the political participation of social workers: a comparative study

The political participation ofsocial workers: a comparativestudy

Introduction

The political nature of social work derives from theactivities in which social workers engage to removesocial injustice (Flynn, 1997; Gray, 1996; Wood,1997). An understanding of the way in which ‘socialworkers can and do participate in the politics of socialwelfare policy is integral to advancing the profession’sphilosophy and goals’ (Dietz Domanski, 1998: 156).Social workers have always been urged to assume akey role in social welfare policy formulation. This callgained momentum with the rise of the radicalmovement where everything social workers did wasconstrued as political and engagement in the politicalprocess was seen as an integral part of the social worktask (Corrigan & Leonard, 1978; Daniel & Wheeler,1989; Galper, 1980). Making meaningful contact withthe political process was seen as the duty of all socialworkers and social work was said to be ‘better placedthan any other agency or institution to act as advocatefor the dispossessed and to empower the powerless insociety’ (Daniel & Wheeler, 1989: 21). For radicalsocial workers, all social work activities involvedconsciousness-raising, empowerment, social actionand policy analysis and the ultimate aim of socialwork was social transformation (Mullaly, 1993). In therecent past, several South African writers have drawnattention to the importance of social work’sinvolvement in political processes as an essential part

of the developmental social work approach (Gray,1996, 1998; Mazibuko, 1996a, 1996b; Ntusi, 1998).Developmental social work, like anti-oppressivepractice, and structural and empowerment approaches,calls on social workers to engage in political action,which can take many forms.

More recently, the political aspect of social workpractice has been expressed in human rights discourse.Here human rights are placed at the core of socialwork’s understanding of social justice and are seen asbasic to social work practice, forming the foundationof social work codes of ethics and models of practice(Gaha, 1999; Ife, 1997). Within this discourse, thecentral question is how social workers, bothindividually and socially, should respond to humanrights abuses and contribute to the promotion andrealisation of human rights and social justice.

Identifying social work's political role

Social work is intrinsically political by virtue of thefact that it is concerned with social change and a questfor social justice. The International Federation ofSocial Workers (2000: 5) defines social work as aprofession that ‘promotes social change . . . and theempowerment and liberation of people’. It sees‘principles of human rights and social justice’ asbeing ‘fundamental to social work’. Considerableattention has been drawn to the need for social

Int J Soc Welfare 2002:11: 99–110

ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 2002.Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA 99

Gray M, Collett van Rooyen, C, Rennie G, Gaha J. Thepolitical participation of social workers: a comparative studyInt J SocWelfare 2002:11: 99–110ß Blackwell, 2002.

This articlereportson acomparativestudy thatexaminedthepolitical participation of social workers in KwaZulu-Natalprovince in South Africa, the state of New South Wales(excluding the Hunter region) in Australia, and NewZealand. Each of these contexts had roughly the samenumber of social workers, that is, approximately 1,200. Itwasfound that socialworkers in New Zealandtendedto bemore politically activethantheir counterpartsin New SouthWales and KwaZulu-Natal, and the reasonsfor this areexamined.In theprocess,NewZealandis presentedasacasestudy of the way in which social work hasrespondedto itspolitical context. Finally, conclusions are drawn as to theengagementof social workersin the policy cycle andof theneedfor themto become moreactivepolitically.

Mel Gray,1 Colin Collett van Rooyen,2 GavinRennie3, Jo Gaha41 University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia and HonoraryResearch Professor, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa2 Independent Projects Trust, Durban, South Africa3 UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand4 University of Newcastle, Australia

Key words: Social work, politics, political participation, socialpolicy, human rights, social justice.

Mel Gray, Department of Social Work, The University ofNewcastle, University Drive, Callaghan 2308, NSW AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication June 20, 2001

workersto play a moreproactiverole in the politicalrealm (Gray, 1996; Mazibuko, 1996a,1996b; Ntusi,1998).Gray(1996)describedpolitical actionasactiontakenby socialworkersto effect socialchange,whichis in the best interestsof, or in keeping with, theexpressedneedsof the clientsor constituenciesbeingserved.In this broadsense,political actioninvolvesallactivities relating to social change,including advo-cacy,mediation,consciousness-raising,empowermentandcooperativedevelopment,to socialcontrol andtothe legislative processesthat have an influence onpeople’slives. In this study,specialattentionis paidtopolitical participationby socialworkersin relation togovernmentpolicy. This involvesa rangeof activitiesvarying from voting in an election to readingpolicydocuments,commentingon them,respondingto them,and involvementin structuresmaking, changingand

implementingpolicy. In this sectionwe outline DietzDomanski’s(1998) typology of political participationamong social workers (Figure 1) and her tenprototypesof political participation(Figure 2) whichwereadaptedfor usein the presentstudy.

Whenwe talk aboutpolicy we aretalking abouttheway in which social workers engagewith, or areinfluencedby, social policy in their practice.Social-work students study social pol icy in order tounderstandthe way in which social policy impactson their work with clientsat all levels.Thustherearepolicies relating to the social work profession,theorganisationsemployingsocialworkersthroughwhichservicesare offered, the committeeson which socialworkers serve and the institutions in which social-work academicsteach.Thereare also broadersocialpolicies which impact on our work with clients,such

Figure 1. Social workers' political participation activities.

1. LobbyistX Contacted government officials by telephone, letter, fax on a national government policy problemX Contacted government officials by telephone, letter, or fax on a local government policy problemX Responded to the American Hospital Association Action AlertX Lobbied individual policymakers or legislators2. VoterX Voted in the 1994 state electionsX Voted in the 1994 national congressional electionsX Voted in 1994 city or county electionsX Voted in the 1994 primary elections3. CampaignerX Actively worked for a political party during 1994X Actively worked for a specific candidate during 1994X Attended a political meeting or rally held by a candidate for officeX Participated in the activities of a political party or a political organisationX Attended a town meeting held by a legislator currently in office4. CollaboratorX Organised a professional or community group to work on a government policy problemX Organised a professional or community group to work on an agency or organisational problemX Organised or maintained a social action coalitionX Participated in the lobbying activities of a professional public interest association or organisationX Worked with others on resolution of a government policy problem5. AdvocateX Provided services to a community agency or group involved in social action or policy reformX Advocated for change within my organisation to improve servicesX Made efforts in a professional capacity to influence opinion among co-workers about an agency policy problemX Worked to influence media coverage of an issueX Advocated with a government agency on behalf of a client6. IndividualistX Contacted government officials by telephone, letter, or fax on a local government problem of personal concernX Contacted government officials by telephone, letter, or fax on a national government problem of personal concernX Contacted government officials by attending or testifying at a public hearing on a local government problem of personal concern7. WitnessX Contacted government officials by attending or testifying at a public hearing on a local government problem of personal concernX Contacted government officials by attending or testifying at a public hearing on a national government issue of personal concern8. ActivistX Participated in an organised demonstration supporting a government policy.X Participated in an organised demonstration protesting against a government policy9. PersuaderX Attempted to persuade others how to voteX Made efforts in a professional capacity to influence opinion among the general public about a government policy problem10. CommunicatorX Keep informed about political and social policy issuesX Engaged in electoral or political discussions with family, friends and colleagues

Adapted from Dietz Domanski (1998).

Gray, Collett van Rooyen,Rennie & Gaha

100 ß Blackwell PublishersLtd andthe InternationalJournal of SocialWelfare2002

as policy relating to education, housing, socialsecurity,social welfare, unemployment,developmentandthe like. Thuswhenwe talk aboutpolicy in socialwork we talk aboutsocialworkersbeingawareof, andlearning to engagewith policy processesin societybecausesocialworkersimplementpolicy. Their levelof involvement in policy implementationwill differdependingon the context in which they are working.For example,thoseworking for governmentagenciesmight be more di rectl y involved in pol i cyimplementation than those working in grassrootscommunityorganisations.

Social workers also engage in policy-makingprocessesandattemptto changeunjustpolicies.Thuspolicy andpolitics go together.Whenwe engagewithpolicy-making processes, whether we are imple-menting,making or attemptingto changepolicy, weare involved in politics, in the way in which existingpolicy serves to maintain the system and achievecompliancewith social norms.Politiciansare electedon the basisof their policiesandin a democracytheygain power becausethe majority agreeswith theirpolicies.This doesnot necessarilymaketheir policiesjust. It simply meansthat they reflect the majorityview. Since social workers of ten work wi thmarginalisedgroupsin society,it is highly likely thatthey will encounterpolicies which are unjust andwhich discriminateagainstminorities in society.Theprocessthey engagein to removesocial injustice is

political. This is the broadestsenseof social work’spolitical involvement.

In a narrowersense,socialworkerscanbeinvolvedin party politics and work to promote particularinterests.They can canvassfor a particularpoliticianor political party and they might even stand forelection. This is possibly the conventionalsenseinwhich politics is understood.

In examining the political participation of socialworkers in this study, we were interestedin socialworkers’ awarenessof social policy, the way theyengagedin policy-making processes,the ways inwhich theyhadattemptedto influencetheseprocessesor changesocial policies.We were also interestedintheir direct involvementin party-politicalactivitiesorelectionsat various levels. Recognitionwas given todifferent degreesof policy involvement.As regardspoli cy-making processes generally, we wanted toknow whethersocialworkerswereawareof particularpolicies, had read policy documents,respondedtothem, served on committees or were involved inprocesses which contributed to their making. Asregardsparty politics, we were interestedin socialworkers’ voting activity at the local, regional ornational levels and in their degreeof involvementinworking for, or promotingthe interestsof, particularpolitical parties. Hence the ten political activitiesidentified were:

Figure 2. Prototypes of political participation by social workers.

Prototype Conceptual definition Operational definition

Communicator Person who keeps informed about and discusses Keeps informed about policy issues and engages in electoral and politicalpolitical and social policy issues with others. discussions with family, friends and colleagues.

Advocate Person who engages in micro or macro advocacy on Provides advocacy services for/on behalf of individuals, groups, or organisations.behalf of clients. Advocates for or influences co-workers' opinions about organisational policy

change.

Voter Person who takes part in elections by voting Votes in at least one of four categories of elections: primary, local, state ornational.

Lobbyist Person who lobbies for clients on a political issue Contacts government officials on a policy issue -- calls or writes to governmentofficials on a local, state, or national policy problem. Engages in an organisation'slobbying campaigns.

Persuader Person who makes an effort to influence the opinions Attempts to persuade others how to respond to a policy issue. Uses professionalof others on a policy issue. skills and expertise to influence public opinion about a policy issue.

Collaborator Person who collaborates with others on policy issues. Participates in, organises or maintains an organisation or group for resolution ofgovernment or agency policy problem.

Campaigner Person who takes an active role in electoral politics Actively works for a political party or candidate; participates in politicalorganisation; attends constituent meetings held by party representatives.

Individualist Person who contacts government officials on policy Contacts government officials on policy issues of personal concern.issues.

Witness Person who takes part in public or Congressional Attends or testifies at public or Congressional hearings.hearings on local or national policy issues.

Activist Person who engages in organised political actions. Participates in an organised demonstration in support or in protest of agovernment policy.

Adapted from Dietz Domanski (1998)

Political participation of social workers

ß Blackwell PublishersLtd andthe InternationalJournal of SocialWelfare2002 101

1. Lobbying – of governmentofficials, individualpolicy-makersand/orlegislators.

2. Voting – in the most recent elections at anational,regionalor local level.

3. Campaigning– actively working for a politicalparty or candidate,attendingpolitical meetingsor rallies, participating in the activities of apolitical partyor aattendinga townmeetingheldby a legislatorcurrently in office.

4. Collaborating – engaging in organising aprofessionalor communitygroup to work on agovernmentpolicy problemand/oran agencyororganisationalproblem; working with a socialaction coalition, a professionalpublic interestassociation or organisation towards theresolutionof a policy problemor issue.

5. Advocating– providingservicesto an individualclient or a communityagencyor groupinvolvedin socialactionor policy reform,advocatingforchange within one’ s own organisation toimprove services, working in a professionalcapacityto influenceopinion amongco-workersaboutan agencypolicy problemor to influencemediacoverageof an issue.

6. Individual politicking – contactinggovernmentofficials or attendingor testifying at a publichearingon a policy problemof personalconcern.This ‘role’ recognisesthat socialworkersdo notalways engage in pol icy roles in thei rprofessionalcapacity or as representativesofothers.

7. Witnessing– attending or testifying at publichearingsor commissionsof enquiry.

8. Protesti ng – parti ci pati ng in organiseddemonstrationsor protests.

9. Persuading– attemptingto persuadeothershowto voteor, in aprofessionalcapacity,to influenceopinion abouta governmentpolicy problem.

10. Communicating – keeping informed aboutpolitical and social policy issuesand engagingin electoralor political discussionswith family,friendsandcolleagues.

The context giving rise to the research

South Africa

After a long history of political oppression,sincethetransition to democracy in South Africa in 1994,opportuni ties for pol i ti cal parti cipation haveabounded.Socialworkershave,morethaneverbefore,hadtheopportunityto participatein politics andpolicymaking in relation to numerous policy-makingprocesses,among them, the White Paperon SocialWelfare and Social Welfare Action Plan (SWAP);National Interim Consultative Committee (NICC);

Inter-ministerial Committee for Youth at Risk(IMC); Transformation of South African InterimCounci l for Social Work (SAICSW); HigherEducationPolicy; National Drug Plan; Policy for theAged; andnew Child Carelegislation.

New Zealand

Social Work training has been available in NewZealand for fifty years. Methods of practice wereinitially developedwithin the contextof, andto servethe needsof, a very comprehensivewelfare state.Servedby the myth of New Zealandas a ‘classlesssociety’andwith whatwasregardedasenviablygoodracerelationships,poverty, inequity and racismwereonce renderedalmost invisible to mainstreamNewZealandsocietyandits socialpractitioners.The1970sbroughtthe rise of the Maori (indigenous)land rightsandprotestmovementand the 1980scommencedtheongoingdevolutionof theNew Zealandsocialwelfaresystemto its currentbarely residualstate.The socialwork role has transformed,social work training andpractice are both challengedby and participate in,multiple processesof socialchange.Addressingissuesof racism,povertyandsystemicinequityarenow verymuch to the fore. Social work practice demandsacommitment to biculturalism and a keen under-standingof policy, and social workers have becomeagents of social change and active participants inpolitical processesat all levels.

Australia

As in New Zealand, the social work professioninAustraliahasa fairly recenthistorywith theAustralianAssociationof Social Workers(AASW) having beenestablishedin 1946. Australian social work is basedfirmly on a professional model that has beenreinforced in recent years by the government’ sposition,stemmingfrom its competitionpolicy, whichstatesthat professionsshouldbe self-regulating.Thusthe professionalassociation,the AASW, maintainsstrong control over professionalstandardsand theaccreditationof schools of social work to provideeligibility for membership.Australiansocial work isgeneralist,secular,basedon a Westernrationalistwayof thinking,with a strongcommitmentto socialjustice(Banks, 1995; Ife, 1997). The policy landscapeinAustralia needs to be seen against the currentConservative government’s liberal commitment toeconomic rationalism. The attrition of governmentprovision of welfare services and welfare-stateinstitutions,andthenewly introducednotionof mutualobligation, for examplea ‘work for the dole’ policy,has causedconsternationamong welfare planners.Evenmoredisconcertingto socialserviceprovidersis



thegovernment’sapparentlack of concernfor its ownindigenouspeopleandits inability to acknowledgetheeffectsof pastpolicies on them. Also problematicisthe apparentlack of concernfor non-white refugeesfrom strife-torn countries.The myth of equality isevident in the marginalisationof rural inhabitants,rising poverty and ongoinghealthproblemsfacedbyindigenous people. Of great concern is theexceptionally high suicide rate, particularly amongyoungpeople,increasingdomesticviolenceanddrugabuse.

The purpose of the study

The ultimate purposeof the study was to developamodel of political participation to enhancesocialworkers’ understandingof the political dimensionsofsocialwork practiceand to showsocial workershowto engagein political processes.Placedwithin humanrights discourse,the studycould contributeto findingwaysin whichsocialworkerscouldengagein socialorpolitical actionat variouslevels through:

• Socialwork practice• Collectiveaction• Professionalassociations• Othercommunityor activist groups• Socialwork education• Public education• Policy developmentandadvocacy.

According to Dietz Domanski(1998),social workersengage in political processesby adopting variouspol itical roles and activi ties which she cal led‘prototypes’,suchas advocacy,lobbying, witnessing,voting, campaigning, lobbying, col laborating,persuadingand communicating.The study thereforeassumedthat by exploring the extentto which socialworkers engaged in these activities, it would bepossibleto speculateaboutthedegreeof socialwork’sinvolvementat the political and humanrights level.This would be helpful to those committed toconvincing social workers of the need to involvethemselvesactively in humanrights issues.

Methodology

This studyaimedto examinethe natureandextentofpolitical participation in which social workers inKwaZulu-Natal (KZN), New South Wales (NSW)andNewZealand(NZ) haveengagedin therecentpastand whether there were differencesand similaritiesacrossthese three contexts.To this end, the studyaskedthe following questions:

1. Do social workers participate in pol icyactivities?

2. What is the natureand extent of their politicalparticipation?

3. Are there differences and similarities acrossthesecontexts?

The questionnairewasdesignedto gatherinformationabout the political activities in which they hadengaged.To this end, it explored, inter alia, thefollowing:

• Particularpolicy processesor issuesthathadgainedtheir attentionsince1994.

• The natureandextentof their participation,that is,whethertheyhadreadpolicy documents,respondedto them, participatedin meetingsand discussionsabout them, or engagedin any other action inrelation to policy processes.

• Their perceptions as to the nature of theircontributionandwhetherit hadany real impact.

As shownin Table1, thesamplesweredrawnfromprofessionalmembershiplists of the Interim Councilfor Social Work in South Africa, the Aotearoa/NewZealand Association of Social Workers in NewZealand and the Australian Association of SocialWorkers in Australia. Of theseprofessionalbodies,only SouthAfrican socialworkersarerequiredby lawto register for practice. For the other contexts,membershipof professionalassociationsis voluntary.

For consistencyof numbers,the Australian studyexcluded the Hunter region of New South Wales,which is oneof the ten branchesof the AASW. Thisregionwill be surveyedat a later dateto gain a fullerpicture of political activity in this state.Respondentswere not asked to provide identifying details and

Table 1. Sample.

Country Sampling frame Sampling method Original Number of Responsesample responses rate

South Africa Interim Council for Social Work list of registered Systematic random sampling 482 197 40%social workers for KwaZulu-Natal One-third of total population

New Zealand Membership of Aotearoa/New Zealand Systematic random sampling 400 194 49%Association of Social Workers One-third of members

Australia Membership of the Australian Association of Social Systematic random sampling 430 190 44%Workers in New South Wales One-third of total population



remainedanonymous.Postage-paid,addressedreturnenvelopeswere included with the questionnaireandtwo weeks after the date of the original mailing,reminderpostcardswere sent to the KZN and NewZealandsamples(shownin Table1).

Results and discussion

Profile of the Respondents

As shown in Table 2, the vast majority of therespondentswere experiencedsocial workers, 84–86% being currently in practiceand 40–50%havingbeenin practicefor up to ten years.

Table 3 showsthat the respondentsrangedin agefrom 22 to 86 yearswith the averageage being 42years.Themajority of respondentswerefemale.In theSouthAfrican andAustralianstudies,over 60% hadafour-year social work degreequalification, while inNew Zealand25% had a two-yeardiploma in socialwork. This differencecan be explainedby the lateradventof socialwork educationin New Zealandthanin SouthAfrica andAustralia.Social work educationbeganin Australia in the 1920s(andhasbeena four-year degreesincethe late 1960s),in SouthAfrica inthe 1930s and in New Zealand in 1950. In NewZealand,from 1950 until mid-1970, the diploma insocial work was the only available professionalqualification for socialwork, until MasseyUniversitybeganits Bachelorof SocialWork (BSW)programme.In 1982 the social work diploma was offered outsidethe university, at Auckland College of Education.Since the beginning of the 1990s a range ofpolytechnicshavebeenoffering two-yeardiplomas–all are undergraduatebut are seento be professionalqualificationsin socialwork. In theearly1990sOtagoUniversity began offering a range of social workprogrammeswhich included first professionalandadvancedcourses.Since 1997 UNITEC Institute ofTechnologyhasoffered a three-yeardegreein social

work. Massey and Canterbury University offerpostgraduateMSWsandPhDs.By wayof comparison,socialwork educationin SouthAfrica andAustraliaisbased in universities, and requires a four-yearprofessional undergraduate degree qualif ication,though this is under review in South Africa. Mostuniversitiesin both thesecountriesoffer opportunitiesfor postgraduatestudyin socialwork.

Table 4 shows that in KwaZulu-Natal nearly aquarterof therespondents(23.3%)werein supervisoryor similar junior managementpositions,while in NewZealandand New South Wales, the majority (40%)were in generalsocialwork or ‘multiple’ roles.

It would appearthat the profiles of social workersacrossthe three contextsare similar, in that socialwork is largely an urban-based,female-dominatedprofessionwherein the professionalqualification isgenerallya four-yearor primary level qualification.InSouth Africa, a trend towards more rural-basedpracticeis emerging.A largenumberof socialworkers(seemodalcategoriesin Table2) areemployedin thechild andfamily welfarefield. With mosthavingup toten yearsexperience(between40–50%,Table2), onemightexpectthattherespondentshadbeeninvolvedinpolicy-makingprocessesand,therefore,couldprovidevaluable information on social workers’ politicalparticipation. At the same time, there is also thepossibil ity that a large number of the researchparticipants,especiallythosetrained in the ‘clinical’model, might not be familiar with some of theprototypes,suchasactivist andwitness.

Findings in terms of Dietz Domanski's (1998) prototypes

Using Dietz Domanski’s(1998)prototypes,the studyexaminedthe political participationof respondentsasshownin Figure3.

Groupingtheseresponses(shownin Table 5), themost dominant political activity engagedin or role

Table 2. Practice profile. Total % of respondents currently in practice.

Currently in Proportion in Modal field Practicepractice practice for up of service context

to ten years

KwaZulu-Natal 84% 50% Child & Family 37% 54% urbanNew Zealand 86% 42% Child & Family 24% 76% urbanNew South Wales 85% 40% Child & Family 15% 79% urban

Note:Although the questionnaire did not have a fields of service category `multiple fields', the modal category for this item in the NSW data was `multiple'. Hence for thisdata set, the first `actual' field, i.e. Child and Family was used.

Table 3. Age, Gender and Qualifications of respondents.

Age Range Mean Age Modal Age Modal Gender Modal Qualification

KwaZulu-Natal 22--76 38 28 Female 90% Four-year qualification 68%New Zealand 21--77 44 50--51 Female 83% Diploma in Social Work 25%New South Wales 23--86 44 45 Female 87% Four-year qualification 61%



played by social workers is that of communicator(89.2%).

Dietz Domanski(1998) describeda communicatoras a person who obtains information and keepsinformedaboutpolitical andsocialpolicy issues,and

Table 4. Social worker position within the agency.

Context Responsibility/Role (Modal) Percentage

KwaZulu-Natal Supervisor/junior management 23%New Zealand Multiple Roles 40%New South Wales General social work 40%

Figure 3. Political participation of respondents (%).

Dimension KZN AUCK NSW MEAN

LobbyingContacted national government re: national government policy problem 35.5 66.0 49 50Contacted provincial government re: provincial government policy problem 37.8 N/A 53 45Contacted local government re: local government policy problem 37.8 57.2 35 43Lobbied individual policy makers 23.4 52.6 45 40

44.5

VotingVoted in last general election 92.6 96.4 N/A 94Voted in most recent local government elections 56.1 87.7 N/A 71Intend voting in 1999 general election 81.0 97.4 N/A 86

84.6

PersuadingAttempted to persuade others to vote 29.1 42.3 41 40

CampaignerWorked for a political party prior to last general election 9.0 7.7 11.0 9Worked for a political party during the general election 11.1 6.7 5.9 7Currently active in a political party 4.2 4.6 N/A 4Intend working for a political party in 1999 general election 11.1 2.7 N/A 6

6.5

Social actionAttended a political rally prior to last election 48.4 52.6 44.1 48Attended a political rally as part of the last election campaign 38.8 29.8 25.0 25Participated in organised demonstration in support of government policy 09.5 10.7 12.9 10Participated in organised demonstration opposing government policy 34.7 66.5 58.4 52

33.7

CollaboratingOrganised a group to work on a government policy problem 26.5 52.6 41.6 39Organised a group to work on an agency related policy problem 50.3 72.5 58.6 60Participated in a social action group in a personal capacity 26.7 39.9 26.6 30

43

AdvocatingParticipated in lobbying for a professional interest group 52.7 64.2 53.7 56Worked with others to resolve a government policy problem 69.6 64.8 59.6 64Worked with others to advocate change in agency services 82.9 97.9 90.9 89Worked to influence media coverage of an issue 36.4 49.5 44.1 43Advocated with government department for client 77.0 96.9 94.2 89

68.2

Individual actionContacted local government officials on issue of personal concern 35.6 50.8 50.8 45Contacted provincial government officials on issue of personal concern 21.1 N/A 46.3 33Contacted national government officials on issue of personal concern 09.6 54.2 42.1 35

37.6

WitnessingAttended public hearing/commission of enquiry 19.6 37.5 33.7 29Testified at public hearing/commission of enquiry 07.9 21.2 12.1 13

21

CommunicatingAttempts to keep informed on issues with personal impact 87.8 95.4 90.5 90Attempts to keep informed on issues with professional impact 90.5 95.5 96.3 93Engaged in political/electoral discussion with family 84.1 96.4 92.1 80Engaged in political/electoral discussion with friends 91.1 97.4 96.3 94Engaged in political/electoral discussion with colleagues 84.1 92.3 91.6 89

89.2



engagesin electoral and political discussionswithfamily, friends and colleagues. In terms of theprototypesof political participation (see Figure 2),this representsa fairly non-directiverole andtendstobe focused away from direct client issues. Thesuggestionthat attemptsare madeto keep informedabout political and social issues does, however,indicate a level of awarenessthat could impact onthe natureof servicesofferedby the socialworkers.

The specific action of keeping informed aboutissueswith professionalimpact obtaineda very highscoreof 93%(seeFigure3). It wasinterestingto notethat within this prototype,the highest‘activity’ scoreacrossall activities(otherthanthat for havingvotedinthe 1994 elections) was recorded, this being theactivity of political discussionwith friends(94%).

Of further interestwith regardto the prototypeofcommunicator,arethe findings relatedto interestandawarenessof newpolicy. It would not beunrealistictoassume that one of the prime ways of keepinginformed on issueswith professionalimpact wouldbethroughanawarenessandknowledgeof currentandnewwelfarelegislation.While 93%of therespondentsindicated that they did indeed do this, the findingssuggesteda varying degreeof interestin new policyinitiatives. Thus,althoughsocial workerswereawareof political processes and issues, they did notnecessarilyparticipateactively in them. Participationincreasedin matters closer to home such as thoseinvolving agency or personal and professionalinterests.

Figure3 indicatesthataftercommunicator(89.2%),themoreactiveroleswerevoter(84.6%)andadvocate(68.2%). Less than 50% of respondentsacted aslobbyist (44.5%), collaborator (43%), persuader(40%), and individualist (37.6%) and only a thirdengagedin activism(33.7%),while one-fifth actedaswitness (21%). Only 6.5% had campaignedfor apolitical party.

The sampleof NSW social workersdid not scorehigheston any of the rolesor dimensionsof politicalactivity. They were slightly lower than their NZ

counterpartson all but oneof the nine dimensionsonwhich they were scored, namely, campaigner,andhigher than their KZN counterpartson all but threecollaborator,activist and campaigner.They were notrankedon the voter dimension,asvoting in Australiais compulsory.It is not surprisingthat NSW and NZscoreswere similar as the political institutions andtraditions of those two countries have much incommon.In conjecturingaboutthe slight differenceswe could postulatethat NZ is politically further downaneconomicrationalistroadandthereis moreneedforprofessionalsto be outspoken as the gaps widenbetweenthehavesandhave-nots.Thehigherscoreoncampaignercould simply be a resultof the question–the NSW samplecould only answerhalf the question,asNSW wasnot in the lead-upto an election.

That theKZN samplehadthehighestscoreson theactivist andcampaignerroles is possiblyreflective ofSouth Africa’s history of struggleagainstapartheid,likewise with its lowest score as witness. Prior todemocratic rule, the constant threat of governmentreprisalled to fearof individual exposure,banningandhouse-arrest.It would seemtoo that this hascarriedover into the Truth and ReconciliationCommission(TRC), where very few social workers testified. InAustralia only 12% of social workers in the NSWsamplehadtestifiedat a public hearingor commissionof enquiry. Although the question did not relatedirectly to the Stolen GenerationsCommission,onemight deducefrom this result that few testifiedat thishearing.

The reportedhigher political involvement of theNSW sampleasagainstthe KZN samplecould againbereflectiveof SouthAfrica’s history,wherepoliticalactivismwasa dangerouspursuit.It would haveto bepursuedin a lessobviousandindirectmannerthanin acountry where freedom of speech and individualindependencewassupported.

It is interestingto note that the most commonly-recordedroles for all three sampleswere those ofcommunicatorand voter. Guidedby their knowledgebaseand value system,theseresultsshow that most

Table 5. Means as a crude indicator of roles or dimensions of political activity (in rank order)

Mean %ROLE KZN AUCK NSW COMPOSITE

Communicator 87.5 (1) 95.4 (1) 93.3 (1) 89.2 (1)Voter 76.5 (2) 93.8 (2) N/A1 84.6 (2)Advocate 65.4 (3) 74.6 (3) 68.5 (2) 68.2 (3)Lobbyist 33.6 (6) 58.6 (4) 45.5 (4) 44.5 (4)Collaborator 45.1 (4) 55.0 (5) 42.2 (5) 43.0 (5)Persuader 29.1 (7) 42.3 (7) 41.0 (6) 40.0 (6)Individualist 22.1 (8) 52.5 (6) 46.4 (3) 37.6 (7)Activist 44.2 (5) 39.9 (8) 31.0 (7) 33.7 (8)Witness 13.7 (10) 29.3 (9) 22.9 (8) 21.0 (9)Campaigner 20.4 (9) 05.4 (10) 08.4 (9) 06.5 (10)

Note: 1 Voting was not applicable in Australia because eligible citizens are required by law to vote.



socialworkersareawareof policy andtalk aboutit alot. Althoughit is not partof political activity in socialwork intervention,voting is perhapsthe activity mostassociatedwith politics. It is the way in which peoplehave their say in a democracyand, it seemssocialworkerswant to maketheir mark.

There are noticeable variations across the threecontexts.The individualist role is the third highestscorein the Australiansample(46.4%)andalsohighin the New Zealandstudy(52.6%),ascomparedwith22.1% in SouthAfrica. Viewing thesedifferencesintermsof thevaryingcontexts,theycouldbedueto thefact that in most establisheddemocratic societiesspeakingfor oneselfis a norm,unlike in SouthAfrica,where people have not been free to expresstheirpersonalpolitical opinions.

Onewould expectthe role of activist to be high insocialwork in view of its social justicegoalsandtheinfluenceof radical theory.Our data,however,showthat only a third of social workersengagedin socialactivism (33.7% acrossour samples)and that this,along with campaignerand witness,was one of theleast-favouredpolitical roles.However,this role wasthefifth-highestfor theSouthAfrican sample(44.2%),followed by New Zealand(39.9%) and New SouthWales (31%). This again reflects South Afri ca’shistory where, in the past, people did not have theright to legitimate political engagement. Henceactivism, even if underground,was their only routeto political participation.Australia and New Zealandare well-established democracies, where politicalengagement is expected (even legislated, e.g. inAustralia people are required by law to vote). Onewonders whether political activity becomes lessnecessaryin a countrylike Australiathathasa historyof political stability andawell-developedwelfarestatethat hasonly recentlybegunto change.

Social work's responsiveness to the political context: NewZealand as a case study

On eight of the ten items, the New Zealandsamplereportedhigher degreesof political involvementthantheir counterpartsin KZN and NSW. Why is NewZealandmore politically active?The answerto thisquestionpresentsa fascinatingrange of speculativepossibilities and an interestingcasestudy of socialwork’s responsivenessto its political context. Tounderstandthe practice attitudes of New Zealand’ssocialworkers,andwhy a political analysisis viewedasintrinsic to goodsocialwork, involvesexamininganumber of layers of influence on social workeducationandpractice.It might be arguedthat socialwork educationandpracticein New Zealandoperatedsomewhatasa havenandreservoirof ideologies,thatwhile diverseperspectiveswereheld by educators,all

tendedto recogniseindividual difficulties as sited inlarger structural issues.In turn such ideologieshavenow become definitive of what constitutes goodpractice. Indicative of the centrality of such anideology is the first paragraphof the philosophyofthe Bachelor Social Practice UNITEC ProgrammePhilosophy1996.

Societyis structuredin a way which causesinequal-ities andtheseinequalitieshavea limiting effect onpeople’s lives. To be effective social practitionersstudentsneedto understandthesocialcontext,socialpressuresandinequalitiespeoplelive within.

Thestatedaim is explicitly counter-ideologicalto thatespousedby both Labour and National Governmentsthrough the 1980s and the 1990s. The free-marketeconomyandits accompanyingsocialrevolutionwerefully embracedby both governments.Social workpractitionersandeducatorsbecamesitesof resistanceto the new ideology. To clarify the context of this‘siting of resistance’within social work we needtolook morecloselyat New Zealand’srecenthistory

In the last sixteenyearsNew Zealandhasunder-gone a processof social and economicrestructuringthat, other than the EasternBloc, is arguably moreextensivethan that experiencedby almost any othercountry. From a highly regulated and protectedeconomywith a comprehensivewelfare state in thelate 1970s,New Zealandhasbecomea market-drivenderegulatedeconomy,fully exposedto theshiftingandfitful windsof internationaltradeandfinance.Thereisa well-documentedandstill growing gapbetweentherich andthepoor,with thecurrentwelfaresystemnowbest describedas residual.Governmenthas divestedmuch social serviceprovision to NGO organisationsthat are leanly fundedto providevery tightly definedserviceswith an accenton fiscally efficient servicedelivery. Child protection,healthand justice standasthe remainingbastionsof statutorysocial work. Allthree areasare widely regardedas seriously under-resourced.During this same era of economic andsocial change,there has been a burgeoningMaori(indigenous)renaissance.The ‘Treaty of Waitangi’with its focus on fair resourcing, partnershipandpowersharinghasbecomemorecentral to almostallpolicy initiatives. Endlesslydebated,the Treaty hasregainedor perhapsmore accurately,gainedfor thefirst time, a place as a central covenant.What mustalso be juxtaposedagainst the Treaty’s movementback in from the marginsis the lived experienceofmany Maori over the last sixteen years. Arguably,Maori have borne the greatest cost of economicrestructuring, with frankly dismal and worseningsocialwell-being indices.

Most of thesocialandeconomicchangesof thelast16 yearsin New Zealandhavebeendriven by small



groups of key players, who are at least partiallyinterior to the stateapparatus.Suchkey playershave,in the main, shareda passionatebelief that a neo-liberal, market-drivenapproachholds all answerstoNew Zealand’sneeds.As the economist,JaneKelseyputs it in her book Rolling Backthe State:

The analyses,policies and strategieswere formu-latedby an interlockingnetworkof individualsthatstretchedacrossthepublic andprivatesector.Theseinvisible handsof Rogernomics(Market ideology)progressivelyroseto themostpowerfulpositionsingovernmentand the private sector(Kelsey, 1993:133).

Just as the above key players have held passionateideological convictions, so too have many of thoseeducatorsresponsible for defining good social workpractice. They too form networks of influentialindividuals with much shared history, often fromwithin the arenaof communitywork with its relianceon thecornerstoneof structuralanalysis. Thehistoryofhow social work training arosein New Zealandcastslight on how suchinfluenceswerebroughtto bear.

During the 1970s, in various fora, there werevigorousdiscussionsaboutthenatureof socialwork. Itwas seenas necessaryby an increasingnumber ofpractitionersand educatorsto extend definitions ofsocialwork beyondcaseworkandbeyondthe modelsthat werepractisedin statutoryagencies.Someof thenew socialwork programmeshadclear philosophicalapproachesthat supportedthe changedoutlook.

Numbers of influential educators had strongpracticebackgroundsin communitydevelopment.Aspart of their practicethey had also beeninvolved associalactivists.Asking thestructuralquestionswastheheart of their practice and this began to influencesocialworkers’ perceptionsof themselves.The Maorirenaissanceof the 1970salso influencedsocial workpracticein New Zealand.Again numbersof influentialsocial workerswere active in their supportof Maoriaspirations.To offer this support meant that socialworkerswerein somecasesidentifying themselvesas‘radical’. Feminismalso had a key part to play andinfluencedsocial workers’ perceptionsof themselvesand of what constitutedappropriatepractice, and aFreiri an analysis became a normal part of goodpractice.

Currentsocialwork trainingnow insistson studentsdeveloping frameworks of analysis that encouragerecognitionof structuralinequitiesas they impact onMaori. Theinsistenceon suchananalysisis a resultofthe New ZealandCouncil on Educationand Trainingfor the Social Services (NZCETSS) requirements,initially developed by social work educators inresponseto a report by Maori detailing institutionalracism. Social workers are encouragedto view the

wider context.While trainedto act,socialworkersarealso trained and encouragedto constantlyreflect onlargerstructuralissues.

The context of many current work environmentsundera differing ideologyof coursecreatesrestraints.A narrowandtightly definedrangeof outcomesoftendefines social work productivity. Structural andfunding constraints often discourage the type ofanalysisandresearchthat leadto policy development.In addition,upuntil fairly recently,criteriafor fundingwere dependenton programmeand servicedeliveryhavingan ‘individual responsibility’ focus.

Agenciesdesiringto shift awayfrom purelyfunder-mandated outcomes toward research or pol icydevelopmenthave,over the last sixteenyears,foundlittle encouragement from funding bodies. Oneexampleis theNew ZealandCentralCouncilof SocialServices(NZCCSS),whosefunding was cut becausetheir role as policy analystsand social commentatorswas seen as irrelevant and counterproductivein afunding climate dominatedby a focus on individualoutcomes.Individual social workersare often in thedilemma of being tooled up to have a good policyanalysis, with little encouragementto articulate ordevelopit. Thereis oftennoaccessto researchfundingto legitimate concerns.Perhapsas a consequence,policy development has become centralised andsqueezedup the line. Policy tendsnow to beproducedby the Ministry of Social Policy. Speculatively,inresponseto this, social workers have becomemorepolitically active at lower levels. Primary areasofagencyfor socialworkersare:

• Individual advocacyon behalfof clients.• Voicing the concernsof consumergroupssuchas

housingandmentalhealth.• Individual persuasion.• Commentingon policy outcome.

Theconcernsof socialworkerstendto bereflectiveof the concernsof the generalNew Zealandpublic,namely,child welfare,housing,health,thepovertygapandinsufficient resourcingof socialserviceagencies.

GovernmentministriessuchastheTreasuryandtheMinistry of SocialPolicy have,if you like, somewhatcorneredthe market in policy options. In addition,until very recently, ministries such as the Treasury,havealsoplayeda key ideologicalrole by tendingtodefine problemsthrough a market-drivenframeworkthat valencesthe role of individual responsibility.

We might quite accurately think that socialworkers’ commitmentto a structuralanalysisand anactivevoice in politics couldbeseenasa reflectionoftheir involvement in a multi -si ted contest ofideologies. The cementing of a structural analysisapproachto what in New Zealandhasonly recentlybecomean academicallylegitimated professionis a



tribute to, in particular, Maori and those who paidsome heed to their call for greater equity both insocietyandwithin the socialwork profession.

This discussionbeganwith a tentativeexplorationof howcertainideologiesandapproachesmovedto theheartof socialwork practicein NewZealand,andhowthis in turn may influence the involvementof socialworkersin political activity. It resonateswith manyofthe trendsin Australiansocial work and providesaninterestingcasestudyof socialwork’s responsivenessto the political context.

How do social workers engage with the policy process?

At the outset,we talkedaboutour interestin the wayin which socialworkersengagewith or areinfluencedby social policy in their practice of social work.Viewing the policy-makingprocessasa cycle (Figure4) we seethat thecyclebeginswith a policy problem,which is thendefined,possibleresponsesandsolutionsare identified, these various options are evaluated,implemented,and then re-evaluated,and so on. Thismodelof the ‘Policy Cycle’ lendsitself to examiningwhere current policy playersare likely to be activeand, therefore,where the respondentsin our studytendedto concentratetheir policy activity.

Our resultssuggestthat input of individual socialworkers into the policy cycle tendsto cluster in theproblemarticulationanddefinition stage,andagaininthe evaluation of pol icy-implementation stage.Individual social workers are not well positionedtohave input into the more generativephases.Perhapsbeingpractical they focuson the areasto which theydo haveaccess.

Conclusion

Social work’s abiding commitmentto social justice,social change and social improvement and itssimultaneous commitment to the individual andsocietygivesit its importantpolitical dimension.This

researchhas attemptedto add to theory on socialwork’s political dimensionsand to inform practiceinthis areaby describingthenatureof thepolitical rolesandactivitiesin which socialworkersengage.If socialworkersareto havean effect on the future of welfarein society, they needto effectively influencepolicy-makingprocesses.To do this, theyneedto developanacuteawarenessof thepolitical contextin which theiractionstakeplace,andof their political consequences.Socialwork is a smallprofessionandto really haveanimpact on welfare processesand structures,and onhumanrightsandsocialjustice,socialworkersneedtobe politically mindedandpolitically active.

Acknowledgement

A reportof theKwaZulu-Natalstudywaspublishedinan earlierpaperby Gray M, Collett van RooyenCAJ(2000). Social work political participation: A SouthAfrican study. Social Work/MaatskaplikeWerk 36:180–192.

The resultsof the comparativestudy describedinthis paperwerepresentedin a paperentitledGray M,Collett van RooyenCAJ, RennieG, GahaJ (2000).The political participation of social workers: Acomparativestudy at the Joint World CongressoftheInternationalFederationof SocialWorkersandtheInternationalAssociationof Schoolsof Social Work,Montreal,Canada,29 July–2August2000.

ReferencesBanks S (1995). Ethics and values in social work. London,

MacMillan Press.Corrigan P, Leonard P (1978). Social work practice under

capitalism:A Marxist approach. London,MacMillan.Daniel P, Wheeler J (1989). Social work and local politics.

London,MacMillan EducationLtd.Dietz DomanskiM (1998).Prototypesof socialwork political

participation: An empirical model. Social Work 43: 156–167.

Flynn L (1997). Social work studentsconfront social justicethroughexperientiallearning.Australian Journal of SocialWork 50: 21–27.

GahaJ (1999).Promotinginclusion redressingexclusion:Thesocial work challenge. Norma Parker Address, JointConference AASW, IFSW, APASWE & AASWWE,Brisbane,Australia.

Galper J (1980). Social work practice: A radical approach.EnglewoodCliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Gray M (1996). Social work and poli tics. Social Work/MaatskaplikeWerk32:1–8.

Gray M, ed. (1998). Developmentalsocial work: Theoryandpractice. CapeTown, David Philip.

Ife J (1997). Rethinking social work. South Melbourne,Australia,Longman.

InternationalFederationof SocialWorkers(2000). IFSWNews2/2000. Berne,Switzerland,IFSW.

Kelsey J (1993). Rolling back the State. Wellington, NewZealand,Bridget William BooksLtd.

Mazibuko FNM (1996a). Social workers and social policy:Related functions and skill in practice. Social Work/

Problem

Evaluation

Problem definition

Identifying alternative

Implementation

responses and solutions

Evaluation of options

Selection of policy option

Figure 4. The Policy Cycle.



MaatskaplikeWerk32: 148–161.Mazibuko FNM (1996b). Policy analysis as a strategy of

welfare policy development:The White Paper process.SocialWork/MaatskaplikeWerk32: 234–241.

Mullaly R (1993).Structuralsocialwork: Ideology,theoryandpractice. Toronto,McClellandandStewartInc.

Ntusi TM (1998). Professionalchallengesfor South Africansocialworkers:Responseto recentpolitical changes.SocialWork/MaatskaplikeWerk34: 380–388.

Wood C (1997). To know or not to know: A critique ofpostmodernismin social work practice.Australian Journalof SocialWork 50: 21–27.



the political participation of social workers: a comparative study

Documents