Microsoft Word - Sheafor_BSW Education_copyedit final


 

______________ 
Bradford W. Sheafor, Ph.D., is a Professor Emeritus of Social Work at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO. 
 
Copyright © 2014 Advances in Social Work Vol. 15 No. 1 (Spring 2014), 196-206 

 

The Professionalization of Baccalaureate-Level Social Work 

Bradford W. Sheafor 

Abstract: We are occasionally privileged to observe an important event in the history of 
some aspect of life, but one is rarely an eyewitness to the birth of a profession – or even a 
specific division of a profession. Nevertheless, along with others, I had the privilege of 
participating in a series of events over several years that, with hindsight, I realize made 
me a witness to the birth of baccalaureate social work. This article reflects the 
perspective of one person engaged in these events and may differ from the observations 
of other participants. Yet, it represents my best recollection of events that began nearly 
fifty years ago.  

Keywords: Social work education, baccalaureate social work, Association of Bacca-                     
laureate Social Work Program Directors, social work as a profession 

The Emergence of a Profession: Social Work 

Professions emerge over time and efforts to pin down the date an occupation became 
a profession depends on the pace of the development of the occupation and the definition 
one uses to determine professional status. For example, in my view the National 
Association of Social Workers (NASW) jumped the gun in 1998 when, based on the date 
of the initiation of the first training program at the New York School of Philanthropy, 
NASW celebrated the 100th birthday of social work. In reality, in 1898 we were far from 
being a profession. The title, social work, was not coined by Jeffery Brackett (Sheafor & 
Horejsi, 2012, p. 3) until the early 1900s and it was not until 1915 that Abraham Flexner 
constructed generally accepted criteria for concluding that an occupation has indeed 
become a profession (Flexner, 1916). At that time Flexner concluded that social work did 
not meet the expectations for being recognized as a profession.  

I would argue that somewhere in the 1930s would be the first time a defensible 
argument could be made for having achieved professional status. By that time social 
work had in place an accreditation process (at the MSW level), required that academic 
preparation for social workers must be in institutions of higher education, and had created 
a stable national membership organization (the American Association of Social Workers, 
a predecessor the National Association of Social Workers). Then, like a cell dividing into 
separate but related structures, social work moved in the 1960s and 1970s to carve out a 
place for a professionally prepared baccalaureate social worker. 

Personal Background: Establishing My Vantage Point 

In the late 1950s I stumbled into social work thanks to opportunities derived from 
leadership roles I played in a few human service-related organizations while in high 
school and college – and the influence of several mentors who were social workers. 



Sheafor/PROFESSIONALIZATION OF BACCALAUREATE-LEVEL SOCIAL WORK 197 

These events shaped my recognition of the need for baccalaureate-level social work 
education and my appreciation of the “generalist” model of social work. 

As an undergraduate student making the decision to enter social work, I looked at 
what courses I would need in order to complete a social work major. At that time 
undergraduate programs were restricted from offering much substance – and certainly not 
practice courses and sound field experiences. Further, there was not recognition of the 
degree in the human services employment market or upon entering a master’s program. I 
decided to complete my default major (Business Administration) and apply to the MSW 
degree program at the University of Kansas. I wonder how many undergraduates were 
similarly diverted from social work and then never returned. Initially being most 
interested in community and organizational levels of practice, I was out-of-step with the 
dominant casework/psychiatric social work orientation of that era, but was forced into a 
“casework” curriculum with only introduction to group work, administration, and 
community organization. Fortunately, my macro interests were supported by a few 
faculty members and through independent study courses and I was able to gain some 
depth in community practice. The combination of direct and indirect practice prepared 
me to embrace the generalist model later in my career. 

Upon completion of my MSW in 1961, I fell into a job for which I was only 
marginally prepared: Executive Director of a community health and welfare planning 
council in Topeka, Kansas, my hometown, with an impressive $450 per month salary. 
Thus began my career as a professional social worker. We had some surprising successes 
in the community planning council and three years later the head of the School of Social 
Welfare at the University of Kansas offered me a two-year lectureship to create a 
bachelor’s-level social work program – one that would have substance and meet the 
emerging national standards. I hadn’t even considered becoming an educator, but with no 
application needed, no interview to suffer through (Who had even heard of affirmative 
action?), and a nine-month salary that exceed my twelve-month salary with the planning 
council, I jumped at the job. It was from this background that I had the rare opportunity 
to observe and participate in the development of a new level of the social work 
profession.  

First Steps in BSW Emergence 

The War on Poverty 

In an effort to implement the War on Poverty programs in the mid-1960s, the U.S. 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) recognized that the MSW 
programs would be unable to graduate enough social workers to meet the expected 
demand and, further, a large percentage of the psychiatric social workers they graduated 
were not interested in staffing the poverty programs. Yet, HEW insisted that persons with 
preparation in applying knowledge and skills in the delivery of human services were 
needed to serve this vulnerable population – more than was found in the preparation of 
psychology or sociology undergraduate majors. Therefore, HEW created incentives for 
universities and colleges to create undergraduate social work education programs, but 
also realized that there must be recognition of that degree in the employment market if 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2014, 15(1)  198 

the effort was to succeed. Thus NASW was prevailed upon to designate graduates from 
bachelors-level social work education programs as first-level professional social workers. 
Immediate opposition was expressed by many masters-level programs that had previously 
flat-out rejected Herb Bisno’s insightful volume on a blueprint for the future of 
baccalaureate social work education, Volume 2 in the Council on Social Work 
Education’s (CSWE) multi-volume curriculum study chaired by Werner Boehm (Bisno, 
1959). 

The NASW Referendum 

In 1969 NASW put forth the referendum to recognize as professional the graduates of 
accredited baccalaureate programs (BSWs). In addition to having responsibility for 
building the BSW program at the University of Kansas (my position magically turned 
into a tenure-track position), I served as chair of the Topeka (Kansas) NASW chapter and 
president of the Kansas Council of NASW chapters. Thus I was deeply embroiled in the 
controversy surrounding this contentious resolution. As I recall, five major themes 
dominated the discussion. 

Theme #1: The demand for practitioners with basic social work knowledge and skill 
exceeds the supply of MSW social workers and if social work fails to 
change, another discipline will take this over as a baccalaureate-level 
specialty> VERSUS <Social work has worked 50 years to achieve 
professional recognition and now approving a lower educational level as 
professional is a step backward. 

Theme #2: Many social work activities do not require the depth of MSW 
preparation> VERSUS <Professionalizing the BSW with lesser 
knowledge and skill than the MSW will diminish the reputation of the 
profession and reduce the ability of MSWs to function as peers with 
other helping professions.  

Theme #3: BSW programs will attract qualified traditional and non-traditional age 
students who otherwise will drift into other disciplines> VERSUS <The 
immaturity of undergraduate students will prevent them from 
understanding the complexity of social problems and reduce respect for 
the social work profession. 

Theme #4: By creating social work jobs addressing client needs requiring only 
bachelor’s-level preparation the agencies can be more efficient and 
stretch limited resources to serve more clients> VERSUS <Agencies will 
substitute BSWs for MSWs because they command less salary and the 
distinction between the two levels will disappear. 

Theme #5: Beyond obtaining a general education, it doesn’t make sense for 
undergraduate students intending to become social workers to fill credit 
hour requirements with courses from other disciplines> VERSUS 
<Content will be commandeered from the MSW level and there will be 
problems in distinguishing between the levels – and even with master’s 



Sheafor/PROFESSIONALIZATION OF BACCALAUREATE-LEVEL SOCIAL WORK 199 

programs completely redesigning their curricula there will inevitably be 
overlap. 

To the surprise of many (including me), the referendum passed and the task of 
operationalizing this new professional level required the formulation of standards for the 
education of undergraduate students that would lead to accreditation of the programs that 
demonstrate inclusion of necessary content and provide high quality instruction. 

CSWE Develops a Curriculum Policy Statement and Accreditation Standards 

Responsibility fell to the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) to generate a 
set of accreditation standards, coupled with a curriculum policy statement that recognized 
the two levels of social work practice. During this time I had the opportunity to serve on 
CSWE’s Educational Planning Commission where an effort was made to identify content 
that would be purely BSW (there was not much), content that would overlap the two 
programs (about the equivalent of a year of MSW education), and specialized content that 
belonged at the master’s level only.  

In regard to accreditation, the first step was a set of “approval” standards that did not 
yet meet the more substantive requirements necessary for recognition as “accreditation” 
by the interdisciplinary body granting accreditation authority for the professions, then the 
Council on Post-Secondary Accreditation (COPA). The approval standards largely 
addressed structural requirements for such things as financial support from the schools, 
having social work faculty members prepared to teach social work content (the 
sociologists and psychologists thought they could teach this material just as well), and 
some degree of control over curriculum. Application of these standards reduced the 
number of baccalaureate social work education programs previously “listed” by CSWE 
from 207 to 158 “approved” programs in 1974 (CSWE, 1973, 1974).  

Full accreditation standards, to be implemented in 1974, were approved by CSWE 
with the expectation that each school would develop its own generalist/specialist concept 
and build a curriculum to match. Beginning in 1975 I served on CSWE’s Commission on 
Accreditation and saw first-hand the frustration the inexperienced BSW program 
directors faced in being expected to define generalist and build a defensible curriculum. 
By the time the cycle was complete, the 158 “approved” schools had declined to 135 
“accredited” programs (CSWE Statistics, 1976).  

Facing the Realities of a New Practice Level 

The unrest about professionalizing the baccalaureate level of social work was evident 
in both social work practice and education. For example, the BSW graduates didn’t find 
job descriptions that recognized the degree as a valid job credential. In fact, many 
agencies were not aware that degree even existed and if they did, they did not appear to 
appreciate the advantages a social worker with such preparation would bring to a job. 
NASW seemed paralyzed by the opposition to professionalizing the BSW graduate and 
did little to promote this new practice level. In return, few bachelor’s level social workers 
joined NASW. Further, the War on Poverty had ended (with little success) and HEW 
leadership changed, leaving few champions for baccalaureate-level social workers in high 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2014, 15(1)  200 

places. Even in federally mandated programs the BSW was not treated as a valued job 
credential.  

In social work education, too, there was foot-dragging, if not outright hostility about 
operationalizing the BSW level of education. As a member of the Accreditation 
Commission it was evident to me that MSW programs received far less scrutiny than 
BSW programs. In a behind-the-scenes move a few of us who were primarily identified 
with the BSW level joined a few MSW-identified commissioners in an agreement to 
apply equal rigor in reviewing both levels. My impression was that indeed this strategy 
worked and the quality of accreditation review improved at both levels.  

Other examples of inequality in the education realm were that the budget, allocation 
of staff time, focus of journal articles, and lobbying efforts supported by CSWE gave 
little attention to the BSW level. It was evident that the deans of graduate schools of 
social work called the shots and their leadership was not favorable to the new practice 
level, although a number of schools had both BSW and MSW programs. In an attempt to 
counter the deans’ dominant role in social work education, a few of us primarily 
identified with BSW education concluded that we must form our own organization if this 
practice level was to be represented and heard when critical decisions were being made. 
Thus a set of bylaws for the Baccalaureate Program Directors Association (BPD) was 
drafted and presented to the baccalaureate program director’s constituency group during 
the CSWE Annual Program Meeting in Chicago in 1975. To this day I can picture the 
large stainless steel refrigerators and counters in the kitchen of the conference hotel--the 
only affordable (i.e., free) meeting place available to this group that had no resources. I 
vividly remember Trueheart Titzl (1st president of BPD), Kay Dea (2nd president of BPD), 
Betty Baer, Ron Federico, Millie Charles, Will Scott, and many others leaning against the 
stainless steel kitchen equipment as we discussed and voted approval of the first BPD 
bylaws. A baccalaureate-level membership organization now existed, although it was 
entirely made up of educators and did not meaningfully engage BSW practitioners. 

Engaging the Constituency 

In 1979 BPD determined that it could further strengthen baccalaureate social work 
education programs and build commitment to bachelor’s level social work by organizing 
a national conference where people could interact on a face-to-face basis without the 
distraction of tagging on to a CSWE conference. Ann McLean and I agreed to co-chair a 
conference focused on “Competency-Based Education.” Held at a mountain resort near 
Estes Park, Colorado (I had become baccalaureate program director at nearby Colorado 
State University by that time), 52 program directors from all parts of the U.S. attended 
the three-day event. Off-season rates at Aspen Lodge were very reasonable; faculty from 
three programs using a competency-based approach presented papers; the Colorado State 
University media center made a videotape of the presenters being interviewed by other 
participants, as well as videotaping interviews with representatives from four important 
pre-BSW projects; scenes from a play, “Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well,” were reheated 
from on-campus performances by my university’s theatre department; and an 
entertainment night brought out music, dance, and other artistic talents of the participants. 
We even made a little money off donations for soft drinks, beer, and wine that went to the 



Sheafor/PROFESSIONALIZATION OF BACCALAUREATE-LEVEL SOCIAL WORK 201 

paltry BPD treasury. I like to think that the goodwill and free sharing of ideas at this 
conference set the positive, non-competitive tone that has characterized subsequent BPD 
conferences and, later, the BPD listserv (i.e., the Baccalaureate Social Work Education 
List).  

Another example of unequal treatment for BSW programs was evident in an annual 
workshop concerned with leading a school of social work and understanding 
accreditation requirements sponsored by CSWE for deans, but not baccalaureate program 
directors. Pressure was applied and CSWE agreed to organize such a workshop for 
undergraduate programs in 1983. CSWE asked Dr. Titzl to manage local arrangements 
(which resulted in staying at the infamous convent in Nazareth, Kentucky) and I was 
asked to lead the program on chairing an academic department. CSWE staff addressed 
understanding the BSW accreditation requirements. This conference attracted 53 
participants. The next year CSWE again invited me to lead a similar workshop with a 
slightly broader program addressing other issues experienced by BSW programs. We 
upgraded only slightly from the convent to dormitories on the Colorado State University 
campus as accommodations for the 77 participants. A party in my backyard generated an 
informal friendly atmosphere that is often remarked on by the few participants still 
involved in social work education. In subsequent years CSWE faced serious financial 
problems and in order to reduce expenditures and reallocate staff time, the sponsorship of 
these annual meetings was shifted to BPD. Through the leadership of Barbara Shank 
(now Chair of the CSWE Board of Directors), these meetings began to attract high 
attendance and became money-making events for BPD – funds that sustained the 
organization in its early years. 

The Drive to Professionalize the Baccalaureate Level of Social Work 

By 1957 Ernest Greenwood (a social worker/sociologist) concluded that social work 
was now a profession based on five criteria he had synthesized from the sociology of 
professions (Greenwood, 1957). These criteria were 1) a systematic body of knowledge 
to underpin the work, 2) authority to determine who is a recognized professional and 
what the educational preparation should be, 3) sanction from the community to do this 
work, 4) a code of ethics, and 5) a professional culture where members had a sense of 
identification with the profession. Three of Greenwood’s criteria were not contentious 
when the effort to build a professional baccalaureate level of social work was undertaken. 
One was Criterion #2, as it was clear that NASW had the authority to determine who 
were the members of the profession and had already voted to include the baccalaureate 
level social worker. Further, CSWE had the authority to establish any educational 
requirements. Also, Criterion #4, the profession’s code of ethics was applied equally to 
all members of the profession and was not an issue for differentiating the practice levels. 
Finally, the creation of BPD satisfied Criterion #5 by creating a membership organization 
representing this level of social work. Although I don’t think any of us saw the challenges 
so clearly at the time, the work that needed to be promoted by BPD was to identify the 
knowledge needed for this level of practice and to help build high quality social work 
education programs to deliver that knowledge (Criterion #1), and to gain sanction from 
our practice communities (Criterion #3). 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2014, 15(1)  202 

Defining Appropriate BSW Content and Competencies 

A major effort to further flesh-out the content of BSW-level work was known as the 
“West Virginia Project,” a HEW funded effort located at West Virginia University and 
led by Betty Baer and Ron Federico. I was privileged to be a participant in that rigorous 
examination of previous efforts to spell out legitimate “less than master’s level” human 
services positions and then cull out the content appropriate for social work. The project 
interfaced with the fledgling BPD organization which helped build political support for 
the results. The first phase of the West Virginia Project focused on content with a sample 
curriculum model developed that helped program directors gain a perception of what 
might go into curriculum at this practice level. This model relieved some of the pressure 
on the schools. The second phase addressed knowledge baccalaureate program directors 
would need to be savvy enough to build strong programs within their universities and 
develop the classroom and field instructor skills needed to transmit this content students 
(Baer & Federico, 1978, 1979). For example, my chapter was titled “The Social Work 
Program: Its Place in Higher Education.”  

Nevertheless, the major sticking point in the implementation of education at the 
baccalaureate level continued to be identifying the components of generalist practice. 
Leslie Leighninger helpfully framed the debate (Leighninger, 1980, 1984), but agreement 
about the content a school should build into its curriculum did not exist. Perhaps a 
love/hate relationship inherently exists between schools wanting to become accredited 
and the accrediting bodies. In this case the schools knew that rigorous standards were 
necessary for accreditation to be considered viable, but how the requirements should be 
operationalized was at issue. Some schools wanted clear definitive instructions regarding 
what content and what courses should be required, while others wanted only general 
guidelines with room to adapt curriculum to regional practice variations. The latter view 
was adopted and CSWE’s Commission on Accreditation became the arbitrator as it made 
judgments about each school’s concept of generalist, its ability to distinguish generalist 
from specialist content, and its infusion into a curriculum.  

Gradually some common elements in generalist (sometimes called generic) social 
work practice began to shake out. In 1983, Anne Minahan (editor-in-chief for a new 
edition of the Encyclopedia of Social Work) asked me to write an item for the 
Encyclopedia on “The Generalist Perspective.” My colleague at Colorado State 
University, Pamela Landon, joined me in this effort and we scoured the developing 
literature on the topic with our summary of the state of the art at that time appearing in 
the new edition (Sheafor & Landon, 1985). In that summary was evidence that there were 
varying perspectives on generalist and that there was a need to identify where there was 
consensus and where there were wide variations. Two other colleagues at Colorado State 
University, Mona Schatz and Lowell Jenkins, were interested in helping to pin-down a 
generally accepted conception of generalist social work and I joined them in conducting a 
very elaborate Delphi study involving three rounds of critique and clarification of the 
concepts that emerged from nearly 50 social work educators. Through this effort we were 
able to filter out some elements of social work that are generic/foundation material for all 
social workers, the central components of a generalist perspective and the initial 



Sheafor/PROFESSIONALIZATION OF BACCALAUREATE-LEVEL SOCIAL WORK 203 

competencies needed at the first practice level, and then (somewhat vaguely) the 
additional competencies needed for practice as an advanced generalist social worker 
(Schatz, Jenkins, & Sheafor, 1990). I may be overstating the impact of this research, but I 
think that perhaps as much as anything it provided a sufficient summary of areas of 
agreement regarding a conception of generalist that the topic dropped down on the list of 
problems the BSW programs experienced. 

Another problem rested in how to avoid unnecessarily redundant content for BSW 
graduates who matriculated to MSW programs. Were they to pay tuition just to repeat the 
content from their baccalaureate program? Should schools be required to avoid 
redundancy and waive part of the MSW requirement? If so, how much? One year? One 
term? Should schools require students to test-out of each course? I had nothing to do with 
this decision, but CSWE concluded that schools should be allowed to implement some 
form of wavier, called “advanced standing,” to address this problem. Only about one-half 
of the MSW programs initially implemented advanced standing and this became one 
more point of contention between the leadership of the Council of Deans (now the 
National Association of Deans and Directors) and the Council on Social Work Education. 
As President of CSWE in the mid-1980s (the two most trying years of my career), it was 
clear that advanced standing added to the accumulation of issues and motivated the 
Council of Deans to encourage its members to withhold their annual dues to CSWE in 
protest – if not in an effort (as some conspiracy theorists contended) to bankrupt the 
organization so that a new accrediting body (sans a BSW level) could be created. About 
one-half of the graduate programs delayed paying their dues and indeed the organization 
almost collapsed. It is my view the 100 percent dues payment by undergraduate programs 
and the negotiating skills of the Interim Director of CSWE, Diane Bernard, kept the 
organization alive – barely. 

Promoting the BSW 

Baccalaureate educators and BPD appeared to be effective in promoting the BSW on 
their campuses, but they were not effective in creating a job market for the graduates. 
NASW made one valiant stab at upgrading recognition of this practice level in the early 
1990s by creating a parallel recognition to the masters-level Academy of Certified Social 
Workers (ACSW) – the Academy of Certified Baccalaureate Social Workers (ACBSW). 
Bob Teare and I were commissioned by NASW to extend a task analysis study of MSW 
social workers we had developed to underpin the ACSW exams, to now address the BSW 
practice level. Barbara Shank joined us in collecting and analyzing the BSW-level data. 
Using these data as the blueprint, NASW developed an innovative ACBSW exam in 
1991. However, the practice agencies did not buy into this academy, did not recognize 
the ACBSW as a job credential, and thus students saw little merit in taking the exam and 
paying the ACBSW fee. The ACBSW subsequently was discontinued by NASW. 

Did the Partitioning of Social Work Last? 

Indeed, there were many trials and tribulations as the baccalaureate level of social 
work became a legitimate professional practice level. So what evidence is there today that 
this effort succeeded?  



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2014, 15(1)  204 

 The CSWE website (http://www.cswe.org, July, 2013) indicated that there were 
472 accredited BSW programs and 19 more in candidacy – a significant increase 
from the 135 programs in 1974.  

 The 2012 Annual Survey (also on the CSWE website) reports 52,598 full-time 
and 7,297 part-time majors. That exceeds the MSW enrollments of 34,484 full-
time and 19,351 part-time students.  

 The Annual Survey also indicated that of the new students admitted to MSW 
programs in 2012, 5,898 were admitted with advanced standing.  

 Amanda Scott (BPD staff member) reports that the BPD membership has grown 
to a substantial number – from 101 charter members to 698 members in 2013. 

 Scott also reports that the attendance at the BPD annual meetings has increased 
exponentially – from 52 at the first meeting in Estes Park, Colorado to 900 at 
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in 2013. 

 To be a profession, a certain amount of common work must be done by all 
practitioners, but if there are multiple levels of the profession there also must be 
some differentiation. In 1995, Bob Teare and I merged comparable data from the 
NASW sponsored BSW and MSW task analysis studies, yielding 7,000 usable 
responses which allowed for a comparison of practice activities at the two levels. 
Chapter 4 in our CSWE published book, Practice-Sensitive Social Work 
Education (Teare & Sheafor, 1995), identifies similarities and differences in what 
social workers do at the two professional levels. There was a clear distinction in 
that BSWs somewhat exceed MSWs in the empirically derived task clusters of 
risk assessment, protective services, case planning and maintenance, service 
connection, tangible service provision, and dispute resolution. The MSWs 
exceeded the BSWs in group work, individual/family treatment, and staff 
supervision. In the remaining clusters of practice activity (i.e., interpersonal 
helping, professional development, staff deployment, staff information exchange, 
organization maintenance, community delivery system knowledge, program 
development, research and policy development, and instruction) there was 
virtually no difference between the two levels.  

Conclusion 

In my judgment the above data indicate that social work has become one profession 
with two somewhat distinct practice/education levels. Looking back on these 
developments, the opportunity to participate in and contribute to the emergence of a new 
practice level of a profession was a unique and rewarding experience. The efforts of 
many colleagues throughout the United States made this possible and, perhaps, the rich 
interpersonal relationships developed among the BPDers did the most to make the time 
and effort spent on this personally worthwhile. On a far more important societal level, the 
outcome of now having nearly 15,000 new and well-prepared baccalaureate level 
educated professional social workers available each year to serve the most vulnerable 
U.S. population groups truly has made a difference.  



Sheafor/PROFESSIONALIZATION OF BACCALAUREATE-LEVEL SOCIAL WORK 205 

The single element of Greenwood’s criteria for a profession that I believe has not 
been sufficiently realized is the requirement to gain sanction from our professional 
communities. To better achieve this important goal, CSWE, BPD, NASW, ASWB and 
the many human services employers must again undertake carefully planned and 
articulated strategies to strengthen recognition of these graduates in the employment 
market. Too often this this rich resource still goes unappreciated. 

References 

(Author’s Note: In addition to references cited in the body of this article, sources 
documenting the events associated with these personal observations are also included in 
the References list.) 

Baer, B. L., & Federico, R. (Eds.). (1978). Educating the baccalaureate social worker 
(Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 

Baer. B. L., & Federico, R. (Eds.). (1979). Educating the baccalaureate social worker 
(Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 

Bisno, H. (1959). The place of the undergraduate curriculum in social work education. 
New York, NY: Council on Social Work Education. 

Council on Social Work Education. (1973). Statistics on social work education in the 
United States: 1973. New York, NY: Author. 

Council on Social Work Education. (1974). Statistics on social work education in the 
United States: 1974. New York, NY: Author. 

Council on Social Work Education. (1976). Statistics on social work education in the 
United States: 1976. New York, NY: Author.  

Council on Social Work Education. (2012). 2012 Statistics on social work education in 
the United States. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from 
http://www.cswe.org/CentersInitiatives/DataStatistics/ProgramData/68987.aspx. 

Flexner, A. (1916). Is social work a profession? In Proceedings of the National 
Conference on Charities and Correction, 1915 (pp. 576-590). Chicago, IL: National 
Conference on Charities and Correction. 

Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2, 45-55. 

Leighninger, L. (1980). The generalist-specialist debate in social work. Social Service 
Review, 54(1), 1-12. 

Leighninger, L. (1984). Graduate and undergraduate social work education: Roots of 
conflict. The Journal of Education for Social Work, 20(3), 66-77. 

Leighninger, L., & Stuart, P. (1999). BPD is launched: A history of the Association of 
Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors, Part I. The Journal of Baccalaureate 
Social Work, 4(2), 37-58. 



ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Spring 2014, 15(1)  206 

Schatz, M. S., Jenkins, L. E., & Sheafor, B. W. (1990). Milford redefined: A model of 
initial and advanced generalist social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 26(3), 
217-231. 

Sheafor, B. W. (2001). Three decades of baccalaureate social work: A grade card on how 
the professionalization of baccalaureate social work has played out. The Journal of 
Baccalaureate Social Work 6(2), 25-43. 

Sheafor, B. W., & Horejsi, C. R. (2012). Techniques and guidelines for social work 
practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 

Sheafor, B. W., & Landon, P. S. (1987). Generalist perspective. In A. Minahan (Editor-
in-Chief), Encyclopedia of Social Work (18th ed., pp. 660-669). Silver Spring, MD: 
National Association of Social Workers. 

Sheafor, B. W., Morales, A. T., & Scott, M. E. (2012). Social work: A profession of many 
faces (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. (See Chapters 3 and 4.) 

Sheafor, B. W., & Shank, B. W. (1986). Undergraduate social work education: A 
survivor in a changing profession. Austin, TX: University of Texas School of Social 
Work, Social Work Education Monograph Series, #3. 

Stuart, P., & Leighninger, L. (2000). BPD matures: A history of the Association of 
Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors, Part II. The Journal of Baccalaureate 
Social Work, 5(2), 127-143. 

Stuart, P., Leighninger, L., & Donahoe, J. N. (1993). Reviewing our past: A history of the 
Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors. Eau Clair, WI: 
Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors. 

Teare, R. J., & Sheafor, B. W. (1995). Practice-sensitive social work education: An 
empirical analysis of social work practice and practitioners. Alexandria, VA: 
Council on Social Work Education. 

Author note 
Address correspondence to: Bradford W. Sheafor, 1426 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort 
Collins, CO 80521, bradford.sheafor@colostate.edu  

 
Brad Sheafor recently retired after 48 years as a social work educator at 
the University of Kansas and Colorado State University. A consummate 
generalist, Dr. Sheafor dabbled in many aspects of social work and social 
work education. His service activities included substantial involvement 
with NASW, ASWB, BPD, and CSWE. He also served as a Fulbright 
Lecturer in New Zealand and a visiting scholar in Australia. Major 
publications included Social Work: A Profession of Many Faces (12 
editions), Techniques and Guidelines for Social Work Practice (10 
editions), Practice-Sensitive Social Work Education, Quality Field 
Instruction in Social Work, and Undergraduate Social Work Education: A 
Survivor in a Changing Profession.