All 50 states and the District of Columbia have statutes outlining the grounds for terminating parental rights (TPR) in relation to child abuse and neglect. Although recent research has found that parents with disabilities are not more likely to maltreat their children than parents without disabilities (Glaun & Brown, 1999; Oyserman, Mowbray, Meares, & Firminger, 2000), studies have found very high rates of TPR of parents with disabilities (Accardo & Whitman, 1989). The objective of this study is to examine how states are including disability in their TPR statutes. This study used legal document analysis, consisting of a comprehensive Boolean search of the state codes of the 50 states and District of Columbia (DC) relating to TPR, using the most recent state code available on Lexis-Nexis in August 2005. TPR and related statutes were searched for contemporary and historical disability related terms and their common cognates, such as: "mental," "disability," "handicap," and "incapacity." Two researchers independently conducted the searches, and the searches were reconciled. A code list was then developed to measure for inclusion of disability, preciseness, scope, use of language, and references to accessibility or fairness. Statutes were then reanalyzed, and groupings developed. Thirty-seven states included disability-related grounds for termination of parental rights, while 14 states did not include disability language as grounds for termination. Many of these state codes used outdated terminology, imprecise definitions, and emphasized disability status rather than behavior. All of the 14 states that do not include disability in TPR grounds allowed for termination based on neglectful parental behavior that may be influenced by a disability. The use of disability language in TPR statutes can put an undue focus on the condition of having a disability, rather than parenting behavior. This paper recommends that states consider removing disability language from their statutes, as such language risks taking the emphasis away from the assessment based on parenting behavior.

Understanding the impact of state licensing on social work practice remains a critical concern for social work academics and professionals alike. Given the complex social problems of our times, social workers need to be prepared to intervene with the individual, in various structural dimensions, and to engage in policy debates at the core of human injustice and suffering. Currently, there is insufficient research on the impact of state licensing on the profession and on accredited social work education. The purpose of this article is to begin to address this by providing an overview of the current state of social work licensing across the United States and to analyze the implications of social work regulations as they relate to the future of macro social work practice and education.

Macro practice focuses on community-level interventions, such as management, organizing, research, and policy advocacy. Despite social work's deep roots in this type of work, macro practice and macro practitioners often practice without support or connections with other macro practitioners, and are underrepresented in the profession. In 2006, a group of social workers, including academics and practitioners, formed the Association of Macro Practice Social Work (AMPSW). AMPSW works to strengthen the professional identity of macro practitioners, elevate the status of macro social workers, and address common concerns within the social work profession.

One hundred and thirty-six child welfare workers completed an online survey examining their experiences regarding the impact that electronic communication and social media use has had on their practice with youth and families. Workers reported e-mail and text message use have made work with youth easier, yet distinct difficulties have emerged for practitioners in relation to electronic communication and social media use. New elements have also emerged including issues with harassment and the ethics related to monitoring clients' online activities. Comparisons with a previous study conducted by Finn indicate that the use of technology within social work practice has evolved over time. Implications for social work practice and future research are also discussed.