NASW NEWS

Elizabeth J. Clark

From the Director Assembly: Change in the Making by Elizabeth J. Clark, Ph.D., ACSW July 2002

In 1993, I attended my first NASW Delegate Assembly. That year, I was an elected delegate from New York State. In 1999, I again attended Delegate Assembly, but was there as a chapter executive director. This August, I will attend my third Delegate Assembly. As the national executive director, I serve as the secretary of Delegate Assembly, and I present the NASW stewardship report.

As I write this column, I am three weeks away from my first anniversary as national executive director. Therefore, I thought it might be appropriate to provide a general stewardship report to all of you.

It has been a fairly good year for NASW. After about a decade, we are officially out of operating deficit. The road to fiscal health was an arduous one for both staff and volunteer leadership. It necessitated some cutbacks in programs and services.

Despite this, many of you continued your strong support. In fact, our member retention rate is 88 percent — an outstanding rate for a professional association. Thank you all for your loyalty, even during the hard times.

We referred to fiscal year 2001-2002 as a "restorative year." We restored both programs and positions. We hired a development director and a director of customer service. We added a lobbyist and a specialist in aging and restored our international position. We also reinstated our national awards and scholarship programs.

The Web site has been enhanced to include the new members-only section, and our Public Affairs Office has increased media attention for the profession. According to our clipping service, there are between 1,500 and 2,000 "media hits" about social work every month. More than 80 percent of these are positive.

NASW publications continue to be leading-edge. Our advocacy for social justice is broad, and excellent work has been done on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families reauthorization, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, mental health parity, aging and civil rights.

Fiscal year 2002-2003, which begins this month, is slated as a "growth year." We plan to grow in numbers, in programs, in member services and in influence. We will also host a Delegate Assembly this year.

The Delegate Assembly has remained almost unchanged since its first meeting in St. Louis in May 1956. At that time, there were 21,000 members, 140 NASW chapters and 250 delegates. The Delegate Assembly structure was inherited from the American Association of Social Workers, one of the seven groups that united to form NASW in 1955.

In 1964, the number of delegates was limited to 250. In 1970, the 176 chapters of NASW were consolidated into 55. In 1975, proportional voting (1 vote for every 50 members) was changed to provide each delegate with one vote.

In 1977 and 1979, the problem of financing the Delegate Assembly was brought to the Assembly, which took no action. In 1981, again because of financial constraints, the Assembly changed the meeting from every two to every three years, but increased the number of delegates from 250 to 300. Cost concerns were raised again in 1984, 1987, 1990 and 1999.

This year, several new models for restructuring the Delegate Assembly are proposed. One model, the National Elected Leadership Assembly, is the result of deliberation of the Task Force to Review and Revise the Structure and Governance of the Delegate Assembly, which was established by the delegates at the conclusion of the 1999 Assembly.

The proposal would reduce the total number of delegates to either 166 or 112, depending on the type of chapter representation chosen. It would also include the national Board of Directors as full voting members. The national and chapter executive directors would be included as ex-officio, nonvoting members.

The proposal also suggests reducing the amount of time between Delegate Assembly meetings from three years to every two years or 18 months.

Another model, proposed by the New York City Chapter, would reduce the number of delegates from 300 to 200.

I am certain that other creative models will be brought forth as amendments on the Delegate Assembly floor.

Looking at the historical perspective is instructive. In the last 46 years, we have held 21 Delegate Assemblies. Many times during that history, change to the Delegate Assembly structure has been proposed, but the results have been incremental. Perhaps, as some members contend, that is reason to believe that the original structure was visionary and serves us well even today. Other members, however, believe that the structure is outdated, cumbersome, inefficient and costly.

This will be a lively debate, and we wish our delegates every success.

To comment to Elizabeth J. Clark: NewsColumn@naswdc.org