A Look at NASW Chapters' Prioritization of Disability Inclusion

In drafting the document for support of NASW to create a National Committee on Disability, the Disability & Well-Being In Social Work project conducted a review of each of NASW Chapter's website to identify any existing committees or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) related to disability.

Findings

NASW's national office has 32 current Committees, none of which include disability.

NASW has 55 Chapters across the US, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands. Of the 55 Chapters, 35 of them do not have any general DEI or specific disability focused committees/groups listed.

7.3% of NASW Chapters (4 total Chapters) have a specific disability focused committee or group.

29.1% of NASW Chapters (16 total Chapters) have a general DEI related committee or group or in the case of 1 chapter, a limited task force group that may or may not currently be active. Most of these do not mention disability as a focus.

This is a total of 36.4% of NASW Chapters that have either a general DEI or specific disability focused committees/groups listed.

The 7.3% of NASW Chapters that have a specific disability focused committee or group comprise between 17,000 and 35,000 members.

The 4 Chapters are:

1. California - The California Chapter has a Facebook page where they share disability related information. Their Diversity and Inclusion Committee also lists 'mental/physical ability' as a focus area.

2. New York City - The NYC Chapter has a group called the disABILITIES Task Force which is listed as meeting monthly and has multiple initiatives shown on the group's page, such as an educational toolkit, workshop projects and other resources.

3. Massachusetts - The Massachusetts Chapter has a group called Disability Justice Shared Interest Group. This group has a separate website to include info on the group goals, legislative agenda and other resources.

4. Florida - The Florida Chapter lists an Abilities/Disabilities Task Force as well as a Diversity Committee with no further info available on the website.

Additionally, even within the specific disability focused groups, some of the information was inconsistent with established preferences in the disability community. One group for example, provided information about person-first language without mentioning some people's preference for identity-first language. This highlights the need for broader perspectives and awareness.

It should also be noted that while some Chapters listed committees or groups labeled as social justice, those were not included in this review as they tended to focus on racial justice rather than social justice as a whole.

Click here to access the spreadsheet review of Chapters.