Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education Applying

Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education: Applying
a Multidimensional Framework of Power
Amy Krings , Vincent Fusaro , Kerri Leyda Nicoll, and Na
Youn Lee
ABSTRACT
The call to promote social justice sets the social work
profession in
a political context. In an effort to enhance social workers’
preparedness to
engage in political advocacy, this article calls on educators to
integrate
a broad theoretical understanding of power into social policy
curricula. We
suggest the use of a multidimensional conceptualization of
power that
emphasizes mechanisms of decision making, agenda control,
and attitude
formation. We then apply these mechanisms to demonstrate how
two
prominent features of contemporary politics—party polarization
and
racially biased attitudes—affect the ability of social workers to
influence
policy. Finally, we suggest content that social work educators
can integrate
to prepare future social workers to engage in strategic and
effective social
justice advocacy.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Accepted: January 2018

As part of their broader mandate, codified in the National
Association of Social Workers (2017)
Code of Ethics, social workers are called to advance social and
economic justice by participating in
political action with, or on behalf of, disadvantaged groups. The
goals of such action are broad
democratic participation, a fair distribution of power and
resources, and an equitable distribution of
opportunities (Reisch & Garvin, 2016). To achieve these goals,
social workers must go beyond an
analysis of how existing policies reinforce or reduce social
problems to recognize and strategically
engage with the power embedded in political processes
themselves. This power not only influences
how problems are addressed or ignored but also how they are
constructed and understood. Thus, to
be effective practitioners and change agents, it is necessary for
social workers to “see power as central
to understanding and addressing social problems and human
needs” (Fisher, 1995, p. 196).
At its inception, the social work profession emerged as a leader
in shaping policies and programs
that improved the health and well-being of disadvantaged
people and families. Social workers played
key roles in policy areas such as aid to families, Social
Security, the juvenile court system, minimum
wage, and unemployment insurance (Axinn & Stern, 2012).
Over time, external pressures, including
austerity-driven policies that emphasize market-based
approaches to social service delivery and the
reduction of the social safety net, have limited the range of
microlevel interventions and margin-
alized mezzo- and macrolevel community and policy practice
(Abramovitz & Sherraden, 2016;

Reisch, 2000). Consequently, many social work educators have
expressed concern that the profession
has become increasingly depoliticized and decontextualized by
focusing disproportionately on
individual interventions at the expense of systematic
interventions that could help individuals and
communities thrive (Abramovitz, 1998; Abramovitz &
Sherraden, 2016; Specht & Courtney, 1995).
Given this context, we encourage social work practitioners and
educators to vigorously renew
their commitment to, and engagement in, political processes to
advance programs and policies that
support the health and well-being of marginalized groups. In an
effort to enhance social workers’
confidence and ability to engage in political advocacy, we
recommend that social work educators
integrate a broad theoretical understanding of power in social
policy courses, coupled with
CONTACT Amy Krings [email protected] Loyola University
Chicago, School of Social Work, 1 East Pearson Street, 530
Maguire Hall, Chicago, IL 60611.
© 2019 Council on Social Work Education
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 55, NO. 2, 224–237
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1544519
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5499-5101
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2238-4434
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4675-4698
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10437797.2
018.1544519&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-05-31

comprehensive knowledge about the mechanisms used to
channel power into political processes.
Toward this end, we introduce a multidimensional
conceptualization of power (Lukes, 2005);
demonstrate its relevance to two prominent features of
contemporary politics—political polarization
and racially biased political attitudes—and offer content that
social work educators can integrate into
their classes to prepare future social workers to engage in
strategic and effective social justice
advocacy.
A multidimensional framework of political power
To broaden the depth and nuance of social workers’
understanding of political power, we suggest the
inclusion of what Lukes (2005) conceptualized as three
dimensions of power: decision-making
power, agenda-setting power, and ideological power. The three
dimensions are not mutually
exclusive and can emerge in a cumulative, compounding fashion
(Culley & Hughey, 2008). In the
following sections, we summarize each dimension and introduce
its underlying assumptions relating
to political participation, political equality, and policy making.
It should be noted that although we
agree with social work scholars who argue that power is a
pervasive aspect of social life and central to
all social work practice (Fisher, 1995; Rees, 1991), for the
purposes of this article, we focus on the
ways power is channeled within the United States federal
system.
The first dimension: Decision-making power
The first dimension of power, often referred to as decision-

making power, conceives of power as
intentional, active, and observable by examining who decides
and who prevails in political conflicts
(Dahl, 1958; Gaventa, 1980). Lukes (2005) conceptualized this
dimension as consistent with the
theory of pluralism because it assumes that (a) when a group of
people have a concern about a social
problem, they will act on it, and (b) the political system is open
and accessible to all. Consequently,
pluralists suggest that when a grievance emerges, those who are
affected by it will be willing and able
to become involved in political decision making (Dahl, 1961).
Furthermore, all citizens possess some
form of political resources (i.e., votes, money, property, or
authority) they can use to trade, reward,
or punish their political allies and opponents (Polsby, 1960).
Because the political system is
conceived as relatively open and accessible to all, pluralists
suggest there is no ruling elite in
American politics because no single group commands sufficient
resources to control all others,
and every group commands some resources. Nonparticipation
can be viewed as a reflection of
general consensus and approval.
Lukes (2005) argues that under some conditions citizens can
successfully express their preferences
to elected officials through activities like voting, pr oviding
testimony, or signing a petition. However,
he emphasizes that influence through decision-making power is
the most limited of the three
dimensions, and its assumptions and ability to accurately
predict political outcomes have been
challenged. Nonetheless, many of the tactics taught in social
policy classes or used by politically
active social workers remain at the level of decision-making

power.
Drawing on random samples of social workers, Rome and
Hoechstetter (2010) and Ritter (2007)
found that less than half of practitioners report that they are
strongly engaged in political activities.
Of those who are engaged, common political activities included
voting, writing letters, following the
news, discussing politics, and knowing who their political
representatives are (Mary, 2001; Pritzker &
Burwell, 2016). A small number of social workers run for
political office (Lane & Humphreys, 2011).
More direct policy-making activities, such as attending
hearings, providing testimony to policy
makers, canvassing door to door, making monetary donations to
candidates, and engaging in activist
behaviors such as demonstrations, were not common (Mary,
2001; Ritter, 2007; Rome &
Hoechstetter, 2010). Overall, the portrait of social workers as
political actors suggests that they are
engaged with electoral activities such as voting but are less
engaged with activities that happen earlier
in the political process, such as setting the agenda or
influencing the framing of political issues.
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 225
Social work education also conceptualizes political processes
narrowly. The curricula of policy
courses in accredited social work education programs include a
history of social welfare policies,
a description and critique of the contemporary welfare state,
and general information on the
structure and functioning of government (Council on Social

Work Education, 2015). However, the
bulk of this information is about the social welfare system as it
is, as opposed to analytical or
practical skills that support change efforts. Additionally, basic
civic literacy among social workers,
such as knowledge of how political institutions function or of
important historical developments in
the American political system, remains a concern. Social work
students in two studies scored fairly
low on standard tests of civic literacy, although they did score
somewhat better than the general
public (Hylton, 2015; McCabe, Hylton, Kooreman, Sarmiento,
& Day, 2017). Nearly half of Ritter’s
(2007) and more than a third of Rome and Hoechstetter’s (2010)
respondents reported they did not
feel prepared to participate in politics. Activities such as
advocacy days (Beimers, 2016; DeRigne,
Rosenwald, & Naranjo, 2014; Kilbane, Pryce, & Hong, 2013)
and voter registration (Pritzker &
Burwell, 2016) are used to expose students to advocacy
activities. However, activities that shape
political agendas, such as agenda setting and issue framing, are
underemphasized in social work
education. Thus, if social workers wish to take seriously their
mission to advance social and
economic justice, the social work curriculum must broaden its
conceptualizations of political
power and civic engagement.
The second dimension: Agenda-setting power
The second dimension of power includes the ability to influence
the policy-making agenda. This
dimension includes a gatekeeping function that shapes the
content and timing of what is being debated
by prioritizing, delaying, or blocking some issues from

contention (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962).
Although the first dimension of power emphasizes active
decision-making power, the second dimen-
sion suggests that power can manifest itself actively or
passively. Gatekeeping takes an active form
when political leaders consciously decide to advance or
prioritize discussion on a particular set of
issues. However, leaders can also make what theorists Bachrach
and Baratz (1962, p. 949) call “non-
decisions” by choosing to delay or suppress a discussion or a
vote on a subject. In this way, issues are
effectively blocked before entering the policy-making process.
The second dimension of power also
suggests that “the rules of the game” (e.g., institutional
procedures) can systematically benefit one
group over another by determining who is eligible to participate
in political processes and on what
terms (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, p. 950). These rules can
influence who participates in political
processes by mobilizing some groups while demobilizing others
(Schattschneider, 1960).
Consequently, if political participants (such as social workers )
exclusively attend to issues that are
already on policy-making agendas, they will be excluded from
opportunities to shape political
agendas or to influence the processes used to select people to
make political decisions. This dynamic
is particularly important for social workers because many of the
issues that are blocked through
agenda control are considered a challenge to the status quo and
are potentially the very issues that
could advance social and economic justice. This suggests that
social work practitioners and educators
should engage with policy makers through community
organizations, interest groups, and social

movements to influence political agenda-setting and rules that
support fair decision-making
processes.
The third dimension: Ideological power
The third dimension of power is the most comprehensive, yet
least visible, of the three. It suggests
that power can be exercised by influencing what is thought to be
possible, imperative, or desirable
(Gaventa, 1980; Lukes, 2005). Ideological power w orks by
influencing one’s political attitudes,
preferences, and imagination; the result of this kind of power is
that some issues are never even
226 A. KRINGS ET AL.
conceived of as social problems worthy of political action. As
such, they do not need to be voted on
(as in the first dimension) or blocked from the policy-making
agenda (as in the second dimension).
Political attitudes and preferences are shaped through many
mechanisms (Tilly, 1991). In some
cases, political and economic elites might control the flow of
information through mass media or
education. As a result, people who are oppressed may come to
internalize the values of their
oppressors (Freire, 1970), or they might not interpret their
personal problems as resulting from
political issues (Mills, 1959). In other instances, people might
be unable to imagine alternative
political, economic, or social systems. Finally, there may be
instances in which the mere reputation

of power among a particular circle of elites discourages others
from participating politically. For
example, Crenson (1971) found that low-income residents in
Gary, Indiana, were not willing to
organize to promote pollution-control regulations because the
local steel mill executives were viewed
as too strong to challenge. He notes that leadership in the mills
did not have to actively repress or
coerce residents to prevent their participation; reputational
power and the belief that citizen
engagement would have no influence sufficiently lessened their
expectations and demands.
This third dimension of power contributes to the shape and
content of the political agenda by
preventing issues, especially those that challenge the status quo,
from even entering public con-
sciousness or debate. It also suggests that social workers should
be trained in methods supporting the
development of political alternatives and critical consciousness
among the public. When social
workers fail to engage in such efforts, perhaps because they do
not consider them to be within
their purview, they may inadvertently render the profession to
the “margins of political discourse”
(Reisch, 2000, p. 293).
Multiple dimensions of power in the U.S. federal system
Presently, many social work policy courses focus on policies
that are already in place. When such
courses also include political advocacy theory or skills that
showcase tactics such as voting, petitions,
and letter writing, they may aim to influence issues that are on
the political agenda. Although these
tactics can support the passage or rejection of legi slation, they

need to be complemented with
engagement that takes place earlier in the policy-making
process at the stage when issues are framed
and political agendas are set. Without an understanding of the
second and third dimensions of
power, social workers will inadvertently curtail their ability to
influence policy.
To address this gap in content, we consider two prominent
features of contemporary American
politics—party polarization and racial bias—to demonstrate how
the second and third dimensions of
power influence political outcomes. From there, we conclude by
providing content and exercises that
can be incorporated into social work policy courses.
Agenda control in a politically polarized environment
The traditional pluralistic approach to understanding legislative
governance assumes that policy
proposals compete in an open marketplace of ideas, where all
issues have an equal chance to come
up for deliberation. However, there is little empirical evidence
that traditional pluralism appropri-
ately describes policy making in the U.S. political system, in
part because of the ability to keep issues
out of contention through agenda control (Zubek, 2011).
Cox and McCubbins (2005) have described how and why agenda
control is employed in the U.S.
Congress. Their work proceeded from the following set of
assumptions. First, the political party that
controls the majority of members is motivated to remain in
power. Because political parties are, to
the electorate, essentially a brand name, party leadership aims
to project the image that the party is

an effective presence in government. Second, the leaders of
political parties do not want issues that
have the potential to divide their party members in the
legislative chamber to enter the political
discourse. Leaders aim to advance issues that the majority of
their members (most Democrats or
most Republicans) are in agreement on, and they aim to
suppress issues that elicit a lack of unity
among members. Issues that split the party could damage that
party’s reputation or brand; a bill
passed by the minority party with the support of a portion of the
majority party would make the
majority appear divided and ineffectual. Third, party leaders
can use legislative procedures to ensure
that bills that are controversial in their own party do not make it
onto the legislative agenda (i.e., do
not come up for a vote), which is a process known in political
science as negative agenda control. For
example, committee chairs in legislatures are members of the
majority party and have a great deal of
control over which bills are sent to the entire chamber for a
vote. The party can use these powers to
manage the issues that will even be considered by the full
legislature.
Examining roll call votes, Cox and McCubbins (2005) found
evidence for this type of process:
very few bills pass the House of Representatives with the
support of less than a majority of the
majority party. If the House is under Democratic control, for
instance, it is unlikely that a bill would

even be considered if it appears it would pass with a majority of
Republicans and a minority of
Democrats. Additionally, although much of the scholarship on
agenda control focuses on the House
of Representatives, similar evidence has been found in the
Senate (Gailmard & Jenkins, 2007). The
work of Cox and McCubbins (2005) suggests it is important to
conceive of the legislative agenda in
terms beyond the issues that are voted on or implemented.
The power of agenda setting is even more important when
political parties are ideologically
polarized. On average, the Democratic and Republican parties
have been moving away from one
another since the late 1970s (McCarty, Poole, & Rosenthal,
2006). This trend holds true at the state
and federal levels (Shor & McCarty, 2011). As a result, many
bills that are favored by one party are
likely to be opposed by the other (Layman, Carsey, & Horowitz,
2006; McCarty, Poole, & Rosenthal,
2009). This ideological divide, combined with an aversion to
taking up issues that might split the
majority party’s members, creates a very narrow set of issues
that will make it onto the legislative
agenda. Furthermore, the range of issues will shift depending on
which party controls the majority.
Consequently, by training social workers to understand the rules
of the game, including mechanisms
of agenda control, they will be better equipped to strategically
navigate political systems.
Shaping political preferences and ideologies
The mechanism of the third dimension of power is the least
visible of the three because it relates to
the power of ideas rather than to explicit action, as in the

formal policy-making process. The third
dimension of power, which involves values, beliefs, attitudes,
and social norms, defines what the
social problem is and suggests whether it is possible, necessary,
or even desirable to change the status
quo (Gaventa, 1980; Lukes, 2005). Hence, some political issues
are understood as viable, whereas
others are dismissed or not even imagined. It is particularly
important for social workers to be
trained in identifying and using this dimension of power, which
not only can limit and control
political agendas that threaten the status quo but can also be
used to deliver policy and social change
by reframing underconsidered issues as viable.
Although this dimension of power can be understood through
the examination of assumptions
relating to any social phenomenon (including classism, sexism,
and heterosexism), race continues to
be one of the most prevalent influences for how issues are
framed and interpreted in U.S. politics.
Social workers risk ignoring their own biases and could
unnecessarily limit their engagement with
the advancement of social and racial justice if they fail to
understand the significance of race. Thus,
to bring this theory to life, we suggest that social work
educators draw from the rich body of research
on how racial attitudes strongly influence beliefs about
candidates, issues, and even perceptions of
the role of government.
There is a growing body of research on how race and ethnicity,
beyond theWhite-Black paradigm, shape
political outcomes (DeLaGarza, 2004; Lee, 2000; Oliver
&Wong, 2003;Wilkinson, 2014). For the purposes
of this article, however, we limit our focus to foundational

studies onBlack-White racial attitudes and public
opinion because they lay the basis for, and open the dialogue to,
more recent research on other populations,
such as Asian Pacific Islanders, Latinxs, Middle Easterners, and
North Africans. Here, we review research
that links the racial attitudes of Whites and Blacks to the
development of their political preferences and
public opinion (Sears & Kinder, 1971).
At the most basic level, voters who are Black and White have
been found to prefer candidates of
their own race, and the electoral success of Black candidates is
often limited to political jurisdictions
with a majority of Black voters (Barker, Jones, & Katherine,
1999; Menifield & Endersby, 2000; Walton
& Smith, 2015). Racial differences also map onto policy
preferences: Blacks and Whites significantly
differ in their support for policies that explicitly aim to reduce
racial inequality (e.g., affirmative action
or employment protections) and these differences in public
opinion remain when evaluating policies
that are not explicitly oriented toward race (e.g., general
government spending on social services,
health care, education, and assistance for the poor) (Kinder &
Winter, 2001; Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, &
Krysan, 1997).
Additionally, research suggests that public opinion can be
manipulated depending on how
issues are framed in the media. For instance, experiments have
shown that assessments of policies

that are not race based, such as health care, can be polarized
along racial lines when the policy is
associated with President Barack Obama compared to President
Bill Clinton (Tesler, 2012).
Similarly, experiments have shown that when the media
emphasizes the cost of immigration
associated with Latinx immigrants compared with European
immigrants, White opposition
increases (Brader, Valentino, & Suhay, 2008). Thus, by
including racial cues that aim to activate
unconscious associations with race, the process of racial
priming has significant effects on public
opinion and policy preferences (Tesler, 2014; Valentino,
Hutchings, & White, 2002).
There are three competing explanations for why Whites oppose
policies that either explicitly or
indirectly challenge racial inequalities. All of them attempt to
explain the underlying beliefs that
shape this opposition. The first theory suggests that although
overt racism has declined, symbolic
racism has emerged in its place (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Sears,
1988; Sears & McConahay, 1973).
Symbolic racism is a belief system that suggests that Blacks no
longer face structural barriers and that
any failure among Blacks (or others) is because of the
individual’s lack of hard work, Blacks demand
too much from the government and society, and Blacks have
received more than they deserve from
such sources (Henry & Sears, 2002). Research supporting this
theory suggests that symbolic racism
and racial resentment strongly predict Whites’ opposition to
policies that enhance equal opportunity
and outcomes for minorities (Rabinowitz, Sears, Sidanius, &
Krosnick, 2009). Furthermore, Whites
with anti-Black attitudes are more likely to oppose social

policies benefiting Blacks than social
policies benefiting other groups, such as women (Rabinowitz et
al., 2009).
Another theory suggests that White Americans oppose race-
based social policies because of the
belief that the redistributive nature of the policies violates the
principal core American values of
individualism, freedom, and fairness, not because Whites are
opposed to racial equality
(Sniderman & Carmines, 1997; Sniderman & Piazza, 1993).
However, research has consistently
demonstrated that symbolic racism and racial resentment toward
Blacks tap into an attitudinal
dimension separate from (and more powerful than)
conservatism, individualism, or antiegalitar-
ianism (Tarman & Sears, 2005).
Finally, a third theory suggests that White Americans oppose
race-based policies because of the
perception that Blacks’ rising up the social ladder represents a
threat to Whites (Bobo, 2000; Bobo &
Hutchings, 1996). An assumption embedded in this theory is
that individuals align themselves with the
group they belong to (in this case, their racial group) and then
competition emerges over resources
such as jobs or prestige, which creates conflict.
Persistent social forces, such as symbolic racism, adherence to
traditional American values and
norms, and group competition and conflict, shape policy
preferences that serve to maintain the
existing social hierarchy, which is heavily based on racial
inequality. Social workers who aim to fight
successfully against policies that marginalize people of color
(and other disempowered groups, such

as immigrants, refugees, and those living in poverty) need to
understand the ways that issue framing
can be used to construct and manipulate the legislative agenda.
Incorporating the three dimensions of power in social work
policy education
If social work education is to prepare practitioners for
successful advocacy in today’s political
climate, we must move beyond current discussions of power that
focus solely on its first dimension.
Understanding pluralism and the fundamentals of civics is
critical, but by incorporating
a multidimensional conceptualization of power into social work
policy classes, educators will provide
a comprehensive understanding of political processes and the
skills needed to engage in them.
It may be helpful for some current instructors of social policy to
note that Lukes’s (2005)
multidimensional framework of power complements the
classical multiple-streams model of agenda
setting and policy change by Kingdon (1984, 1993). In his
model, Kingdon suggests that policies
come to fruition when a policy window opens because of the
convergence of three independent
streams: (a) the problem stream, where a social condition is
defined and recognized as a problem; (b)
the political stream, where an issue rises to the policy-making
agenda; and (c) the policy stream,
where alternative policies are proposed, assessed, accepted, and
made available. Although Kingdon’s

model provides insight into what enables policy change, it is not
an easy task to recognize when
these three streams come together or to actively influence the
convergence of all three streams to
open a policy window. Kingdon (1993) tends to downplay
efforts to create policy windows,
suggesting that change agents should “wait” for the policy
windows to open and be ready to
“seize” the opportunities when the time comes (p. 45). Lukes’s
analytical framework, on the other
hand, is more approachable for individual social workers and
applicable to various levels of advocacy
because it helps social workers identify and develop the skills
necessary to influence the three
streams.
As an initial guide to incorporating Lukes’s (2005) framework
of power, we offer the following
examples to help BSW- and MSW-level educators weave the
second and third dimensions of power
into social work policy curricula. Table 1 provides a list of
suggested assignments and related
resources.
Recognizing that topics such as agenda setting, party
polarization, and racial attitudes may not
have immediate appeal to social work students, we recommend
drawing students into discussions of
power by focusing on political issues they are likely to have
either personal or professional
experience with. Depending on the amount of course time
available, that could mean providing
one example that most or all students are likely to relate to or
allowing students to select their own
issues to explore independently or in small groups. In the
current political climate, many social work

students may be interested in threats to the social safety net and
other issues related to poverty and
socioeconomic inequality, access to mental health care, support
for immigrants and refugees, or
something as personally relevant to students as the cost of
higher education or student loan debt.
Table 1. Assignments and resources for teaching a
multidimensional conceptualization of power.
Assignment Description Resources
Second dimension of
power: agenda
setting
Issue
framing in
media
Students select an issue of interest and search
for mention of it in mainstream and political
media
Major news outlets (New York Times,
Washington Post, CNN, etc.), The Hill
(https://www.thehill.com), Roll Call (https://
www.rollcall.com)
Legislative
agenda, bill
tracking
Students search for legislation related to their
selected issue

U.S. Congress (https://www.congress.gov/),
Rocha (2007), state legislature websites
Third dimension of
power:
issue framing and
political attitudes
Analyzing
issue
framing
Students examine the depiction of an issue of
interest, distinguishing between the issue
itself and how it is framed or constructed
Coates (2014), Isenberg (2016), Staller
(2010)
Multidimensional
conceptualization
of power
Committee
hearing
simulation
Students prepare for and participate in
a simulated committee hearing on an
assigned bill
Haynes and Mickelson (2010), Lens (2005),
Stoesz (1993)

https://www.thehill.com
https://www.rollcall.com
https://www.congress.gov/
Any of these issues can be used to help students better
understand the roles of agenda setting, party
polarization, and issue framing in the policy-making process.
Teaching the second dimension of power
Whether students are working as a whole class, in small groups,
or individually, a good first step
toward grasping the importance of agenda setting is to have
students look for examples of their
chosen issue in the political media. Ask them to explore major
news outlets as well as websites such
as The Hill (https://thehill.com) and Roll Call
(https://www.rollcall.com), which focus specifically on
news related to the U.S. Congress. Ask them if they able to find
information related to their chosen
issue. If so, ask them what does it say? If they cannot find any
information, ask them why they think
this issue does not seem to be on the agenda? Although the
media agenda and the policy-making
agenda may not align perfectly, each has the power to influence
the other; for example, issues
students find in the media (particularly political media) are
likely to be on the policy-making agenda
as well (Dearing & Rogers, 1996; McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
Once students have become comfortable with the idea of agenda
setting, the instructor can begin
to move them toward an examination of legislative agendas
more specifically. One excellent source

for this is the official website of the U.S. Congress
(https://www.congress.gov/) or most state
legislatures’ official websites, which allow users to search
current and previous legislative sessions
for issues of interest. This kind of search will help students see
what has been on the legislative
agenda in recent years and get a sense for the scope of issues
that actually move through the
legislative process (See Rocha, 2007, for more detailed
instructions on bill tracking.). In our highly
polarized political climate, it is relatively easy to find examples
of partisan agenda setting, particu-
larly if educators encourage students to consider how the
agenda has shifted from the previous
administration to the present one. Using a site like
Congress.gov, social work educators can teach
students to recognize agenda-setting power as follows:
(1) We suggest using a site like Congress.gov search bar, enter
an issue of interest. This will
bring up a list of legislative items related to that issue. Students
can choose to search
“Current Legislation,” which will show only items introduced in
the current session of
Congress, or “All Legislation,” which will allow them to select
earlier sessions of Congress as
well. This exercise is also helpful for comparing agendas under
different party’s control.
(2) If students are not familiar with the legislative process, the
educator can choose a piece of
legislation and walk students through the steps for passage,
from the introduction of a bill to
committee consideration, floor consideration, passage by the
House and Senate, and signing by
the president. Examining an actual bill can help students

understand the length of time it takes
for a bill to become a law and the complexity of the process
itself. (Simulating a committee
hearing, described later, is another way to help students
understand this process.)
(3) Using Congress.gov’s various search limitation options (bill
type, status in the legislative
process, policy area, etc.), students can critically examine the
bills introduced on a given
issue, noting which bills moved from introduction to committee
hearings and beyond and
which were introduced but never advanced. Ask students to
examine the relationship between
the bills that advance and the party affiliations of those who
introduced and supported it.
Teaching the third dimension of power
Once students have a grasp of the concept of agenda-setting
power, they can move toward a deeper
understanding of the third dimension of power, which involves
attitude formation and issue
framing. As an example, poverty and welfare have long been
racially framed by the media and
policy makers (Gilens, 1999), making this frame a particularly
useful one for teaching students about
https://thehill.com
https://www.congress.gov/
the continued relevance of racial attitudes in U.S. political

processes. One helpful exercise is to
present students with images or advertisements related to a
social issue and ask them to identify
what the underlying social issue is, how it is being constructed
or framed in that context, and what
the implications of that framing might be for how the issue is
addressed (or not addressed) by policy
makers (Staller, 2010). For example, one group of students
might be given an image that depicts
U.S. poverty as the fault of an individual (or a group of
individuals) who refuses hard work, such as
a photograph of a downtrodden individual panhandling near a
fast-food restaurant that has a Now
Hiring sign visible in the window. From this image, students
could draw a link to antipoverty
policies that incentivize low-wage work. They might also
recognize this as a frame that promotes
individual responsibility for poverty, a view that is often used
to keep redistributive policies off the
legislative agenda. A second group of students might be given a
graph that compares the amount of
money it would take to end poverty in the United States with
the amount the nation currently
spends on military defense. Unlike their classmates in the first
group, students in this group could
link their image to political arguments that focus on funding
priorities and budget debates as
potential solutions to poverty.
A longer term framing project could ask students to trace a
social issue over time to see how it has
been framed differently in various historical and political
contexts and to analyze what factors have
played a role in that framing. Depending on the issue, this could
include discussions of racial
attitudes or assumptions about individual responsibility and

equal opportunity. Examples of this
type of analysis include Isenberg’s (2016) work, which
challenges national myths regarding indivi-
dualism by documenting the history of poor Whites in the
United States, and Coates’s (2014) article,
which challenges assumptions of equal opportunity by
examining racial bias in social welfare
policies. In any case, lessons about framing should include an
explicit discussion about how
particular ways of framing an issue can lead to its addition to,
or exclusion from, the policy-
making agenda. Helping students to understand why issue
framing matters and how it has an
impact on setting political agendas enhances their long-term
ability to think critically about and
engage effectively in the political process.
Teaching a multidimensional conceptualization of power
Once students have a sense of how social issues are framed and
agendas are set, it is useful to provide
them with experience in the complexities of politics and policy
making. One way to do this is by
having students simulate a congressional committee hearing.
This experiential activity introduces
students to the intricacies of the policy-making process,
including the ways that political actors
(social work advocates and others) can use issue framing and
agenda-setting strategies to persuade
members of Congress to support or reject legislation.
Because students are rarely familiar with the important role that
committees play in the legislative
process, it is helpful to remind them that this relatively small
group of representatives or senators
(particularly those who belong to the majority party) has the

power to advance or shut down
discussion on a particular topic. If a committee rejects a bill, it
does not go before the rest of
Congress. Acknowledging the power held by this small group
can also help students to understand
why advocacy efforts must be timely and targeted; it does little
good to write letters or make phone
calls to noncommittee members about a bill they may never see
and much more good to address
those who have decision-making power at the time when that
power is most manifested (i.e., during
committee hearings).
Using an issue that class members explored during the agenda-
setting portion of the course, the
instructor can select an actual bill that has been introduced to
Congress and provide students with
copies of the bill’s text, allowing them to familiarize
themselves with the language and format of
legislation. It is important to select a bill of appropriate length
for the amount of time planned for
this activity. If the entire simulation will be conducted in one
class session, for example, the bill
should be no more than five pages in length so that students can
actually read it in its entirety.
A class can simulate a committee hearing in a single session or
over multiple class periods. If less
time is available, the instructor can assign students roles and
provide them with preresearched
information about the issue and the perspective of someone who
has been in their assigned role. If

there is more time, the instructor can ask students to research
the issue on their own and develop
arguments based on their assigned role. In either case, students
should play various roles, including
those of legislators who sit on the committee in question;
advocates, researchers, or other experts who
have been called to testify at a hearing; and interested
constituents who attend hearing proceedings and
contact committee members in attempts to influence their votes
(see Haynes & Mickelson, 2010,
Chapter 6 for more information on committee testimony.).
Legislators can be provided with (or asked
to research) details about their own voting records, constituent
interests, and openness to new
information, allowing students to recognize that some
legislators may be on the fence about the bill
in question and therefore more open to hearing different
perspectives, whereas other legislators may be
strongly predisposed to vote one way or another regardless of
the testimony given during the hearing.
Students assigned roles to testify at the hearing, as well as those
assigned to be constituents, will need
information about their particular interest in the bill. Again,
students can be charged with doing their
own research on these topics or be provided with enough
information to construct an argument from
a particular perspective.
As students construct arguments, and while they are simulating
the committee hearing, the
instructor should ask them to point out the ways different
arguments serve to frame the issue in
different ways. For example, if the bill selected seeks to restrict
the benefits people receive from a social
safety net (or welfare) program, such as the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families, the bill’s supporters may frame
the program as a wasteful handout and
its recipients as lazy, willfully uneducated individuals w ho
would rather live off the system than work
to support themselves. Those who frame the issue this way have
historically used racial stereotypes and
attitudes, as well as assumptions about individual responsibility
and equal opportunity, in making their
case (Gilens, 1999; Isenberg, 2016). Opponents of the bill, on
the other hand, might frame the program
as a means of equalizing the resources available to all
Americans by providing much needed support
for hardworking parents or as the fulfillment of society’s
obligation to protect and provide for its
children. Similarly, supporters of a bill attempting to restrict
immigration could frame the issue as
a matter of national security, connecting all immigrants from
majority Muslim nations with Islamic
extremists and terrorism, whereas opponents of that bill might
frame it as an issue of human rights
and present evidence that immigrants actually contribute to the
U.S. economy rather than steal jobs
from American citizens. Those presenting testimony should be
encouraged to consider which frames
might work best to convince specific legislators (Haynes &
Mickelson, 2010).
If time and the structure of the course allow, this type of
simulation might also include lessons
on how to identify legislators’ positions on specific issues, the
most effective ways (and times) to
communicate with legislators, and how to craft a persuasive
message (Lens, 2005; Stoesz, 1993).
Such lessons should take into account not only the power to
move issues onto the agenda and
through the legislative process but also the power to prevent

issues from moving forward. When
the political agenda is focused on restricting marginalized
groups’ access to needed services, social
workers must learn to target their advocacy efforts toward
blocking such legislation. Social
workers with deeper knowledge of the legislative process and of
the multiple dimensions of
power that are manifested in this process will have the ability to
participate in this type of
advocacy successfully.
Finally, students should be encouraged to think beyond the
legislative, or other explicitly political,
arena as they learn to employ a multidimensional
conceptualization of power in their advocacy
practice. As mentioned earlier, agenda setting and issue framing
are not only used by political actors
but also by the media and the general public. Social workers can
help set the public agenda, which in
turn affects the political agenda (Dearing & Rogers, 1996) by
raising issues in local and national
media sources as well as on social media. Recent protests and
rallies across the United States and
around the world are excellent examples of the ways people can
come together to push issues onto or
shift issues off the national agenda. The strategies and skills
described here can also be used in other
contexts, such as schools, organizations, and community task
forces (see Johnson, 1994), and at the
state or municipal levels of government.

Conclusion
Social workers are not simply affected by social policy; under
some conditions, they can influence it
(Haynes & Mickelson, 2010). In this article, we argue that
social work curricula and general efforts
toward political participation engage with the political system
primarily through the first dimension
of power. As members of a profession, we train our students and
support practitioners in efforts to
increase voter turnout and to educate decision makers through
public testimony, petitions, and letter
writing prior to voting on an issue. We applaud these efforts.
However, we also demonstrate that power can be exerted in
political processes long before a given
set of issues or policies are considered for a legislative or
electoral vote. A bill cannot pass, for
example, if agenda-setting control prevents it from
consideration. This hidden aspect of policy
making is particularly important when considering legislative
policy change in an era of extreme
party polarization.
Similarly, political power can be exerted through attitude
formation, sometimes in unconscious
ways. Although social identities including class can shape how
people interpret political issues, we
focus on racial priming as an example of a powerful way
Americans determine their support for or
opposition to candidates and policies, including those that do
not explicitly aim to address racial
inequality. Ideological power of this sort is broad and
influential because it shapes whether and how
the electorate conceives of social problems and appropriate
solutions.

Given the complexity of the three dimensions of political
power, and particularly in a polarized
political context hostile to the core values of our profession, we
encourage social work educators to
incorporate a multidimensional conceptualization of power into
their policy curriculum. This
multidimensional framework helps to reveal the breadth and
complexity of political processes.
With sharper analytical tools, social work practitioners will be
better equipped to strategically and
effectively mobilize resources to advance social justice.
Notes on contributors
Amy Krings is an Assistant Professor at Loyola University
Chicago, Vincent Fusaro is an Assistant Professor at Boston
College, Kerri Leyda Nicoll is an Assistant Professor at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, and Na Youn Lee is an
Assistant Professor at University of Mississippi.
ORCID
Amy Krings http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5499-5101
Vincent Fusaro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2238-4434
Na Youn Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4675-4698
References
Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An
arena of struggle. Social Work, 43, 512–526. doi:10.1093/sw/
43.6.512
Abramovitz, M., & Sherraden, M. S. (2016). Case to cause:
Back to the future. Journal of Social Work Education, 52
(sup1), 89–98.

Axinn, J., & Stern, M. J. (2012). Social welfare: A history of
the American response to need (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power.
American Political Science Review, 56, 947–952. doi:10.2307/
1952796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.6.512
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.6.512
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952796
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952796
Barker, L., Jones, M., & Katherine, T. (1999). African
Americans and the American political system. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Beimers, D. (2016). Legislative advocacy days: Building
political self-efficacy in social work students. Journal of Policy
Practice, 15, 269–288. doi:10.1080/15588742.2015.1081577
Bobo, L. (2000). Race and beliefs about affirmative action:
Assessing the effects of interests, group threat, ideology and
racism. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.),
Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America (pp.
137–164). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bobo, L., & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial
group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group
position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological
Review, 61, 951–972. doi:10.2307/2096302

Brader, T., Valentino, N., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers
public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues,
and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science,
52, 959–978. doi:10.1111/ajps.2008.52.issue-4
Coates, T. (2014, June). The case for reparations. The Atlantic,
313(5), 54–71.
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational Policy
and Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from https://www.
cswe.org/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2015-EPAS.aspx
Cox, G., & McCubbins, M. (2005). Setting the agenda:
Responsible party government in the U.S. House of
Representatives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, G. W, & McCubbins, M. D. (2005). Setting the agenda:
Responsible party government in the US House of
Representatives. Cambridge University Press.
Crenson, M. A. (1971). The un-politics of air pollution: A study
of non-decision making in the cities. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Culley, M. R., & Hughey, J. (2008). Power and public
participation in a hazardous waste dispute: A community case
study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 99–114.
doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9157-5
Dahl, R. A. (1958). A critique of the ruling elite model.
American Political Science Review, 52, 463–469. doi:10.2307/
1952327
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs?: Democracy and power in an
American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-Setting.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeLaGarza, R. O. (2004). Latino politics. Annual Review of
Political Science, 7, 91–123. doi:10.1146/annurev.
polisci.7.012003.104759
DeRigne, L., Rosenwald, M., & Naranjo, F. A. (2014).
Legislative advocacy and social work education: Models and
new
strategies. Journal of Policy Practice, 13, 316–327.
doi:10.1080/15588742.2014.929071
Fisher, R. (1995). Political social work. Journal of Social Work
Education, 31, 194–203. doi:10.1080/
10437797.1995.10672257
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New rev. 20th-
Anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum.
Gailmard, S., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Negative agenda control in
the Senate and the House: Fingerprints of majority party
power. Journal of Politics, 69, 689–700. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2508.2007.00568.x
Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and
rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Champaign:
University of Illinois Press.
Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media,
and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Haynes, K. S., & Mickelson, J. S. (2010). Affecting change:
Social workers in the political area (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000
scale. Political Psychology, 23, 253–283. doi:10.1111/

pops.2002.23.issue-2
Hylton, M. (2015). Civic engagement and civic literacy among
social work students: Where do we stand? Journal of
Policy Practice, 14, 292–307.
doi:10.1080/15588742.2015.1004396
Isenberg, N. (2016). White trash: The 400-year untold history of
class in America. New York, NY: Viking.
Johnson, A. K. (1994). Teaching students the task force
approach. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 336–347.
Kilbane, T., Pryce, J., & Hong, P. Y. P. (2013). Advocacy week:
A model to prepare clinical social workers for lobby
day. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, 173–179.
doi:10.1080/10437797.2013.755420
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics:
Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414
Kinder, D. R., & Winter, N. (2001). Exploring the racial divide:
Blacks, Whites, and opinion on national policy.
American Journal of Political Science, 45, 439–456.
doi:10.2307/2669351
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public
policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Kingdon, J. W. (1993). How do issues get on public policy
agendas? In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public
agenda (pp. 40–50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lane, S. R., & Humphreys, N. A. (2011). Social workers in
politics: A national survey of social work candidates and
elected officials. Journal of Policy Practice, 10, 225–244.
Layman, G., Carsey, T., & Horowitz, J. (2006). Party

polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and
consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.
doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2015.1081577
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2008.52.issue-4
https://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/Standards-and-
Policies/2015-EPAS.aspx
https://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/Standards-and-
Policies/2015-EPAS.aspx
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9157-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952327
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952327
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2014.929071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1995.10672257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1995.10672257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00568.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.2002.23.issue-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.2002.23.issue-2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2015.1004396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.755420
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669351
Lee, T. (2000). Racial attitudes and the color line(s) at the close
of the twentieth century. In P. M. Ong (Ed.), The state
of Asian Pacific America: Transforming race relations (pp. 457–
478). Los Angeles, CA: LEAP Asian Pacific

American Public Policy Institute.
Lens, V. (2005). Advocacy and argumentation in the public
arena: A guide for social workers. Social Work, 50,
231–238.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Macmillan.
Mary, N. L. (2001). Political activism of social work educators.
Journal of Community Practice, 9(4), 1–20.
McCabe, H., Hylton, M., Kooreman, H., Sarmiento, M., & Day,
A. (2017). Civic literacy and social work education:
Results from a multi-site study. Journal of Policy Practice,
16(1), 81–94. doi:10.1080/15588742.2015.1137852
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized
America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Does
gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of
Political
Science, 53, 666–680. doi:10.1111/ajps.2009.53.issue-3
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function
of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
doi:10.1086/267990
Menifield, C., & Endersby, J. (2000). Representatives,
ethnicity, and Congress: Black and Hispanic representatives and
constituencies. In Y. Alex-Assensoh & L. Hanks (Eds.), Black
and multiracial politics in America (pp. 257–272).
New York: New York University Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.
National Association of Social Workers (2017). Code of ethics.
Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/
Ethics/Code-of-Ethics
Oliver, J. E., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in
multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47,
567–582. doi:10.2307/3186119
Polsby, N. W. (1960). How to study community power: The
pluralist alternative. Journal of Politics, 22, 474–484.
doi:10.2307/2126892
Pritzker, S., & Burwell, C. (2016). Promoting election-related
policy practice among social work students. Journal of
Social Work Education, 52, 434–447.
doi:10.1080/10437797.2016.1198294
Rabinowitz, J. L., Sears, D. O., Sidanius, J., & Krosnick, J. A.
(2009). Why do White Americans oppose race-targeted
policies? Clarifying the impact of symbolic racism. Political
Psychology, 30, 805–828. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9221.2009.00726.x
Rees, S. (1991). Achieving power: Practice and policy in social
welfare. Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia: Allen
& Unwin.
Reisch, M. (2000). Guest editorial: Social workers and politics
in the new century. Social Work, 45, 293–297.
Reisch, M., & Garvin, C. D. (2016). Social work and social
justice: Concepts, challenges, and strategies. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Ritter, J. A. (2007). Evaluating the political participation of

licensed social workers in the new millennium. Journal of
Policy Practice, 6, 61–78. doi:10.1300/J508v06n04_05
Rocha, C. J. (2007). Essentials of social work policy practice.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rome, S., & Hoechstetter, S. (2010). Social work and civic
engagement: The political participation of professional social
workers. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37, 107–129.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A
realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt,
Rhinehart and Winston.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial
attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A.
Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy
(pp. 53–84). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Sears, D. O., & Kinder, D. R. (1971). Racial tensions and voting
in Los Angeles. In W. Hirsch (Ed.), Los Angeles:
Viability and prospects for metropolitan leadership (pp. 51–88).
New York, NY: Praeger.
Sears, D. O., & McConahay, J. B. (1973). The politics of
violence: The new urban Blacks and the Watts riot. Boston,
MA:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Shor, B., & McCarty, N. (2011). The ideological mapping of
American legislatures. American Political Science Review,
105, 530–551. doi:10.1017/S0003055411000153
Sniderman, P. M., & Carmines, E. G. (1997). Reaching beyond

race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. (1993). The scar of race.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1995). Unfaithful angels: How
social work has abandoned its mission. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Staller, K. (2010). Social problem construction and its impact
on program and policy responses. In S. B. Kamerman,
S. Phipps, & A. Ben-Arieh (Eds.), From child welfare to child
well-being (pp. 155–173). New York, NY: Springer.
Stoesz, D. (1993). Communicating with the public. Social
Work, 38, 367–368.
Tarman, C., & Sears, D. (2005). The conceptualization and
measurement of symbolic racism. Journal of Politics, 67,
731–761. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00337.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2015.1137852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2009.53.issue-3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/267990
https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics
https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3186119
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2126892
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1198294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00726.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00726.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J508v06n04_05
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00337.x

Tesler, M. (2012). The spillover of racialization into health
care: How President Obama polarized public opinion by
racial attitudes and race. American Journal of Political Science,
56, 690–704.
Tesler, M. (2014). Priming predispositions and changing policy
positions: An account of when mass opinion is primed
or changed. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 806–824.
doi:10.1111/ajps.12157
Tilly, C. (1991). Reasons for the continuing growth of part-time
employment. Monthly Laboratory Reviews, 114, 10–18.
Valentino, N., Hutchings, V., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that
matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during
campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96, 75–90.
doi:10.1017/S0003055402004240
Walton, H., & Smith, R. (2015). American politics and the
African American quest for universal freedom (7th ed.).
New York, NY: Pearson.
Wilkinson, B. C. (2014). Perceptions of commonality and
Latino–Black, Latino–White relations in a multiethnic
United States. Political Research Quarterly, 67, 905–916.
doi:10.1177/1065912914540217
Zubek, R. (2011). Negative agenda control and executive-
legislative relations in east central Europe, 1997–2008.
Journal of Legislative Studies, 17, 172–192.
doi:10.1080/13572334.2011.574025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12157
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004240

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912914540217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2011.574025
Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property
of Routledge 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.
AbstractAmultidimensional framework of political powerThe
first dimension: Decision-making powerThesecond dimension:
Agenda-setting powerThe third dimension: Ideological
powerMultiple dimensions of power in the U.S.federal
systemAgenda control in apolitically polarized
environmentShaping political preferences and
ideologiesIncorporating the three dimensions of power in social
work policy educationTeaching thesecond dimension of
powerTeaching the third dimension of powerTeaching
amultidimensional conceptualization of powerConclusionNotes
on contributorsReferences
Discussion 1: Data and Collaboration for Social Change
In preparing for the Module 2 Discussion 2, you learned that
news of the changes in Grand City has been spreading
throughout the state and garnering interest among leaders in
many of the surrounding communities. You created a
motivational video to encourage others to become agents of
educational change and integrate data-informed decision making
into their processes.
For this Discussion, you will further expand on the importance
of data and collaboration for educational and community
change. You will also explore leadership strategies for positive
social change in your field.
To prepare:

· Review the motivational video you created for the Module 2
Assignment. Consider the Learning Resources from this course
thus far on educational change and leadership, data-driven
decision making, and collaboration for social change. How
might you use those resources and those you found on your own
to support the points you make in your video?
· Review the Fullan (2016) chapters in this module’s Learning
Resources and think about the various stakeholders invested in
educational change. How might you work (or continue to work)
to create positive social change in your current or future role?
Research evidence-based leadership strategies to support you in
this work.
· Review the information regarding how to decrease the size of
a video file and upload a video to a Discussion Forum in the
Kaltura Media Uploader link under Course Home.
By Day 3 of Week 5
Upload your Module 2 Assignment motivational video and
transcript to the Module 3 Discussion 1 Forum.
Post the following:
· A rationale for your points regarding the importance of being
an educational agent of change and why you believe collecting
and interpreting data is essential to the role of educational
leader of change. Be sure to support your rationale with
reference to research.
· A rationale for your points regarding the importance of
collaboration among cross-specialization groups working to
make change and why data-informed decision is essential for a
collaborative group to initiate and implement plans for
educational and community change. Be sure to support your
rationale with reference to research.
· An explanation of at least two evidence-based leadership
strategies you would employ to create positive social change in
your field.
For this Discussion, and all scholarly writing in this course and

throughout your program, you will be required to use APA style
and provide reference citations.
By Day 7 of Week 5
View at least 3–4 of your colleagues’ videos and
read their posts.
Respond to at least two of your colleagues by explaining 2–3
concepts or strategies related to change, data-driven decision
making, or leadership that you observed from watching your
colleagues’ videos that resonate with your current professional
practices. Then, explain why these concepts or strategies strike
you as invigorating and potentially innovative and how you
might apply them in your own educational setting.
REFERENCES
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://jou
rnals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X16652202
Covey, S. (2009). How the best leaders build trust.
LeadershipNow. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipnow.com/CoveyOnTrust.html
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://jou
rnals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X15616863
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&
AN=EJ1060128&site=eds-
live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https:// jou
rnals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0895904814557592
Fullan, M. (2016).
The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

· Chapter 4, “Initiation, Implementation, and Continuation” (pp.
54–81)
· Chapter 6, “The Teacher” (pp. 97–122)
· Chapter 10, “The District Administrator” (pp. 177–208)
EDITORIAL
Social Justice and Civil Rights: A Call to Action
for Social Work
Tricia B. Bent-Goodley and June Gary Hopps
This special issue of Social Work, in many
ways, offers an opportunity to reflect on
the role of the profession in addressing
issues of social justice and civil and human rights. It
catapults from Social Work’s 1982 Special Issue on
Oppression Based on Color, edited by Dr. June
Gary, in which matters of social injustice, systemic
discrimination, and the language of oppression
were applied to “minorities” and examined by a
diverse group of scholars (Hopps, 1982). This topic
was reexamined by Schiele and Hopps (2009) in
Social Work’s Special Issue on Racial Minorities
Then and Now: The Continuing Significance of
Race. In this current special issue of Social Work,
the authors build on the work of Hopps (1982)
and Schiele and Hopps (2009) and argue that the
current scholarship is guided by the notion that “the

profession, since its inception, seems to be chal-
lenged by a ‘push-pull’ or ambivalence vis-a-vis
power and powerlessness, wealth and inequality,
and social control and benevolence” (Bowles &
Hopps, 2014, p. 4). Therefore, this 2016 special
issue of Social Work explores the continued need
for social work’s presence in clarifying and advanc-
ing the intersectionality of social justice and civil
and human rights.
Civil rights include personal liberty; the rights of
citizens to political, legal, and social equality; and
fundamental protections of human rights (Bent-
Goodley, 2014; Pollard, 2008; Valdez, 2015). Social
justice is a foundational term and is extensively used
throughout the profession. As such, it would seem
that a working definition and consensus statement
would have been articulated given the prominence
attached to the term (Galambos, 2008; Rountree &
Pomeroy, 2010). The term is even a central theme
in some school of social work mission statements.
Holosko, Winkel, Crandall, and Briggs (2015) con-
ducted a study of the top 50 schools of social work
and found that the term “social justice” was used in
33 of the 50 mission statements reviewed.
Arguably, Rawls’s (1971) treatise on the subject
is probably one of the most widely used in the pro-
fession. His position focuses on the principle of
fairness centered around guarding equal protection
to liberties, rights, and opportunities: being aware
that inequalities not only exist, but are acceptable if
all have an equal chance of experiencing the con-
ditions that comprise inequality; and that inequal-
ities must redound to the benefit of those with the

greatest disadvantage. Other philosophies that help
undergird the term include utilitarian, libertarian,
communitarian, egalitarian, and distributive perspec-
tives and values (Galambos, 2008). These orientations
grow out of political rights; the U.S. Constitution;
and the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights. Polit-
ical and civil rights have overshadowed concerns
about social components of citizenship or social rights,
such as the right to education, economic security,
employment, and health (Wilson, 1995). In the sixth
edition of the Social Work Dictionary, Barker (2014)
defined social justice as “an ideal condition in which
all members of society have the same basic rights,
protection, opportunities, obligations, and social
benefits” (p. 398). Social justice encompasses the
distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges
within a society (Bent-Goodley, 2008). The rich-
ness of these contributing ideas, particularly around
redistribution, also add some lack of consensus
and perhaps polarization—in the profession and in
society.
As mentioned earlier, schools of social work have
identified the term “social justice” in their mission
statements and even as a center piece in some cases.
In the Holosko et al. (2015) study, “social justice”
was used interchangeably with nine other terms
such as “social work justice,” “social advocacy,”
“social and economic justice,” “distributive justice,”
doi: 10.1093/sw/sww081 © 2016 National Association of Social
Workers 5
and “redistributive justice.” Although definitions

varied across ideological domains and were impre-
cise, the term was embedded in 66 percent of the
schools’ mission statements. Principles and con-
cepts of social justice break down in the dynamics
of application, situated as they are in the often
tense and competitive geopolitical environments.
Since preference is implied to enhance equality,
what guiding assumptions might be used for
desired ends? Hopps’s 1982 editorial, noted earlier,
prescribed a path that determines those most in
need, referencing Daniel Maguire (1980):
• No alternatives to enforced preferences are
available.
• Prejudice against the group [has reached] the
level of depersonalization.
• Bias against the group is not private or nar-
rowly localized but is rather entrenched in
the culture and distributive systems of the
society.
• The members of the victim group [are] visible
as such and thus lack an avenue of escape from
their disempowered status. (pp. 129–130)
Maguire cited black Americans, women, Native
Americans, and Latinos as the groups that meet all
these criteria. He argued that
social and distributive justice must respond to
the needs of all the poor. However, we are
dealing here with the special needs of discrete
groups that call for further relief beyond the
usual ministrations of just government, social

agencies, and just people. (p. 129)
Thus, it is essential to examine the additional burden
of the intersectionality of race, gender, and class.
Given this caveat, this view is manifested when
black, Latino, Asian, and First Nations women must
compete with white women for positions of leader-
ship, when the latter have dual claims to power and
privilege, because they are white and female (Banks,
Hopps, & Briggs, in press). What this means is that
some of the nation’s privileged citizens can and do
claim protected status. Although Maguire was direc-
tional for 20th century thought and praxis going
forward, social work has to articulate a working defi-
nition of social justice that comprehensively addresses
this paradox. Such a comprehensive definition of
social justice bases it within a three-prong framework,
tied to political and social rights, which serves as a
base for expanding work and developing an organiz-
ing pyramid for praxis. In this way the application of
social justice is best understood as a core value and a
set of skill competencies that are integrated through-
out policy and service domains. The definition will
need to give thought to the gravity and rotation
effects that accompany the intractable multivariate
influences of race, gender, class, and vulnerability.
In this vein, vulnerability is not a proxy for the
aforementioned factors and embodies its own
powerful influence. Preference then is not only
multifaceted but best understood through the lens
of a prism.
The National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) has established the importance of advanc-
ing issues of social justice and equality as part of the

education of professional social workers. It is stated
in the NASW (2015) Code of Ethics that social
workers should challenge social injustice; pursue
social change to change forms of social injustice;
promote sensitivity to and knowledge about di-
versity; and ensure access to resources, equality of
opportunity, and meaningful participation in deci-
sion making for all people. The Council on Social
Work Education (2015) Educational Policy and
Accreditation Standards for Baccalaureate and Mas-
ter’s Social Work Programs are also instructive for
faculty designing and implementing social justice
content in the curricula.
IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND CIVIL
AND HUMAN RIGHTS TODAY
Social workers have the conceptual idea and raw
materials for a blueprint for the pursuit of social
justice as it intersects with civil and human rights.
Over the profession’s history, social workers have
promoted some ideas and forms of furthering civil
rights and social justice (Bowles & Hopps, 2014;
Bowles, Hopps, & Clayton, 2016; Clayton &Hopps,
2013). People like Dorothy Height, women’s rights
activist and president of the National Council of
Negro Women (from 1957 to 1996), and Whitney
Young, civil rights activist and head of the National
Urban League (from 1961 to 1971), provide exam-
ples of how social workers can be stewards of change.
Both Height and Young were professionally and per-
sonally invested in creating equity, changing systems,
and promoting diversity.
In many ways, today’s topics are a clear reminder
that the journey is not yet finished. It is important,

6 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017
however, to acknowledge and recognize the prog-
ress the profession has made and to also clearly artic-
ulate that there is still more work to be done to
achieve social justice and equality. We are infiltrated
with reminders of the importance of these impera-
tives for our profession. Many immigrants in our
nation are faced with prejudice and discrimination.
Simultaneously, the Voting Rights Act, which was
passed in 1965 to provide protections and remove
race-based barriers to voting (Coleman, 2014), has
not been reauthorized, which has created space for
voter discrimination and disenfranchisement (Hopps
& Bowles, 2015). The mass incarceration of African
Americans and the subsequent withdrawal of voting
as a result of felony convictions has led to the disen-
franchisement of over 6 million Americans, despite
their having served their sentence (Sentencing Proj-
ect, 2016). There have been mass protests due to is-
sues of police bias, discrimination, and the killing of
African Americans and police officers around the
nation. Muslim families and communities are
experiencing prejudice and discriminatory treat-
ment because of their religion (Hodge, Zidan, &
Husain, 2016). Although strides have been made in
legal support of same-sex marriage, there are still
policies that do not acknowledge the rights of the
transgender community and there is still differential
treatment because of their gender identification and
sexual orientation (Alford & Lee, 2016). Hence,
although there have been tremendous strides with
respect to civil rights and social justice, much remains
to be done and many contradictions persist regarding

what is just and civil in a society of a democratic
republic of ordered law (Rawls, 1971).
IN THIS SPECIAL ISSUE
Several articles are being presented in an effort to
enhance the profession’s repertoire on social jus-
tice and civil rights. These articles are organized
around the three prongs of social justice intersect-
ing with civil rights: (1) social justice as a core
value, (2) social justice as a set of skills/competen-
cies, and (3) applications of the first two prongs
throughout the broadly defined service delivery
domains. Singularly and collectively, they helped
move the profession forward.
In viewing social justice as a core value, Steen
Mann, Restivo, Mazany, and Chapple encourage
readers to better understand the meaning of human
rights and how it can be executed in different field
settings. Burnette and Figley examine the important
role that historical oppression plays, particularly in
the role of indigenous peoples, and the need for
social workers to connect historical and contempo-
rary forms of oppression. St. Vil Sabri, Nwokolo,
Alexander, and Campbell examine intimate partner
violence as a civil rights and social justice issue for
black women, encouraging social workers to be
better informed on working with survivors. In
viewing social justice as a set of skills and competen-
cies, Keenan Limone, and Sandoval examine how
social workers view their roles as agents of social jus-
tice and human well-being. Eversman and Bird
challenge readers to become more astute at under-
standing how current discourse shapes understand-
ings of social justice issues, and how social workers

can improve their critique of such dilemmas. Jeyapal
encourages social workers to become more involved
in shaping, responding to, and leading revolutionary
social movements in the pursuit of justice. McCarter
explores the school-to-prison pipeline and en-
courages school social workers to become more
involved in the civil rights and social justice of
young people. Each article provides implications
for practice.
A FINAL THOUGHT
Ida B.Wells-Barnett was recognized as a social work
pioneer by NASW in October 2016. This honor
was both significant and symbolic because the pro-
fession finally brought recognition to a woman who
embodied social justice and who advanced civil
rights (Bent-Goodley, 2001; Peebles-Wilkins &
Francis, 1990). Wells-Barnett embodied the princi-
ples that should define social work: commitment to
change, the ability to ask the hard questions, and a
willingness to work toward making the world a dif-
ferent and better place. It seems odd that we have
only come to recognize her in 2016, considering her
enormous influence and the major contributions
she made to social work. Wells-Barnett challenged
those committed to social justice to create a more
just and civil society, and encouraged activists to
never be caught unready to advance civil rights and
social change. Thus, let social workers be encour-
aged to adopt the following mantra:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and it
does seem to me that notwithstanding all these
social agencies and activities there is not that
vigilance which should be exercised in the
preservation of our rights. This leads me to

7Bent-Goodley and Hopps / Social Justice and Civil Rights: A
Call to Action for Social Work
wonder if we are not well satisfied to be able to
point to our wonderful institutions with com-
placence and draw the salaries connected
therewith, instead of being alert as the watch-
man on the wall (Duster, 1970, p. 415). SW
REFERENCES
Alford, B., & Lee, S. J. (2016). Toward complete inclusion:
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender military service
members after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Social
Work, 61, 257–265.
Banks, L., Hopps, J. G., & Briggs, H. E. (in press). Cracks in
the ceiling: Historical and contemporary trends in
African Americans deans of schools of social work.
Research on Social Work Practice.
Barker, R. L. (2014). The social work dictionary (6th ed.).
Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2001). Ida B. Wells-Barnett: An
uncompromising style. In I. B. Carlton-LaNey (Ed.),
African American leadership: An empowerment tradition
in social welfare history (pp. 87–98). Washington,
DC: NASW Press.
Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2008). Social and economic justice.
In B. W. White, K. M. Sowers, & C. N. Dulmus
(Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of social work and social

welfare: The profession of social work (pp. 419–440).
Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons.
Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2014). Social work and the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 [Editorial]. Social Work, 59,
293–295.
Bowles, D., & Hopps, J. G. (2014). The profession’s role
in meeting its historical mission to serve vulnerable
populations. Advances in Social Work, 15, 1–20.
Bowles, D., Hopps, J. G., & Clayton, O. (2016). The
impact and influence of HBCUs on the social work
profession. Journal of Social Work Education, 52,
118–132.
Clayton, O., & Hopps, J. G. (2013). Human rights
and social work in historical and contemporary
perspectives. In C. Franklin (Ed.-in-Chief ),
Encyclopedia of social work. doi:10.1093/acrefore/
9780199975839.013,943
Coleman, K. J. (2014, July). The Voting Rights Act of 1965:
Background and overview. Washington, DC: Congres-
sional Research Service. Retrieved from http://
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/229373.pdf
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). 2015 Educa-
tional policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and
master’s social work programs. Alexandra, VA: Author.
Duster, A. M. (Ed.). (1970). Crusade for justice: The autobiog-
raphy of Ida B. Wells. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Galambos, C. M. (2008). From the editor: A dialogue on

social justice. Journal of Social Work Education, 44, 1–5.
Hodge, D. R., Zidan, T., & Husain, A. (2016). Depression
among Muslims in the United States: Examining the
role of discrimination and spirituality as risk and pro-
tective factors. Social Work, 61, 45–52.
Holosko, M. J., Winkel, M., Crandall, C., & Briggs, H. E.
(2015). A content analysis of mission statements of our
top 50 schools of social work. Journal of Social Work
Education, 51, 222–236.
Hopps, J. G. (1982). Oppression based on color [Editorial].
Social Work, 27, 3–5.
Hopps, J. G., & Bowles, D. (2015). A response to Shelby
County, Alabama v. Holder: Energizing, educating
and empowering voters. Phylon, 52(2), 1–23.
Maguire, D. C. (1980). A new American justice. Garden City,
NJ: Doubleday.
National Association of Social Workers. (2015). Code of
ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.
Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/
Code/code.asp
Peebles-Wilkins, W., & Francis, E. A. (1990). Two out-
standing black women in social welfare history: Mary
Church Terrell and Ida B. Wells-Barnett. Affilia, 27,
87–100.
Pollard, W. L. (2008). Civil rights. In T. Mizrahi & L. E.
Davis (Eds.-in-Chief ), Encyclopedia of social work
(20th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 301–309). Washington, DC,
and New York: NASW Press and Oxford University

Press.
Rawls, J. (1971).A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rountree, M. A., & Pomeroy, E. C. (2010). Bridging the
gaps among social justice, research, and practice [Edi-
torial]. Social Work, 55, 293–295.
Schiele, J. H., & Hopps, J. G. (2009). Racial minorities then
and now: The continuing significance of race. Social
Work, 54, 195–199.
Sentencing Project. (2016). Felony disenfranchisement.
Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/
issues/felony-disenfranchisement/
Valdez, Z. (2015). The abandoned promise of civil rights.
Sociological Forum, 30, 612–626.
Wilson, W. J. (1995). Foreword. In J. G. Hopps, E. Pinder -
hughes, & R. Shankar (Eds.), The power to care: Clinical
practice effectiveness with overwhelmed clients (pp. vii –ix).
New York: Free Press.
Tricia B. Bent-Goodley, PhD, MSW, LICSW, is profes-
sor and director, Doctoral Program, School of Social Work, Ho-
ward University, 601 Howard Place, NW, Washington, DC
20059; e-mail: [email protected] June Gary Hopps,
PhD, MSW, is Thomas M. Parham distinguished professor of
family and children studies, University of Georgia, Athens.
Advance Access Publication December 4, 2016
8 Social Work Volume 62, Number 1 January 2017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013,943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013,943
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/229373.pdf
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/229373.pdf
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/Code/code.asp
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/Code/code.asp
http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/felony-
disenfranchisement/
http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues/felony-
disenfranchisement/
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.
COMMENTARY
Political Social Work: History, Forms,
and Opportunities for Innovation
Suzanne Pritzker and Shannon R. Lane
Over the past 50 years, national organiza-
tions have sought to engage social work-
ers in political activity. The National
Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2015)
Code of Ethics has specified social workers’ responsi -

bility to the community and broader society since
its adoption in 1960, and in 1996, strengthened its
call to require all social workers to “engage in social
and political action” to “expand choice and oppor-
tunity” and “equity and social justice for all people”
(p. 27). To fulfill these obligations, social workers
must have both the capacity and the drive to engage
in the political processes that create policies. Political
social work practice, focused on navigating and
influencing power and political dynamics associated
with social change, is therefore an essential compo-
nent of our profession.
POLITICAL SOCIALWORK: HISTORY AND
FORMS
Early social work education viewed policy as dis-
tinct from practice. However, in the mid-1990s,
political social work emerged to focus on political
mechanisms for eliciting social change. Political
social work directly alters the power dyna mics in
policymaking through strategies such as staffing
campaigns, registering and empowering voters,
serving as political appointees, and running for and
holding elected office. The two central models have
long been the Humphreys macro-oriented model,
focused on working full-time in political arenas
(Lane & Humphreys, 2011), and the Fisher (1995)
model, which emphasizes power, politics, and a
change orientation across methods.
Questions surrounding social workers’ political
roles have persisted throughout the profession’s
history, including concerns about partiality, profes-
sionalism, status, potential harm to clients, and per-
ceptions of legal restrictions (Fisher, 1995). Many

argue, however, that these concerns leave social
work “on the margins of political discourse” (Reisch,
2000, p. 293). Although the profession struggles
with its political role, individual U.S. social workers
have influenced the power dynamics involved in
political decision making. From social work’s earliest
years, Jane Addams influenced candidate selection
and candidates’ policy agendas. Alice Paul, Lucy
Burns, and Mary Church Terrell, among others,
advocated for suffrage in the women’s movement.
Decades later, Richard Cloward continued the
emphasis on suffrage, cofounding a national coali-
tion dedicated to voter registration and the federal
National Voter Registration Act. The first female
cabinet member, Frances Perkins, played a pivotal
role in the Social Security Act, after her appoint-
ment in 1933. The first woman elected to the U.S.
Congress, social worker Jeanette Rankin, was elected
in 1916. A century later, former congressional staffer
turned congresswoman Barbara Lee chairs the
Congressional Social Work Caucus. As of 2011, at
least 467 U.S. social workers had sought local, state,
or federal office (Lane & Humphreys, 2011).
Although professional social workers are more
politically active than the general U.S. public, Ritter
(2007) and Rome and Hoechstetter (2010) identi-
fied just 46 percent to 47 percent of social workers as
active or very active politically. In fact, one-third of
social work educators and field instructors see no role
for social work in political contexts (Mary, 2001).
Social workers rarely engage in political participa-
tion that requires taking initiative, wielding power,
or engaging with conflict (Rome & Hoechstetter,
2010). Aside from voting, professional social workers
and students engage in activities requiring limited

effort (Pritzker & Burwell, 2016; Ritter, 2007).
African Americans, macro practitioners, NASW
members, and more educated social workers par-
ticipate more actively than other social workers
doi: 10.1093/sw/sww072 © 2016 National Association of Social
Workers 80
(Rome & Hoechstetter, 2010). These findings are
consistent with political science’s civic voluntarism
model, which has guided substantial research on
social work political activity (see, for example, Ha-
milton & Fauri, 2001; Lane & Humphreys, 2011;
Ritter, 2007). The model suggests three key factors
that influence political participation: resources to
engage in political activity (that is, time, money,
and skills), psychological engagement with politics,
and recruitment. Political efficacy, the belief that one
has the capacity to affect political processes and that
political processes will be responsive to one’s efforts,
plays a critical role in this model and in social work
research. Furthermore, interpersonal recruitment has
been found to strongly predict students’ political par-
ticipation—when their networks foster participation,
participation happens (Swank, 2012). Hoefer (2016)
and Gal and Weiss-Gal (2015) have suggested mod-
ified versions of this model specific to social work
advocacy and political participation, with added
emphasis on the organizations within which social
workers advocate.
In contrast to scholarship focusing on the participa-
tion of social workers, minimal research has examined

their role in empowering clients’ political engage-
ment. Just 28 percent of Rome, Hoechstetter, and
Wolf-Branigin’s (2010) social work respondents
agreed that “social workers should domore to involve
clients in the political process” (p. 213), and some
explicitly expressed discomfort with encouraging
clients to be politically active.
Over the profession’s history, social work educa-
tion has been criticized for inadequately preparing
social workers to engage with policy and politics. In
fact, nearly half of Ritter’s (2007) sample felt that
they had not been prepared to participate in politics,
and just 36 percent of social workers reported re-
ceiving sufficient education about political engage-
ment (Rome & Hoechstetter, 2010). Given these
concerns, it is imperative to consider the literature
that has established that educators play a critical role
in developing students’ political participation (see,
for example, Hamilton & Fauri, 2001).
Social work education has taken three main ap-
proaches to preparing students for political engage-
ment. The cross-method model prepares students to
integrate political skills and an understanding of
power into arenas of practice as diverse as commu-
nity organizing, organizational development, and
clinical practice (Fisher, 1995). Illustrative of this
model is the University of Houston’s cross-method
Political Social Work specialization and its Austin
Legislative Internship Program, which places micro
andmacroMSW students as full-time legislative staf-
fers in Texas. The macro specialist model trains stu-
dents to be full-time practitioners in political action.
Often connected with community organizing or

policy practice concentrations, this model is exem-
plified by the Campaign School for Social Workers
at the University of Connecticut, which has trained
social workers to lead campaigns and run for elec-
toral office since 1996. The occasional model inte-
grates content on political processes and potential
political social work roles into single curriculum
components. Students may gain efficacy and skills
through voter registration drives, participatory learn-
ing strategies, elective coursework, or in field.
POLITICAL SOCIALWORK: OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INNOVATION
To facilitate social change, the social work profession
needs social workers who can lead political efforts
and a social work population capable of engaging
with politics and empowering clients to leverage
their political voices. We propose an intentional
model of political social work that incorporates the
strengths of all three models described in the previ -
ous section to achieve both of these goals.
Social workers across methods need to feel em-
powered, efficacious, and obligated to contribute
to positive social change. A concerted effort to
engage students and professionals across methods
and settings with the political context and associ-
ated power dynamics is essential to increase their
preparation for political engagement. Educating
students across methods to gain fundamental knowl-
edge about political systems and to analyze and navi-
gate power dynamics should be explicit in future
education policy and accreditation standards (EPAS).
Of note, the word “political” appears only three
times within the 2015 EPAS and the word “power”
just twice (Council on Social Work Education,

2015). The experiential teaching techniques and
hands-on exposure to political action commonly
used in the occasional model are critical for teach-
ing political skills and efficacy in the classroom and
can benefit NASW chapters and other organiza-
tions across the country interested in expanding
practitioners’ involvement. Exposure to electoral
processes belongs in the implicit curriculum, and
assessments of power and the relevance of political
context to client experiences may fit well not only
81Pritzker and Lane / Political Social Work: History, Forms,
and Opportunities for Innovation
in policy courses, but also within theory, diversity,
and oppression coursework.
Renewed emphasis on educating, training, hir-
ing, and supporting politically oriented macro spe-
cialists is key to ensuring that change efforts are
collaborative, effective, and guided by social work
values. Perceptions among social work students and
faculty about barriers to macro careers such as licen-
sure, competition with other disciplines, availability
of jobs, and salaries must be addressed. Literature on
macro graduates finds success in these areas (Pritzker
& Applewhite, 2015); but more research is needed,
particularly around the effects of licensure laws in
various states, to understand how to best support
students interested in pursuing policy careers. Stu-
dents and practitioners need intensive, focused edu-
cation and networking opportunities, including
political field placements and continuing education,
to increase their skills as they advance in the field.

Leaders must identify core competencies and create
resources for macro-level political social work prac-
tice. Identifying social workers who are currently in
political specialist positions and ensuring that they
are incorporated into programs’ field networks,
alumni outreach, and career development can help
develop networks for more social work students to
move into careers involving political social work
leadership.
CONCLUSION
The intentional model of political social work can
ensure that social work’s values and principles
guide future societal change. All social workers,
regardless of field or method, should possess core
political knowledge and skills, while a subset of
social workers lead in this area. All social workers
must work together to ensure that the true experi-
ences of those served by social work are repre-
sented within the political process. A renewed
commitment by the profession to political social
work practice is needed, preparing social workers
for the challenges ahead. SW
REFERENCES
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational
policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cswe.org/file.aspx?id=81660
Fisher, R. (1995). Political social work. Journal of Social Work
Education, 31, 194–203.
Gal, J., &Weiss-Gal, I. (2015). The ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of
policy practice: An eight-country comparison. British
Journal of Social Work, 45, 1083–1101.

Hamilton, D., & Fauri, D. (2001). Social workers’ political
participation: Strengthening the political confidence
of social work students. Journal of Social Work Education,
37, 321–332.
Hoefer, R. (2016). Advocacy practice for social justice (3rd
ed.).
Chicago: Lyceum Books.
Lane, S. R., & Humphreys, N. A. (2011). Social workers in
politics: A national survey of social work candidates
and elected officials. Journal of Policy Practice, 10,
225–244.
Mary, N. L. (2001). Political activism of social work educa-
tors. Journal of Community Practice, 9(4), 1–20.
National Association of Social Workers. (2015).Code of ethics
of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington,
DC: Author.
Pritzker, S., & Applewhite, S. (2015). Going “macro”:
Exploring the careers of macro practitioners. Social
Work, 60, 191–199.
Pritzker, S., & Burwell, C. (2016). Promoting election-
related policy practice among social work students.
Journal of Social Work Education, 4, 434–447.
Reisch, M. (2000). Social workers and politics in the new
century [Guest Editorial]. Social Work, 45, 293–297.
Ritter, J. A. (2007). Evaluating the political participation of
licensed social workers in the new millennium. Journal

Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education Applying

Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education Applying

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education Applying

Similar to Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education Applying (20)

More from AlleneMcclendon878

More from AlleneMcclendon878 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Work, Politics, and Social Policy Education Applying