American Association of Spinal Cord Injury Psychologists and Social Workers and National Association of Social Workers: Where Do We Go from Here?
Romel W. Mackelprang, PhD; and Richard Salsgiver, PhD
In the last few years, as most members of the American Association of Spinal Cord Injury Psychologists and Social Workers (AASCIPSW) are aware, the organization has worked to establish an active relationship with the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). A memorandum of understanding to work together was signed by both organizations in 2003 and, in March 2005, three members of the organization attended the Social Work Congress––a national meeting to which NASW invited approximately 500 social work leaders. In addition, a recent NASW poll queried its members about interest in a “disabilities” practice section within the organization.
AASCIPSW members are probably not aware of recent events at the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the body responsible for accrediting social work programs in the US. CSWE recently ratified significant modifications to its bylaws and implemented major organizational changes. Among the most significant of those changes for social workers who are AASCIPSW members was the reconceptualization of disability. A decade ago, CSWE thought of disability as a “problem” area in the same category as poverty and racism. Thus, disability itself was to be approached as something to eradicate or, at least “overcome.” This view places the problems that people with disabilities experience squarely within the individual rather than on the social and societal conditions that impede the ability of people with disabilities to fully participate in society. Rather remarkably and, we contend, to CSWE’s credit, the organization has undergone a shift in attitude. Disability is now perceived as an element of diversity and people with disabilities are being sought to serve on CSWE’s Board of Directors as well as its commissions and councils.
Recent steps by both NASW and CSWE signal a shift in attitude from a medical model of disability to a social/diversity model. And although to date CSWE’s shift is more pronounced than NASW’s, we project that in the long-term, NASW is more likely to move in a similar direction than revert to the past. In our opinion, these changes raise some interesting questions for AASCIPSW. Below we offer some of our observations.
• AASCIPSW is an organization borne out of medical settings and that is where most of us work. Many elements of our endeavors require a medical model approach. In the hours and days following acute spinal cord injury (SCI), or in the midst of a major urinary tract infection (UTI) with a 104 degree temperature, the medical model affords an efficacious approach. So, what then is the fit between our work and AASCIPSW’s mission relative to the diversity approach to disability when our work settings require a different approach? We see the interplay of these two models as a continuum dealing with individual physical needs and the need to change society’s perspectives on disability. As we interact with NASW, how do we approach disability as a medical problem and disability as diversity?
• To belong to our organization, one must have a professional degree and be working in the field directly applicable to SCI. People with SCI who are not professionals, or who do not work in SCI, are not eligible for membership. Yet, a tenet of the Independent Living movement can be summarized with the saying, “nothing about us without us.” What should AASCIPSW do (if anything) to ensure that people with SCI are actively involved in the workings of the organization? In leadership positions, where diversity is sought relative to professional identity, gender, location of work, race, and geography, should SCI disability status be prioritized as an area of needed diversity?
• In working to enhance relationships with NASW, the scope of AASCIPSW’s agenda and efforts have been debated. On one hand, given the composition of the organization and the structure of our sponsoring organization––United Spinal Association––it has been argued that we focus on physical disability. On the other hand, it has also been argued that we should focus on disability in general with the caveat that our organization has specific expertise in SCI. The physical disability focus can be supported by the fact that problems and needs attendant to SCI and physical disability are unique and need to be specifically addressed and advocated for. The more general focus can be argued from the perspective that all people with disabilities are vulnerable to social policies and societal beliefs that put them at risk, and that disability presents people with commonly shared experiences. One can also argue that disability classifications such as physical, sensory, or emotional disabilities, are artificial. For example, a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may not produce a physically noticeable sequelae, but one can argue that neuronal damage is physical, thus TBI produces a physical disability.
The authors have been professionally involved as social workers in the disability arena for about 25 years. Our collaboration began more than a decade ago when we began working to change disability conceptualizations and approaches in CSWE. NASW is now in the position that CSWE was a few years ago. It seems that there is an openness in CSWE to re-evaluate their approaches and views regarding disability. AASCIPSW is positioned to facilitate that process and needs to reconcile how to best do so. We suggest taking as broad an approach as possible.
We provide one final observation to support our position. Currently, the federal government acknowledges there are approximately 50 million Americans with disabilities, less than 1% of whom have SCI. By allying ourselves with the larger population, we provide the knowledge and experience of a well- established and strong organization, while providing ourselves with a platform far greater than the SCI population. In addition, it signals a move away from a medical model, pathology-based orientation to disability by adopting a more widespread, population-based view.
We know that our opinions are controversial and we welcome rebuttals and differing views.
Romel W. Mackelprang, DSW, is a professor of social work at Eastern Washington University School of Social Work and Human Services in Cheney, Washington.
Richard O. Salsgiver, DA, is a professor of social work at California State University, Fresno, California.