My very favorite thing about writing this blog is that it forces me to think about questions and issues that matter a great deal to me–how nonprofit organizations can be powerful voices for social change, how weaving grassroots principles into organizational development helps us to practice what we preach, how social work education can be part of a movement for justice–that I might not sit down to ponder if not for the imperative to write at least a few posts a week. And the fact that some of my favorite people, in both the online and offline worlds, regularly engage in these questions with me, adding a great deal to my undertanding and challenging me in ways that my “regular” life does not, is nothing short of awesome.
And one of the greatest delights in this whole endeavor has been finding so many others, including quite a few social workers, who blog for many of the same reasons, and whose insights I value tremendously. One of the best resources I’ve found is Fighting Monsters, a blog written by a social worker in the United Kingdom whom I’m sure I’d like a ton in person, and whose approach to the profession, despite different areas of practice and obviously different contexts, dovetails with mine in some significant ways. Several months ago, Fighting Monsters had a post about ethical practice amidst budget cuts that I’ve been thinking about a lot, particularly in recent weeks as we deal in this country with the reality of a constricted federal budget and ongoing state cutbacks.
The post is written from a direct practice perspective, and it raises critical questions about how social workers should respond when budget cuts force us into patterns of practice that fly in the face of practice wisdom and even our Code of Ethics–when we have to terminate too soon, or deny services to those who should be eligible, or ration programs that we know could make a real difference in people’s lives. Those of you who are direct practitioners, in this national economic context, how are you dealing with the same vexing “no good alternatives” situations that the social work blogger grapples with in the UK?
And there’s a macro practice dimension to that quandry, too, when administrators make decisions to cut programs that abandon certain populations or problems, or when organizations aren’t paying their employees a truly fair wage, or when costs are passed onto consumers in ways that practically limit access to services. For policy practitioners, there are ethical questions involved in agreeing to some cuts in order to salvage investments in other areas, or being party to negotiations that pit different populations in need against each other.
The Fighting Monsters post focuses on the age-old dilemma in social work: Can we simultaneously be part of the system AND part of the solution? Can we ethically defend our participation in decisions that harm? Can the advocacy from within in which we engage serve as a salve for the wounds that we unwillingly, but undeniably, inflict?
Those are questions that should plague us whether we’re working in direct service or organizational administration or policy practice.
They are questions that cross sectors and obviously cross continents.
They are questions that should keep us up at night, and questions that should be foremost in our minds when we read news coverage of federal budget cuts or proposed state tax cuts or agency closures.
How do you answer those questions, for yourself, in this budget context? How does the Code of Ethics guide you? And how should our profession respond, as individual practitioners and as a collective voice, to the anguish of a social worker forced to make impossible decisions every day?
These are questions that there will never be a good solution for, but will always be faced. There is not unlimited funding for all the clients, in all the programs, in the entire world. If there were, our jobs would be so much easier! Just make the connections for the clients to the services! This decision creates social workers to be creative. This is where the code of ethics is meant to guide social workers in making the best choice for the situation. What cut will create the least harm to the fewest clients? How can you provide services to clients until more funding is available? How do you choose between two families for the last opening in a shelter? There are no easy choices and there never will be, but if you know and understand the code of ethics, you can make the best choice. You must be able to find other resources and have the ability to network to provide services to all clients who need it. The professionals should make connections with each other to know where to turn if you are unable to provide services to someone you know needs them. I think the most important factor in this area is that those professionals stick together and help each other when you must make cuts. This should be on the mind of workers to understand the resources in their area, and most importantly the adminstrators to know what agencies are available to assist them and what services are available to their clients.
And, Bryn, I believe that our Code requires us to work for greater access to services, and reduced need for the same, so that the ethical dilemmas created by this constant gap between needs and capacity eventually recede.
I think, in effect, the idea of identifying that we have been “picking winners and losers” of social services has been one that most haven’t thought about directly for a number of reasons. I hadn’t really thought about it before, but as a direct practitioner, I’m afforded the benefit (for lack of a better term) of being able to “pass the buck”, so to speak, onto the administrators. Administrators, when faced with these difficult budget decisions in turn get to point the finger at policy/budget makers who slashed an agency’s budget in the first place. Those in power probably ultimately assign blame to the bad economy.
I’ll be the first to admit that I may very well be wrong in my thinking that this is why these issues aren’t addressed as much as they have been. I’m mostly coming at it from the perspective that everyone needs to be able to justify their actions to themselves at the end of the day to be able to sleep at night.
Yes, Kevin, and it’s one of the ethical perils of social work administration, really. Because it’s not just about being able to justify our decisions to ourselves–we’re quite skilled at that, usually–it’s also about being able to look clients in the eyes, when their very well-being may be at stake. As you continue to advance your career towards administration, how do you reconcile these competing aims in your mind? What guidance does the Code of Ethics give?
I like your point that this is both a micro and macro issue. One of the more interesting things I learned in the SWAAP program was from my budget class. The professor taught that when making budget cuts at the agency level, that the administrator should always focus on cutting the areas that affect the clients the least. He said that if done properly, cuts could not only avoid doing any real harm to client but actually end up providing more services to the client in the end. Imagine if this was how federal and state budgets actually operated! We should always look at how we can do the most good (and cause the least harm to) for our clients. I also think this is where it’s important to have a strong understanding of the communities strengths and actual functional relationships with area agencies. If you are going to have to make cuts, I think it’s important to understand if you have other area agencies who could take care of some of the needs you are trying to address with your clients. And if you’re hurting, they’re probably hurting too. I’m sure they’d appreciate the referrals!
I am working on a post, Dylan, about how we can see budget cuts as an opportunity, actually, if we think about them as forcing us to be creative in expanding services, seeking new revenues, and developing new strategic alliances. Of course, sometimes they’re just destructive for our clients, and we have to have the courage and the advocacy capacity to call them such. Not everything has an upside!
I’m not sure what it is with this country (maybe done in other places, I’m not sure), but as a society we pride ourselves on holding together our non-profits with a shoestring budget. Most agencies cannot provide services to all people who qualify for services. I believe budget cuts are much more common in non-profits then they are at for profit companies. Most agencies have a ‘take it as it comes’ way of dealing with budget cuts. This reactive mentality is frustrating to me. I would prefer to take a proactive approach to secure funding of an agency.
The problem of insecure funding poses the question of how “can we simultaneously be part of the system and part of the solution?”. This is very much an ethical question. The Code of Ethics tells social workers we have an obligation to provide services to our clients and fight against social injustice.
When agencies face budget cuts it is still our obligation to provide the needed services to our clients. The Code of Ethics still requires us help clients. The Code of Ethics requires us to act, but gives little direction as to how to act. This is usually where I get stuck, and have difficultly developing a plan of action.
I don’t know if it’s priding ourselves on it as much as just a culture that believes that nonprofits are in it for the ‘good’, and that that somehow means poorly compensated. Of course, for-profit companies, by definition, generate their own revenue, so they are more in control of their own destinies, although they certainly benefit from government funding, as well.