NASW NEWS

From the President

Inside Social Work Summit II

By Terry Mizrahi, MSW, Ph.D.

At Social Work Summit II in December, the second such summit held since 1999, 42 independent social work organizations demonstrated their willingness to invest in building a closer collaboration among social work leaders.

This event succeeded, in part, because it was planned using a participatory process. We asked at least two leaders of each invited organization what was of interest and importance and what resources they would want to obtain for their organization. The watchwords were "reciprocity" and "exchange": what could the organizations get out of the summit, and what could they contribute to advance the social work profession?

Then NASW devoted resources and staff to prepare a program that would help these organizations build their own base while committing them to building a larger, collective 21st century social work agenda.

As Dec. 5 approached, approximately 68 leaders from 42 organizations had accepted my invitation to attend. But the ominous weather forecast proved accurate: ice and snowstorms virtually shut down the Washington, D.C., area. It was a Herculean effort to come in not just from Maryland and Virginia, but from as far away as Alaska and California. In spite of the conditions, almost everyone came.

They exchanged cards and information, received their resource packets and tried with humor to translate and remember the acronyms of the various groups. All of us were amazed at the range and diversity represented by the organizations in areas such as:

• Fields of practice. Among those represented were health, forensic social work, home care, oncology, nephrology and school social work.
• Ethnicity. Black, Hispanic and Asian NASW caucuses, as well as organizations for Puerto Rican and Latino social workers were among those present.
• Practice methods. Among those represented were group work, community organization, management and clinical social work.
• Functions, including educators at the BSW, MSW and doctoral levels and researchers.
• Populations served, such as the aging and people with disabilities.

Depending on how you count membership and representation, the organizations present were connected to more than 200,000 social workers nationwide.

No written or online communication could have replaced the camaraderie that was generated by the in-person networking of volunteer leaders who devote enormous time and talent to building their organizations' niches in the social work profession.

As I listened to and interacted with these dynamic colleagues, here's what I observed. They exhibited pride in their accomplishments, determination in building a more positive image for and increasing the influence of the profession, commitment to overcoming obstacles that separate and isolate "the parts" of the profession and creativity in identifying themes and approaches toward greater collaboration.

Despite some concern about the splintering effect that a proliferation of organizations could have on the profession, there was a willingness and even enthusiasm for coming together for special, unifying events and activities such as an annual advocacy leadership event and joint meetings. I anticipate that several processes and projects will emerge.

The challenge for NASW is to assume the appropriate facilitating and coordinating role to keep the communication and collaboration going and help to develop an inclusive leadership structure that recognizes the autonomy and diversity of these organizations.

The challenge for the participating organizations is to communicate to and provide feedback from their own leadership structures, to continue to invest in creating a sense of ownership of the follow-up structures and activities that emerge and to support NASW as well as hold it accountable.

Here, the process was the most important product — but only the first.

To contact Terry Mizrahi: president@naswdc.org