Chapter 1

Policy Practice

Rodney A. Ellis

How should the social work profession proceed in the political arena? Is there a way for individual social workers to engage in policy practice without condemning those with whom we might disagree? How might the profession counter the trend of social workers not running for political office?

Introduction

Policy practice is an interesting practice construct, certainly different from the more traditional micro–macro practice spheres. In this chapter policy practice is viewed as an important practice area and one that fits nicely with the social work profession. In an ideal world policies would solve the problems they were intended to address…social workers are, by the nature of their profession and position, inherently involved in social policy. Yet social workers, for the most part, tend to stay away from the policy arena. For example, in the current 112th Congress, there is a total of 435 members of the House of Representatives. These individuals report a variety of professions: 170 are lawyers, 78 are educators, 175 are in business, 15 are physicians, 5 are ordained ministers, and 4 are peace corps volunteers, plus there are 7 accountants, 6 engineers, 15 farmers, 9 ranchers, and 7 social workers (Manning, 2011). According to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), in 2008, the last year NASW collected such data, approximately 165 individuals held elected offices at the local or state levels of government across the United States. What we can conclude is that social workers simply are not holding elective offices.

Yes, social workers are employed in key staff positions in elected officials' offices; for example, the long-term legislative director for U.S. Congressperson Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is a social worker. Even so, social workers holding staff positions in federal, state, or local offices are not prominent. Social workers also are not commonplace in governmental relations offices, for example, lobbying firms.

What makes this confusing is that social workers, as evidenced by discussions at various state and national meetings as well as on LISTSERVs, seem to be engaged in constant “political” discussions. But for whatever reason, the discussions do not lead to the risks involved in pursuing a political career or direct engagement in political processes.

Without a doubt, social workers bring a unique, human perspective to policy discussions. Day in and day out, social workers work with people, groups, and communities around a variety of human issues in a way that is unique from other disciplines. The “practice wisdom” gleaned from such work allows social workers to put a human face on policy initiatives. We have seen the results of policies developed by and enacted by lawyers, farmers, and businesspeople. Little has changed as social issues remain fully embedded in our national human fabric. One can only wonder what would happen if there were 170 social workers in the U.S. House of Representatives rather than lawyers.

There are a variety of ways for social workers to engage in policy practice in ways other than holding an elective office. We all must understand—policy practice is not easy; it is slow, tedious, and certainly frustrating. Yet, to turn our professional collective backs on the political nature of our work is ignoring that which we know.

We also need to recognize that the social work political tent is big—social workers reflect a variety of political parties and philosophies including Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian, Green, liberal, conservative, and radical. For every social issue you identify, social workers hold a variety of positions, often in conflict with each other. In other words, the social work profession does not nor should reflect one political ideology.

There is nothing wrong if a social worker subscribes to one particular ideology; the issue is when this same person, who believes in self-determination and individualism, penalizes others, be they students or colleagues, because they may hold a different political philosophy or argue from a different perspective. Personal ideological insecurity simply will not realize a just society.

Policy Practice

Benjamin is a BSSW-level social worker who is employed as a case manager in a mental health treatment facility. He loves his work and has an excellent record of effective practice with his clients. He is concerned, however, with one aspect of his agency's operation. He has noticed that many clients have recently discontinued their treatment despite substantial improvement in their reported issues. Curious as to why this might be occurring, Benjamin made a few phone calls to clients who had recently dropped out of treatment. He was astounded to discover that four of the five people he called had stopped attending sessions because their state-provided supplemental income benefits had been cut. These former clients reported a simple choice: They could either not pay their rent or stop attending treatment sessions. They had taken care of immediate necessities rather than their important, but less urgent, mental health needs.

Benjamin is disturbed that so many were leaving treatment, but he is even more disturbed that it was unnecessary that most of them do so. His agency had funding alternatives that would have allowed all the persons he called to remain in treatment. They had not taken advantage of those alternatives simply because they had not been aware of them. The agency had no means of assuring that the information was made available to them. Having discovered this problem, Benjamin resolves to find a way to solve it. Further, he wishes to institutionalize the solution, so that it is certain to remain in place into the foreseeable future.

Alma is the executive director of the same agency at which Benjamin is a case manager. She is unaware that her agency's clients are withdrawing from services because of the income cutbacks. She is aware, however, that the cutbacks are occurring. Alma is a part of a local coalition of social service providers that is concerned about the conditions area residents have begun to face as a result of the cuts. A community needs assessment conducted after the changes revealed that the number of persons becoming homeless had increased, the rate of the referral of children into the child welfare system had nearly doubled, and community health experts were predicting a surge in emergency room treatment and hospitalizations. Further investigation showed that all these conditions could be traced, at least in part, to the loss of income many families had experienced. Several other effects have been reported in the community including increased demand at food banks and a rising crime rate. No formal research has been conducted that could identify a link between these conditions and the cuts. There is, however, strong evidence from reports of residents that such a link exists. Further evidence is provided by the fact that these changes occurred in the wake of the cuts and have a logical relationship to them.

The coalition of agencies has been formed to study and to address the problem. Its mission is to develop and implement a plan to get the cuts reversed, and to assure a steady supply of supplemental income to the residents of its community and state. So far the coalition has met twice, collected available data about the cuts and their effects, and drafted a mission statement to guide future activities. The statement is short, simple, and to the point: “The mission of the Supplemental Income Reinstatement Coalition is to restore the level of each program recipient's supplemental income to pre-cut levels.”

Both Benjamin and Alma face issues created by current social welfare policy. The problems have a common cause, the supplemental income cuts, but the manifestations of the issue and the levels at which they hope to address the issue are very different. Benjamin faces a problem at the agency level. It is a policy issue, more specifically, one caused by the absence of any effective policy to assure that an undesirable condition does not arise. He will probably find it relatively easy to identify a solution, gain access to decision makers, and persuade those decision makers to take steps to address the problem. Alma, on the other hand, faces a problem generated at a higher level, and that affects many people in a variety of ways. Although ultimately the cause of the problems they want to address is the same, the scope and goals of their efforts will differ in significant ways.

Benjamin and Alma have chosen to engage in an important social work activity: policy practice. Janssen (1999) defined policy practice as “efforts to change policies in legislative, agency, and community settings, whether by establishing new policies, improving existing ones, or defeating the policy initiatives of other people.” Many social workers express little interest in policy, but their careers are intrinsically involved with social welfare policy. In fact, policy furnishes their careers. Problems are recognized by policy makers, policies written, social programs developed, and jobs created. Many are filled by social workers.

In an ideal world policies would solve the problems they were intended to address. In reality this is sometimes not the case. Take, for example, Benjamin's discovery. Policies related to mental health treatment are working well. Policies to provide alternative funding for services also exist. There is, however, a problem in agency policy. No policy has been written to assure that clients are aware of the financial supports. In...