Regional Reference Groups in the Spreading of Occupational Licensing Policies among the States: An Exploratory Study

This study explores the diffusion of state licensing policies, particularly the role of regional cuetaking in the adoption of new policies. Five such networks are suggested, along with the states most likely to serve as models for those reference groups. Findings have several implications for social work lobbying efforts. Social workers have participated in state policy debates throughout professional history. However, the organization for coordinated involvement is quite new. It emerged in the mid-seventies with an expanding record of legislative action by the state chapters of the National Association of Social Workers (Lause, 1979). These associations enable the profession to pursue various social reforms at the state level and that capacity is most timely in its development. The nineteen eighties have begun with an empowerment of designs for social welfare which seem archaic and hostile to an extent unprecedented in modern history. Certainly, the first "state of the union" address of the Reagan administration calls for significant shifts in the roles of federal and state governments in the amelioration and solution of many social problems. In form and content, the "reforms" of the first part of this decade pose strong challenges to social work action in the fifty statehouses as well as in the national congress. Given the historic stability of our federal system, however, the statehouses will continue to be major arenas for policy development even when a national administration asserts again a progressive agenda for social welfare. This study of regional diffusion in the spreading of policy innovations is designed to suggest ways that social work might improve its effectiveness in legislative action in both the worst and best of times. Moreover, it illustrates the need to develop an understanding of policymaking in the states which is at least partially distinguishable from the bases of knowledge used for professional action in local or national arenas. Several models of policy innovation are well suited to decisionmaking in the states. First, the diffusion model holds that change results typically from the borrowing of ideas rather than from independent invention and that those patterns of exchange are patterned, not random (Rogers, 1962). Second, the organizational model directs attention to legislative norms or informal rules which guide state deliberations and decisions (Lindblom, 1959; Wildavsky, 1974). Third, the regional model looks to underlying similarities in state economics, culture, and political organization as explanations for their policy decisions (Sharkansky, 1968, 1970; Garreau, 1981). These three models combine to suggest scenarios for the adoption of reforms by individual states and for the overall spreading of policy innovations among them. The cornerstone of the scenario for individual states is a tendency of officials to view the policy innovations of nearby states as potential guides or models for their own decisions (Walker, 1973: 1187). In contrast, distant states are likely to be discounted as appropriate models if they are seen as operating under different cultural, political, or economic circumstances. The perceptions of shared histories and current conditions may be expressed as legislative norms which lie somewhat bidden in established patterns of consultation and cuetaking between states. For example, officials in Louisiana may look to Texas or Arkansas as potential models but not even consider seriously Michigan or California in such a role. From a nationwide perspective, the same models suggest another related scenario for the overall spreading of new policies among the states. First, a relatively few may gain nationwide reputations as pioneers or originators of bold reforms. However, that same reputation may make them too different from most states to serve widely as direct models in cuetaking. Instead, regional models and reference groups seem to structure cuetaking for most states (Walker, 1969: 892). In brief, innovation tends to begin with adoptions by one or more national pioneers, followed by enactments in other states which then serve as regional models for the remaining states. State policy diffusion research, therefore, has two types of applications in social work's approach to legislative action. The first involves action in individual states, based upon knowledge of which neighbors tend to be viewed as comparable and reasonable guides for policy innovation. The second application involves strategies for promoting rapid nationwide adoptions of preferred policies. In this case, both national pioneers and regional models would be targeted as priorities in lobbying efforts. While knowledge of reference patterns between states in no way ensures success in these efforts, it would serve as a definite aid in overcoming inertia and uncertainty about policy reform in the states. Evidence of Cuetaking Between States State officials have taken note of policy developments in other states since the first days of constitutional ratification. Today, a great variety of special organizations promote exchanges of information about new policies. They include organizations of state officials, such as the National Legislative Conference which encourages cuetaking through written reports, regional meetings, and national assemblies (Ross and Millsap, 1966: 40). In addition, the state funded Council of State Governments serves as an interstate clearinghouse on the performance of policy innovations. The regional offices of many federal departments are also active in the dissemination of information among state agencies which, in turn, may model their legislative proposals on policies adopted by other states. Finally, special interest groups may promote cuetaking between states in subtle ways. Their lobbying may be intensified as policy decisions in other states demonstrate the feasibility of success in their own efforts, particularly when those models are neighboring states. All the above organizations provide the states with ample opportunity for taking cues from each other in the adoption of new policies. A number of studies provide direct evidence of interstate cuetaking. Over 90 percent of the heads of 67 state agencies in four southern states reported that they had consulted with counterparts in other states for ideas on how policy issues might be approached in their own state (Sharkansky, 1968: 103). Three quarters of these contacts involved southern states. Nationwide surveys add documentation of the practice of cuetaking (Light, 1978; Wright and Peddicord, 1974). Officials view other states as more useful sources of new ideas than the federal government, even when their agency depends heavily on federal funds (Light, 1978: 151-152). Case studies in Missouri (Masters and Salisbury, 1964) and in Illinois (Anton, 1966) also found cuetaking between states in the deliberations of legislative bodies. However, they seemed to view only certain other states as reasonable comparisons and useful models for their own decisions. Evidence of regional cuetaking is not limited to surveys and field studies. Walker (1969: 894) concludes that a number of regional networks influence the spreading of policy innovations, based on a Q factor analysis of relations between states in the timing of their policy enactments. He suggested that such networks operate in the south, mountain-northwest, Great Lakes, Middle Atlantic, border, and New England areas (Walker, 1969: 884). New York, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey are identified as likely national pioneers in the adoption of new policies (Walker, 1969: 884). Unlike the other nationwide studies, Walker (1969) proposes boundaries for the various regional networks of states. This study shares that objective and it adopts the same methodology. However, its focus is limited to diffusion within one field of state policy rather than diffusion patterns which might apply to all fields of innovation. General vs. Selective Diffusion Networks There is some indication that state officials may adjust their regional orientations when proposed innovations involve different fields of policy. New ideas are usually borrowed from others when conditions related to a change are similar. What happens when the strength of similarities which underlie a particular regional orientation vary as different types of similarities are being considered? Missouri officials, for example, might identify with their southern and western neighbors for cuetaking in the field of education because of similarities in tax bases and public opinion. In terms of cuetaking in the field of energy or natural resources, however, these similarities are less relevant than they are for education innovations. Indeed, differences in climate, fuel reserves, and economic organization may lead Missouri officials to discount their southern and western neighbors as reasonable models for their own energy policies. Those types of characteristics might prompt a northern or eastern orientation in energy related policies. This variable or dynamic view of regionalism is supported by Sharkansky's (1970) analysis. He found that different variants of regional boundaries are most useful for predicting different sets of social, political, economic, and state policy variables (Sharkansky, 1970: 33-37). This study focuses on a single field in order to avoid the problematic assumption that regionalism is a mono-