NASW Chapters: Directors’ Perceptions of Factors Which Impede and Encourage Active Member Participation Helen Hartnett, PhD Scott Harding, PhD Edward Scanlon, PhD
ABSTRACT. NASW state chapters provide a mechanism through which members can become involved in formal political and community advocacy practice. However, there is little understanding of the extent to which members are actively involved in policy and political practice and the factors that encourage or discourage participation. Through a mailed survey to state NASW chapter directors, this paper describes the extent to which members are involved in advocacy and the perceived factors which contribute to or impede participation. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website: © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Social work advocacy practice, NASW, social work education
Helen Hartnett is Assistant Professor at the School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, Twente Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045. Scott Harding is Assistant Professor at the School of Social Work, University of Connecticut. Edward Scanlon is Associate Professor at the School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas. Address correspondence to: Helen Hartnett (E-mail:
[email protected]). Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 13(4) 2005 Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/COM © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J125v13n04_05
69
70
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION Although a key feature of the ethical responsibility of social workers, some have questioned the actual influence of the social work profession in political advocacy efforts (Ezell, 1993; Thompson, 1994; Karger & Hernandez, 2004). The organizational context of practice has been identified as a key factor which can maximize or limit the extent to which social workers participate in advocacy (Ezell, 1994). Others suggest that social work education and practice should focus more on an interest group model to promote collective rather than individual political action (Weed, 1997). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) provides a mechanism through which members can participate in collective advocacy practice regardless of individual organizational constraints. However, there is little understanding of the extent to which members are actively involved in these activities, the factors that encourage or discourage such participation, or how the organizational structure of NASW may inhibit social work member’s political participation. Findings from a mailed survey to state NASW chapters are used to describe the extent to which members are involved in advocacy and the perceived factors, both individual and organizational, which contribute to or impede their participation. Implications for social work practice and education are discussed. LITERATURE REVIEW Professional Mandates The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (1999) mandates that social work address and resolve critical social problems, and calls on the profession to challenge social injustice in all forms. The Code directs social workers to advocate on behalf of different client groups and the broader society, maintaining that the profession should provide opportunities for individual, organizational, community, and political change to improve the well-being of all people. Related to this, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) suggests that a core purpose of the profession is to “enhance human well-being and alleviate poverty, oppression, and other forms of social injustice” (CSWE, 2001, p. 6). In sum, all social workers are called upon to engage in a range of advocacy and social change activities to promote the empowerment and social inclusion of those groups in pov-
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
71
erty or at-risk of socioeconomic destitution, as well as other marginalized populations. As a result, the social work literature, especially social welfare policy and related texts, emphasizes the necessity of political participation to support these professional goals and the requisite skills used for effective advocacy practice. These professional and educational obligations notwithstanding, the literature contains limited information about the actual extent of professional participation in advocacy activities, nor those factors that promote or impede social workers’ (successful) involvement in such actions. This led Ezell (1994) to conclude that “little evidence supports assertions that social workers are active and effective while performing advocacy roles and functions” (p. 37). Among the existing research, one study found that in the late 1980s less than 40 percent of state NASW chapters described their political participation as “very active,” while a similar number (35 percent) said that they were “not active” in political activities (Salcido & Seck, 1992). Reeser and Epstein (1990) found little evidence to suggest that professional social workers were less politically active in the 1980s compared to the 1960s, though contemporary social work advocacy was more likely to occur via institutionally sanctioned types of activities. Organizational Constraints and Priorities Some have suggested that social work education fails to adequately prepare most social workers for effective advocacy practice (Schneider & Lester, 2001), especially if greater emphasis is placed on learning clinical skills than those needed for political engagement (Wolk, Pray, Weismiller & Dempsey, 1996; Mahaffey, 1987). At the national level, a change in the “political climate” may affect the profession’s participation in activism (Abramovitz, 1998), promoting or discouraging social change activities. More relevant to this study is research examining those professional barriers or supports that affect the level of advocacy by social workers. The potential loss of professional identity or individual status within an agency has been cited as a chief barrier to political participation by social workers (Ezell, 1993; Reeser & Epstein, 1990). Both actual and perceived limitations on permitted political activities by public employees have also been found to compromise political participation by the profession (Thompson, 1994). Others suggest that organizational constraints limit social workers ability to practice community and political advocacy. In particular, the lack of time, a high caseload, increased specialization, and job descriptions that fail to include advo-
72
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
cacy activities are seen as key barriers to political participation. Fisher and Karger (1997) propose that the adoption of an industrial model of production by social work limits the extent and quality of services provided to client groups, as well as the ability to pursue advocacy activities, while restricting the control individual social workers have over their work. Such constraints, they argue, necessitate both new workplace models, and an active role for social workers in promoting a progressive social policy agenda and a new ethos of the public good. However, Ezell (1994) contends that if social workers are not encouraged to practice advocacy as a specific part of their job, they are less likely to participate in such activities. He summarized that those involved in “micro” social work practice were less likely to engage in job-related advocacy than those in administrative and “macro” social work positions. In two separate surveys of practicing social workers, Ezell found that personal values and a sense of professional responsibility were the key factors for their involvement in advocacy (1993; 1994). While some 90 percent of social workers reported that they did participate in advocacy as part of their job, three-fourths of these activities were devoted to case advocacy. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed spent less than five hours a week engaged in professional advocacy activities, with a similar number spending less than one hour a week engaged in volunteer advocacy most closely related to political activities (Ezell, 1994). Perceived effectiveness in political advocacy and a personal interest in public policy issues (Hamilton & Fauri, 2001), along with demographic factors–being younger, male, African American, a member of a Jewish religious group, and holding a left-wing political ideology (Reeser & Epstein, 1990)–may also explain greater levels of advocacy and political participation by social workers. Effective Tactics Such findings suggest that advocacy and other forms of “political” social work will be most effective when conducted as an organized activity by professional social workers either inside or outside their formal workplace. In contrast, Hoefer (1999) notes a tendency toward individual political action in the United States which may limit the motivation to participate in advocacy, especially if it produces little visible policy impact. He suggests a need for more collective advocacy by social workers, particularly at the state level, and suggests adoption of an interest group model to maximize the profession’s political influence (Hoefer, 2000). In that it represents the broad values and concerns of the
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
73
social work profession, NASW can be considered an interest group. His work supports Hamilton and Fauri (2001), who found that the most politically active social workers were engaged in professional associations, namely, state NASW chapters, and that they were also more likely to feel capable of affecting the policy process. What is missing from the literature is an understanding of the tactics state NASW chapters use and the extent to which members participate in advocacy practice. This study begins to fill this research gap by exploring the state and chapter context for advocacy and the ways in which members are encouraged and informed about advocacy action issues. Additionally, it reveals the perception of state chapter director’s regarding the factors which impede and or promote political participation by individual social workers. METHODOLOGY Responding State NASW Chapters Created in 1955 through a merger of seven social work organizations, the National Association of Social Workers is the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world. The Association is comprised of 153,000 members who are required to agree to and sign the NASW Code of Ethics upon joining. NASW’s 56 chapters consist of 50 state chapters, an international chapter, and five additional chapters in Guam, New York City, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C. (NASW, n.d.). NASW created a state chapter structure to respond to the needs of differing professional and geographic issues. NASW members are simultaneously part of both the national organization and state chapters. Chapters, in turn, serve their members through the creation of units, branches, regions and divisions, and receive assistance from the Chapter Services Department at the national office (NASW, 2003). A mailed survey was sent to all Executive Directors of state NASW chapters in an effort to answer the following questions. To what extent do state NASW members participate in advocacy? What are the barriers to participation in political advocacy activities by state NASW members? Which perceived factors promote the political participation by state NASW members? The survey was designed using the available literature with attention to ease of completion and the time necessary to complete the question-
74
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
naire. The survey was reviewed by a panel of experts and pre-tested for language, understandability and relevance. The survey contained a mix of closed and open ended questions. The questionnaire was mailed to all Executive Directors of State NASW chapters (total sample frame of 58). This list was obtained from the National NASW website in 2003. Surveys were mailed twice with follow-up phone calls to non-respondents. During the follow-up phone call phase it was discovered that the National NASW office had instituted a new policy regarding research conducted on state chapter activities. This new policy required that all research receive the authorization of the National office. For this reason, many state chapters had not responded to the survey. After consideration of the methodology and time sensitive nature of some of the survey questions (legislative year, policy priorities), it was decided to analyze and report the data gathered from 22 of the total 58 chapters. Although the response rate (40%) was not optimal, it is considered adequate for a descriptive study of this kind. Additionally, the responding state chapters represent diversity in size, and geographic location. The results are perceptions of NASW chapter directors and may not represent actual practice in all instances. Additionally, the data is limited in the description of training and area of specialization of NASW members, as well as current positions held by social workers. This study provides insight for future inquiry into the practice context of members and how this may enhance or limit advocacy practice by social work professionals. In this study, state chapters report an average of 1.2 fulltime and 1.3 part-time employees, with less than 1 student intern and 2 volunteers. This lack of professional staff indicates that local chapters confront a formidable task in trying to accomplish their varied advocacy goals. The responding state chapters vary in population and geographic location. As depicted in Table 1, membership ranges from 189-11,629 social workers per chapter. The percentage of all social workers practicing within a state who are affiliated with the chapter also varies from 5-70%. Additionally, national membership is estimated at 153,000. This study represents 29% of the total NASW membership. Therefore, despite the relatively low response rate to this survey, it reflects a representative sample of the activities of NASW members and corresponding state chapters. Table 1 also demonstrates a varying degree of educational levels held by members. The majority (68%) of all members hold an MSW degree. Many of these members are likely to join NASW due to concern about professional issues such as licensure, title protection, and access to malpractice insurance and continuing education courses, rather than an in-
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
75
TABLE 1. State Chapter Membership N
Mean
Std. Deviation
# of members
22
1992.8182
2415.98491
% members male
22
21.0000
5.35413
% members female
22
75.2273
15.51323
% members other
21
.4762
1.96517
% members w/BSW
20
11.4550
11.97864
% members w/MSW
20
68.3000
24.24513
% members w/PhD
20
3.6850
4.06982
% members w/other degree
20
10.0100
12.46709
% of state social workers in NASW
22
32.3182
17.23614
terest in advancing the mission of social justice. The number of members with degrees not in social work may also indicate the change in licensure rules which now require this degree. What is not understood are the motivations, interests, and characteristics of non-degreed members; it is uncertain whether they are differently motivated to be involved in advocacy efforts on behalf of the profession of social work. Executive Directors estimate only 32% of social workers in their respective states are members, indicating a significant need for greater organizing and membership recruitment. RESULTS Advocacy Within State Chapters In order to understand the context of advocacy practice within the state, chapter directors were asked to describe the political climate and the most important social welfare issues facing their jurisdiction. When asked about the context of the state’s political environment in relationship to social welfare issues (Table 2), chapter directors described a somewhat less than desirable climate for advocacy (2.26). Of note, no chapter portrayed their state as very supportive. This presents a challenge to NASW chapters as they attempt to influence change within the state legislature and other policy venues (Abramovitz, 1998). Additionally, the literature reveals that the context of advocacy efforts provides
76
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE TABLE 2. State’s Political Climate
states’ political environment for social welfare issues
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
21
2.62
1.117
Scale: 1(hostile), 2 (somewhat hostile), 3 (neutral), 4 (supportive), 5 (very supportive)
either an opportunity or barrier to involvement in change efforts. In other words, when people believe they can make a difference, they may be more likely to participate (Ezell, 1994). When asked to respond to the key issues facing their state, the open-ended questions allowed chapter directors to select the top three issues. The following demonstrates the results categorized by frequency of the issue reported. State NASW chapters described the most pressing issues as the state budget and health care, followed by child welfare, mental health and poverty. Consideration of the issues facing a state also is an indicator of the state political climate and may relate to the level of participation by members. Many believe that members will participate when the issues are directly related to their professional careers or success (Hamilton & Fauri, 2001). Thus issues such as budgetary concerns, health care financing and delivery, and child welfare systems reform could have significant impacts on the careers of social workers and the well-being of their clients, and may be an arena where professional self-interest and social justice for clients intersect (see Figure 1). The state chapter activity and extent of political practice were measured through items related to both staff time and dedicated advocacy efforts. The energy devoted to advocacy and promoted by the state chapter may directly relate to the amount of time spent by members in political advocacy practice. As noted earlier, many chapters have a limited number of staff and volunteers responsible for coordinating their activities. When asked if staff participated in lobbying efforts and if it was a part of the job description, a large majority (80%) reported yes. This supports Ezell (1994), who found that when advocacy is a part of the expectation of the organization, it is more likely to occur. It is clear that state chapters attempt to make advocacy practice a priority. What is not known is the extent to which member’s employers are doing the same, which may pose challenges for NASW staff in their attempts to encourage members to participate in political advocacy.
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
77
FIGURE 1. Important Social Welfare Issues Facing the State Most Important Social Welfare Issue Facing the State
Responses
#
Budget
16
Health care
16
Child welfare
7
Mental health
6
Poverty
5
Unemployment
3
Welfare
3
Child care
2
Opposing conservatives
2
Public school
2
Tax
2
Child abuse
1
Domestic violence
1
Elderly
1
Government corruption
1
Inequality
1
Living wage
1
Prison sentencing
1
N = 22
How Are Members Encouraged to Participate? When asked if members participated and if they were encouraged to participate in advocacy, 91% of chapters reported that their membership participates, while 100% indicated that the membership is encouraged to do so. What is unclear is the percentage of each chapter’s membership that actually participates in advocacy practice. Anecdotally, it appears that relatively few members in each chapter are actively involved in assisting in electoral and legislative goals. Table 3 demonstrates the results of the activities in which people are encouraged to participate. The most frequent activity is running for political office, followed by endorsing a political party. It may be that these activities are more time consuming and beyond the realm of the members’ employment or career goals. That the lowest affirmative responses are in the areas of “Endorsing candidates,” “assisting in their campaigns,” and holding “get
78
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE TABLE 3. Activities in Which Members Are Encouraged to Participate
Activity
Yes
No
Get out the Vote Campaigns
81.8
18.2
Run for office
90.5
9.5
Endorse Political Party
85.0
15.0
Endorse Candidate/Work Campaign
75.0
25.0
N = 22
out the vote” campaigns may be of concern as these are crucial elements in building relationships with legislators and essential for being taken seriously as a participant in state politics. Factors Which Promote and Discourage Participation In order to understand how members were encouraged to participate, chapters were asked to describe the ways in which information was shared with members. Table 4 demonstrates that the majority of members are informed using electronic mail (90.9%). The least common method of contact is through the telephone (22.7%). The other category includes newsletters and speaking engagements (45.5%). The results may indicate that information is not being shared in the most effective manner. For example, electronic mail, although efficient, is often overused and some members may not respond to requests to act on specific issues or campaigns. Using either a telephone system or in-person setting may provide a more personal appeal which could better promote participation. Indeed Stoecker (2000) has suggested that effective organizing requires the ability to move rapidly back and forth between electronic and traditional forms of organizing. Stronger relationships with NASW staff could only enhance political participation; it may be that many members feel disconnected from the chapter. The field placement process for social work students may be a useful way to increase such connections as well. This could facilitate information sharing, perhaps formally and informally, to students and even full NASW members in the state about political advocacy activities. Of the responding state chapters, nearly three-fourths (72.7%) report that their chapter is a field
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
79
TABLE 4. How Information Is Shared Yes
No
Mail
54.5
45.5
E-mail
90.9
9.1
Telephone
22.7
77.3
Meetings
40.9
59.1
Other
45.5
54.5
Lobby Day
59.1
40.9
Student placement for advocacy
72.7
27.3
Manner Informed
N = 22
placement site for students, but this does suggest room for growth in this area. Information regarding the perceived factors that both encourage or hinder participation was solicited in an open ended manner, and allowed the responding chapter to insert in their own language the top three factors. The results are listed below in Figure 2. The results were categorized and counted to determine frequency of the factors mentioned. State NASW Directors reported that members are more likely to participate when the specific issue is of personal importance or perceived as a problem by members. The second most common factor promoting participation was the ease of access to information and communication regarding an issue. Interestingly, most chapters reported limited information distribution to members through mail as reflected in Table 4. These items are followed in frequency by personal commitment and involvement with the NASW state chapter. Given the lack of involvement of social workers in NASW activities reported earlier, this may indicate further need to increase member recruitment. The findings related to factors which discourage participation (Figure 3) include organizational constraints of the member’s employer, lack of information, and the relevance of the issue to the member’s personal life/apathy. This is consistent with other research that finds that if the issue is not relevant, and if advocacy is not a part of the expected professional role, then such activities are less likely to occur.
80
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE FIGURE 2. Factors Which Promote Participation in Advocacy Practice
Factors which promote participation in advocacy
Responses
# of responses
Issue important to them/perceived as problem by them
20
Communication/ease of access to info/email alerts
14
Personal commitment/coincides with SW values of member
6
Legislative day/trainings
6
Legislative committee/NASW involvement
3
Quality of candidate/know legislator personally
2
Incentives (CE's, food, etc.)
2
Amount of time involved
2
Total number of responses
56
FIGURE 3. Factors Which Discourage Participation in Advocacy Practice Factors which discourage participation in advocacy
Responses
#
Time/busy schedules/employer restrictions
22
Perceived lack of info/experience/complex process
16
No interest/apathy/doesn't affect them personally
5
Disagreement w/NASW/Poor leadership
3
Distance from capitol/travel
3
Limited communication/budget restrictions
3
Poor candidate
1
Total
54
PRACTICE AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS Our results, coupled with the existing literature, suggest implications for both advocacy practice and research. Three findings seem especially salient: that time constraints on advocacy practice limit involvement, that email is a heavily used form of political communication, and that concerns over budgets, mental health and child welfare represent widely experienced state social welfare issues. First, it is clear that in order to impact a state level political climate, the issues of adequate time and energy to engage in advocacy must be addressed. A professional organization made up primarily of workers who face high stress levels,
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
81
and may also (due to gender) have heavy family responsibilities, is not easily marshaled into a potent political force. Social work administrators should be encouraged to build a culture in which some amount of work time is dedicated to advocacy. This can be accomplished within the boundaries of 501c3 law, which is often misinterpreted by administrators who think employees cannot legally lobby or advocate on political issues. Educating non-profit administrators about the reality of the advocacy provisions of the 501c3 status would thus be a useful first step. Numerous guides, such as those available from the National Council of Nonprofit Associations (www.ncna.org) are available to help 501c3 organizations understand the advocacy activities which are permissible under current law. Another helpful tactic would be to create alliances with labor unions in order to tap into the resources of unionized social workers (Scanlon & Harding, 2005). These workers have more flexibility to engage in lobbying due to contractual agreements that give employees paid leave to conduct union business. Finally, a relationship with labor could be deepened by providing reduced fee NASW memberships through unions, who in turn could help NASW to lobby through both their members and their professional lobbying staff. The second practice issue that emerges from this study is the means by which state NASW Executive Directors communicate with their membership. As we note above, email alerts are frequently ignored, and newsletter information is not always timely. NASW state chapters need to develop an organizing model which structures cells of practitioners, most likely by state legislative district, into distinct groups of advocates who can build relationships with individual legislators and contact one another quickly when legislative or electoral challenges arise. A team captain in each district could assume that responsibility, which clearly cannot be met by the two individuals who staff the average NASW state chapter. The similarity in challenges that face states–budgets, health care crises, and child welfare problems–is actually a strength. Better organized, social workers could be key leaders in impacting state policies, perhaps through a nationally coordinated effort at developing model legislation. A focused plan that replicated social work victories across states could provide us with a knowledge base about how to form vital alliances with sympathetic allies. Having clear cut legislative action plans and legislative district committees could actually be a membership recruitment tool; organizations could offer potential members immediate opportunities to be involved in political social work. Increasing NASW member-
82
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
ship among eligible social workers at the state level will be essential to creating progressive state social policy. Expanding that to include non-social work trained human service workers might help us to develop a broader movement of caregivers that can effectively advocate on significant issues. Our small study represents an initial inquiry into this important topic. Additional research would allow us to understand the strengths social work professional associations bring to advocacy, and to help us recognize the barriers they face in this work. Specifically, it can help us to understand predictors of successful electoral and legislative campaigns, and those resources which would assist state NASW chapters in carrying out their political goals. A greater understanding of the membership’s political inclinations, goals, and priorities would be useful for focusing state chapters’ policy efforts, and for developing campaigns to increase member participation. In the social work literature, relatively little empirical research, quantitative or qualitative, has been conducted about our advocacy efforts. This study is a modest contribution, but NASW and our other social work professional associations should make an earnest effort to take a critical look at legislative and electoral work. Funding constraints and continued pressure for devolution and the privatization of social services make this a critical time for social work. Research addressing the advocacy efforts of social workers could be a crucial tool to increasing our political effectiveness in support of the profession and a strengthened welfare state. REFERENCES Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An arena of struggle. Social Work, 43(6), 512-526. Council on Social Work Education. (2001). Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards. Alexandria, VA: Author. Ezell, M. (1994). Advocacy practice of social workers. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 75(1), 36-46. Ezell, M. (1993). The political activity of social workers: A post-Reagan update. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20(4), 81-97. Fisher, R., & Karger, H. J. (1997). Social work and community in a private world: Getting out in public. New York: Longman. Hamilton, D., & Fauri, D. (2001). Social workers’ political participation: Strengthening the political confidence of social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(2), 321-332.
Hartnett, Harding, and Scanlon
83
Hoefer, R. (1999). Protection, prizes or patrons? Explaining the origins and maintenance of human services interest groups. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 26(4), 115-136. Hoefer, R. (2000). Human services interest groups in four states: Lessons for effective advocacy. Journal of Community Practice, 7(4), 77-94. Karger, H. J., & Hernandez, M. T. (2004). The decline of the public intellectual in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(3), 51-68. Mahaffey, M. (1987). Political action in social work. In A. Minahan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (18th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 283-294). Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press. National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Author. National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). About NASW. Retrieved September 30, 2004, from www.nasw.org National Association of Social Workers. (2003). Annual report 2002-2003. Retrieved September 30, 2004, from www.nasw.org Reeser, L. C., & Epstein, I. (1990). Professionalization and activism in social work: The sixties, the eighties, and the future. New York: Columbia University Press. Salcido, R. M., & Seck, E. T. (1992). Political participation among social work chapters. Social Work, 37(6), 563-564. Scanlon, E., & Harding, S. (2005). Social work and labor unions: Historical and contemporary collaborations. Journal of Community Practice, 13(1), 9-30. Schneider, R. L., & Lester, L. (2001). Social work advocacy: A new framework for action. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Stoecker, R. (2000). Cyberspace vs. face to face: Community organizing in the new millennium. The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing and Development. Retrieved October 23, 2004, from http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers 2000/cyberorganize.htm Thompson, J. T. (1994). Social workers and politics: Beyond the Hatch Act. Social Work, 39(4), 457-465. Weed, F. J. (1997). The framing of political advocacy and service responses in the crime victim rights movement. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24(3), 43-61. Wolk, J., Pray, J., Weismiller, T., & Dempsey, D. (1996). Political practica: Educating social work students for policy making. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(1), 91-100.
