A National Study Predicting Licensed Social Workers' Levels of Political Participation: The Role of Resources, Psychological Engagement, and Recruitment Networks

Social workers have a rich history of working in a political context on behalf of various social causes and client populations. This commitment to political advocacy is documented in the NASW (2000) Code of Ethics and the Council on Social Work Education's (CSWE) (2002) curriculum policy statements for baccalaureate and master's degree programs. However, some have argued that this commitment to social and political action is not carried out in practice, and in recent years the social work profession has been accused of neglecting its commitment to social and political action and of being more committed to private practice and efforts to enhance the status of the profession (Abramovitz & Bardill, 1993; Figueira-McDonough, 1993; Haynes & Mickelson, 2006; Reeser & Epstein, 1987, 1990; Specht & Courtney, 1994). According to Alexander (1982), instead of participating in the process wholeheartedly, the social work profession has historically had a "love-hate relationship" with politics. Though many agree that social work is inherently political, since the beginning of the profession social workers have debated how political the profession should be and tensions have emerged between clinical-oriented social workers (micro-changers) and those with a social policy focus (macro-changers). There is a substantial body of research on Americans' participation in the political process. However, research on social workers' political participation is sparse, which may be an indication of the profession's neglect of this domain of practice. The social work literature is full of studies evaluating social workers' clinical interventions, but strikingly few have assessed social workers' political advocacy efforts or how well schools of social work are preparing students for policy work. Previous studies have evaluated how politically active social workers are, but these studies are primarily descriptive in nature; only one has attempted to explain why some social workers are more active than others (Hamilton & Fauri, 2001). This study fills a gap in the current knowledge base regarding licensed social workers' political participation. Political scientists have studied extensively the degree to which people participate in the political process and the factors that influence whether they participate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factors that may affect licensed social workers' political participation by testing Verba, Schlozman, and Brady's (1995) citizen participation model, which is a comprehensive model developed to explain why citizens become involved in politics. In other words, this study attempts to determine why some licensed social workers participate politically, whereas others do not. LITERATURE REVIEW Research on social workers' political participation is sparse. In 1981, Wolk observed that the social work literature suggested a need for the profession to become more active in the legislative process, "even though the extent and quality of the political activism of social workers have never been documented" (p. 283). Only nine studies have been conducted on social workers' political participation, which makes it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions. Six of these studies are of professional social workers (Epstein, 1969; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Reeser, 1986; Wolk, 1981), whereas three (Andrews, 1998; Pawlak & Flynn, 1990; Salcido & Seck, 1992) are of various subsets of social workers (that is, executive directors, NASW chapters, child and family services workers). Generally, these studies have found that social workers are more politically active than the general population and at least as active as other professional groups (Andrews, 1998; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Wolk, 1981). Although social workers are more likely to vote, contact legislators by letter or by phone, and belong to organizations that take public stands, they are less likely to engage in more direct political behaviors such as volunteering for a political campaign, contributing financially to a campaign, or testifying before a legislative committee (Andrews, 1998; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Wolk, 1981). …