Um, me neither?
So here’s my basic idea: there’s this whole industry, the social service sector, that gains its legitimacy and, indeed, its very existence, on the backs of the people it serves, really. It may sound ugly to say that, but it’s true. People (foundations, governments, individual donors) give us money because of what we say we’re going to do on behalf of, and for, our clients.
And sometimes we do. And sometimes we don’t.
And so, I’ve wondered for a long time, what if clients could sue social service providers for failing to provide the services/benefits/impact that they promise, implicitly or explicitly, to both donors and the clients themselves?
Now, I know, an attorney reading this will immediately point out that there’s no ground for a suit…
but that’s my whole point.
When what we’re providing is charity, the message we’re essentially sending to our clients is that they’re lucky to get what they get, and, if they don’t get what they were supposed to (because we don’t have a really good theory of change, or our methods are outdated, or our workers aren’t well-trained, or we’re cutting corners to cut costs), then, well, “social work isn’t an exact science”, or something like that.
If we used a more rights-based approach, perhaps not in the touchy-feely human rights sense (because I think that there are some legitimate concerns about that, as raised in the posts linked above), then in a more contractual one, then there would be, at least, an implied right to legal redress.
Because, really, in a way, that’s what we have in the human service arena–a compact between service providers and funders and clients, where only the clients lack a right to legal action if they don’t receive what it is that they were promised.
Sure, they can (and should!) sue if there’s actual malfeasance, unethical behavior, or real harm.
But what about the ‘softer’ harm that is leveled against people every day, in many small ways? The programs that are poorly designed, and the ones that come with far too many restrictions and requirements for anyone to succeed; the inexperienced staff who were hired to save money, or because of nepotism; the bigotry that, while perhaps never crossing a legal line, permeates so many organizations; the squandered resources, the missed opportunities, the slowly lost dreams?
I, for one, would love to see a class action suit, or at least the threat of one, against social service organizations who, despite perhaps being well-intentioned, have, perhaps unconsciously, settled into a lull of believing that those same good intentions are sufficient. Who buy into the idea that they’re saving the world just by showing up. Who think that ‘good enough’ really is. I’d love to see real accountability mean not just answering to those who write the checks, but those against whose lives those checks are leveraged, those who make the whole enterprise possible. Those who would, in an ideal world, really call the shots.
And I am not kidding.