Researcher Urges Social Workers and Students: Shape Federal Policy Through Regulatory Channels

Kathryn Libal, an associate professor at UConn specializing in social work and human rights, as well as the director of the Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute, argues that both social workers and students ought to amplify their voices, especially amid these turbulent times concerning federal regulations.

"Those who want to engage in social work practice should really engage: in coalition, talking with legislators, working with folks to help draft bills, lobbying, and putting pressure on lawmakers at state and federal levels," Libal says.

Analyzing how this works in practice, Libal co-authored the new paper "Federal Rulemaking: An Untapped Arena for Social Work Policy Education and Practice" in Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services She became part of the team led by main authors Emily Loveland and Madri Hall-Faul, who were both graduates of the University of Connecticut’s social work doctoral program.

Whenever the federal government introduces a new regulation, it cannot enforce it immediately; instead, it typically allows for a 60-day window where individuals can submit their feedback online. This process was evident in 2017 with a technology policy rule concerning net neutrality, which garnered approximately four million public comments.

Based on such feedback, a proposed rule can potentially be modified or even withdrawn entirely. Even if the rule goes into effect unaltered, courts have struck some down as unconstitutional, sometimes even citing public comment posts in their legal opinions.

The collaborative paper focuses on two specific examples affecting the social work field: one from Trump's presidency, one from Biden's.

One example focused on a 2019 Trump administration rule related to immigration, which would have had far-reaching effects on immigrants accessing public benefits.

The administration proposed expanding the definition of "public charge" to include a person accepting government benefits like Medicaid or SNAP, formerly named food stamps. Federal laws can make "public charges" less likely to obtain green cards or more likely to be deported.

Libal and her team scanned through more than 64,000 comments, examining both the focus of the comments and looking for ones submitted by social workers. Her team quoted one emotional post in particular: a University of Maryland MSW student opposing the rule by writing about her client, a single mother of four.

While the Trump administration approved the rule, a federal court struck it down in 2020. The Biden administration withdrew the rule in 2021, and the Supreme Court dismissed the still-ongoing lawsuit as moot in 2022.

The other example addressed a potentially far-reaching modification of the TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) program. The authors highlighted that if implemented, the rule change "could have ensured that a crucial social welfare funding stream would reach its intended recipients" during a time of legislative inaction on social welfare policy.

Nevertheless, the authors pointed out that "social work was not prominently represented among the 7,073 comments submitted."

Loveland, Hall-Fall, and Libal end their paper by encouraging both social workers and social work students to submit more public comments about proposed rules. Keeping up to date on the regulatory arena is critical now more than ever: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently proposed eliminating the public comment period for major federal health policies entirely.

Aside from participating in the regulatory procedures at the national level, the writers urge social workers and social work students to pen more letters to their representatives, provide live testimony during committee meetings, and even consider running for political positions themselves. It’s worth noting that according to The National Association of Social Workers, there are currently two former social workers serving in Congress: Democratic Representatives Sylvia Garcia from Texas and Hillary Scholten from Michigan.

The paper did not receive any grants or funding; however, Libal used $3,600 from her research budget at the Human Rights Institute to make it openly accessible.

Libal’s two co-authors, Emily Loveland and Madri Hall-Faul, connected with her during their time as UConn Ph.D. students, where Libal served as their academic adviser and guided their dissertation work. Currently holding positions as assistant professors—one at California State University San Bernardino and the other at the University of Kentucky—the trio is working together on a textbook aimed at training social workers to play a more active role in policy development and execution.

Libal mentions, “I’m planning to introduce an assignment for my upcoming fall course where students will analyze a currently proposed regulation and submit their individual comments within the 60-day window.” Hall-Faul and Loveland have previously involved their pupils in comparable initiatives.

Considering the significant role that executive actions and regulatory modifications play in shaping national policy during recent presidencies, it has become essential for professionals to know how to effectively engage in providing feedback on proposed rule alterations.

More information: Emily Loveland and others discuss how federal rulemaking represents an underutilized area for social work policy education and practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Modern Social Services (2025). DOI: 10.1177/10443894251323446

Furnished by the University of Connecticut

The tale was initially released on CryptoScope Daily . Subscribe to our newsletter For the most recent updates on science and technology.