Freedman, Ethan
April 3, 2025
Professor Katrina Balovlenkov
Columbia University School for Social Work, New York
Submitted in partial fulfillment as a Individual Community Meeting Observation Assignment and Reflection within the requirements for Columbia’s School for Social Work program and Prof. Katrina Balovlenkov Advocacy in Social Work Practice course.
Acknowledgements:
In introducing the following work, I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory on which we learn, work, and resource from at Columbia University School of Social Work is land of the Lenape and Wappinger indigenous peoples. Let us commit ourselves to the struggle against the forces that have dispossessed the Lenape, Wappinger, and other indigenous people of their lands.
I would also like to acknowledge Prof. Katrina Balovlenkov and her class in Advocacy in Social Work Practice (SOCWT7103) for introducing me to pivotal social work principles. Moreover, my peers who I worked closely in discussion and were very influential in developing thoughts around this paper. I appreciate everyone in the class for the ideas they have assisted in generating. With these acknowledgements, I present the following work of my own.
From the Classroom to Community Action: Observing Advocacy in Practice and Growing as an Advocate through Community Engagement
From within the Columbia School of Social Work curriculum situates a course titled Advocacy in Social Work where facilitator Katrina Balovlenkov provides space for critical conversations on becoming social work practitioners capable of advocating for clients with confidence, bravery, and breadth of knowledge. Foundational course principles address advocating for community populations with pivotal participation in one's community or chosen context. Out of engaging with communities comes awareness of the difference between personal and collective objectives that might uncover who is in control of the outcome and the legibility of the initiative. Although participating in the New York City Community Board 12 (CB12M) cabinet meeting and the Cannabis Task Force meeting on their respective dates of February 20th and March 3rd of this year made noticeable the foundational pillars for social work advocacy, experiencing real life contexts that render one capable of advocating for communities and populations makes it clear that classroom learning can only take practitioners so far compared to the growth from firsthand experiencing contexts for advocacy.
Choosing Meetings: The CB12M District Cabinet Meeting and the Cannabis Task Force:
The decision to participate and attend the Community Board 12 Manhattan District Service Cabinet meeting and the Cannabis Task Force meeting was guided by a commitment to engage meaningfully with the local community with which I am affiliated. At the root of social work practice is active participation in one’s community as a vital component, something Abramovitz et al. (2019) asserts through the example of voting and civic engagement as “linchpins of democracy” and core components of social justice. While I civically engaged with the communities I move through in many ways ranging from community meetings to voting, I have not had many experiences with cabinet processes and district initiatives that actually correspond with official systems for enacting change, rules, and power. Attending these meetings helped me to explore firsthand the intersectionality of race, income, and civic participation; drawing from McClendon et al. (2019) which emphasized barriers marginalized communities face when attempting to participate in government. To a social work master’s student and intern, it might feel intimidating to attend board meetings where so called executives or people with power meet and possibly perpetuate behaviors and beliefs in line with the problems we are working so hard to address. Confronting this energy was a motivator for me in choosing where to observe my community in action from the positionality as a student social worker because feeling like I would not belong in this space was born out of never having before experienced it and the understanding that power fluidly moves within these board meetings.
Advocacy Objectives: Personal Goals Alongside Collective Values:
While my personal goal was clear and that was to engage authentically with my community, Finn’s (2021) capacity to bridge theory and real-world applications emphasizes engagement as an ongoing process deeply informed by empathy, observation, and active participation. If engagement is the “socioemotional, practical, and political process of coming together with others to create spaces of respect and hope,” a unique site for enacting these values deeply rooted in social justice work is the context of participating in government processes for change. In a Franz Fanon kind of fashion, social workers are caught in the language of their own discipline and must find themselves engaged with the tools of language found in other facets of life. While I know how to advocate for my own needs and the needs of others on a more micro and personal level, the Cannabis task force focused specifically on reviewing applications for cannabis dispensaries in NYC to ensure that applicants clearly understood community board expectations, notification timelines, and local public engagement requirements. Effective community interventions must align with community values, histories, and futures (Hampton and heaven (n.d.), something very evident in CB12M’s comprehensive and transparent review system. While the task force makes it very clear that the district takes their reviews of business applications very seriously, this public task force serves to ensure that cannabis is provided safely to the communities and people who want it. This task force portrayed how to effectively advocate for your community in ways of harm reduction through the unique example of substance use, and how the objective of all these initiatives is to center the community and their interests.
Who Wields the Power to Change the Community While Centering Their Voices?:
The people’s interests that are centered are those who show up to the meetings and advocate–these are the key players. While it is the job of some people to host cabinet meetings or sponsor task forces, others have to pursue these spaces with more effort. Those whose job it is are primarily focused on collecting and disseminating community information, aligning with the notion that paid positions of gathering data on community issues provides credibility and direction for community projects (Nagy, n.d). At the CB12M meeting was Ebenezer Smith (The District Community Board Manager), Department of Health, Parks and Recreation, and The Department of Transportation. Each was tasked with addressing specific community issues ranging from infrastructure to public health. While I opted to sit back, observe, and listen to the space and agents operating from within it, many times I was invited to speak and share my concerns on talking subjects. In these moments I took the opportunity to introduce myself and why I was attending the meetings; however, I realized that power in these conversations lies not only in who shows up–but who answers.
Thunder Hawk (2017) cautions that it is essential to remain vigilant of who has power within these structures, particularly when evaluating their legitimacy in advocating for marginalized groups. Answering the call to participate reminds that passivity is a great method of taking in information, but activity and spoken engagement renders someone the opportunity to be heard when challenging those who could advocate more. Observing the Cannabis Task Force meeting raised my own awareness about community input processes for licensing businesses that stems from grassroots advocacy aimed at community empowerment. In discussing the cannabis businesses that are applying to set up shop, the task force asks those in the community to show up and share their concerns or input. From observing those who are showing up as well as showing up vocally, those that are able to effect change or challenge the system are those who show up and speak up.
Making Legible and Clear the Objectives of Advocacy:
Both meetings wonderfully demonstrated clear advocacy objectives, despite their differences in specific focus areas. CB12M emphasized aspects of community wellbeing, infrastructure, and overall public safety, illustrating direct efforts advocating for systemic changes. I remember a brief moment where the correspondent of the Department of Transportation for District 12 was frustrated with the Parks and Recreation advocate who was arguing that certain brush off the side of the highway were not in the realm of their work or utilities. The lead park ranger said they quite legitimately do not have the tools necessary to remove the shrubs and materials at risk of causing harm to the community, compared to the Department of Transportation that has access to larger machinery and funds. To decipher whose role it is to remove the overgrown dry greenery required communication between two parties where a resolution could result in smoother processes and better outcomes.
The Cannabis Task Force similarly demonstrated transparency and community empowerment through ingroup communication networks, advocating for clear and accessible processes that were made available to all those who yearned for community participation. Friedman and Rios (2023) promoted advocacy must be systemic, targeting policies directly impacting the community. From this notion comes the most pivotal initiative of an advocate and that is informing the community. Advocacy was explicit in discussions about infrastructural improvements and challenges to the health and wellbeing of the community, while the task force clearly supported transparency and community involvement in new business licensing and certification processes. Both meetings emphasize effective dialogue between community stakeholders rooted in the concise objective of disseminating information in efforts to promote change in their community connected to policy and direct advocacy engagement (Friedmans, 2023).
Tensions in Advocacy Observed in the Meetings:
Despite advocating being at the forefront of the minds that attended, there were subtle tensions and arguments against certain efforts. While the mission was clear to remove the shrubberies from the neglected areas, the CB12M meeting highlighted how the Department of Transportation’s role in these efforts were lacking alongside their responsibilities compared to the Parks and Recreation initiatives. Disparities in community care that underlie systemic barriers to equitable resource distribution lie at the roots of infrastructure, resources, and information on which the CB12M Cabinet is in the know. The Cannabis Task Force indicated that community input is vital and inherent challenges are present when it comes to adequately notifying and involving diverse community stakeholders. They were incredibly fortunate of my presence as an academic in their meeting because it validated that their efforts were reaching some of the discursive communities not typically represented in Cannabis conversations.
However, the root of all these rifts in advocating and enacting change using theory and information presented are the inherent power dynamics that echo Thunder Hawk’s (2017) critique on grassroots organizing versus institutionalized mediums. Often bureaucratic processes within activism, following the institutional systems of change and engaging in cabinet meetings and district task forces juxtaposes grassroots advocacy that rely on direct action and minimal bureaucracy. That being said, some grass roots activism take the route of opting into the systems for change as they exist in efforts to disrupt them and advocate for the community. Through engaging with both meetings, I was able to understand how to advocate autonomously and effectively respond to community needs without diluting the message.
Conclusion: Advocacy Goes Beyond the Classroom and into Real Contexts for Praxis:
Advocacy requires action beyond theoretical understanding; it necessitates experiencing real life context enough times to know how to speak up when called to answer. While classroom education provides foundational principles in advocating for individuals and collectives, true advocacy expertise arises from real-life involvement. Observing these community meetings clarified that effective social work advocacy demands direct interaction with communities in such a way where one is able to learn the discourse utilized by changemakers already present. To speak their language is to know how to be heard. To be heard is to be understood as an advocate for direct interaction with communities, appreciation of unique contexts, and understanding of power structures involved. Practitioners must embrace engagement as both a political and interpersonal process, informed continuously by firsthand experiences of advocacy in action. As future social workers, committing to this in depth exploration of engagement processes, new and familiar, is essential to authentically represent and advocate for the communities we have interest and oaths to serve.
Bibliography:
Abramovitz, M., Sherraden, M., Hill, K., Rhodes Smith, T., Lewis, B., & Mizrahi, T. (2019). Voting is
social work: Voices from the National Social Work Voter Mobilization Campaign. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(4), 626-644.
Finn, J. L. (2021). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work (4th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Friedman, M. B., & Rios, I. (2023). Speak out! A guide to advocacy for improved mental health policy.
Columbia University School of Social Work.
McClendon, G. G., Pitzer, K. A., Sherraden, M., & Aguilar, A. (with Lieberman, D.). (2019). Will I be
able to cast my ballot? Race, income, and voting access on Election Day (CSD Report No. 19-36). Washington University, Center for Social Development.
Nagy, J. (n.d.). Collecting information about the problem. University of Kansas.
Thunder Hawk, M. (2017). Native organizing before the non-profit industrial complex. In INCITE!
Women of Color Against Violence (Eds.), The revolution will not be funded: Beyond the non-profit industrial complex (pp. 101-106). Duke University Press. 4.5