How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask asciandwildlifebio Your Own Question
asciandwildlifebio, Graduate Student
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 1802
Experience:  M.S. Bio, B.S. in Animal Science and Wildlife Biology. Comprehensive Spanish Written and Oral Skills
Type Your Homework Question Here...
asciandwildlifebio is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Choose two issues discussed in chapter 9. ( Alcoholism & Mental

Customer Question

Choose two issues discussed in chapter 9. ( Alcoholism & Mental Illness). Describe how you would address the conflicts that arise in these situations. Why are these significant to your future work in a human service organization?
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Homework
Expert:  asciandwildlifebio replied 8 years ago.
Please post chapter 9. Also, how long does this response need to be?
Customer: replied 8 years ago.

Here is chapter 9 .


You may have gathered by now that the human services field is quite complex.

Complete agreement regarding philosophies, methods, goals, services, funding,

or anything else just does not exist nor, from our point of view, should it.

There are times when controversies and differences are stimulating, healthy,

and valid and lead to creative solutions. At other times, they are repetitious,

meaningless, and destructive. Too frequently they consume time, energy, and

resources that might better be used providing needed services. To this end, we

highly recommend that students become familiar with the books in the Opposing

Viewpoints series, published by the Greenhaven Press, that deal with issues

of concern to human services workers.

The purpose of this chapter is to present a sampling of basic controversies

and issues in the field of human services that have not yet been resolved

and may never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The questions raised in

this chapter influence all human services workers. Some issues affect the

human services worker more directly than others, but they all impact on the

worker and the services provided. Prior knowledge of these and other controversies

helps workers know what they might expect from colleagues,

politicians, consumers of human services, and the general public. This

knowledge can be instrumental in helping the worker provide more effective


We do not attempt to resolve these issues here. Our views are often

implied by the way we present issues. Furthermore, we do not expect you to

come to any specific conclusions or agree with any particular point of view.

Whereas issues change, conditions change, and people change, many old issues

reemerge that give the appearance of new issues. These so-called new issues

have in all probability been with us in one way or another, to one degree or

another, for as long as the human services profession has existed. Some examples

are discussed in this chapter. The idea is to examine them and understand

their significance to human services workers and to the provision of human

services, for they very frequently raise questions regarding one's personal and

professional values and ethics.


At the outset, it is worth repeating that complete agreement about social policies

in the human services rarely occurs. Social policies are supposedly based

on morals and values; however, there is no consensus about what is morally

right. Jansson (1988) identifies five moral issues involved with social welfare

policies. In discussing them, it will become quite clear that they are all closely

related and overlap each other in many ways. Following are the issues and

some of the questions they raise.

current controversies and issues 325

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

326 chapter nine

1. Morality of social services. Who shall receive services and on what terms?

(p. 5)

Questions: Shall services be given to only those who are unable to

work? What about (a) those who cannot find work or (b) those who cannot

earn enough to stay above the poverty line? Should those who receive

benefits be required to work in the community? Should those on welfare

not receive increased benefits for additional children?

2. Nature of social obligations. For what needs and problems is society

responsible and which shall receive priority? (p. 5)

Questions: Are we our brothers' keepers? Is society responsible for

providing for all who cannot care for themselves? Should society provide

for only food, shelter, clothing, and medical care? What about education,

cultural enrichment, and economic needs?

3. Preferred interventions. What kind of policy remedies should be chosen to

address specific social problems? (p. 5)

Questions: Should drug abusers be jailed, or should drugs be legalized?

Should society emphasize treatment and prevention of drug abuse,

or should the focus primarily be on keeping drugs from entering the country

and on enforcement of antidrug laws? Should society prohibit abortions

or continue to allow them, and on what terms? Should there be gun

control, and on what terms? Should society force the homeless into shelters

or hospitals, or jail them if they refuse to go to either?

4. Compensatory strategies. Should society give preferential assistance or

treatment to members of specific groups that lag behind the rest of the

population in economic and other conditions? (p. 5)

Questions: Does not society do this through welfare, and other programs?

The real question is, to what extent and when does society provide

assistance and treatment? Should society guarantee basic health care

for those who cannot afford such care? Should affirmative action programs,

which seek to guarantee jobs, education placements, and contract

work to members of minorities, take precedence over equal opportunity


5. Magnitude of federal policy roles. What policy powers should federal

authorities possess, and what should be the magnitude of federal social

spending? (p. 5)

Questions: Is the federal government too large? Are state and local

governments better able to know and understand the needs of their people?

Should the federal government step in to meet the needs of its citizens

if state and local governments cannot? Does the federal government,

through its policies and funding power, wield too much influence on state

and local policies and practices? Should federal social spending be limited

to maintaining a balanced budget or until additional taxes are needed?

The various interest groups continue to disagree in their answers to these

and many other questions. A brief look, however, at just two specific issues

dealing with welfare, life, and death will further exemplify the problem.

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning


The proposals being considered by states to deny benefits to single mothers on

welfare who then have additional children raise many moral issues. Conservatives

feel that such benefits reward welfare mothers for having more children

and so provide an incentive for them to become welfare dependent. They

believe that it is basically irresponsible to bring children into the world if one

cannot adequately provide for them. Should society support this perceived

irresponsible behavior? Liberals argue that society has an obligation to take

care of those in need and that children should not be punished for the behavior

of their parents. They also question the assertion that denial of benefits for

additional children is an effective way to help the mothers become more independent.

They question whether the proposed cuts would really discourage

these women from having additional children. Could not society find better

ways of helping welfare mothers become independent of the welfare system?

Better yet, cannot society find a way to end poverty?


The issue of euthanasia was revived suddenly and sharply when a doctor

helped a woman suffering with Alzheimer's disease commit suicide. The doctor

was charged with murder, but the case was dismissed because there was no

state law that prohibited assisted suicides. The same doctor, through the use of

devices he developed, assisted two other women to commit suicide ("Two

Doctor-Assisted Suicides," 1991). In both instances, the doctor provided the

means and the women committed the act. There was no doubt that the women

wanted to die; however, several disturbing ethical questions remain. Should

assisted suicides be allowed? If so, other questions need answering. Who is to

assist, and under what circumstances? Should these decisions be made by the

patient, family, doctor, community, all, or a combination of some of these?

What criteria should be used to justify active (assisted) or even passive (unassisted)

euthanasia? Should the criteria be age, finances, quality of life, life

expectancy, health, or any other condition? Should euthanasia be legalized?

Should the federal government attempt to overide the decision of the voters of

a state to legalize euthanasia? The Hemlock Society, a group that supports suicide

and assisted suicide for the dying, strongly endorses the right to die and

the legalization of euthanasia (Humphry, 1991).

Let us take a closer look at how the clash of values creates problems that

directly affect human services workers, consumers, and people in general. In

presidential campaigns and budget or legislative battles, past and present, one

constantly heard contestants speak of American values or what is right. Are

the American values of conservatives more valid than those of liberals? Who

decides what values are American values? Do liberals know more about what

is right than do conservatives? What about individuals, schools, churches and

synagogues, or any other institutional perceptions of American values or of

what is right or moral? How one resolves these questions is essential, for it is

current controversies and issues 327

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

their attempted resolution that allows us to struggle somewhat successfully

as a democratic society. Some issues that highlight this struggle, which were

touched upon in previous chapters, follow.

For example, is it an American value or morally right both to perpetuate

corporate welfare and significantly limit welfare to the poor? Some claim that

each is an American value and morally right because it helps the poor get off

welfare and helps the economy and the effort to balance the budget. Others

claim that corporate welfare should be cut because it is too costly and helps

corporations and businesses rather than the individuals in need. Is it an American

value or morally right to maintain a minimum wage that does not provide

enough income to raise individuals and families above the poverty level?

Some still claim that to raise the minimum wage any higher will create inflation

and cause the loss of jobs; therefore, it is better not to increase it. Completing

the exercise "Ranking American Values" at the end of this chapter

might help clarify the many differences and issues regarding the use and frequent

overuse, most often by political candidates and their supporters, of the

concept of American values.

Aside from these being significant moral issues and sources of controversy

in our society, they are perfect examples of how social policies are influenced

through the interpretation of policies and laws (discussed in Chapter 7).



In recent years, the annual struggle over the federal budget has highlighted a

major controversy affecting human services workers and programs. The Reagan

and Bush administrations and Congress have significantly reduced funding

for some programs that provide a safety net to help the truly needy. Even

in the 1960s, at the height of President Johnson's Great Society when the Democrats

were in the majority in both houses, there was tremendous pressure to

reduce domestic spending (Califano, 1994). The pressure was focused primarily

on programs serving those in need. According to many liberals, there seems

to be a pattern of primarily reducing domestic spending for the needy over

defense or other needs whenever there is pressure to reduce spending. One

needs only to look at the proposed and actual cuts in budgets over the years

to see how direct support and indirect support for those most in need are targeted

for reduced aid.

The proposed cuts and reduced rate in spending for social programs starting

in 1995 in an effort to achieve a balanced budget in 2002 were successful.

That there will be reductions in the rate of domestic spending is a certainty;

however, what specifically will be cut and by how much are examples of a

clash of values between conservatives and liberals. The question raised in the

title of this section (that is, how much support for the needy?) provokes further

discord regarding values and morality. One might say that there is never

328 chapter nine

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

enough support as long as over 39 million people live in poverty, over 40 million

have no health insurance, and so on. Other conservatives and liberals

point out that we cannot afford to help everyone. Although there is agreement

in this regard, there is little agreement on how much we can afford, who

should be helped, and by what means. We do know, however, that too many

need health care, jobs, nutrition, shelter, vaccines, treatment for mental illness,

and welfare, among many other necessities.

The changes in the budgets of social programs raise key questions regarding

the role of government in providing services. Who has the major and/or

ultimate responsibility for the welfare of those in need? Is it the local, state, or

federal government? Does government have responsibility for the welfare of

only those who are poor? These and other questions will always be raised as

long as there are people in need, funds are limited, and those in power make

decisions that reflect their values and philosophies. A look at some of those

who seek support and the issues they face will help identify the problems one

must deal with as a human services worker.



The struggle for support takes place on two major fronts. One is the struggle

to gain the moral support of the public, the media, and professionals.

That generally involves convincing others that your goals are just and good.

The second front, closely related to the first, is the struggle to gain financial


Throughout the late 1990s, three populations have frequently made the

headlines: welfare recipients, AIDS patients, and the homeless. The reason

they are so often in the news is that we as a society are desperately trying to

provide additional and more effective programs to help and to cope with these

people. One major problem in trying to develop more successful programs for

these groups is how they are perceived by others. Much of the public, much of

the media, and many politicians, legislators, officials, and, yes, human services

workers have a negative attitude toward these people (Dye, 1987; Marin,

1987). Richardson (1998) reports that frustration and fear of AIDS have given

rise to the passage of a series of laws intended to protect the public from people

infected with HIV. For the homeless and welfare recipients, the myths

about these populations contribute to the public's negative attitudes. These

issues will be discussed further later in the chapter.

Although many others have very positive attitudes and do whatever they

can to help these groups, effective programs are difficult to develop without

significant public, media, and professional support. A second major problem

that makes the development of more successful programs very difficult is the

diversity of values and points of view regarding the most effective ways of

dealing with these groups. These two factors lead to the third problem, namely

current controversies and issues 329

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

that of funding programs for these and other needy populations. The variety

of possible solutions given by the professionals involved with developing programs,

as well as those offered by the public and the media, reflects the different

and often conflicting philosophies and values that create problems in

shaping effective policies and programs. The first group to be considered here

will be people with AIDS.

The AIDS Epidemic

The question of priorities in the funding of treatment and research programs

of various social and medical problems has become quite controversial.

Because a limited amount of funds is provided for these programs, if funds are

increased for one program, must they be reduced in another program? Such a

conflict over delegation of funds has now become quite heated in the fight

against AIDS. The powerful AIDS lobby has been fighting for and demanding

significant increases in funding for treatment and research for their constituents.

However, significant controversy persists about the level of funding

that should be supplied for various diseases. According to Califano (1994), the

federal government reported that under 800,000 deaths were due to heart

disease and over 500,000 were due to cancer in 1993, but 25,000 people died

of AIDS.

Over the years, funding of approximately $1-1.5 billion or more was provided

for the fight against each of these diseases. In spite of the difference in

the number of fatalities, which has been fairly consistent in recent years,

Edmondson (1990) urges that the fight against AIDS should be funded at a

much higher level than before for two reasons. First, two-thirds of those who

die of cancer are over 65 years of age, and over half of those who die of heart

disease are over 75 years of age. By comparison, most people who die of AIDS

are under 40 years old. Therefore, the lives of AIDS patients were cut short

often before their real contributions to society could be made. Those who died

at later ages had made their contribution and had lived fuller lives. The second

reason given by Edmondson for increased funding for the fight against AIDS

was that AIDS is infectious. What would you decide if it were in your power

and you had to make such a decision?

There are two additional controversial practices regarding the AIDS issue,

both aimed at reducing the spread of the virus: (a) exchanging dirty needles for

clean ones for drug users and (b) distributing condoms to high school students.

There was no guarantee, according to the critics, that the exchanged needles

would not be shared among users. The feeling was that such a program also

encouraged drug use. Meanwhile, the New Haven program of exchange,

authorized by the Connecticut state legislature, provided evidence that such

programs could be successful.

The distribution of condoms in high schools under specific conditions has

been approved in Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York

City, among other jurisdictions. The approval in each case was not attained

330 chapter nine

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

without controversy and struggle. In New York City, for example, it was

approved only after a long-and still continuing-struggle against the program

by many parents, religious organizations, and others. Opponents of the

program claim that none of the demonstration programs were actually proven

effective and there was no guarantee that the condoms provided would actually

be used. Such programs, it was felt, encouraged young people to engage

in sexual intercourse.

These issues regarding funding and how best to develop programs to prevent

the spread of AIDS have led to a great deal of frustration and struggle.

The attempt by some infected individuals to purposely infect others has created

additional fears. These problems have given rise to a series of laws to protect

the public. Some of them overrule previous privacy protection. Some

require notification of partners of an infected individual. Others demand testing

of segments of the population, and many states make it a crime to purposely

and knowingly infect someone (Richardson, 1998).

What else can one, should one, do to help prevent the spread of AIDS?

  • Isolate victims from the uninfected population?
  • Prohibit children infected with the AIDS virus from attending regular

school or day care centers?

  • Distribute free hypodermic needles to drug addicts to prevent the sharing

of needles and thus the spread of the virus?

  • Teach contraceptive methods in elementary and secondary schools as a

form of prevention of the spread of AIDS?

  • Mandate testing for the virus and specify who shall be tested?
  • Make the names of those who test positive available to the public?

The Homeless

When one looks at the problems of the homeless, one finds many different

attitudes and approaches to solving them. A conservative candidate in the

1992 presidential race recommended that the homeless be forcibly taken to

shelters or jailed if they resisted and tried to sleep on the streets. Other candidates

did not appear to feel that homelessness was an election-year issue,

even though the problem seemed to be increasing. Advocates for the homeless,

however, strongly urge an increase in low-income subsidized housing.

Others believe that deinstitutionalization is a major cause of homelessness

and that mental patients make up the majority of the homeless. Mental illness,

however, is not a major cause of homelessness. According to the

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, about 25% of the homeless

are mentally ill. Truly major causes of homelessness are unemployment,

underemployment and the lack of affordable rental housing. A survey by the

U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998, found that about 27% of the homeless

population work and are still without a home. Nevertheless, in some jurisdictions

the mentally ill become a political football. If, for example, most of

current controversies and issues 331

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

the homeless are considered mentally ill, they become a state problem; if they

are not, they are a local problem. Kozol (1988) and Johnson (1990) both

make the point that poverty, not mental illness, is the major cause of homelessness,

even though some homeless people do need psychological treatment.

Income and subsidized housing, they believe, would resolve the issue.

For the homeless, should we and can we:

  • Allow them to sleep in public places and on the streets?
  • Allow them to use and sleep in abandoned buildings?
  • Allow them in any business or residential neighborhood they choose?
  • Allow them to forage in garbage for food or anything else of value to them?
  • Force them off the streets and into shelters or hospitals against their will?
  • Provide subsidized housing?

Welfare Recipients

The third group, welfare recipients, is also of major concern to society. Many

taxpayers resent having to pay taxes to support welfare recipients who are

all too frequently stigmatized and stereotyped as being lazy, cheats, and

welfare-dependent. However, few of these very same taxpayers and others

realize how many people receive benefits from government in one way or

another (Abramovitz, 1983). For example, tobacco, sugar, and dairy farmers,

among others, are paid billions of tax dollars each year to limit production and

to maintain price levels that assure profits. Are they the truly needy? What

about all those who are able to take deductions on income taxes for health

costs, interest on mortgages, entertainment for business, and other items?

Although the government does not actually pay cash to these more affluent

people, it is, in effect, telling them that they can keep the money they would

have to pay were the deductions not allowed. These deductions total billions

each year. Actually, it turns out that the more money one makes, the more benefits

one may get through increased deductions (Abramovitz, 1991). What

about community and state college students who obtain federal and state aid?

Tax monies are supporting them in obtaining an education even if they are paying

the full tuition. Do they and all the others mentioned really see themselves

as "welfare recipients"? Clearly, we taxpayers have less problem with government

aid dispensed to "us" rather than to "them," especially when the "others"

are poor and in need of food, clothing, and shelter. The question really is,

why are these benefits acceptable and those for the truly needy less so?

For welfare recipients, is it moral to:

  • Mandate that they take whatever jobs are available, including dead-end


  • Mandate that they take jobs even if the wages would be less than their

welfare benefits?

  • Mandate that they take part in job-training programs?

332 chapter nine

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

  • Mandate that they accept community work, if jobs are not available, in

exchange for some of their benefits?

  • Reduce additional benefits for additional children?
  • Mandate that all students in community and state colleges (they are all

subsidized by state and local tax monies) pay the actual cost of their


The many questions raised with each group are controversial enough in

their own right. Additional questions arise that may be of particular concern

to human services workers. One question has to do with the problem of individual

rights versus rights of the public. Another question has to do with the

apparent effort to control these target populations in some fashion. Are we not

really attempting to devise behavioral and social controls for people who for

the most part are victims of situations beyond their control, and who for the

most part have not broken any laws? Other controversies in the human services

center around the effects of a conservative government and/or a recession

on social programs. The basic question is, whose benefits shall be cut?

Regardless of who has control of the purse strings, be they liberals or conservatives,

there will always be a limited amount of funds made available for

social programs. This is clearly a political decision. The general trend has been

that in times of prosperity and/or when liberals are in power, social programs

are funded more generously. When conservatives are in power, support for

social programs is usually significantly reduced. The major questions then

become: Which programs shall be reduced or eliminated? Shall it be programs

serving the elderly, or school lunch programs, or programs for people with disabilities?

What about programs for the homeless, the mentally ill and retarded,

or the poor? Who shall make the decisions? What criteria would you use in

making these choices? These kinds of questions and their answers create all

kinds of tensions in the human services field. Peirce (1982) perhaps answered

some of these questions when discussing budget cuts made by the local, state,

and federal government. He points out that "the stark fact is that the budget

cuts it makes are far deeper in subsidized housing, in job training, in welfare

and education programs of primary benefit to poor people than to programs

the middle class utilizes most-social security, Medicare, civil service, and military

pension levels" (p. 14).

Although it is generally acknowledged that all of the groups receiving support

have a legitimate claim to that support, it becomes clear that some programs

will lose funding. Several things happen in situations like this. First, the

agencies serving the different target populations, and the members of those

populations, start competing strenuously with one another for available funds.

The most articulate and organized of the various target populations, the ones

with the most political influence, generally are more successful in gaining support

and funds. As an example, the outcry some time ago by the recipients of

social security about the threat of reduced benefits tempered efforts in benefit


current controversies and issues 333

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

When funds are cut and staff reductions occur, caseloads tend to increase.

This then requires a screening process that assures that those in most need get

service, while others are turned away. The increased caseload puts additional

pressure on the workers, and services to the needy often suffer. Competition

and struggle for existence shift the focus, energies, and resources away from a

unified effort by target populations and the human services field to increase

overall funding for social programs. This kind of competition seems to

demand that the strong shall survive and the weak shall perish.


Two major and muted struggles have developed among human services workers

in the last two decades. Both struggles involve money, status, and levels of

responsibility. One conflict occurs between generalist human services workers

and traditional professional human services workers. The other conflict occurs

among traditional professional human services workers. Fortunately, these

quarrels have not had significant ill effects on the direct services provided by

the human services workers themselves. It is nonetheless important to know

and understand the different points of view of the various contestants, as well

as to recognize that all is not sweetness and light in the helping professions. A

brief description of the issues follows.

Since the introduction of indigenous community leaders as paraprofessionals

in the War on Poverty of the 1960s, the number of workers in the

human services has grown steadily and rapidly. In addition, the responsibilities,

knowledge, training, and competence of generalist human services workers

have, from their point of view, increased to a level comparable to that of

traditional professional human services workers. Furthermore, large numbers

of generalist human services workers and some traditional professional human

services workers believe strongly that many generalists outperform traditional

professional workers. A trainer of generalist human services workers cited by

Sobey (1970) states that such workers are often superior to traditional professionals.

These convictions on the part of generalist human services workers are

the basis for strong feelings about the differences in pay, status, responsibilities,

and opportunities for advancement between generalists and traditional

professional human services workers.

Many educators believe that graduates of recognized undergraduate human

services programs should be considered professionals. Generalist human services

workers assert that, although they do not have graduate degrees, the combination

of their life experiences and limited formal education are "credentials"

equal to those obtained through advanced formal education.

Many human services educators are convinced that human services is a

profession (Clubok, 1984) and that graduates of recognized college human

services programs should be considered professionals. In addition, some feel

that human services is an evolving profession (Feringer & Jacobs, 1987).

334 chapter nine

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

These and other human services educators assert that most criteria needed for

the establishment of the traditional human services professions have been met

in regard to the human services. These criteria include, among others, a professional

membership organization, regional and nationwide annual professional

conferences, journals, standards for approval of college human services

curricula, and an organization to approve college programs (for example, the

Council for Standards in Human Services Education). Furthermore, according

to other human services workers and educators, the growth of graduate

degree programs in human services is further proof of professionalism in the

human services. On the other hand, human services workers with advanced

degrees feel that their advanced intensive training provides them with greater

knowledge and skill in providing specific services and enables them to function

at a significantly higher level than can generalist human services workers.

Professionalism, they assert, is based on the attainment of a specific body

of knowledge unique to that field and gained only through traditional professional

schools. Much of the knowledge and skill referred to by traditional

professionals deals with clinical functions in addition to supervisory and educational

responsibilities directly related to their specific profession. These

professions might include psychology, occupational therapy, social work, and

others described in Chapter 6.

In addition, these professionals feel strongly that until college human services

programs are accredited by an organization sanctioned by the Council on

Post Secondary Accreditation the human services is not yet a profession. The

council is the only organization sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Education

to allow specific groups to provide recognized accreditation. These people

also believe that until human services is recognized and incorporated into

the Civil Service Systems as a profession, it is not to be considered a profession.

The struggle goes on, and you will be faced with this issue in one way or

another, to one degree or another, as a human services worker.

Generalist human services workers' efforts to gain recognition and parity

with traditional professionals are duplicated among the traditional professionals

themselves. The issue centers around which traditional professionals

shall be eligible for third-party payment without the need of being supervised

by those with higher standing or credentials. Third-party payment is payment

to the traditional professional by an insurance company, such as Blue Cross or

Medicare, for services provided to the client. Third-party payment permits

many more individuals to obtain help that they otherwise could not afford.

Third-party payment also significantly increases the amount of income for

agencies and traditional professionals who provide services to the needy.

Who, then, among the traditional professionals is eligible to receive these

third-party payments? Most traditional human services professionals, particularly

those in private practice, are eager to be included in these programs.

Medical doctors and psychiatrists are included in all such programs. In some

jurisdictions psychologists are included, and in others they are not. Social

workers and other traditional human services professionals are also not

current controversies and issues 335

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning

included everywhere. In certain situations, some traditional professionals are

included in these programs only if they are supervised by a traditional professional

of another discipline. For example, a psychiatrist might supervise a psychologist

or social worker. It goes without saying that professionals in one

discipline object strenuously to being supervised by those in other disciplines.

A more recent issue centers on the armed forces' permitting psychologists to

prescribe psychotropic medication. Should this practice be permitted for all

trained psychologists? Will other professions seek the same or other privileges?

Is the practice helpful to clients? These and other questions arise as competition

between and among human services workers exists.

Competition for jobs has increased in recent years as a result of the growing

number of professionals and cuts in programs and services. Unfortunately,

little if any positive changes have occurred regarding these professional issues

to date.

Acceptance into these insurance programs is achieved for the most part

through legislative action at local, state, or national levels. Therefore, the professional

organizations representing the different disciplines lobby to have their

members included in these programs. Professional groups already included in

the plans often oppose the inclusion of new groups, claiming that they are only

trying to protect the public. Some think that there is enough to go around for

everyone and that the constant competition for high status, recognition, and

control does little for the image and dignity of human services workers.

Another professional issue that is being raised among many social workers

involves whom social workers serve. Specht and Courtney (1994) state the

issue clearly: Today, a significant proportion of social workers are practicing

psychotherapy, and doing so privately, with a primarily middle-class, professional,

Caucasian clientele in the 20- to 40-year age group. The poor have not

gone away; there are more of them now than at any time in recent memory.

Certainly many professional social workers are still committed to the public

social services, to helping poor people and dealing with social problems, but a

large part of the profession is "adrift in the psychiatric seas" (p. x). They further

claim that it is the former kinds of students and practitioners "that the

profession needs if it is to realize its original mission" (p. x). Jacobson (2001)

supports this view asserting that what has been destructive to this mission

". . . has been the encroachment of therapuetic practice on the field as a

whole" pp. 51-61. There is little doubt from our point of view that we are in

desperate need of such human services workers. Huff and Johnson (1993) recognized

this issue when they wrote:

Since its birth, social work has been in the vanguard of many national reforms,

often speaking on behalf of populations who are too beleaguered to forcefully represent

themselves. Of late, too many social workers have abandoned the traditional

mission as advocates for social justice. Social workers must rededicate

themselves to leading a new reform movement dedicated to a more equitable redistribution

of America's wealth. (p. 315)

We feel the same might be said regarding many other human services workers.

336 chapter nine

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning


Is the role of the human services worker to help individuals solve their interpersonal

problems? Is it to help them cope with the stress brought on by financial

difficulties, physical disabilities, or other outside pressures? Or is it to try

to help change those conditions that create the problems in the first place?

During the War on Poverty in the latter part of the 1960s, agencies were

formed to fight poverty, racism, and crime, among other problems. Federal, state,

and local governments, as well as some private foundations, funded these agencies.

The workers in an agency located in a high poverty and crime area helped

local residents learn their rights in the courts. The workers went to court with

their clients to protest against police brutality when it occurred. They taught

them how to organize and conduct rent strikes when the tenants were not getting

service. They also defended people who were on welfare whenever they needed

help (Krozney, 1966). The focus of human services workers during those years

was mainly on helping people cope with injustice (Morales & Sheafor, 1980).

The main concept was gaining and using power, and people did protest and fight

against injustice. However, in one case, the protests and struggles aroused those

who were threatened by these actions and who in turn brought pressure on those

in power to curtail the funding for such projects. This, in effect, changed the

nature of the role of the workers. No longer able to use government funds to fight

"the Establishment"-government agencies and supporters-human services

workers shifted their focus to helping clients adjust to their situation.

There are still many human services workers who feel that helping people

adjust to their problems is not a very useful activity. To adjust to poverty,

racism, crime, mental illness, and similar problems rather than to make every

effort to combat or prevent these problems is seen by many as a losing battle.

Poverty still exists, and the gap between the wealthy and the poor continues

to grow. The number of people in need of mental health services has increased,

even though mental hospitals have released large numbers of patients. Child

abuse and wife abuse have increased. Treatment and living conditions of the

elderly leave much to be desired. All this has occurred in spite of the efforts of

human services programs to date.

What else, then, can a human services worker do? "Become more of an

activist," urge the activists. "But activists are seen as radicals by the public,

government officials, and other human services workers" is often the reply. It

is true that activists in the human services do not often win a lot of friends.

The activist role usually stirs controversy and involves some risk. A worker

some years ago prevented clients from entering an unlicensed nursing home

and was reprimanded by his agency. The worker, with the help of his union,

not only had the reprimand withdrawn but initiated action on a state level to

change the rules regarding placing people in unlicensed nursing homes. The

worker was successful in that instance. Activists, unfortunately, are not always

successful; but if there is to be any chance for success in eliminating injustice,

there must be activists. Today, however, the practice of advocacy is growing

and accepted in the human services professions. (See Chapter 6 for details.)

current controversies and issues 337

Human Services in Comtemporary America COPYRIGHT© 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning


The answer to this question seems obvious and simple. In theory, it might be.

However, in practice, significant issues arise. For example, suppose you are a

human services worker in a mental hospital. The policy is to discharge patients

as quickly as possible. One of your patients has been selected for discharge and

you are asked to follow through, but you are convinced that the patient is not

able to function outside the institution. He is generally stabilized in the institution,

however, and has been there for over 6 months without creating trouble,

so "get him out" is the word. What do you do? You are working for the

hospital, and it is under pressure to discharge as many patients as possible in

the shortest time possible. You are also responsible for the patient's well-being.

What happens if you do not discharge the patient? What happens if you do

discharge the patient? This situation has actually occurred, not once but many

times, in state institutions.

There are several possible answers to the question, "Whom do human services

workers serve?" They include the client, the agency for which one works,

the government, society in general, and themselves. Some workers would

claim that it is possible to serve all of these but not at the same time or to the

same degree. In any case, human services workers might soon be required to

make difficult choices regarding whom they serve.

An even more complicated situation arises if and when workers who are

paid by third parties such as insurance companies or Medicare must give

detailed reports of service to the companies. These reports identify not only

the individuals but also the nature of the problem and the course of treatment.

In effect, this is a break of confidentiality and a way of influencing the treatment

provided. The insurance companies and managed care organizations

often may attempt to limit or control the course of treatment. Do you as a

human services worker go along with this kind of program, thus serving yourself

with regard to payment and future patients? Do you refuse such a program

and patients enrolled in those programs? Do you work with the patient anyway,

even though payment might be reduced? Whom do you really serve-

yourself, the insurance company, the client, or all three?

What about the situation in which you might be serving the taxpayer?

Such a situation came up when eligibility criteria for disability payments were

revised and thousands of disabled persons were denied payments. The object

here was to save the taxpayers money and to cut costs to help reduce the federal

deficit. What do you do when asked to administer such a program? Where

do your human services responsibilities lie? Do they override your fiscal or

administrative responsibilities?

The last example involves a much broader issue. It raises the question of

not only whom do we serve, but when do we serve them and at what cost. As

stated previously, all the present efforts of human services have not been able

to provide services for all those in need. Choices must be made. How do you,

the human services worker, make them? Furthermore, if one chooses to become

an activist or to work in prevention programs, those in need of specific help

are denied your services. These kinds of choices affect those in need, other

human services workers, professional organizations, legislators, and the public

in general.

Without further description or comment, many other controversial issues

in the following list and those already described should provide you with more

than enough material to ponder at this point.

  • Illegal immigration
  • Legal immigration
  • Poverty
  • Violence in the media
  • Unemployment
  • Alcoholism
  • Gambling
  • Sexual harassment
  • Criminal justice
  • Hunger
  • Mental illness
  • Health crisis

All this may be confusing, but it can also be stimulating and exciting to struggle

with these issues and discover your own way as a competent human services


Customer: replied 8 years ago.
It does not have an expected length it is a discussion question.
Expert:  asciandwildlifebio replied 8 years ago.

You need to spend $3 to view this post. Add Funds to your account and buy credits.

Related Homework Questions