11. political activism of social work educators nancy l. mary, dsw

7/31/2019 11. Political Activism of Social Work Educators Nancy L. Mary, DSW

1/21

Political Activismof Social Work Educators

Nancy L. Mary, DSW

ABSTRACT. This paper reports on a survey of MSW classroom andfield educators regarding their level of political involvement, perceived

value conflicts regarding social work and politics, and opinions of futurepolitical opportunities for social workers. Data indicate employees of

public organizations have a higher level of involvement than employeesof non-profit organizations. Follow-up interviews explore this finding.

There wasevidence of continuedambivalence to theconcept of partisan-ship.

Implications for research andeducationareshared, including theneed

to teach ethicsandcompromise in politicalarenas, and thedevelopment offield practica in electoral politics, policy advocacy and government rela-

tions. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: Website: 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. Allrights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Political activism, social work educators

INTRODUCTION

During the last two decades social workers and social work educatorshave renewed their interest in political involvement. Influencing StatePolicy, a network of social workers who assist faculty and students in

Nancy L. Mary is AssociateProfessor, Department of SocialWork, California StateUniversity, San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA

92407-2397 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 9(4) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1
http://www.haworthpress.com/http://www.haworthpress.com/


2/21

influencing state legislation; the development of an advanced concen-tration in Political Social Work at the University of Houston (Univer-sity of Houston); and the inclusion of Political Action in the currentmodels of community practice (Weil, 1996) and other efforts indicateinterest in political involvement. In addition, in 1997 NASW reportedthat more than 200 social workers held local, state or federal elective of-fices nationwide (NASW, 1997), furthering this interest. Though thecurrent climate of citizen distrust of government has dissuaded some ofour profession from political participation, trends such as the devolu-tion of federal commitment to welfare entitlements have persuaded oth-ers of us into political action.

As the social work profession moves into the 21st Century, this re-

search is an attempt to test the water, once again, regarding social workeducators political involvement. Following up an earlier study of so-cial work educators (Mary, Ellano, & Newell, 1993), this paper ex-plores three areas: level of political involvement; values related tosocial work and politics; and identification of barriers and motivators inpolitical activism. The paper will first review the literature on politicalactivity of social workers over the past two decades. It will then discussthe findings of the current study, as well as compare the 1989 and 1999survey results. The final section discusses trends, issues of participa-tion, and implications for practice models and social work education.

POLITICS, VALUES, AND SOCIAL WORK

Social workers political awareness of politics has been increasingsince the 1960s. As disenfranchised groups began to assert themselves,social workers, too, began to involve themselves in political arenas, as-suming positions in coalitions, as lobbyists, and candidates for electoraloffice. More social workers held political office in the 1970s than everbefore in US history (Mahaffey & Hanks, 1982).

In the 1980s the political involvement of social work practitionersevolved, and interest in studying this increased. James Wolks 1981survey of 470 members of the Michigan Chapter of NASW found thissample to be more politically involved than the general population, asstudied by Woodward and Roper (1950) and Milbrath (1965). Among

the social workers sampled, a relationship was found between greaterpolitical involvement and age, practice experience, higher income, andmacro level practice.

2 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE


3/21

In 1989, Mark Ezell studied 500 randomly sampled members of theWashington State NASW, along with 72 graduate MSWs (non-NASWmembers), to see if changes had occurred during the Reagan years.Using a modified version of Woodward and Ropers Political ActivityIndex, he found that the key difference in political behavior of socialworkers over the Reagan years was a greater tendency to communicatewith public officials and attend meetings where political speeches weregiven. In addition, he found that NASW members were more politicallyactive than non-members and, echoing Wolks study, macro practitio-ners were more active than micro practitioners.

About the same time, Mary, Ellano, and Newell (1993) surveyed so-cial work educators about their political behavior, using an expanded

version of Milbraths (1965) hierarchy of political activity. Sampling23 faculty and 104 field instructors, these researchers found, as didWolk, that social workers had a greater involvement level when com-pared to general populations studies. As in Wolks study, this studyfound age and salary to be related to greater overall involvement. And,as in both Wolk and Ezells studies, this sample showed greater in-volvement of macro, overmicro, practitioners. Domanski (1998), in herstudy of 531 social work leaders in health care settings, chose attributesof political participation fromthe literature and, from factor loadings onthe responses, developed certain prototypes. Ninety percent of the re-spondents were found to engage in communication, advocacy, andvoting behaviors, which parallel Milbraths Spectator category

used in Mary, Ellano and Newell (1993). However, a low number wereinvolved in public hearings and activist behaviors, e.g., demonstra-tions. The authors conclusion was that this corresponds with earlierstudies that demonstrate lower levels of participation in activities thatentail the greatest initiative, the potential for conflict or fewer opportu-nities to become involved (Gormley, 1986; Milbrath & Goel, 1977;Olsen, 1982; Reeser, 1986; Verba & Nie, 1972).

Value conflicts and politics have also been explored. In Mary,Ellano, and Newell (1993) values were examined by creating valuestatements fashioned from Thurz (1966) three assumptions regardingsocial work and political activity: social work is social action; the ques-tion of value free social work; and the role of conflict in social workand politics. Findings revealed that, while educators saw congruence

between social work and social action, and recognized the myth ofvalue free social work, there were mixed responses as to whether con-flict was a necessary part of social work and politics.

Nancy L. Mary 3


4/21


5/21

repeated the demographics (age, gender, primary field of practice, pri-mary methods used in their work), an expanded version of Milbrathshierarchy of political involvement (1965) and a series of belief state-ments which drew on Thurz three assumptions regarding social action.In addition, four open-ended questions were asked why social workersmight or might not get involved in political action to discover the barri-ers and incentives for participation.

Milbraths hierarchy consists of three levelsof political involvement:high investment Gladiator activities, such as being elected to publicoffice; Transitional behaviors, ranging from letter writing to canvass-ing; and Spectator behaviors, such as voting, they vote, they cheer,but do not do battle. Thurz belief statements were rated on a four point

Likert scale, from strongly agree to strongly disagree.Five hypotheses were posed. Four were related to political involve-ment, and one to values. First, social workers would continue to show ahigher level of political participation than Milbraths (1965) general pop-ulationstudy. Secondly, social workers would demonstrate high levels ofMilbraths Spectator behaviors, e.g., voting, and that very few wouldbe involved in Gladiator activities, such as holding political office, assupported by Domanskis (1988) findings. Third, the variables of in-creased age and salary would influence political involvement (Milbrath,1965; Woodward & Roper, 1950; Wolk, 1981; Mary et al., 1989).Fourth, macro practice social workerswould be morepolitically involvedthan direct practice social workers, as found in Wolk, 1981; Ezell, 1993;and Mary, Ellano, and Newell, 1993. It was hypothesized, regarding val-

ues, that the ambivalence regarding value free social work found in theearlier sample would continue and be even more pronounced.

FINDINGS

This section will first report the quantitative data on the respondents,political involvement, the ideology of social work and politics, and therelated hypotheses. This is followed by the qualitative data on the futureof social workers in politics and a discussion of the trends whichemerged from open-ended questions.

The Respondents

Even with a small sample size, the profile resembled the former study(1989 N = 127; 1999 N = 63). Two-thirds of the respondents from both

Nancy L. Mary 5


6/21

samples were between the ages of 35 and 55, and Anglo American.Three differences are worth noting. The current study had fewer Asianrespondents, reflecting the general population of the area. The range ofrepresented agencies is broader than the earlier study. In the currentsample, children, youth and family and mental health agencies repre-sent only forty percent of the sample; the other sixty percent work inmedical, substance abuse, various disability programs, aging, andschools. This is compared to seventy percent of the earlier sample whoworked in children, youth and family, mental health or health agencies.Finally, the current sample has a larger number of non-MSW mastersdegree field instructors serving as preceptors (1989= 8%; 1999 = 21%).

Political Involvement

Table 1 shows the percentage of both study samples that have everengaged in specific political activities. Both the 1989 and 1999 percent-ages indicate a greater degree of political involvement of social workersthan those of Milbraths general population studies, supporting the firsthypothesis. Given that the 1989 and 1999 surveys of social workersstudied two different samples and that the latter sample is half the sizeof the first, only cautious comparisons can be made. In Milbraths low-est investment category of Spectator activities, participation levelsare indeed the highest and are comparable to 1989. However, a largerproportion of the current sample participated in two of the very activeGladiator category activities of attending a political caucus and con-

tributing time to a political campaign. Within the Transitional cate-gory is a wide range of activities. In most of these, the current sample isequally if not more involved in them. Especially notable is an increasein letter writing to officials and the newspaper and visiting public of-ficials. Over three-fourths of the current sample reported having at-tended a boycott, sit-in or demonstration, compared to aboutone-half ofthe 1989 sample. On the other hand, monetary contributions to partiesor candidates and door-to-door canvassing, both Transitional activi-ties, were reported by a smaller percentage of the 1999 group. With re-gard to having your name attached to literature supporting a candidateor a community issue, onlyabout one out of five surveyed in both stud-ies is engaged in this behavior. The proportion of people who wouldpost a sign endorsing a candidate or a proposition, however, is currently

double what it was in 1989.Although no respondents made hypotheses about classroom andfield

faculty differences, these groups differed on two activities. A greater



7/21

Nancy L. Mary 7

TABLE 1. Percentage of Faculty and Field Instructors Who Had Ever Engaged

in Various Political Activities: Comparison 1989 and 1999

Political Activity 1989 (N = 127) 1999 (N = 63)

Gladiator Activities:Been elected to a public office 2% (3) 3% (2)Been appointed to a public office 6% (8) 8% (5)Been a candidate for public office 2% (3) 5% (3)Solicited political funds 23% (29) 24% (15)Attended a political caucus 25% (32) 37% (23)Contributed time to a political

campaign 49% (62) 59% (37)Worked actively in a local

political action group to do

community problem solving 32% (41) 40% (25)Transitional Activities:Made a monetary contribution

to a party or candidate 72% (91) 63% (39)Wrote a letter to a public

official or candidate 77% (98) 87% (55)Visited a public official

or candidate 61% (77) 71% (45)Door-to-door or

telephone canvassing 43% (55) 39% (24)Been arrested for a

political action 2% (3) 2% (1)Circulated a petition 56% (71) 53% (33)Attended a political meeting

or rally 70% (89) 76% (48)Attended a boycott, sit-in,

march, demonstration 53% (67) 76% (48)

Testified before alegislative committee 19% (24) 27% (17)

Testified before acommunity hearing 31% (39) 41% (36)

Wrote a letter to anewspaper, magazine or

journal about a politicalissue 29% (37) 40% (25)

Spectator Activities:Worn a button or put a

political sticker on your car 58% (74) 67% (42)Attempted to talk another

person into voting a certainway 69% (88) 76% (47)

Initiated a political discussion 81% (103) 87% (55)Voted for national or state

official (regularly) 89% (113) 92% (57)


8/21

percentage of faculty had participated in a boycott, sit-in, march, ordemonstration, whereas a greater percentage of field instructors re-ported having initiated a political discussion.

Factors Influencing Political Involvement

The study did not confirm results of former studies that older andhigher paid individuals have significantly higher participation rates.The influence of age was assessed by constructing a total political in-

volvement score (the sum of all the activities listed). Scores were thengrouped into high and low and cross-tabulated with age groupingsof 28-47 and 48-68. Sixty-eight percent of the older respondentshad a high political involvement score compared to 44 percent of the

younger age grouping (2 = 3.06, df = 1, p < .08).Thehypothesis that macro practitioners would scorehigher than direct

practitioners was confirmed. Scores were cross-tabulated with threegroups of direct practice, supervisors, and macro practitioners (ad-ministrators, consultants, policy planners, researchers). Sixty-two andsixty-three percent, respectively, of the supervisors and macro practitio-ners were high in political involvement compared to 27 percent of the

direct practitioners (2 = 5.91, df = 2, p < .05). No significant differences

were found between field instructorsandclassroom instructors, nor werethere any differences in political involvement related to gender, ethnicgroup, or educational level.


TABLE 1 (continued)

Political Activity 1989 (N = 127) 1999 (N = 63)

Voted for local officials andinitiatives (regularly) 89% (113) 92% (57)

Had your name included oncampaign literature as asupporter 21% (27) 20% (12)

Displayed a candidates signon your property 24% (30) 40% (25)

Displayed a sign supporting oropposing a proposition onyour property 15% (19) 30% (19)

Had your name included onliterature supporting or

opposing a community issue 23% (29) 21% (13)


9/21

Why Are Public Agency Employees More Politically Involved?

Social work educators who work in public (vs. private) human serviceagencies demonstrated significantly higher total political involvement

scores (2 = 9.5, df = 1, p < .002). Specific activities in which public em-ployees scored significantly higher are listed below in Table 2.

To discover why this difference occurred, we interviewed seven re-spondents by telephone. The questions asked were: What are yourthoughts on why public employees might be more involved in these ac-tivities? What might be the political forces, institutional factors ormotivators? All four public employees responded that they could notescape policy and politics due to the legal framework within which wework and the public dollars we receive. It was felt that perhaps inthe private agency, the aspect of policy is not as close to your work andthat in a public agency you are surrounded by policy and procedure insome form or anotherit affects you daily.

Three of the four pointed out that public involvement might havesomething to do with the disenfranchised nature of the populationsserved, unlike non profits that may serve middle class clientele, lesslikely to be involved with public sector services. Perhaps the needfor justice is clear to them [public employees] and they want to becounted . . . to speak out for justice. One pointed out that public agen-cies have a legacy of involvement, and speculated that perhaps pub-lic employees are more socially conscious than most people.

The fact that public agencies may interact more with other entitieswithin the social welfare system than private agencies was noted bythree of the four, as a reason for more political involvement. We are in-creasingly involved with contacts with the outside world andourabil-ity to go to different associations and conferences, e.g., sending a groupof folks to NASW or legislative days is seen as relevant to their work.One public employee noted that they might have more flexible sched-ules or benefit time to be involved. This was supported by thequasi-governmental employee who stated, We have more allowanceduring work time than a small non profit agency might have. And fi-nally another mentioned the access to information that public agencieshave. One of the non-profit providers supported this as well: Thats

why we started the resource center for non-profits to get information.When youre trying to provide services, youre busy just staying inbusiness, and dont have time to go searching for information.

Nancy L. Mary 9


10/21

Employees of non profits made two main points with regard to theirinvolvement: (1) there are limits to lobbying by non profits and (2) it iscritical to belong to a larger network or coalition for information andcollective influence. With respect to lobbying, one of the respondentsmentioned the perceived dangers, particularly in a conservative envi-ronment: Many of us have to rely on government funding and its adouble edged swordyou dont want to bite the hand that feeds you. . . .in this county most of the philanthropists and elected officials arewell-to-do. If you are not careful you could suffer a decrease in giv-ing. These comments echo those of executive directors in PawlekandFlynns (1990) study who felt pressure to exhibit political leaningsfrom those who had helped the agencies significantly. Another re-spondent emphasized the importance of belonging to a larger politicalgroup: I went to a Coalition for Coordinated Advocacy Conference

involving both public and private agencies, which is a statewide groupmaking efforts to improve funding . . . so that people wont be fightingeach other for funds.


TABLE 2. Political Involvement of Social Work Eductors in Public vs. Private

Agencies

Activity Public (N = 30) Private (N = 24)

Have you ever:

Made a monetary contribution toa party or candidate

77% ** 52%

Circulated a petition 67% * 42%

Attended a political meeting or rally 93% *** 62%

Attended a boycott, sit-in,march or demonstration 70% ** 44%

Attempted to talk anotherperson into voting a certain way 90% ** 65%

Displayed a candidate's signon your property 53% * 29%

Displayed a sign supportingor opposing a proposition onyour property 47% ** 18%

* .05**


11/21

Ideology of Politics and Social Work

The results of social workers responses to Thurz value statementsare found in Table 3.

The first assumption, that social work and social action are congru-ent, recalls the findings in the 1989 survey. Both samples were in mod-erate agreement that social reform is a part of social work. The oneexception is two-thirds of the current sample answered affirmatively tothe statement putting the needs of my client before larger reform. Re-garding ambivalence toward value-free social work, respondentswere even more split regarding the value-free, emotionally neutral, po-litically autonomous nature of social work than was the case ten years

ago. In 1989, 53 percent espoused the view of social work as a partisaninterest group, compared to 80 percent of the present sample, who dis-agreedwith the statement that effective social work involves politicalnon-partisanship.

Trends in Ideology

Two trends regarding factors that might influence ideology are worthnoting. The inherently political nature of social work was agreed to

more often by macro social workers than by direct practitioners (2 =7.10, df = 2, p < .02). Macro practitioners were also more likely to see

social work as involving conflict and confrontation (2 = 5.99, df = 2,

p < .05). Social workers in public agencies saw social work more oftenas inherently political (2 = 5.06, df = 1, p < .05) than social workersin private agencies.

Do Social Work Educators See Political Involvement in Their OwnFuture?

Respondents were asked about their future and what might inhibit orincrease their political involvement. They were asked if they expectedto become more, less, or involved at about the same level in joining ororganizing interest groups, influencing local, state or national policy, orservingas an elected or appointed official. The majority saw themselvesless involved in interest groups, but almost a third planned to be in-

volved in influencing policy at some level. Eleven (17%) of thesixty-three saw themselves being appointed or elected to public office.When asked why they would or would not pursue public office, respon-

Nancy L. Mary 11


12/21


TABLE 3. Percentage Agreement with Statements Regarding Politics and So-

cial Work (N = 63) (% in parentheses are 1989 percentages)

Assumption #1:Social Work/Social ActionCongruence

Agree andStrongly

Agree

Disagree andStrongly Disagree

MissingData

1. As a social worker, to effectivelyaccess resources for ones clientele,one must have some understandingof political systems. 95% 5%

2. Social work, in principle, is notseparable from social reform. 92% 8%

3. Part of a social workers ethicalresponsibility to society involvesengaging in political activities. 68% 32%

4. Social work is inherently political. 73% 27%

5. As a direct service practitioner Imust always attend to the needsof my client before I engage inlarger reform or political issues.* 62% (43%) 35% (47%) 3%

Assumption #2:Value Free Social Work

6. Because we hold high the principle ofself-determination, our influence upona clients decision making is alwaysvalue free.* 30% (17%) 67% (75%) 3%

7. Social works professional normsmake it autonomousset it apart-from various political interest groups.* 42% (26%) 55% (59%) 3%

8. One danger of furthering onespolitical involvement as a social workeris the development of a partisan positionon human problems.* 52% (32%) 47% (54%) 1%

9. Whether we work with a family,testify in court, or attend a strategymeeting, social workers should remainas emotionally neutral as possible.* 48% (39%) 48% (53%) 3%

10. To be an effective social workerone must be politically non-partisan.* 18% (39%) 80% (53%) 2%

Assumption #3:Conflict, Social Work andPolitics

11. Confrontation, struggle andconflict are inherent in socialwork practice. 85% 14% 1%


13/21

dents most often stated that they had no interest in or time for politics.Ten (16%) stated that their personal characteristics that ran counter topolitics, e.g., I know too little about it, I never tried, Im good atbehind the scenes activities. Seven (11%) identified drawbacks inher-ent in politics, e.g., the dishonesty involved, the funds needed, thelimits on personal privacy. Of the eleven (17%) who thought about

pursuing public office, four were active on local commissionsor as fieldrepresentatives and wanted to pursue more responsible positions in pol-itics.

What Inhibits Social Workers from Seeking Positions of PoliticalLeadership?

More than 52 (83%) of those surveyed made comments about thebarriers to political leadership. Content analysis was made of theeighty-five distinct comments. Twenty-eight (33%) of the commentsfell into the Goodness of Fit categorythat is, social workers are nottrained in politics and dont see what they do within a political context.For example, there is too much emphasis on the clinical in this state or

there is lack of appreciation for political processes. Twenty-one(25%) of the responses reflected Practical Concerns such as no time,no energy and no money. Another seventeen (20%) fell into the

Nancy L. Mary 13

TABLE 3 (continued)

Assumption #3:Conflict, Social Work and Politics

Agree andStronglyAgree

Disagree andStrongly Disagree

MissingData

12. In all areas of social work conflictis necessary and can be constructive. 64% 33% 3%

13. Political activity by its naturealways involves conflict. 52% 47% 2%

14. The business of politics is compromise. 68% 30% 2%

15. The business of social work is theestablishment of consensus through aproblem solving process. 74% 24% 2%

16. Political strategy involves,

more often than not, conflict andconfrontation. 58% 41% 2%

17. Social work strategy, moreoften than not, involves conflictand confrontation. 41% 58% 2%

*Statements which contrast with 1989 findings (in parentheses)


14/21

Politics as Dirty Business category. The dominant themes were thatpolitics meant selling out, candidates are for sale, andsocial work-ers are not interested in fame . . . they lack the necessary level of self ab-sorption. Minor themes were the need for campaign finance reformand the fear of losing ones job if one is too political. Finally, in the fif-teen comments (18%) in the area of Value Conflicts, the dominanttheme was the inability to or fear of compromise. Included, for exam-ple, were too often we portray ourselves as moral, which inhibits thegive and take so essential to governance, and social workers have dif-ficulty with the hard knocks of politics. A minor theme was the inva-sion of ones privacy.

What Might Motivate Social Workers to SeekPositions of PoliticalLeadership?

When asked what might engage social workers in political activities,thirty-seven (57%) responded and a total of 45 comments were ana-lyzed. The two most common suggestions were to increase graduate ed-ucation in the political arena (13) and to create peer support for politicalopportunities (13). Comments included, for example, licensure sup-port of the role, and more assistance from organizations devoted tohelping social workers get involved. Seven (15%) related to the needfor individual social workers to change their views and take stands, andthe need for institutions to change, for example, we need campaign fi-

nance reform. Five (11%) comments offered strategies such as weneed to become more involved in business to develop financial re-sources, and two (4%) mentioned changes needed in the larger society,for example, increasing societal values of honesty, fairness, and hu-man rights.

DISCUSSION

The general finding of a high level of involvement in this sample ofsocial workers compared to the general population is encouraging.However, due to sample size, caution is advised in comparing the twostudies and generalizing results. Nevertheless, the low level of partici-

pation in gladiator roles has not changedsignificantly. Next to voting,writing letters to candidates and initiating political discussions are themost frequent activities. This is consistent with Ezells (1993) finding



15/21

that letter writing was one of the key differences in political behavior ofsocial workers since the Reagan years. Low participation in door-to-dooror telephone canvassing, monetary contributions to candidates, and hav-ing ones name on campaign literature may reflect the general findingthat most social workers do not plan to pursue an appointed or elected of-fice.

The studyconfirmed the hypothesis that social work macro practitio-ners are more politically active, perhaps because their jobs require themto be involved in implementing and/or formulating policy. What is sur-prising is the evidence that public social workers are more highly politi-cally active than those in private agencies. Follow-up interviewssuggest that the political nature of public agency environments, easier

access to policy and political information than non profits, more flexi-ble work schedules, and the importance of networks are factors that in-fluence social worker involvement in political change.

Responses of socialworkers, both macro and public employees, indi-cate their belief that the fit between politics and social work is inher-ently more political than do those of direct practitioners or privateagency employees. It makes sense that social workers more involved inpolitical processes would perceive social work, as more partisan andpolitical in nature. However, to understand the dynamics of how socialworkersbecome politicized in their work, further research is needed.

At one level, social work educators appear to accept the congruencebetween social reform and social work and, to a lesser degree, the ne-cessity of compromise and conflict in their work. However, social work

educators do not espouse the view that social workers are a partisan in-terest group. In short, they struggle to embrace the concepts of partisan-ship and the Ill pat your back, you pat mine crucial to the politicalprocess, as expressed by some social workers in political positions inthe 1997 NASW study.

Influencing state or local policy was anarea inwhich a third of the re-spondents projected an increase in their political behavior. The sugges-tion that we need peer groups to better enable folks to get involved isnoteworthy. According to the NASW study (1997), 77% of socialworker politicians said they had a mentor. Efforts such as the Influ-encing State Policy networkand NASW chapter involvement in politi-cal advocacy promise to provide avenues for informed support,guidance, and perhaps more formalized mentoring.

This study raises several important questions for further research.Why are social workers employed by public agencies more politicallyactive than those in private agencies? What is the lobbying potential of

Nancy L. Mary 15


16/21

non profit social workers whoare networked compared to thosewho aremore isolated? What are the significant workplace factors in publicagencies that allow for greater political participation? And finally, astatewide or national study of political participation of social workers,is needed, with a larger random sample of those who are involved in ed-ucation vs. those who are not.

Finally, implications for social work education relate to how values,ethics, and skills in political social work are taught. Content on ethicsand values, including discussion of social work as an interest group, apartisan profession, is necessary to challenge the notion that socialworkshould not be party to the give and take of the political process. It is amyth that direct practitioners operate from a value free stance with their

clients, allowing them total self-determination. Making the connectionamong family, agency and public service environments and politicalarenas is an important one. The inability to or fear of compromise is abarrier to social workers assuming political leadership. Attention to eth-ical behavior and compromise in political decision-making is needed inthe curriculum.

This study also raises concern as to whether social work students aretrained to work in the political arena. Social work politicians have identi-fied the people skills most necessary for success: listening, responding,caring; linking, advocacy and brokering; posing alternative solutions andseeking consensus around them; negotiation and mediation (NASW,1997).Although these arenot foreign to social work education, they needto be practiced in the field practicum. In a survey of 460 social work pro-

grams, less than 20 percent of the undergraduate programs and less than50 percent of the graduate programs responding had available fieldpractice in electoral politics and policy advocacy (Wolk, Pray,Weismiller, & Dempsey, 1996). These authors suggest ways to pursuesuch practice at all levels of politics. Moreover, Rose (1999) points outopportunities in municipal politics. This legitimate but often neglectedarea of community practice is charged with getting out the vote, com-municating with the electorate, developing position papers, and ener-gizing people toward action. In campaigning for municipal office,social work skills complement these tasks.

CONCLUSION

With the turn of the 21st century, society continues to face citizen dis-trust of government anda turning toward community based organizations



17/21

for local change, on the part of government and the public at large. Yetsurprisingly, new faces have appeared in politics, including business ty-coons, professional wrestlers, and an increasing number of social work-ers. Some see todays attitude of public apathy as just another low inthe waxing and waning of societys embrace of politicians and the role ofgovernment in problem solving. Others point to this age as a new one,which may require a new paradigm, such as in Spiritual Politics(McLaughlin & Davidson, 1994) and The Politics of Meaning (Lerner,1997). The social work profession is not untouchedby these debates, andsocial work educators should embrace them. The profession teaches em-powerment. Our charge is to nurture social workers and clients who seeka place at the table of public decision-making. It behooves us, then, to ex-

amine the way programs teach values, ethics, and skills in leadership inpolitical arenas, and the commitment of social work educators to provideopportunities for students in electoral and appointed positions, whether itbe as a member of the local commission on women or people with dis-abilities, a candidate for the city council, or as a social worker running forCongress. Wherever changeis happening, from thebottom up, in private/public collaboratives, or from the topdown, social workers are there, andsocial work education should provide the necessary tools and support toenhance the role of social work in politics.

REFERENCES

Domanski, M. (1998). Prototypes of social work political education: An empiricalmodel, Social Work, 43 (2), 156-167.

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

Gerwitz, N. (1999). Welfare reform: Making the case for multidimensional socialwork strategies, presentation at CSWE Annual Program Meeting, March 10-13,1999, San Francisco, CA.

Gormley, W. Jr. (1986). The representation revolution: Reforming state regulationthrough public representation, Administration and Society, 18, 179-196.

InfluencingState Policy [online]Available: http://www.statepolicy.org/html/mission.htmlLerner, M. (1997). The politics of meaning. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Pub-

lishing Co.Mahaffey, M. and Hanks, J. (1982). Practical politics: Social work and political re-

sponsibility. Washington DC: NASW.

Mary, N.,Ellano, C. andNewell, J. (1993).Political activism in social work: A study ofsocial work educators, in Mizrahi, T. and Morrison, J. (Eds.) Community organiza-tion and social administration: Advances, trends and emerging principles. NewYork: The Haworth Press, Inc., 203-223.

Nancy L. Mary 17
http://www.statepolicy.org/html/mission.htmlhttp://www.statepolicy.org/html/mission.html


18/21

McLaughlin, C. and Davidson, G. (1994). Spiritual Politics. New York: BallantineBooks.

Milbrath, L. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved inpolitics? Chicago: Rand McNally.

Milbrath, L.andGoel, M. (1977). Political participation: How and why do people getin-volved in politics? (2nd edition) Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

NASW (1997). Social workers serving in elected office, in Haynes, K. and Mickelson,J. (2000). Affecting change: Social workers in the political arena. Boston: Allynand Bacon, 171-188.

Olsen, M. (1982). Participatory pluralism: Political participation and influence in theUnited States and Sweden. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Pawlak, E. and Flynn, J. (1990). Executive directors political activities, Social Work,35 (4), 307-312.

Reeser, L. and Epstein, I. (1987). Social work attitudes toward poverty and social ac-

tion: 1968-1984, Social Service Review, 61, 610-622.Reisch, M. (2000). Social workers and politics in thenew century, SocialWork, 45 (4),

293-297.Rose, S. (1999). Social workers as municipal legislators: Potholes, garbage and social

activism, Journal of Community Practice, 6 (4), 1-15.Thurz, D. (1966).Social actionas a professionalresponsibility,Social Work, 2 (3), 12-21.University of Houston. [Online] Available: http://www.sw.uh/main/pswl.htmlVerba, S., Nie, N., and Kim,J. (1978). Participation andpoliticalequality:A seven na-

tion comparison. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Weil, M. (Ed.) (1996). Community practice: Conceptual models, Chap. 1,

Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc., 41-57.Wolk, J. (1981).Are socialworkers politically active? SocialWork,. 26 (4),285-288.Wolk,J., Pray, J.,Weismiller,T. andDempsey,D. (1996). Political practica: Educatingso-

cial work students for policy making, Journal of Social Work Education, 32 (1),91-100.

Woodward, J. and Roper, E. (1950). Political activity of American citizens, AmericanPolitical Science Review, 44, 872-885.

http://www.sw.uh/main/pswl.htmlhttp://www.sw.uh/main/pswl.html


19/21

Attended a political meetingor rally 79% 11 76% 37 NS

Attended a boycott, sit-in,march or demonstration 79% 11 49% 24 .05

Testified before a legislativecommittee 43% 6 23% 11 NS

Testified before a communityhearing (local or national) 43% 6 41% 20 NS

Written letter to newspaper,magazine or journal about apolitical issue 57% 8 35% 17 NS

Nancy L. Mary 19

APPENDIX A. Percentage of Faculty and Field Instructors Who Have Ever En-

gaged in Political Activities

Political Activity Fac % (N = 14) Fld % (N = 48) t

Gladiator Activities

Been elected to public office 0% 0 4% 2 NS

Been appointed to public office 14% 2 6% 3 NS

Been candidate for public office 7% 1 4% 2 NS

Solicited political funds 14% 2 27% 13 NS

Attended a political caucus 50% 7 33% 16 NS

Contributed time to politicalcampaign 50% 7 61% 30 NS

Worked actively in politicalaction group to do communityproblem solving 50% 7 38% 18 NS

Transitional Activities

Made monetary contribution toparty or candidate 71% 10 60% 29 NS

Wrote letter to public officialor candidate 86% 12 88% 43 NS

Visited public official orcandidate 71% 10 71% 35 NS

Done door-to-door or phonecanvassing 36% 5 40% 19 NS

Been arrested for a politicalaction 7% 1 0% 0 NS

Circulated a petition 64% 9 50% 24 NS


20/21


APPENDIX A (continued)Spectator Activities

Worn a button or put a politicalsticker on your car 71% 10 65% 32 NS

Attempted to talk anotherperson into voting a certain way 64% 9 79% 38 NS

Initiated a political discussion 71% 10 92% 45 .04

Voted for officials or initiatives ona regular basis 86% 12 94% 45 NS

Had your name included oncampaign literature as a supporter 7% 1 23% 11 NS

Displayed a candidates sign onyour property 29% 4 43% 21 NS

Displayed a sign supporting or

opposing a proposition on yourproperty 21% 3 33% 16 NS

Had your name included onliterature supporting or opposing acommunity issue 29% 4 18% 9 NS


21/21

11. political activism of social work educators nancy l. mary, dsw

Documents