S. R., & Humphreys, N. A. (2011). Social workers in politics: A national survey of social work candidates and elected officials. Journal of Policy Practice, 10, 225–244.

Mary, N. L. (2001). Political activism of social work educa- tors. Journal of Community Practice, 9(4), 1–20.

National Association of Social Workers. (2015).Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author.

Pritzker, S., & Applewhite, S. (2015). Going “macro”: Exploring the careers of macro practitioners. Social Work, 60, 191–199.

Pritzker, S., & Burwell, C. (2016). Promoting election- related policy practice among social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 4, 434–447.

Reisch, M. (2000). Social workers and politics in the new century [Guest Editorial]. Social Work, 45, 293–297.

Ritter, J. A. (2007). Evaluating the political participation of licensed social workers in the new millennium. Journal of Policy Practice, 6, 61–78.

Rome, S. H., & Hoechstetter, S. (2010). Social work and civic engagement: The political participation of pro- fessional social workers. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37, 107–129.

Rome, S. H., Hoechstetter, S., &Wolf-Branigin, M. (2010). Pushing the envelope: Empowering clients for political action. Journal of Policy Practice, 9, 201–219.

Swank, E. W. (2012). Predictors of political activism among social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 48, 245–266.

Suzanne Pritzker, PhD, MSW, is associate professor, Grad- uate College of Social Work, University of Houston, 3511 Cul- len Boulevard, Room 110HA, Houston, TX 77204-4013; e-mail: [email protected]. Shannon R. Lane, PhD, MSW, is associate professor, School of Social Work, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, and research committee chair, Nancy A. Humphreys Institute for Political Social Work, University of Connecticut, West Hartford.

Original manuscript received June 1, 2015 Final revision receivedMarch 20, 2016 Editorial decision March 29, 2016 Accepted March 29, 2016 Advance Access Publication November 10, 2016

82 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017

Copyright of Social Work is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.