Discussion wk 8 SOCW 6361: Using Power in Social Work Practice

Political Activities of Social Workers: Addressing Perceived Barriers to Political Participation

Cynthia Rocha, Bethanie Poe, and Veliska Thomas

This article reviews the literature on political participation of social workers and the variables that promote or impede political advocacy. Early research in the 1980s and 1990s most often reported education, feelings of efficacy, having a macro-type job, and being a member of a national association as factors that determine greater political participation. Since the late 1990s, organizational and legal issues have surfaced more prominently as barriers to political participation by social workers. This article addresses barriers to participation, such as not feeling competent to perform policy-related tasks and perceived legal barriers. It then analyzes the actual restrictions that nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations and publicly employed social workers face in lobbying and partisan politics. The article summarizes the activities that are legally allowed in these areas and concludes that social workers can be more politically active than they often realize.

KEY W ORDS: Hatch Act; IRS regulations; lobbying;policy practice;political participation

A lthough social workers are expected to ad­vocate for their clients, many social worker activities revolve around individual advo­ cacy. For example, Ezell (2001) found that 90 percent o f social workers reported advocacy as part o f the professional role o f social work, but 75 percent of social workers who performed advocacy practiced individual, or case, advocacy (Schneider & Lester, 2001). Far fewer social workers become involved in political, or class, advocacy (also known as policy practice)— participating in the political system on a larger scale, either within or outside o f their jobs. There are many reasons for this, including lack of training, not feeling competent to perform policy- related tasks, restrictive employment settings, and fear o f losing one’s job. Although there are legal restric­ tions on how much social workers can participate politically, depending on their place of employment, social workers can advocate substantially more than they sometimes assume they can.

This article reports the research that has been conducted on what makes social workers more likely to participate in the political process and the barriers that social workers perceive to becom­ ing politically active. Barriers may be internal (for example, feelings o f inefFicacy) or external (for example, potential legal restrictions). We first ad­ dress internal barriers to participation and provide resources designed to increase practitioners’ feelings I

o f competency to perform policy-related activities. Next, we analyze external barriers, including the Hatch Act and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, to understand how these laws affect social work political participation. Finally, we draw conclusions on what types o f political advocacy social work­ ers can perform within and outside of their places o f employment, both for public and nonprofit organizations.

D E F IN IN G P O L IT IC A L A C T IV IT Y

Throughout this article, the terms policy practice, political advocacy, and political participation are used in­ terchangeably to mean political activities performed within the political system, such as lobbying, educat­ ing the population on a social problem or a piece of proposed legislation through community awareness, or working on a political campaign.Thus, other types of political activity, such as demonstrations, protests, and other forms o f social action designed to make change are not addressed in this discussion.

There are three reasons why we define political activity in a more narrow sense in this article. First, research that reports on the political participation o f social workers defines political activity as social workers participating within the political arena, which is different from activism in a social action role; second, the skill sets are different, depending

Code: 0037-8046/10 $3.00 ©2010 National Association o f Social Workers 317

on how one defines political activity; and third, the laws that currently affect social workers in nonprofits and public agencies address lobbying and partisan political activity (for example,election campaigning), which are part of mainstream political pursuits but not social action pursuits.Thus, we narrow our focus to working within the political system for brevity’s sake, not necessarily because it is the only, or best, way to create change.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL WORKERS Because social workers are ethically bound to ad­ vocate for oppressed populations and, indeed, are among the few professionals who speak for disen­ franchised populations, the extent to which they participate in the political arena has been a topic of concern in the profession for several decades. In the early 1980s, Wolk (1981) found that social workers were more politically active than the general popula­ tion, although one-third of the social workers who responded to his survey were not active at all. His analysis noted that the most active social workers were those who were linked to a professional as­ sociation, and the least active were social workers in direct practice.Ten years later, in a study of NASW chapters, similar results were found among chapter respondents, with 35 percent of chapters classified as inactive (Salcido & Seek, 1992).

During the 1990s, several studies focused on what predicted or inhibited political participation among social workers. The results were quite simi­ lar and reflected what Wolk (1981) had found at least 10 years earlier. Ezell (1993) found that social workers who were the most politically active were more likely to be members of a national associa­ tion, have a macro-type job, be African American, and have higher education. Hamilton (1998) found that the strongest predictors of political participa­ tion among social workers were perceived political self-efficacy, interest, and being an active member of a social work association. Pawlak and Flynn (1990) attempted to discern what factors executive direc­ tors of human service organizations used to decide on their political involvement and concluded that executives may restrict their political involvement because they misunderstand laws regarding political participation.

Research continued in the 21st century to assess what factors promote or inhibit political activity among social workers. It is interesting to note that,

although perceived self-efficacy and professional association recruitment remained important deter­ minants of political participation, organizational and legal barriers surfaced more prominently. Whereas Hamilton and Fauri (2001) found that the factors most likely to predict political participation were perceived political self-efficacy and recruitment by a national association, the same year, Mary (2001) reported that the main barrier for nonprofit em­ ployees was the IRS regulations limits on lobby­ ing. In a 2005 study targeting directors of NASW chapters, directors reported that the primary factors that discouraged participation included constraints by the member’s employer, lack of information, and relevance of the issue to the member’s personal life (Hartnett, Harding, & Scanlon, 2005).

In a 2003 Washington Post survey of 1,700 ran­ domly selected 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, researchers found that most of the organizations, particularly smaller groups, limited their advocacy efforts in state legislatures and Congress out of fear of violating the lobbying provisions of the IRS regula­ tions (Berry, 2003). As one executive director said, “We’re not allowed to lobby. We’re not allowed to influence policy” (Berry, 2003, p. B01).The survey also found that 50 percent of the executive direc­ tors of these organizations believed that they were not able to take public stances on federal legislation, and 45 percent said that they were not allowed to sponsor a debate between candidates running tor office. Unfortunately, these perceived barriers are not accurate.

In a discussion of these organizational issues that have emerged in the literature in recent years, Karger and Hernandez (2004) suggested that most social services agencies in fact discourage their em­ ployees from becoming politically involved. They further suggested that regardless of whether the organization is nonprofit or public, social services and social welfare agencies alike, sustained largely by federal funding, are in a tenuous situation in an era of decreased funding and are fearful of supporting political involvement of their employees. •

Given the research over almost 30 years, several factors stand out as having contributed to or hin­ dered political participation of social workers. The most important determinants of political activity reported in the 1980s and 1990s were perceived competency, education, being in a macro-practice job, and being a member of a professional association. More recently, organizational and legal barriers to

318 SocialWork Volum e 55, N umber 4 O cto ber 2010

political action by social workers have emerged as important themes to be added to that list.

IN T E R N A L B A R R IE R S : P O L IT IC A L

C O M P E T E N C Y A N D P O L IC Y P R A C T IC E E D U C A T IO N

There is evidence that political education increases feelings of competency and that competency, in turn, increases political activity. Social workers are more likely to be active when they feel they are politically efficacious (Hamilton, 1998). Similarly, Rocha (2000) found that students who were taught policy practice skills through experiential learning felt more competent and were more politically active after graduation than others who were taught with more traditional methods of learning.

The fact that so much of the research on political activity indicates that social workers in direct practice are less active than their macro-practice counterparts and that education enhances self-efficacy and action suggests that direct practice social work students may be receiving limited skill-based, policy practice content in the classroom. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to analyze political content in social work programs, there is already a substantial amount of literature decrying the micro/macro separation in schools of social work (see Ager, 2005; Austin, Coombs, & Barr, 2005;Johnson, 1998; Rocha & Johnson, 1997; Rocha & McCarter, 2003/2004; Taylor, Austin, & Mulroy, 2003).

S k ills t h a t In c re a s e P o l it ic a l C o m p e te n c y

It is important to understand that policy practice encompasses a broad range of potential targets, from local boards (for example, school boards, transporta­ tion boards, planning commissions) to local, state, and federal legislative bodies. However, there are similar skill sets that can be used to advocate for clients at any of these levels. Indeed, most of the time when one thinks about being politically active, trying to maneuver through Congress at the federal level comes to mind. But as Rocha (2007) pointed out, “the fact is that most policy that affects our day-to-day lives is very much within the realm of our influence” (p. 5).Transportation, housing, health and mental health services, domestic violence cases, school problems, and a plethora of other issues are all dealt with at the local level of government or within specific local agencies. The role that devo­ lution of federal responsibility of social welfare has played in bringing more decision making to the

state and local levels has increased the opportunities for social workers to advocate for services closer to home. Although it may be difficult to believe, decision makers from many different target levels truly want input. The state legislature alone deals with thousands of pieces of proposed legislation each session.Without information from people who have experience with many of these issues, it is very difficult for legislators to make sound decisions on pending bills, and they often rely on information provided by advocates and lobbyists.

Skills typically needed at several target levels include using a variety of media sources to get out messages (letters to the editor, public service an­ nouncements, op-eds, news releases, interviews, and so forth); learning specific letter writing, Internet, and phone campaign skills; understanding when to use different types of communication styles; writing testimonials and testifying before committees; learn­ ing to use technology in advocacy plans; and, most important, learning the importance of strategically planning what types of techniques work best to at­ tain the desired policy outcomes. The importance of planning cannot be overstated. At every step of the planning process, decisions must be made, stakeholders assessed, pros and cons of different political tactics decided on, and contingency plans made (Rocha, 2007).

Although the foregoing discussion of the skills needed to attain a certain amount of competency in political participation just skims the surface, it provides enough information to show that there are a number of targets and strategies for change available to social workers to advocate on a larger level for their clients. Because of the dearth of skill building in the area of policy practice that some social work practitioners have received, several recently published books are intended to provide specific skills to both students and practicing social workers to increase their competence to participate more fully in the political process and, thus, assist clients in obtaining needed resources (for example, Ezell, 2001; Haynes & Mickelson, 2003; Hoefer, 2006; Rocha, 2007; Schneider & Lester, 2001).

However, even with the skills listed earlier, it is important to note that there may be limitations on what kinds of activities can be undertaken, depending on where social workers are employed. Thus, regardless of the political education that social workers have had, the complexity of the legal system within which social workers must function may

Ro cha , Po e , and Thomas / Political Activities o fSocia l Workers: Addressing Perceived Barriers to Political Participation 319

be perceived as a barrier to political participation. Furthermore, the literature in the last few years has shown a lack of understanding of the law, by both employees and employers of nonprofit and public agencies, to be a growing and disturbing trend. The remainder of this article disentangles some of the confusion over laws regarding both public and nonprofit agencies and what organizations and the individuals within them can and cannot do in terms o f political activity.

EXTERNAL BARRIERS: UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL LIMITS ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION The second set o f barriers to political participation is what we have termed “external barriers.” These barriers include legal restrictions that determine two issues: (1) how much lobbying an organization can do and (2) the types o f political activities social workers employed in the public and nonprofit sec­ tors can engage in. Because of confusing language in the law regarding partisan campaigns, the remainder of this article refers to overall “political activity” as political advocacy or participation and refers to the federal definition of political activity as “partisan political activity.” Lobbying is defined in this article as the attempt to influence legislation that is currently being debated in the legislature. Because there are different nonprofit statuses, from here on out when the term “nonprofit” is used, it refers to a 501(c)(3) organization.There are many types of political advo­ cacy that social workers in both private nonprofit and public agencies can engage in without limitations. But it is important to understand that, depending on the type of organization in which one works, social workers, individually and as an organization, may be more or less limited by the law in lobbying and in partisan political activity.

LOBBYING AND NONPROFIT 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS Nonprofit organizations are classified in the U.S. Tax Code Section 501, meaning that they have a tax-exempt status (Clark, 1997). The IRS began developing exact definitions regarding the nature, rights, and responsibilities of tax-exempt agencies during the early 1950s. In 1976, Congress passed Section 1307 of Public Law (P.L.) 94-455, the Tax Reform Act, which detailed the lobbying limitations for 501 (c) (3) organizations (Smucker, 1999). Section 1307 of P.L. 94-455 acknowledged lobbying as a

proper function of nonprofit organizations while clarifying the lobbying limits placed on 501(c)(3) agencies. However, it was not until August 1990,14 years later, that the IRS issued the final regulations of the 1976 tax code.The IRS regulations that define lobbying restrictions for nonprofit organizations are often misunderstood as limiting more political activities than they actually do.

According to IRS regulations, there are two forms oflobbying: direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying (Smucker, 1999). Direct lobbying refers to the com­ munication that a 501(c)(3) has with legislators, government officials, or its own members regarding pending legislation.To be considered direct lobbying, the communication must refer to specific legisla­ tion and reflect a particular view on that legislation (Raffa, 2000). Examples of direct lobbying would be meeting with a congressperson to discuss a bill, or urging an organization’s members to contact legislators regarding specific legislation. Grassroots lobbying, also known as indirect lobbying, is any effort to support or oppose legislation by influencing the opinion of the general public (IRS, 2008b).

A nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization can engage in lobbying activities as long as the activities fall within certain financial guidelines set by the 1976 lobby law and are not a “substantial” part o f its ac­ tivity, usually referred to as 5 percent or less o f the organization’s expenditures (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2007). The IRS regulations place strict financial standards on how to determine how substantial a nonprofit organization’s lobbying expenditures are. To calculate a nonprofit’s lobby­ ing expenditures regarding communication, the organization takes into consideration the cost of preparing the communication, including staff time, facilities, and allocable overhead.

The IRS code also established the “H election” for nonprofit organizations. Using a sliding scale based on annual income, a nonprofit may spend up to as much as 20 percent o f its revenues on lobbying (Berry, 2003). To take the H election, an organization must fill out an IRS Form 5768 ajid keep a record of its spending to show that it has not exceeded the 20 percent limit. A public charity can elect to make a 501 (h) selection, which would allow them to spend a larger amount to influence legisla­ tion without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. This election is often made when an organization is attempting to influence legislation on issues that may affect its existence, powers, tax-exempt status,

320 SocialWork Volum e 55, N umber 4 O ctober 2010

or other similar matters, and it is referred to as “self- defense lobbying.” If an organization wishes to do a substantial amount o f lobbying on a continuing basis, it may want to consider establishing a 501(c) (4) organization.There are no limits on the amount of lobbying this type of organization can do (Kindell & Reilly, 1997). It is not uncommon for 501(c)(3) organizations to develop sister (c)(4) organizations to safely conduct extensive lobbying activities.

Nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organizations have one strict limitation on their political activities:They are not allowed to participate in partisan politics.They may not engage in any activities that “consist of partici­ pating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office” (IRS, 2008b, p. 20) .This restriction ap­ plies only to organizations, however, not individuals; workers in nonprofit organizations may participate in partisan politics as long as there is no clear as­ sociation with the employing agency. One word of caution to nonprofits in the Internet age: In a recent memo by the IRS on political campaigning activities on the Internet, there was concern that 501(c)(3) organizations are participating in politi­ cal campaigns (not lobbying) by providing links to Web sites o f other organizations that are allowed to campaign (IRS, 2008a). If the 501 (c) (3) organization appears to be urging viewers to use the link, the IRS will pursue this as if the organization is campaign- ing.Thus, nonprofits should take care when adding links to their Web sites.This is a new area that is just being explored, but it appears from the memo that an organization should exercise caution regarding which links it chooses to publish.

As the foregoing discussion implies, IRS regu­ lations use a very narrow definition of lobbying; therefore, very little o f what nonprofits do as part of their advocacy efforts actually counts toward their lobbying expenditures (Berry, 2003). Permit­

ted activities that nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organizations may undertake that are not considered lobbying are summarized in Table 1.

As Table 1 indicates, because the IRS has such specific definitions regarding what constitutes lob­ bying, 501 (c) (3) organizations are able to engage in many advocacy activities pertaining to legislation and public policy w ithout limit. The IRS (2007) has explicitly stated that organizations with a 501(c)(3) status may “conduct educational meet­ ings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an education manner w ithout jeopardizing their tax- exempt status.”

Employees of a 501(c)(3) organization may con­ tact members of the executive branch or a legislator regarding legislation, and such contact is not con­ sidered lobbying by the organization. It is also not considered to be lobbying if a nonprofit responds to a written request from a legislative body— however, not from a single legislator— for technical advice on pending legislation. Therefore, testimony given at the request o f a legislative body (for example, before a committee) does not count as lobbying for the organization. It is also not considered to be lobbying to make “nonpartisan analysis, study, or research [with a] full and fair exposition o f the pertinent facts to enable the audience to form an independent decision” (Smucker, 1999, p. 54).

Intra-agency communication regarding legisla­ tion is not considered to be a lobbying activity by the IRS, even if the communication states a position on the legislation^ long as the communication does not specifically ask members to take action. General discussion of legislation is also not considered to be lobbying by the IRS; for example, during an an­ nual meeting, members of nonprofit organizations can discuss the need for legislation, and this is not considered to be lobbying. Self-defense lobbying, as

Tab le 1: N o n p ro f it O rg a n iz a tio n s — L o b b y in g A c tiv it ie s P e rm it te d b y th e IRS Perm itted Advocacy Activities

Activities that work toward changing policies, rules, and regulations of a government administrative agency Targeting a politician, as long as this person is not asked to promote, discourage or veto legislation Developing general policy positions for agencies, as long as they are not specific legislative proposals Testifying before a legislative committee in response to a written request from the committee Conducting nonpartisan voter drives, as long as educational materials state positions of all candidates, cover a broad range of issues, and describe a candidates positions without any evidence of bias or evaluation of the material Note: IRS = Internal Revenue Service. Source: Raffa, T. (2000, December). Advocacy and lobby ing w ith o u t fear: W ha t is a llow ed w ith in a 501(c)(3) charitab le o rgan iza tion . Nonprofit Quarterly, 7(2), 1-5.

Ro c h a , Po e , and T homas / Political Activities o f Social Workers: Addressing Perceived Barriers to Political Participation 321

indicated earlier,is not counted toward a nonprofits lobbying limits. Finally, nonprofits may lobby for legislation as long as it is not a substantial part of their usual activities.

P O L IT IC A L A C T IV IT Y R E S T R IC T IO N S OF

P U B LIC E M P L O Y E E S

T h e H a tc h A c t a n d P a r t is a n A c t iv i t ie s Thompson (1994) attributed the lack of political action by social workers partially to the real and perceived limits of federal, state, and local laws resulting from the federal Hatch Political Activity Act of 1939 (P.L. 76-251), which limited federal public employees from being involved in partisan political activity (for example, partisan election campaigns).The Hatch Act also applies to state and local employees who perform duties in connec­ tion with an activity financed wholly or in part by federal loans or grants. State and local programs that commonly receive grants and loans from the federal government “include education, training and employment, social services, health, transportation, environmental protection, community and regional development, housing emergency preparedness, homeland security, agriculture and law enforcement” (Bloch, 2004/2005, p. 251). Therefore, the Hatch Act may also apply to a nonprofit organization if the federal statute through which the organization receives funding is considered a state or local agency, such as Head Start funding and community service block grants.

The history behind the Hatch Act is interesting, because it originally was created to curb coercion of federal employees by those in power.The federal government was run on a patronage system from the era of the Civil War into the mid-1930s.The acts purpose, according to its original language, was to ban the use of “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election” (Bloch, 2004/2005, p. 231). Although the language used in the bill seemed to protect government workers by controlling abuses of government, it also served to stifle employees’ first amendment rights to free speech. Critics of the act charged that along with banning coercion, it also banned voluntary activities by employees, which should be a right of citizen­ ship regardless of where one works. Although the courts’ original opinions on the matter sided with the original legislation, more recently employees’ First Amendment rights to participate in elections have been given greater scrutiny by the courts, and

subsequent legislation has eased restrictions of the Hatch Act.

But the most interesting issue regarding the Hatch Act is that the intention of the act itself has been misunderstood. The act is about partisan politics for example, supporting candidates or running in partisan elections—not lobbying. Much of what social workers do to advocate politically on behalf of their clients is not related to the Hatch Act at all. One of the problems is the definition that the law has ascribed to political activity, an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, can­ didate for partisan political office, or partisan political group” (Bloch, 2004/2005,p. 239). This means that the federal government defines political activity as a partisan activity (for example, campaigning for a partisan election). Thus, what social workers may perceive as being limitations on their right to advo­ cate for clients through lobbying actually is defined much more narrowly in the law as involvement in “partisan” political activities.

The original Hatch Act (1939) (P.L. 76-251) made it unlawful for federal employees to engage in partisan politics in the following five ways:

1. participate in political management and politi­ cal campaigns

2. use official influence to interfere or affect the results of an election

3. solicit financial or manpower contributions from any political organization or candidate

4. campaign for partisan positions in govern­ ment

5. engage in political activities while on duty, in uniform, or on government property.

In 1993 the Hatch Act Reform Amendments (P.L. 103-94) liberalized the original Hatch Act by permitting most federal employees to take an ac­ tive part in political management and in political campaigns when off duty (Gely & Chandler, 2000). The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (2007) described permitted and prohibited activities under the Hatch Act that social workers should know (see Table 2). Specifically, the Hatch Act does not prohibit lobby­ ing by public employees, nor does it prohibit most political advocacy that is described for nonprofit organizations; rather, it focuses solely on campaign­ ing and running for partisan political office.

As Table 2 indicates, some partisan activities that were liberalized by the 1993 amendments

322 SocialWork Volum e 55, N umber 4 O ctober 2010

Table 2: Public Employees—Political Activities Perm itted and Prohibited by the Hatch Act

P e r m it te d A c t iv it ie s

Run for public office in nonpartisan elections Campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations Actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections (off duty)1 Contribute money to political organizations1 and attend fundraising functions

P r o h ib ite d A c t iv it ie s

Become a candidate for public office in a partisan election Use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination Directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate Fundraise to promote or oppose a candidate in a partisan elective

Note: Public employees are de fined as a ll federa l, state, and local employees and some n o n p ro fit employees funded under certain federa l, state, and local grants and contracts. Sources: (1) Bloch, S. J. (2004/2005). The ju dg m e n t o f history: Faction, p o litica l machines, and th e Hatch Act. University o f Pennsylvania Journal o f Labor and Employment Law, 7, 225-278. (2) U.S. O ffice o f Special Counsel. (2007). About the Hatch Act—State and local employees. Retrieved fro m www .osc.gov/hatchact.htm . •Less restricted employees only.

are permitted only for “less restricted” employees (most social welfare falls under this category). Certain agencies have greater restrictions on partisan activities—for example, the Federal Elec­ tion Commission, the CIA, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies. For a complete list of agencies that must follow the greater restrictions, see 5 USC 7323(b)(2)(B) (2000) or refer to Bloch (2004/2005).

Little Hatch Acts Many states followed this federal legislation by adopting comparative legislation commonly known as “Little Hatch Acts.” These laws specify conditions in which employees are not to use their role or authority to interfere with elections, solicit contributions, or engage in coercion and other activities that could interfere with state business. State laws also have provisions for employees who seek elected offices.

Thirty-five states have enacted some form of restriction on the engagement of state employees in partisan politics. Four states (Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and West Virginia) have laws that are more restrictive than the federal law because they kept the original Hatch Act ban on employees being active in political campaigns. All other states’ Little Hatch Acts are either the same as the federal law or are less restrictive than the federal law (Gely & Chandler, 2000).

TYPES OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY PUBLIC AND NONPROFIT EMPLOYEES CAN PERFORM Contrary to what some social workers may fear, the Hatch Act only maintains that public employees cannot actively engage in partisan politics. Because

the language of the law states that employees can­ not engage in “political activity,” there may be a perception that this includes policy advocacy and lobbying. However, this is simply not the case. Pub­ lic employees can be very politically active. Public employees may lobby, informally and formally, for legislation and perform any number of other politi­ cal activities—except run for office in or, in some cases, work to actively support a partisan political campaign. In most local elections, there would be no impact at all, because many school board, city council, and county commission elections are nonpartisan.

For most employees of nonprofit 501 (c)(3) orga­ nizations, the laws are even less stringent. Although at the organizational level, the laws are strict on how much lobbying an organization may perform, they are specific to organizational activities, not to specific individuals within them. Thus, although an organization may limit its lobbying activities, employees of a nonprofit organization are free to lobby and participate in partisan political activi­ ties. However, before running for partisan politi­ cal office, nonprofit employees should make sure that they are not subject to Hatch Act restrictions because of the type of funding their organization receives.

Using Political Action Com m ittees and Other Coalitions Because most restrictions on employees and non­ profit organizations center on partisan politics (for public employees) and lobbying (for nonprofit or­ ganizations), being part of a coalition or a member of a professional organization is a way to participate on a larger scale and as part of a concerted effort

Ro c h a , Po e , and Thomas / Political Activities o f Social Workers: Addressing Perceived Barriers to Political Participation 323

but still stay within the limitations of the law. The literature has consistently found that most politically active social workers are part of a larger professional association.

NASW is an example of a national member as­ sociation that allows social workers, who may have restrictions in their places of employment, to par­ ticipate in political advocacy. NASW both lobbies and participates in partisan politics at the national and state levels. Political Action for Candidate Elec­ tion (PACE) is the political action arm of NASW (2008). PACE is a political action committee that endorses and financially contributes to candidates from either party who support the associations policy agenda at both the state and national levels. PACE also mobilizes social workers to vote, conducts get-out-the-vote campaigns, and compiles voting records of legislators to send to members.

NASW also has legislative committees that work on both state and national policy. These committees lobby policymakers and executive branch offices by advocating for or against proposed legislation and regulations, keep members informed of upcoming legislation, and mobilize grassroots support from members to contact legislators on important pieces of pending legislation (NASW, 2003).

According to Hartnett et al. (2005), one of the major tasks performed by NASW is legislative ad­ vocacy and electoral activity for endorsing political candidates. Scanlon et al. examined the extent to which state NASW chapters promote the profes­ sional goals of social work and maximize advocacy participation by social workers. Findings indicated that more than 90 percent of respondents reported engagement in lobbying efforts, working with coali­ tions on issues, and encouraging members to run for office. Furthermore, 70 percent to 89 percent of respondents reported having a committee to track legislation, endorse candidates, conduct get-out-the- vote activities with members, influence government policies, support candidates financially, and encour­ age members to help with campaigns.

CONCLUSION The literature suggests that social workers can par­ ticipate in more political activities than they often think they can. Social workers will be more active the more competent they feel in performing policy- related activities. Thus, integrating policy practice skills in the curriculum that all social work students take will help social workers to be more effective in

the political arena. Furthermore, becoming active in professional associations that have political action committees and legislative committees allows social workers to keep abreast of the issues that come up in both state and federal legislatures and make it easier to participate. Hamilton and Fauri (2001) concluded that because political self-efficacy and professional associations were the strongest pre­ dictors of political participation, educators who help students develop competency to participate politically should also encourage membership in professional associations.

Even after social workers feels competent to per­ form policy-related activities, it is important for them to know the laws regarding lobbying for nonprofit organizations, understand permitted and prohibited activities as state or federal employees, and not be afraid to participate in political advocacy to create change on a macro level that will in turn affect the clients with whom they work in direct practice. Educating legislative bodies on issues important to clients and working with the executive branch agencies to implement regulations of laws are both important activities on which there are no restric­ tions whatsoever for either nonprofit organizations or public and private employees. Lobbying can be done legally by any employee and by nonprofits, as long as they watch how much they spend on these activities. The only real restriction that applies to public employees and some nonprofit employees is working in partisan political campaigns, and even these restrictions have been liberalized since 1993.

The bottom line is that social workers, in orga­ nizations and individually, can advocate politically much more than they realize. As one of the few professions that understand the issues of disenfran­ chised communities and oppressed populations, it is incumbent upon social workers to communicate their vast knowledge to decision makers who may not understand what policies actually enhance the lives of the people social workers serve. B53

REFERENCES * Ager, R. (2005). Critical variables for infusing community

content in a clinical program: An empirical study. Journal of Community Practice, 13, 91—105.

Austin, M.J., Coombs, M., & Barr, B. (2005). Community- centered clinical practice: Is the integration of micro and macro social work practice possible? Journal of Community Practice, 13(4), 9-30.

Berry, J. M. (2003, November 30).The lobbying.law is more charitable than they think. Washington Post, p. B01.

324 SocialWork Volume 55, N umber 4 O ctober 2010

Bloch, S.J. (2004/2005). The judgment of history: Faction, political machines, and the Hatch Act. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 7, 225-278.

Clark, C. S. (1997). Regulating nonprofits: Are tax-exempt groups too political? CQ Researcher, 1, 1129-1152.

Ezell, M. (1993). The political activity of social workers: A post-Reagan update. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20(4), 81-97.

Ezell, M. (2001). Advocacy in the human services. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gely, R ., & Chandler, T. (2000). Restricting public employees’ political activities: Good government or partisan politics? Houston Law Review, 37, 775-822.

Hamilton, D. (1998). Factors affecting social workers’ political participation: Resources, professional associations, and perceived efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Hamilton, D., & Fauri, D. (2001). Social workers’ political participation: Strengthening the political confi­ dence of social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 321—332.

Hartnett, H., Harding, S., & Scanlon, E. (2005). NASW chapters: Directors’ perceptions of factors which impede and encourage active member participation. Journal of Community Practice, 13(4), 69-83.

Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, P.L. 103-94,107 Stat. 1001 (1993).

Hatch Political Activity Act of 1939, P.L. 76-251,53 Stat. 1147.

Haynes, K., & Mickelson.J. (2003). Affecting change: Social workers in the political arena (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hoefer, R. (2006). Advocacy practice for social justice. Chicago: Lyceum Books.

Internal Revenue Service. (2007). Lobbying activity of section of 501(c)(3) private foundations. Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/ article/0„id=175254,00.html

Internal Revenue Service. (2008a). Political campaign activity on the Internet: Memorandum for all EO revenue agents. Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/charities/ charitable/article/0,,id= 181565,00.html

Internal Revenue Service. (2008b). Tax-exempt status for your organization (Publication 557). Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf

Johnson, A. K. (1998).The revitalization of community practice: Characteristics, competencies, and cur­ ricula for community-centered services. Journal of Community Practice, 5(3), 37-63.

Karger, H., & Hernandez, M. (2004).The decline of the public intellectual in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(3), 51-68.

Kindell,J. E„ & Reilly,J. F. (1997). P. Lobbying issues. Retrieved from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/ eotopicp97.pdf

Mary, N. (2001). Political activism of social work educators. Journal of Community Practice, 9(4), 1—20.

National Association of Social Workers. (2003). Chapter legislative operations manual. Retrieved from www.socialworkers.org/pace/resources/PACE- ChapterLegManual.pdf

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). PACE: Building political power for social workers. Retrieved from www.socijworkers.org/pace/default.asp

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2007). Appendix A: Lobbying by 501(c)(3) organizations. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article. cffn?article_id=2815&id=23

Pawlak, E. J., & Flynn,J. P. (1990). Executive directors’ political activities. Social Work, 35, 307—312.

Raffa,T. (2000, December). Advocacy and lobbying without fear: What is allowed within a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Nonprofit Quarterly, 7(2), 1—5.

Rocha, C. (2000). Evaluating experiential teaching meth­ ods in a policy practice course: The case for service learning to increase political participation. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 53—64.

Rocha, C. (2007). Essentials of social work policy practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rocha, C., & Johnson, A. K. (1997).Teaching family policy and advocacy: A policy practice course for direct practice students. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 433-444.

Rocha, C., & McCarter, A. (2003/2004). Strengthening economic justice content in social work education. Arete, 27(2), 1-16.

Salcido, R. M„ & Seek, E.T. (1992). Political participa­ tion among social work chapters [Comments on Currents], Social Work, 37, 563-564.

Schneider, R., & Lester, L. (2001). A new framework for ac­ tion: Social work advocacy. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Smucker, B. (1999). The nonprofit lobbying guide (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Tax Reform Act of 1976, P.L. 94-455,90 Stat. 1520 (1976). Taylor, S., Austin, M., & Mulroy, E. (2003). Evaluating the

social environment component of social work cours­ es on human behavior and the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 10(3), 61-84.

Thompson,J.J. (1994). Social workers and politics: Beyond the Hatch Act. Social Work, 39, 457-465.

U.S. Office of Special Counsel. (2007). About the Hatch Act— State and local employees. Retrieved from http :// www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm

Wolk,J. L. (1981). Are social workers politically active? Social Work, 26, 283-288.

Cynthia Rocha, PhD, is associate dean and associate professor, College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, 109 Henson Hall, Knoxville, T N 37996-3333; e-mail: [email protected]. Bethanie Poe, MSSW, LM Slff is a graduate assistant, Col­ lege of Social Work, University ofTennessee, Knoxville. Veliska Thomas, MSSW, LMSW, is an outpatient clinician /adjunct professor, Hiawassee Mental Health Center/University ofTen­ nessee, Chattanooga.

O rigina l m anuscript received January 28, 2008 Final revision received February 5, 2009 Accepted March 18, 2009

P O IN T S & V IE W P O IN T S

f you would like to make a substantive re­ sponse to the premises, studies, and intel­

lectual positions in an article you read in Social Work, this is your forum! This column seeks to stimulate dialogue that will help the profession respond to changing conditions. Send your manuscript (seven double-spaced pages or fewer) to Points & Viewpoints, Social Work, NASW Press, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002-4241.

R o c h a , P o e , a n d T h o m a s / Political Activities o f Social Workers: Addressing Perceived Barriers to Political Participation 325

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.