THE PRINCIPLE 0F CLIENT SELF- DETERMINATION IN SOCIAL WORK: A RE-EVALUATION Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CLYDE CHARLES GEHRIG 1973 w-II-I-I-u-I-I-n-u-u-i- ‘- .. Y ‘ .I' a“? 'LL' :r‘31Ly r'v_; ‘Pm-fl ‘W’ This is to certify that the ‘ thesis entitled THE PRINCIPLE: OF CLILIET JELF-DEI‘cRi'IIIJA’i‘l—CN oOCIAL WORK: A Elli-EVALUATION presented by Clyde Charles Gehrig has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. Social Science degree in Aide K. fewer, Major professor Date //'?- 7‘3 0-7 639 ABSTRACT THE PRINCIPLE OF CLIENT SELF-DETERMINATION IN SOCIAL WORK: A RE-EVALUATION By Clyde Charles Gehrig Social work is in a state of change and has been since its very beginnings. As a helping profession, it is based upon a set of attitudes, values and beliefs, which must be responsive to the changing demands which are made upon both the professional and the profession. 0f the various principles making up the phiIOSOphical base of the profession, one of the most significant is the principle of client self-determination. The thesis of this dissertation is that since the principle of client self-determination was first clearly and distinctly set forth in the early 1950's, it has continued in a state of redefinition and reinterpretation. However, the profession has not taken the time to bring together and re-evaluate the material in a systematic manner. Therefore, this effort seeks to examine how the principle of client self-determ1nation has been influenced by the introduction of new methods, by new or expanded knowledge incorporated from the behavioral and social sciences, and how the principle of client self-determina— tion has been made responsive to the social, cultural and political issues which have increased the demand for social work services and Skills. The method of study has been to trace the principle through :.-" ,0. o'=o"" J ,,." r,» ,I --.<;. ’9' v‘. I ‘. ‘ l. . _..r. is :;.'.OC~ ’ I '0. a.“ eli"- r‘{‘: ‘3'- 22:. ,. e ..-' 2.211123- ‘— :--:.:9 3" .‘1 - . .: :.-..- -s "C ' O' .. ._ ....: .- -...-~. ' ‘ I ' N .00. q‘. s “'3 nob-n: 0'4' ’ “.. ‘ . U... 4-.‘~pv ;-.." .c-..a;j:," 37-3 siat'zsritn and ti.- 2.115 the par :25. :1 zertivizies of the we I . I . .. u 0.. ‘g to u-A‘s XC‘Iexnt' i: .a...’ ' t ‘ A A “ H....r.e y‘ :.‘ a: l..‘ tafim,’ a... I 1-«5 tl-il rigs: . meter, 1 titer Cute '0‘. :~~=:;:ed to tr r. 1‘3"“ : s.':. c. I. I --o( v ‘kssceo ' .“; . I ..‘. \- ’~ 5. L .I w .e .e5.ee o: 5,‘ 4 4;: ’: I‘-J ‘ sag. Le:er::‘ FI l .4 sixties saw .N' I. ' O. I “~' I M. a - meme: vi" .- Clyde Charles Gehrig the major professional journals and the proceedings of the annual ‘meetings of the Social welfare Forum from 1951 to 1970. This work is divided into two major sections. Consisting of ten year periods, each examines the theoretical evolution of the principle and the principle as applied in social work. The major findings of the dissertation demonstrate that rather than being a principle which was firmly fixed and rigidly interpreted and implemented once it found its place into the profes- sional Code of Ethics, the principle of client self—determination has continued to be shaped and molded by the experiences of each decade. In the 1950's, there was concern regarding the concepts of "freedom," "democracy," and "individuality" which brought into focus issues of authority and rights. Attention was directed towards the problems of the poor and minority pe0ples, primarily as a reSponse to the activities of the various civil rights organizations. The result of this movement, in terms of social work, was an association of the principle of client freedom of choice, called self-determinatflxn ‘with various civil rights as defined in our national documents. however, a number of factors presented difficulties as social ‘workers attempted to bring the principle from the theoretical down to the level of practice. There were also a number of factors which could limit the degree of participation, preventing full exercise of the right to self—determination. The sixties saw the profession changing its focus from one primarily concerned with the individual and/or his family, to one which examined broader social issues and problems contributing to the trials of the people social workers sought to serve. I p 1'“ act 3-- O O o . o o r. 1. . .m. o. 1 .6 i" .. u .3 .. ._ e .o . :5 .. . .fi. . . a . v4— .. . 5 .o C u. '. o ‘h vs . v. v S O. u .C. 5 ' O IQ. 2: C. . 5.. p “r“ o: o .— . . on v ,H. v. ‘ . v. w" o. n. on a o , a. . . .o . e. 2. a w .. : a ... a .. .. ... ...... 1. a . .... a . .. L .. . w .9, ”a. 1.0 O. - a n “I" .0 . v .. . u. .v. M ,7, l, .M I 1 I be 9A. 5b .- but - n . O- 5». Lu- _ - I ..3 is 5; 2232 '9 “4.. m-.-.-- --... . ,-‘ Q —..0. "n. ... --. '.._.._ ‘.. ‘ . ,. u now. m1; Clyde Charles Gehrig Self-determination took on new meaning as federal legislation and case law expanded the right to participation at the community level of effort. Civil rights extended to social rights and client self- determination was a crucial means for the exercise of those rights. These changes caused a re-evaluation of the professional role and the range of responsibilities related to the principle of client self-determination. Finally, this dissertation closes with need for the profession to ever continue its assessment of its basic principles. Values, the priorities and the degree of professional commitment need to be under- stood within the context of the times. They also must focus upon the levels of the theoretical and the practical, and the problems of moving from one dimension to the other. Part of the professional responsibility is to be aware of this on—going process of change. “R.- u..' .- Cc THE PRINCIPLE OF CLIENT SELF—DETERMINATION IN SOCIAL WORK: A RE-EVALUATION By Clyde Charles Gehrig A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1973 Copyright by Clyde Charles Gehrig 1973 DEDICATION To my students, whose quest for knowledge stimulated mine; To my children, whose patience and fortitude gave hope; To my wife, whose faith and support lent strength; This work is dedicated. ii .)‘ a -.- Oi -.O>'n' . £.“.o.-I v-‘e ‘db-ob. .-- O :‘V-0 'n ‘9 .. _‘ «00:5‘ b. J. I he-.. . J. 4 ‘ .u. .. .. _. ‘ .- ode Shel“. a..- I o . . . .- o -;o .o .m" ‘ .. ‘ - z: 4.. a. ,,,Q - _ 5:53. . a: rest ::: ,.‘.." '1 :u..:.1 2: 3.293651. 1:2“?! I 0"! a 5: 3“... .; .I ~..~=.. ~10“. is .11. §.. ”‘:" u...- . " r~~ - it .5..on {0 :.‘, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is most appropriate to recognize the direction and encour- agement which the author has received during the preparation of this study. First, to Dr. Lucille Barber and Dr. Gordon Alridge for their interest in the study and their helpful suggestions. Then, to Profes— sor Charles Barr of the School of Urban Planning, Michigan State University, I am most appreciative of the stimulation and exposure to a new field of interest. I am grateful to Dr. Donald Olmsted of the Department of Sociology whose expertise added insight and brought a balance to this writer's program at Michigan State University. Finally, I owe a special kind of debt to Reverend Felix P. Biestek, S.J. of Loyola University, Chicago, whose own quest for knowledge, dedication and faith in the future of man has served as the stimulus and model for this effort. Appreciation is also eXpressed to the Family Service Associa- tion for permission to quote from Social Casework, 1951—1970; to the University of Chicago Press for permission to quote from Social Service M51, 1951-1970; to the National Association of Social Workers for Permission to quote from Social Work, 1956-1970; and Columbia Univer— sity Press for permission to quote from The Social Welfare Forum and M Work Practice, 1951—1970. iii n.4- ,.o¢ ’fiu II" .- _....vw¢ N" . .. .n- c‘a-ooovv - . v .... all. u..- ‘mow :.‘, ‘ ‘ x. . . ‘ . ‘ 0‘. -.--<~... . o 5 . ' I v... ' ,' ‘0 . a-§Av _ Ilu§.l- b$~H .3 - on. ' - .G”.“a‘l '— a ........ . .. _ ‘. ‘ :::.2 '{"“\V— o.‘ .‘_." L 5 . \... u§.. . 'C. . 08“.... 7‘4". a .“-e... ' ‘ n. LI 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I. THE EVOLUTION OF A PRINCIPLE: CLIENT SELF—DETERMINATION . 5 1921-1930 1931-1940 1941-1950 II. SELF-DETERMINATION IN THEORY: 1951—1960 . . . . . . . . . 53 III. IV. Freedom - Democracy - Individuality Theoretical Implications SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: BY METHOD. . . . . . . 114 Social Casework Social Group Work Community Organization Administration - Supervision - Consultation SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: BY AGENCY/CLIENT SITUATIONS O O O I O O O O I O C O O O O O O Q 0 O C O O 177 Client Self-Determination and the Aged Client Self-Determination and Children Client Self—Determination and the Mentally Handicapped Client Self-Determination and the Offender Self-Determination and the Public Assistance Client CLIENT SELF-DETERMINATION IN THEORY: 1951-1960 . . . . . 218 Self-Determination - PhilOSOphical Reconsiderations Self-Determination - Civil and Social Rights iv -0 \ "‘.‘ a -t . 'v'4. ‘m-L". '.- ;.'-o C . an- . a ”‘-=..v" '.v- _..o “.r.!-“” V v‘ . V . .4 0-,. "t‘ ,a- '. .—- . . . . G’. .0 ‘.o;": .u ‘ '4 -o o... , . -v-5 0'. ~' " .u-I' "‘ ' - -' . . . -' 9- . 2,. II fi..". - “'0“ '0 - ._-- O ' :.--é . . . . o ' .-a -v: '- ...- a. ‘ p -0 .1 «9-3 ‘ a- v .. av. ‘ _' '1 ,.,a...r---k .40 no - o * -.‘\. ya. .a— V ‘0 .‘ ... ‘. .-o.- , . ,-. o -o a ' "‘ ‘90 q— . "fl— " -Q ; G.--” .:.. r..~.—.-o O I .Y ." (I. \v _ - ”a... *"J. o" g I- . Q — O- '.*-- b. ‘ ' ' O. ‘1 o - A. IOU-0‘ 'L..:: 3.-..9: I V O.. 0“.a---- v ‘5 o " " - 'Oibc‘fib- . ‘ v o a 1.6 .. e3 G . ’ ‘. R‘ ‘ .A ’ a ’ , . .... .2» s... 3.6'( . I . 0" '-~...3..h 77"". .. " "-.-. l .I‘. A. " .. ”.0. .. . u -,. is b..“'. ‘ ‘ O ‘1 I, L.\ .- n.-...Z. ' . ~.\, .3. .3 ‘ 9.. .. o .1 ~\ II'. . . "u.".v.. o..‘.‘. VI. VII. VIII. SELF—DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: 1961-1970 . . . . . Self-Determination Applied to Individual Situations: The Aged Parents and Children With Groups Within Other Client Situations The Role Theory Model The Behavioral Model The Changing Role of the Worker SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION CONT'D. . . . . . . . Self—Determination and Intervention at the Societal Level Self-Determination and Social Policy Planning The Social Worker's Changing Roles THE DILW 0F VM‘UES O O O C C O O O C C O C I O O C 0 Values Defined Value Pluralism in Society Value Pluralism in the Professional The State of Values in Social Work The Need for Re-evaluation of Self-Determination Conclusion APPENDIXES A. B. C. CODE OF ETHICS I O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 BASIC VALUES IN SOCIAL WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BASIC VALUES IN SOCIAL WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O . 272 . 308 . 352 . 378 . 380 . 382 . 384 I. ..os----‘ . , r y do"'-.-— ,. ‘ .o— - I ."o-a- :.‘-O -... a O F . 0 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Interdependent Relationship of Man and Society . . . . . 235 2. Plurality of Values of the Professional . . . . . . . . . 364 vi :.‘-(.3 u: y x... :. .Hmf _. I. {Ullfliknllafiv INTRODUCTION Social work is in a state of change and has been since its very beginnings. It is a helping profession which is based upon a set of attitudes, values and beliefs, which in turn must be responsive to the changing demands which are made upon the profession and upon the pro- fessionals as well. Of the various principles which make up the philo- sOphical base of the profession, one of the most significant is the principle of client self—determination. This is a concept which has received wide recognition and acceptance over the past fifty years. The recognition of the principle as one of the fundamental concepts of social work was highlighted by the work of Rev. Felix P. Biestek, S.J. In his doctoral dissertation, The Principle gf_Client Self-Determination in Social Casework, written in 1951 and in his 1957 book The Casework Relationship, the historical evolution of the principle was traced from its very nebulous stage of develOpment in the 1920's to a clearly defined and delineated principle in 1950. In his doctoral work, Biestek followed the development of the principle both in theory and in practice, observing how it was made responsive to the needs of the time. In attempting to do so, it pre- sented problems for the practitioner who sought to implement it. Since the principle was recognized as one of the foundations of the professional practice of social work, there has been a great deal said about it, but it has not been brought together and re-evaluated in a systematic manner. " Jo 0-- ‘ ‘J'... ‘. n .1 (I'::-._’ “A 'no- ' “'7 l' as: I. 'D'1".. ’ . ’ v Q 9 ' In"- .I.‘ .- '.n.-o‘p:."‘ ... ‘.‘b ’5'". r . D . , ' . ‘ . a «.03 O'- o. ‘ . L “.ch2. “I 56‘ r r.- . . A0... craze: rm :2: 5-. .s ‘ ' ' Q‘JOJ-o. ' LI.L 3. Ptgoso-‘.‘ . son.- .1552 serial uzr're .zzcrerse a: tr..s ‘ rif-‘e'e"""“a sap .‘Q..-.M‘..'u . “ I .. ’1 .; ‘N‘ “3.2: u ...e v . ‘ _ . ' ‘ ' . ' O. . - _ . ”mf- '...~u “65 s.--_. #51:: 53 "23125 e .4 ‘ \f..'-| " a...:. ”'1' t. . .c .. “at... .K. q it. 5U “ease jcurna 33‘.“ \ q‘ '. ‘ y I. “'e 58:133a. ENE.“ . .. «the of .32 SI‘ x ‘ \ . N {k15'3uz‘ RF 0 ..‘9 V \ n. A \ .3.~‘ L: t'. a. “E u. ’- 2 It is the thesis of this work that the principle of client self-determination, while it has received wide acclaim and almost univer— sal pledge of fidelity, it has been in a constant state of redefinition and reinterpretation during the past twenty years. As new methods have been introduced into the profession, as new or expanded knowledge has 'been integrated from the social and behavioral sciences, as new issues, social, cultural or political, have widened the demand for the services and skills of the social worker, there was a change occuring with regards to this very basic principle of client self—determination. The obverse of this thesis would be that once the principle of client self-determination was accepted and codified into the profes- sional value system and the Code of Ethics, that it became a fixed, rigid concept which has stood fast in the face of the events of the past twenty years and so remains virtually unscathed. The material upon which this study draws includes the major professional social work journals including Social Casework, Social Service Review and the journal of the National Association of Social WOrkers, Social £255. The period of time covered is from 1951 to 1970. In addition to these journals, use is made of the annual report of the proceedings of The National Conference of Social WOrk later to become the National Conference on Social welfare. The reports are found in the yearly issue of The Social welfare Forum and in the volumes which deal with social work practice. These have appeared under a variety of titles including Casework Papers, GroungOrk and/or Community Organiza— tion and Social Work Practice. Other materials have been utilized and are to be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHY. The organization of this dissertation begins with the . ‘E’ '1‘7‘0'. ' II" I O 1h A'. 0 Q. . sub. .0-“ v. u“ /:;.:|.- r' .1 l .x. '- . - ' '5 .0". '...t D v 5., 2:“ ."w ‘e‘f - W...oo'~n ‘n "’ .'.1.1....$..~n .A- 5- n ..: ‘ ' - .‘. -.\...9 :51 ca ‘ .4; ":.‘:o.‘ " . A-...-' ‘5'?" O ’1‘ ' '.'....:..IT.. swing L..! n. . J -. n ‘ L..II:315182.11-8 '“‘ '4 c ~.... JJJS “.15 per " i:::' ‘ da: ;:'a:€d 5-, (V () \f'. . 3. ::8e pr 0:65- ..= maze of the ’< ‘ “film and the : h,- a N'avn'.‘s u. C"'1 r181. . ‘1... ..o uhhl’l‘JEanefI'. :‘RI 4.“: Self-c’e:e' “:59 DCCVQ"‘ u. ‘n -. 16 Native; 3 historical overview of the principle of client self-determination. It contains a review of the original research conducted by Biestek in which be traced the principle from 1920 to 1950. Other materials are drawn upon which help to crystallize the establishment of the principle by the social work profession. The next section of the paper examines the principle of client self-determination in the fifties. First the principle is considered from the theoretical dimension and then it is evaluated from the aspect of application. During the decade of the fifties, the social, cultural and political events of the decade including the concerns about the rise and spread of Communism abroad and in this country are seen to have had special significance to the principle of client self-deter- mination. During this period of the 1950's, as new methods and tech- niques were incorporated into the body of social work methods and practice, a reassessment of the principle of client self-determination became part of the process of acceptance. The decade of the fifties also brought attention to the prob- lems of the poor and the minority peOples with the increased activity of the various civil right groups. The result of this movement was adso seen to have an effect upon the principle of client freedom of choice, called self-determination. The next major division of this study looks at the events of the decade of the sixties, the changes external to the profession as well as those occuring within it. Of extreme importance was the move- ment of the profession into the area of social planning and social action. This was one by-product brought about by the War on Poverty legislation. Critical to this discussion is a consideration of the L n s :.I.. ‘Ivnx! ; ”’3‘ .. . .3)..- .oo' 5"". "5x 7‘ o is I. . . ‘2 man...» 3' v"..‘ (1 .1-4‘ :23". W15- ; ' ' c 'an du'"~ "~ A . 3v '“' . mu “". V .1. 'I‘ .0...— ..~ovu O ‘l'.‘es ‘ . -u l i .- ‘. .ouo’r‘ . .s K V. '5‘ L""‘*' g... r 6 b - a . Q .__ ~- ..‘.,:. Jets Nah- I--”.—'o-5.ub ‘0 ' .vl'-‘ O f bu}. I‘:I.‘... .‘h ‘ g Lhu~~AA5 b-I- ‘ega. :.‘“, q; .‘n n 1 A s — ‘~-- in sue b‘SOS fret 2.: 312131 I‘ “" s‘ ' s5... oAu .'l~t . -' 'ch. .1“. ‘ ~"“‘-3.5V.. .22 :iul section : "I. l . ' "'- e. f"-’~=S ‘fia ‘ ‘ .._~ 0. sects. :"-:'.' I‘ "M..‘S “.9 u ' , fit»: ’A “.2 C I}. ‘t .: 1"...“2 '“v... “ " L {fligqit has 4 changes suggested in the role and activities of the social worker. ‘Underlying these changes is the philosophical commitment of the worker ‘who seeks to provide Opportunities wherein the client has the freedom to ‘make his own choices. It is also during this decade of the 1960's that one finds new legislation which requires the participation of those being served by federal programs. This participation established their legal right to be active in program development and in the service delivery systems in the community. In addition to the legislation, several Supreme Court decisions were handed down during this period which also had far reaching impact in defining the legal rights of the peeple. Reflected in the affirmation of the basic freedoms and rights of the people are both civil and social rights and the freedom and right to participation and self-determination. The final section of this study deals with the state of values in the profession of social work, the problems of value priorities and value conflicts, with the charge to the profession to be aware of the need to continue an ongoing reassessment of its professional value commitments . a” ‘n ‘7 “u? ET: . ,.~ 1" ..—-, ' unfl“ . .’ 3. c on“... 07"" C'. H..- .a. ’30- .‘ ‘... ,.,; .: tun gs we C3 '- 5“", l'__.. ‘;--.:‘ up: game.» 0 ‘ 2:12; 1: 1:3: pIDCES 1; 1:111 w:r‘x.l 4&2: by Ester: . c n ' «vs 5.06. CI. ' - 0' . . . O n.0u-‘o '8'... 5 0.5 V . --c. ‘, ' - .:::Z 2.". 31¢ E5381 ‘ 1“ n by... ..-.. ".15 of sccza. ‘Duu. ' ;~, ’v- 0"” O v 0 llt‘. bu. 5 C6 . LE‘;'IID 9' a, V L..- .32 {$855141 :w- -‘ ' 7.1.1.... ‘ ~n ,..-..f.¢5, Coi‘ “ t. “«'i "0-eq0t'sn ‘ I ' a "‘“ rsay'us v‘:~ ugutize of the ; ~46 period of :.- "qv-L , . "~£ sfeatlon a“ "“n. " - "~-£. I333“ 3"“ 3. A “L 5“ tr ‘5, 0 I v : “.‘q - was “O . A.so, CHAPTER I THE EVOLUTION OF A PRINCIPLE: CLIENT SELF-DETERMINATION The basic truths of human existence do not change. Our concep— tions of them, as we come to understand with clearer minds, is always changing. Thus it is that we may Speak of changing funda— mentals in that process of analyzing human relations which we call social work.1 This was spoken by Robert W. Kelso in his Presidential address before the National Conference of Social Work in 1922. Some fifty years have since passed but the essence of his statement - changing conceptions of basic truths of social work — remains pertinent to this day. This is the central thrust of this research, to examine the changing concep— tions which the profession of social work has had regarding one of its basic principles, client self-determination and to note how these changing conceptions both affected and were affected by the philoSOphy and the practice of the profession. The period of modern social work in the United States dates back to the creation on June 27, 1921 of the American Association of Social Workers which became the national professional organization of social workers. Also, in 1920, the periodical literature and confer- ence reports reflected a change in that the technical problems of social work practice (then called case work) were given wider attention. J‘Robert W. Kelso, "Changing Fundamentals of Social Work," in Readings _I_t_1_ Social Case Work: 1920—1938, ed. by Fern Lowry (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), 3. 5 ,1.‘.;:' f -" u n ' 0‘. ' .n" v o . J - n L.‘ ‘ ’: ::v.‘_§ n. g ml ”ass c :3: :a-z-ir" fesea.: n" “’e‘ 1:? 1 r" 7': fl... .dsb av- v r.- .0. Ole prin:o;“ - :.s :25 that 5:: 1:13:12 e'.'e::s of caseis, it was s .2:c::-e:...::i: cczi 112%: as well, char-.5 32213113 te:r.:i: :.‘:ne 3' reference. .i:s e'x :zzzse :3 . 1'25. a: .' _ -' o oath 5:3: per i Cy: IL... ...S€I mr:(oz a ::i " “:e¢?,. ' e 321mg: l :1” ' p . J.e5: Q «Meg‘evl‘ t : \g ('a '_J 6 This is significant for it has been through the medium of professional articles, books and conference papers that the current thinking in the field of social work "has characteristically found expression."2 The primary research dealing with the principle of self—deter— mination was conducted by Rev. Felix P. Biestek and focused upon the evaluation of the principle from 1920 to 1950.3 In addition his study also demonstrated that social work as a profession was intimately affected by the events of time and place; that as it attempted to deal with human needs, it was subject to influence by external events such as the socio—economic conditions and global confrontations and by inter— nal changes as well, changes which were brought about by the develOpment of new methods and techniques of working with peOple within the social ‘work frame of reference. Biestek chose to examine a major portion of the social work literature of that period and in so doing, traced the development of the principle by looking at how it progressed within each of the three decades, that is from 192191930, 1931—1940 and 194lw1950. One needs to keep in mind that these divisions are artificial in that the deve10p- meat of a principle is a continuous process which does not limit itself to ten year periods and that the events of a preceeding decade can serve to set in motion a series of events which will bring about change 111the interpretation or application of the principle in a later decade. Vv—w— 2Frank J. Bruno, Trends in Social work: 1874—1956 (New York: —I— Columbia University Press, 1957), 147%14§;Tern Lowry, Readings, V. 3Felix P. Biestek, The Principle of Client Self—Determination 112; Social Casework (Washington, 11C}? ' Catholic University Press, 1951) , 4' .~' n, l ' 1 ' .' 4::zzefe.“"8 ‘3 1 " j I 13;; Its attests: *- 22:55.23 of 3991‘.“ = i:sa:':::aie:i:g the e' :23, 3:15 assisting mutant-.1: ‘rz.’ 2:2: the shed of v ‘. _ .. h‘fl} Q'QI\‘-A .. x 3‘ :2 13:1555 3 "O‘ ' ‘G , ' .:.l.z ans .- nu "’ .‘505‘. .‘ n U ' I 3 " or.“ I I I u 1‘ € ‘ {unnumbefifiy its. c :a use, social work 8' !E "e" L....ei by pcvertv :::;oo.|. ;4_ t' . Lit Liecte: l1. .2 ::is decade, 45 2313?: 0‘ 32551333 as: " 1 :4 :f 2.2 ‘ I ’ "‘13! and '\ Q 7 Nevertheless the divisions are retained because they are useful and convenient for facilitating discussion. 1921 — 1930 During this period while American social work was in the process of developing as a profession, it was greatly involved in attempting to deal with the many critical social problems and events of the day. Its attention was directed towards child labor laws, work with the problems of newly arrived immigrants to this Country, expanding efforts at broadening the effectiveness of the newly established juve— nile courts, and assisting psychiatrists and psychologists in working ‘with the men returning from the Anmed Services who were emotionally affected by the shock of war. Especially during this period social ‘work was pronouncedly influenced by psychiatry. As the decade drew to a close, social work was called upon to render help to those who were affected by poverty and the network of associated problems related to poverty which affected health and sanitation, housing, and unemploy- ment. In this decade, social work writers used a number of terms to describe the concept of client freedom in social work, These included such eXpressions as: "client participation," "client responsibility for plan making," "self—help," "self—maintenance," "selfv-direction," and self—expression."4 Client participation was the term used to describe the sharing role of the worker and the client in the social work process. It '4Ibid., 9—12. o " , 3 0"? . .. 12 :ee. ' v a" 4‘ . o- ' ...-' ,.. ..:M .e a!_.Lo"‘ / . o4 " '1'.:z as. ...-"L ..o' ‘. .I" - z . " ..... be' be -k I a! .. n“§~' __.. 9o ' e55 '-v _a:-"3 ‘o- ' . o .. o '-‘ I. “':S.a:‘:;:.g C. .. I a. ‘C '-. :;::::e Lsc 5‘83 -' ‘..-...~zl q'g'edte‘. : ‘ 5“ £37....“ “.5. - O , u ”was . fl . . an n goat‘b-ob 3J5 U r.“ 255: :.‘:t: '58“???- 6 :_':.e; t: the end. he. A than "V‘ . ' abut! :.r-u.‘ ' i E 0 ’v-usaroe :as C: t: 1 ‘2"; "-._.'. - 0 «usher ::e :.‘.e: 23:. n" .,...:;;.e 12:22th i‘“ -. n 9‘ o O ‘ ~13 ween caQQe‘ 'scacti'e e; r: ‘9‘ ,u- . J "amides. In 3?: I: I. \Inn.‘ . "“ooye. . . calls 22:?"- 4 . "‘ to 5.4 112:6: R :.‘: . :1“ *° t e se: Ml;:a:::ce 0f 63:: akir 35:3-5154'6 . Cate. I.“.‘. v .-....er 'fllte!’ '\ J 3292:: of {‘- ... ‘_ .e u. '\ “13:! 8 focused upon the need for the active engagement of the client in both problem identification and in decision making. The Milford Conference defined participation as: . . . a name used to designate the method of giving to a client the fullest possible share in the process of working out an understanding of his difficulty and a desireable plan for meeting it . 5 A The conference also went on to say that it (client participation) was the essential ingredient of interviewing, of diagnosing, of planning and of carrying out of plans. As it noted, participation began with the first contact between the social case worker and the client and continued to the end.6 Mary A. Cannon wrote regarding client participation that it was a principle basic to the phiIOSOphy of social work and was to be utilized whether the client was an individual, or a group of the community. A principle inherent in this common method of social work is one which has been called participation. The client or the community takes an active part in making and carrying out the plan of social organization. In group conferences and in some interviews, the practice . . . calls for participation by each member of the group or party to the interview in the production of joint thought. . . . Participation of the client (individual or group ) is essential to the securing of a social work result. Inherent in the practice of social work is a philosOphy of individual and social responsibility.7 Another writer during this period emphasized the need of both 5Report of the Milford Conference, Social Case Work: Generic gig Specific (New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1929), 24 6Ibid., 30. 7 Mary AntoinetteCannon, "Underlying Principles and Common Practices in Social Work," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 19-21. ,.l o ’ . :.' :t'."l:e ‘Eeuyaes s I" I.“ .. :..s‘-~' gel; l".v- ‘h‘.es ‘5 CO ,-....,.:.3 3f the ta: b ' '01... a“ . . . «J 3"=1=‘221€'.‘.€S L.» ?-- 1c ' 4‘s: .0 ”.3 p a.“ ..> ".2“ b 31-..5... . I Q I ‘ . ' .- 0 a. . manned ...e c“: . O .- 2; 113.51.: of . . '... - . ..' ‘ -J ’ Nona-0‘ ’ E-J.Cuu 1", ‘l. AV. an. o no: a. ‘5 m?»..&... U. 7“-.:.;15.‘J 24:31:85 are act . l;."“ ‘ 6' . -- v .. L: 11.5erewe :f '3”"‘Q .' -. .- :-~-.,a'..an in 2411‘. I I 7- .: 5 a. "a " 4 Client's fret.- 3 if: -..:_ ‘ “‘tu, 5m Vr.:.- ‘5'" F0! Last 2.: '1 y ‘ ,. ‘ 3" ¢ t‘gcx ’3‘. M "-5 n bl U\‘§es in QLBA N; 1 \ 'a v ‘A A Uh. uh; . Li a. C‘ av. N': ‘w . ‘3. ' '3' LEVER 'r‘ ' § ' rie ’ h‘ a.” P . I a ..‘:n‘. ~ ‘ I‘! h. ‘ 1:..- \ Egg; ‘.... 9 public and private agencies to utilize client participation when ‘working with families as well. Private societies and public departments alike need to win the participation of the families under care in making and carrying out plans if they, as community agencies are to be a factor in the stimulation of good citizenship.8 Client responsibility, another expression used during this period, emphasized the client's right and need to make his own deci— sions and plans. The importance of . . . leaving him the privilege of making his own degision and forming his own plans, cannot be over- estimated. . . . it is important to leave an individual free to make his own plans. Human beings are not dependent and domestic animals. This fact of man's difference from other animals establishes the need for his participation in making and carrying out plans for his welfare.11 Self help was a third commonly used term pertaining to the con- cept of the client's freedom to make his own choices. As will be noted now and again, some writers used several terms when referring to this same concept. For instance, Mary Glenn in her previously noted article referred to the terms of self-help, client participation, client responsibility for plan making and the client - social worker 8Mary Wilcox Glenn, "The Growth of Social Casework in the United States," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 75. 9Anna Vlachos, "Opening the Way," cited by Biestek, The Principle 9_f_ Client Self-Determination, ll. 10Lucia B. Claw, "The Art of Helping: Through the Interview," cited by Biestek, The Principle _o_f_ Client Self-Determination, 11. 11Mary E. Richmond, What is Social Case Work, cited by Biestek, Client Self-Determination, ll. ‘ . . O.“ ' .0 "0-5 “it... ,w' i ,. '...».- 'ol ”' ‘5-2;::e:a:;e m5 ,, ... .. a C ' v f" ' ..u. I b V. ‘ r" v D n . .. U P-.- - '. '52:: ::.o “no.5 04‘0- fi.. ‘ t. O. 5.- .J 3:331? v-O .‘flvofi: o::::abieSO O I 'l ‘9'; Indau'.c4. a, L... n... . .31 .3‘ .3555; : :.tof hi v 1.111.550 {Cf . '.r I CI \‘ . :i. I... efiticn an: 5" Tiers 571:1: and ‘5— I..:S:: is ' Ce' n 3....-. '.r Ctljn ‘. 2.1 :23 at. ?""E act’On "$4-; |l‘\ .. -. fi'. I %:"\m ‘.g. lO Whinership, all of which described the same principle in operation.12 Self-maintenance was still another early expression used to dmmribe the concept of client freedom. The Milford Conference Characterized self-maintenance as: . ..the capacity of the individual to organize his own normal social activities. . . . There is failure in selfdmaintenance when the individual is unable to find his way out 3f his difficul- ties as a result of his own planning for himself.1 Cannon also referred to selfdmaintenance as furthering the (zéirazacity of the individual and/or the group as well as to organize his (their) own normal social activities.14 Self direction and self-expression were other phrases used by social workers writing and describing the client's part in making decis- ions and planning. Each person is a center of social energy possessing the capacity of self-direction.15 If these clients are beginning to acquire higher wants by a pur- posive action which is increasingly self-directed, if they are not being forced into any one pattern but are self-achieving the diver- sity which naturally follows upon self-directed activity. . . .16 Puzzled, bewildered, and buffeted though a man may be, he never loses the urge to self-expression. No matter how submissive he may become to another's suggestions, no matter how prone he may be to turn to someone else for the solution of his problems, when he reaches that to which to him is vital, he is the arbiter of all 13Milford Conference, Social Case Work, 16. 14Cannon, "Underlying Principles," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 17. 13h; 15Frank J. Bruno, "Cooperation in Social Work," cited by Biestek, “-S§i_ Principle g£_Client Self-Determination, 12. 53 16RiChm°nd5 Eh§£.£§_80cia1 Case Work, cited by Biestek, Client “:E£!:§7Determination, 12. ' ”' ‘Q Ll .;«.:iesi:es. “ “gage ;r.:as- 12100 . L.- o ' “c. . .‘f 0’ .,- :.'.EZ'. :Teew-I L «were! as an ex; '..- O ' ‘~ ' .. '.. . 4:115:52: was .2 ..r l J .: LL 5 pane. .. an n n'. . { '4 L35-C5JQLJ‘. C: 122151 mi, he was "-55 tattered, partia r: ...‘ 1.. 1.. ' —- .:::ox IirAeaa {rte 2'3"”. “~- I0 5113‘. t) ’4‘ ’ 1 '1... ~~~n+ Pl. 0‘ ' . 45€I3furs 5‘39: ”T“ “£118 Ugcn : I .3! {112219 35 (' .lle’ :3 like t7. fiestas. t3 8‘16? 122‘ :0 £221 I 5._ he: ‘3‘ is puzzii ski-12:33“ cf ’1'“!!! “"‘3 Process 11’ freed? is I. 30'". ““2 86:1a'. HF. ‘ duty Ark 32:“. ‘5. 17‘ 1.... Lari d2 S ‘... ‘“ M C“ 4 .e .. .. Sex, :3. 11 his own desires.17 While all these phrases seem to denote differences in the degree of client freedom, and since many of the authors use them inter— changeable, Biestek concluded that they were all similar in their ref— erence to the client‘s part in the decision making process. What re— mained unanswered was an explanation of the concept of client freedom. Although, Biestek was unable to find any eXplicit statement in the writings of this period of 1921nl930 which set out in detail, or which formulated a description or definition of the concept of client free- don: in social work, he was able to piece together a summarization of isolated, scattered, partial fragments of explanations alluding to Client freedom during the decade. He did remind the reader that what ‘E‘JF>l?eared in the literature was also a statement of a social work ideal, one which the worker sought to implement but which may have proven to be difficult to attain in actual practice. His summary stated the if‘a'JLJLowing: l. Caseworkers sometimes are tempted to impose a plan of their own making upon the client. 2. The client, as every person, has a desire to govern his own life, to make his own decisions, to be the arbiter of his own desires, to share the responsibility in the casework process and to feel a sense of ownership in the treatment plan. Even when he is puzzled and bewildered he does not want a plan super-imposed on him.but wants to be a participant in the helping process, beginning with the first contact. 3. His freedom is not to be violated even to help him. He can acquire social and economic responsibility and self-maintenance only from suffering the consequences of his own mistakes and \ l7Karl. de Schweinitz, The Art _o_f- Helping Pfople gut _o_f- Trouble, Qited by Biestek, The Principle pg Client Self—Determination, 12, Viv—vvv— r v—Vfif ffi vi fl ,‘d .4' .1. ‘- ':~::-i E“ .‘-3 B . 0" I O ._,..' ' JSE'I'..‘ ~ .' 1.53.17 :3. ... - D .. restaus ~ .9. I ‘ 3 o . 0‘..; ‘f S‘s .. g. ' ‘- -_ ~.v-e ' A. .. . .- . _ ...o .. _ ' . . .-.. .h ‘7‘. 'z’ u n l‘ - .ob‘ ' 5-. Cl . . . . . '.. ..;.§ '0 ""'. .4: :ousqt-B "‘°“. to- ' ‘ : . Séi .14: $3.15 3. t .0 ' an: s»: kn. '” be ‘une‘ "5 M. 1 - l 21.33: 5 C":- . if 1559'I'ZTEEY 57- ‘...-g Jan: 1.1.-..1. l I -,'I . .C‘. A»... s “‘... ‘4... ‘ ‘ .- r" 9 . \- I - . 1.0 . “-5": n: .:-‘ ' '3. but :15.. " I re. c ‘v.' u- ‘- x. ‘ u " . : 4n - ' h " 3t...d.rcctcc ;.£‘;e.§.-I . ....5-.zed am: en: “:.‘. . ‘. ‘0 ~I. ‘ t ‘ ‘! ~E:Er“' ‘ wness -. I: .1: tags deiaie “a. v .._ ‘ . . “g": VI”: ' ~ "“::‘. “are S. 12 and learning by his own failures and successes. 4. Fruitful casework treatment is possible only when the client voluntarily participates in the process, and when the case worker respects the client's own views and suggestions and solutions of his difficulty. This is brought into play with every force that can aid the client's individual and social adjustment. 5. To promote the client's participation, the objective of the caseworker is to help the client make his own decisions by planning with him, by stimulating his thinking, and by supply- ing adequate motives. 6. The specific function of the caseworker is to help the client see the facts of the situation, to suggest, advise, interpret, and guide, but in such a way that the decision will really by the client's own. 7. The caseworker should avoid assuming responsibilities and making decisions that rightfully belong to the client.18 Thus Biestek has drawn together what is to become the basic rat ionale for the principle of client freedom. He noted that the desire to be self-directed is a basic need to all people and unless tt1li¥53 is recognized and encouraged, the effectiveness of the social work process would be greatly diminished. He also anticipated that this encourag-ent of the client's need and right to make his own Chg 1Q es could create a potential source of conflict for the worker. kt ‘t:ii:mes, the worker might need to resist the urge to do for the client, and it might be a very difficult situation for the worker to hold back and allow the client to make choices which might prove to be mistakes, diff :lcult, nevertheless very necessary. In this decade Biestek noted that there were socio—economic QC) I‘d itions which were significant influences upon the practice of \ l8Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 13-17. o '..." . .4 o .... ' a. .2:- '-.eoe". ‘."..‘ '90. I’" a Jar: o.-? ‘5‘ .IT...LI“ :<:' 1.: ~‘ ‘3'" .s-3 g. .9 0: Y 5" ..- ."'£ 3‘ y. "" a".....- '- it‘ll?“ Ike: 5 He'e 1 :::.:i:a:i'.'e c.1e‘ ‘ - .Q. '...-J, A...'-‘. ,. "- ~-.‘. &54A 3... .- .0.“ I g I ,_. ‘7' “na- Mesa; -.’-'. 'I ‘ " P ‘.--. 4' - 1...: .4. .eugg.e. a ;" .III. ”3» ...: sccza. w ' v 'nZ' ‘- g“ ‘... “r 9 ': - :“‘ We Can. 15-h. n:.:: :r.‘e..t to it. ‘.. , I ~‘.‘ :T‘Jzess wire: 1'. \‘I. ‘ 'twsitatives of t ’..1- .r‘... afiu’,‘ I drsuacn' E. 13 Social work and which were very important to the development of the principle of self-determination. The first of these was the presence oflarge numbers of immigrants in the Country and their appearance in tmacaseloads of many social agencies. Social workers were called upon tp'work‘with many of the immigrants who had difficulty in making the adjustment to this Country, who faced language and cultural barriers, fiflIO were disillusioned and disappointed with their present life situa- tion. When they sought service from the agencies, they seemed to come "evdth.much reserve and even with distress." Social workers were tempted to assume the attitude that these uncommunicative clients had a greater need for instruction and direct guidance than for self-determination in regard to planning for their social and economic problem.19 Often social workers as they dealt with immigrants had an «Eifitztitude that reflected a feeling that it was a waste of time to bother to explain the social work process, and that it was quicker and far eélsier to Q :23 the client what the worker thought best. The clients t:<3<), often brought to the agency a lack of understanding of the "demo- <=5ITEitic" process wherein their opinions and decisions were sought by t:]bl:rk Have Brought Us," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 114. 24Leah Feder, "Early Interviews as a Basis for Treatment 1:ZLans," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 207. "'54;- ..’ I. Q ...-- u ,' O o' o: O"€' :1. 5‘ .'_,, . . L .50. . .Ae . ' .— "1 ‘ "5 .35. -~ " . _.~¢ 3:11:52 3“... (‘.... .. ‘ o'a-”““" ;.-: 'e02.- 5...! ‘ I g g 006‘" Lon" ‘- . b ‘.-A‘ I ‘ _.. 1:: 1: 5e tezsd I. .t . I. 1 v-~».-.o .O O-AaO-— [‘...-=9 .3. Sent B:SCOI , . . .o. .. .. c-.c~ < 1.1.2:in $330... 4 V I I CHI. «‘9‘.‘q.. .0 ‘ V uh: .-= .vubLbVJSA' 3 n . :imns in jetgar It, . ' I O ‘ \O of}. “'.~.. g” . "“ bI.&t-I.uds.hu . » I O.- I '- . o “-ua-o. .« ‘ 4. uvu‘ncbfiaa a»: A 7:5 future of 5.3.31 aazc'v21ea to e. :15 rigrf. : his}: . .ie :::ii:".a::s. ' 33:37:. 5L . . ..L.S€ rig}: 533,6 Y‘r 23.15 0?. I.“ ‘0 .I' ‘ N‘ I. :e ‘-fi-g I - V" at besee.;r.&: q- \ 64“ ‘ . y .53.. . " ‘ ‘A V“e l‘ .- ‘T. ‘5. ‘ . T. - I ‘ -.. ‘-..e a Q”. r” \ d hr. ‘ u i .. ~.. .“ -v H4~—q‘ I! ‘F‘ i ‘I l §u/' 9-- c I ‘ “ 27 . 56’s; ' ' ..‘-"-' “a C0 '. ‘.g. . "I, ‘a; D . ‘Afl oYZWT‘I-‘ ..‘_ 32 su_ . 36's; ‘.h ‘5. C ’ - .' 17 for what the client seeks is a first principle among caseworkers today.25 Other writers of this period noted both the problems and flmir resolutions had to be left with the client and that this client was the one who chose according to his needs and desires, how he would use his relationship with the worker.26 In the mid 1930's, one found the concept of client freedom beginning to be termed client self-determination. Bertha C. Reynolds maintained that self-determination was an essential requisite to the (:1 ient's personal growth and that unless this right was respected and unless one consciously worked to maintain it, that the future of social work was in jeopardy. Self-determination is thought by the social worker to be an essen- tial condition for growth toward maturity of personality.27 The future of social casework is the future of the right of common men and women to economic justice and civil liberties, including the right to think and to participate in the making of their own life conditions. If the commen men and common women fail to achieve those rights, no one will have them.28 Grace Marcus on the other hand, cautioned against the utiliza- t ion of self-determination as a hollow concept which might be used to \ 25Charlotte Towle, "Factors in Treatment," in Helping: %rlotte Towle fl Social Work and Social Casework, ed. by Helen lie~rris Perlman, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), 48-49. _26Laura A. Merrill, "The Case WOrker's Role in Treatment," 281- 282; Bessie E. Trout, "How Do We Come to an Understanding of Our Clients," 244; Marjorie Boggs, "Present Trends in the Case Worker"s Role In Treatment," 287, in Readiggs, ed. by Lowry. 27Bertha C. Reynolds, Between Client and Community, cited by ‘Iiii.estek, The Principle g£_Client Self-Determination, 50. 28Bertha C. Reynolds, "Social Case Work: What Is It? What Is Its Place in the World Today?" in Readiggs, ed. by Lowry, 147. 9" '1 '5’...‘ ".‘\ ~ :LVET over :7. o"';‘ 5- ‘ I ,. Q. ' :z: “-112.33'9 53 a ' ‘ o . nl?‘ ' . . u m. L. .32 .6.» ~ .. 5.1.5 Hxfiv, is if a. :' .fii .3. ’5... an be ”5_ .— :1 .:.a- ...'.’ . 't it 5 f: :. h. ..u ' '-.. .‘.‘oq'O'M c: i '. I. Oodoulh."“ 1:, tater: we ca: Z'TE'E uni 1:3- 3". :3 it” o. mset? s that we :1": ‘..."i"‘.£.al and ::;:2 :: re: :.se as a Bus tr" 1:: :7: ~I-o- ‘...;nts n."‘g 4: g ' $555.5 u ‘ : :.‘... _ " “nit—- 3f :.‘oe C32- =3- 33.1.13: .n he: a: It..:..' 3. 1:04.155"? 'dJse if”? :.’. ‘55-. Fe t:ic‘.;ati o..,' .,-. ..30 4.13:1. [25121 as he >- ‘~'~: Lsclated refer "£1333? 0f clie: .. 3’ n 3 a“ O& I 3 \t ‘ evei'Jtiau Vt. 9". ‘ v‘£.:~'- ‘ ' "maid the Fr 1%; .‘. u.‘ u , ““3 1115 or: 18 «Myert attention away from the fact that the social worker held a meat deal of power over the client. To a group who have so frequently been concerned to reform and rescue, it came hard to admit that the nature of man's mind, like that of his body, is determined, and that the course of its long evolution cannot be hastened or redirected to some magical goal. How difficult it is for us to accept this harsh truth is revealed by our distortion of it into the facile concept of "self-determina- tion," whereby we can relapse once more into comforting dependence on free will and by talking of self-determination as a "right," flatter ourselves that a fact which is often intolerably painful to the individual and to society, is still within our power to concede or refuse as a social benefit.29 As was true in the previous decade, one was able to see many of the concepts utilized within a given article while building upon the strength of the commonality of the theme of self-determination. Gordon Hamilton in her article, "Basic Concepts in Social Casework," interchangeably used the term "helping people to help themselves," "<=lient participation," "self help," "client consent" and "self- de termination . "30 Biestek as he had done for the decade before, brought together the many isolated references which appeared in this period referring to the concept of client freedom. He then summarized them in order to trace the evolution of the principle of client freedom. His sum- ‘IliaLry reinforced the professional belief of the client's right and ‘Dhiaeed to make his own choices and decisions and the demand for the 29Grace F. MarCus, "The Status of Social Case Work Today," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 130. 30Gordon Hamilton, "Basic Concepts in Social Case Work," in .Readings, ed. by Lowry, 155-171. ' -o '_..'."'4 _. o ‘ .#0 I. ;::.o-¢c.c.-. / 1 'en ‘5 '— '~ . IV“ 6 2: ”no ‘ 3. . .~ ._ po.‘ l.::t t..e ‘5 -. :.‘. :C El‘u' tie C —. o L. O :. as DC. a..e . £7353 315 C3? ' '..' -J . a... an“ to S‘ua't 2:5 .il attflf';’.€ ;;.‘;';~.-‘:il “ .....- ' :n to :- '..- 1,... F o “‘t “tr‘ESDsC'a C‘ ~~~-, 1:: was felt '5.- ’7‘ “7. Tue Genre ([7 (D h ’53: a: 355: S: :.‘;r 5;: " . '3 .1 Exfgers :. a ‘0‘ l:$.;‘;a: Pt "n. “d to . e. .c 15.. {Q q’f‘,» 3- " "“555. 1 ~ :I‘Su" «853-1113.: 3 is a tea:e:;::" t 2“ ‘ ”5 Ele‘H...q '...323 h: '19 social worker to respect, stimulate and encourage the ability of the client in self-determination. 1. The problem is the client's responsibility and remains so throughout the casework helping process. 2. He has a right to decide whether he wants treatment and how much of it. 3. The aim of the efforts of the caseworker, then, is not to make changes in the client's life, 4. But to give the client something for his own development which he was not able to extract from life by himself and which will increase his capacity to make satisfactory adjustments in his life and to solve his own problems.31 Biestek attributed the sharpening of the definition of client Self-determination to two major socio-economic conditions, the economic depression of 1930-1938 and the appearance of a new type of clientele to Social work agencies.32 The depression of this decade brought hardship to many in this Co untry and was felt by every person and every social institution in as one way. The depression saw large numbers of people having to seek $3 One form of assistance. With the need to work with large numbers of 1:145. 8&8, b the workers in public agencies especially, found that it was Q 1:511 expedient and effective to engage the client in the decision 'l‘iflLng process. A business-like approach to the client was adopted and there was a tendency to give the client more responsibility for making and executing his plans. \ 31Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 56-61. 32Ibid., 122-126. <::£]L 33Blythe W. Francis, "Gains and Losses," cited by Biestek, \\“‘-§Lent Self—Determination. .9 I o k 20 Gordon Hamilton noted that there was more of an emphasis in public welfare agencies of seeking the participation of the client beginning with the establishment of his eligibility and the presentav- tion of his claim. She concluded that one of the major contributions of social workers was in being sensitive to "peOple as human beings" and in helping them to manage their own affairs through provision of Opportunities and services to which they might chose to accept or de— CIine and by "consistently using. the principle of client-activity, Client-participation and client-consent."34 Also, Beatrice Levey stated in her response to the question: "HOW far should one go in the intake interview?" that it was dependent “POD how far the client wanted to go, what services the agency has a"ai1able for him to choose. She cautioned the caseworker to help the c“l":tellt to develop and use his capacities, "... but not to map out any one road for him, since she does not know what course he can or should put sue.'.35 That this change toward greater involvement of the client in thfi Q3 social work process represented a departure from the orientation Social work of the past was noted in two articles which appeared in I: 11% middle of this decade. In the first article Florence Hollis crit- 1Q ized the manner in which work relief was being used against —« not SQ b - the best interest of the client. She urged a consideration of 1‘ d:lvidual needs and a respect of the dignity and worth of the \ 3t'llamilton, "Basic Concepts," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 161—157. 35Beatrice Z. Levey, "The Extent of the Intake Interview,“ in M, ed. by Lowry, 177. .‘L 'P ‘ '...! ‘5 :c cam no - ‘.... .- ‘fl . §:0.!C ! L5 .5! ‘ 'I‘J 31:: .13 . . . c.-. - ' ‘1‘? wt 11:12: 1:39, the 2‘; 2.2133385 . I: foes ac: 1'1: 3:121:12 cons-:'.e: we .221: all I-‘C'r. as :: mageniegce ”.3. Us “:1“ 3: huge: prese: ‘ "'ga'et ""3 .55.3 ' 25:3! e"i:'e:t one: In the early *5 kale we‘re in : f3." 3 ignerame its Tney‘ .e‘. t {e mi L35 't Aid £983 '-.. :3: help 3.3,“ v we" case-'0: 2.; if (135;... DC’ flit Shficirg 3'? ‘7' "b “is 'E" 13:13.. ‘ we of the 3 "5 :3 mine a Si' ‘11: it U she: 1715?:ka is 5:; 1'3" “;:‘:‘z par SC- 9. ..:E - C. ‘a- “x‘:i (is u tang; Rich lea 21 individual in establishing such a program. Hollis wrote: Work relief has become a subject of much discussion in recent years. The use of it has varied from the hardened attitude that a man should be willing to do any kind of work under almost any conditions to earn his daily bread, to carefully thought out and executed plans for integrating work relief into the total family situation. . . . While there is perhaps something to the theory that it is better for the mental health of a person to be occupied rather than idle, the truth of this certainly varies according to the circumstances. It does not help a man‘s mental health to be occupied in work that he considers degrading even tho" philosophically he may believe that all work is honorable. Neither does it increase his sense of independence to earn his food if he is forced to do this against his will , 36 In a paper presented to the National Conference of Social Work in 1937, Margaret Millar developed Hollis' position by tracing the c‘3’II-trasts in the social work approach to working with clients as they have become evident over the years. In the early history of social work, it was believed that most peOple were in difficulty and unhappy through lack of Oppor— tunity and ignorance. The social workers attempted to meet these lacks. They felt responsible for behavior of their fellow man. . . Sometimes it did degenerate into a dictatorial: 'Do as I say or I ‘Vill not help you,‘ attitude on the part of the caseworker. . . . Then casework entered another phase: 'The caseworker would 1161p the client, not with her love or objective planning but through her understanding which he (client) would be enabled to utilize through his relationship with her'. . . . One of the favorite and most abused techniques of the past Was to analyze a situation for the client, clarifying for him his part in it and showing him how he should behave. . . . Now, the caseworker is studying the relative strengths of the client's conflicting personality and identifying himself with the more nature aspect, (is) able to give him encouragement in a line of behavior which leads to growth. \ Q v Q 36Florence Hollis, "Some Contributions of Therapy to Generalized QQ Work Practice," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 313. 1 37Margaret Millar, "Modern Use Of Older Treatment Methods," .Readings, ed. by Lowry, 345—351. -' " . —' ‘au 5 '...;c 1:. ‘3' C .no . --e ‘ 0’ . .ab' .-;' u, -40 ‘ '.-I‘ l 1.‘ -0 o '—‘ .r Tenn“ ':_1-. .‘ .' . 0‘ - . ‘--.-,4. .;,;. ‘..L‘ ‘5’-.. no.“ " ' :.I :22 253385533. so u" *s! It ._ , " nail ' ‘ u- v c "”“ e'ms A: has x 'tOVA‘.‘ . ~ - o of" ‘5'»... . L ~ «42..., .0! LC: .s:;-:se it is r. z: i: relatizn t. 3:145:11 132:... 37.5: to see the: “3.3;. ..... fliers of 5.; 1...:- -¢.',,; . .n. IDS-vhuatflc ‘.z Av. ' w .“GCKZ‘Q of "~' ‘ It. I 1 a p, L Q as ." _ .... Ioncrsz‘. :1'., - ‘83.; Mu‘ : ‘ 5‘. . r“ 3? .r.e 2 ; .- 22 Or as Marshall St. Edward Jones reported: In the midst came the depression of 1929. . . . A relatively new situation came into being - the situation in which those who received the relief had some voice in the actual conggol of the relief organization through the power of their vote. The second major socio-economic condition highlighted by Biestek in this period, was the appearance of a new clientele to the social agencies, one "who paid for service; and clients of a higher social and intellectual level, but who needed financial assistance during the depression. This new group of clients came for two major reasons, for financial assistance and for psychiatric counseling Service.ll39 Bertha Reynolds again wrote regarding this, that parents were s‘eekrlng service for themselves and their children and were coming, ”(pecting to pay for professional service. She concluded that: I suppose it is not strange that knowing clients as individuals and in relation to the more intimate aspects of their life, should bring increasing respect for them as persons. . . . And a wish to see them use to the utmost, and increase, if possible, their powers of self-determination. This trend has not been pecul- iar to psychiatric social work but has permeated to some degree the practice of high grade social work everywhere. Helen wallerstein in her article: New Trends in Social Work QQ D n ' eveloped by the Depression, reinforced Reynold s observation that th ‘5112e was a new type of client appearing to social service agencies IS ‘=:. 3:: help and that this new clientele allowed for and promoted greater \ T137I:l 38Marshall E. St. Edward Jones, "Case WOrk and Social WOrk: ‘3= Function of Social Service," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 542. 39Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 125—126. 40Reynolds, Between Client and Community, cited by Biestek, l§§:!25§3 Principle g£_Client Self-Determination, 126. \ ‘ I 23 Client participation. With appeals for aid coming from individuals on a higher social and intellectual level, the client is capable of entering more easily into a client-partner relationship. A change of doing things for the client, to helping the client to do things for himself through a mutual relationship has developed. The broaden- ing concepts of casework pointed to the caseworker allowing this type (that is the type of having a good capacity for adjustment) to contizue handling their own problems despite their financial depend- ency. The third socio-economic factor, or better yet, a political factor which seemed to influence social work was related to the events occuring in Western Europe under the leadership of Hitler. The tragic abbrogation of human rights abroad, caused social workers in the United States to re-emphasize the importance of human freedom, especially the right to make choices for one's self. Many wrote on the virtues of a participatory democracy and how this then could be translated into the social work process. For instance, Gordon Hamilton wrote: The case work idea must always be opposed to conformity, as it is opposed to dictatorship. It constantly moves away from patterns of authority-dependency and manipulation and finds its values again and again in the full consent and participation of clients in their treatment and of groups in their own activities. In 1939 Charlotte Towle wrote most eloquently on the nature of (1%; O(‘.racy as her response to the chain of events in Europe which were 1) Q Qoming more bloody and drew us as a nation, closer to war.43 5» 41Helen C. Wallerstein, New Trends in Case Work as Developed t:he Depression," cited by Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 126. 42Hamilton, Basic Concepts," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, 171. E Q ' 431t is interesting to note that Charlotte Towle who spoke so ‘1‘ thrightly in defense of the democratic system was herself to become § Qtimized in the 1950's by the abuse of that same system, when she was 11 Eject to a vicious attack by Senator McCarthy and his Red-Scare, witch “Q t. She chose to leave the country and to stay in England until she Q vindicated. O .. u a - .. ' ‘ '.~..._’ no ‘ vb. Q I 3 - .h I ‘ .i' “L- :.O: .5. “e ’... . ' O . . . v' “ O 3 'fl" [Cnu ’...» ~- ' J L U 0 ' ' . 31- flu.u ~ .... 2 :: 'T‘CSQ mo’o-', . .a-u-os “'.“" .. en'ho 'L‘V‘“ :.‘ 3" Iv I own-" I... .-~.:., 0 O 0 ’ I. l ... .. .ng- O~ a“; .enbasohuv :1::°.:i::s raj: :- 311531.”: 5:3:L- .. .. '3 . 1. a a Slat Ex 0' o...-.’.‘_-‘3’ p'. w _OQ'AIA‘ S 5.. ‘L .,.'.... ‘ . L' oA'G» A; 2....{27 92 33'; ‘33,: ." I agate“: 3.3 {>3 .-\~..‘ o ,5 «5-4. neec." ‘3‘ ll. tr .m..“" a 1-L, v... ..Q. ‘ ' .“e' 0 o 3:12.? 5 u v }"\II‘ - ‘ix. 0 “.26 h'.at 3 3 I',‘ n" I . -'~-« be als’f'e 24 "Democracy," she quoted Harris Rall, "is first of all a faith in man, his worth, his possibilities, his ultimate dependability. . . . Central for the democratic faith is the conviction as to the sacred- ness of human personality. Man is always to be treated as an end, never as property or a tool as Kant pointed out and as the prophets and Jesus made plain long centuries before. . . . " 4 Towle then went on herself to say: This ideal would be realized only through the operation of two principles, those of freedom and obligation. Man must be free. . . to struggle for mental and emotional survival; . . . to realize his own identity through searching truths and faiths that serve his purpose; . . . (to) give expression to his personality in deter- mining conditions of government and industry in order that those institutions may be dynamic in accordance with his changing needs, rather than static obstacles to change. . . . This freedom comes not as a gift nor through ruthless action but instead through the individual's struggle for insight and selfdmastery in both public and private life. For individuals and nations, the opportunity for self—determinationa therefore, is the only way to a realization of democratic ideals. 5 Although we may be discouraged by man's present inabilty to ful- fill the democratic ideology, such an ideology exists, in fact long has existed in one form or another. This brings conviction that the ideals of freedom, justice, obligation and the dignity of man inherent *2 this philosophy are expressions of man's psycho- logical need. As one examines the casework philosophy of today, one finds it is essentially a democratic ideology. The basic concepts of casework practice. . . have been democratic concepts in that they place the center of activity in the client rather than in the agency; they recognize that . . . the ultimate responsibility for his situation should be his(the client); they safe-guard the client from the intrusion of the agency,believing he can only function effectively insofar as he is granted freedom of choice. . . . Casework today presumably affords the client a democratic experience. \ ‘:E::JL.j7 44Harris Rall cited by Towle in Helping, ed. by Perlman, 216- 45T'owle,"The Individual in Relation to Social Change," in lEiL M, ed. by Perlman, 217. 461b1d., 218. 471b1d., 230-231. ,— '3 an! . ' . ‘- _-n “ . ’ .... nv“ck:x\ " _a" ~HQ. ye'. ' ;..»“ - _. . V .6 " fi‘. D- V“ to .A‘ .1. s“ M... .- 9 , d - ' Y ‘1'. :c C 1:: rob 12:11:; 3f t e F7 ’ V ~:—--:| se:eral 12“; ‘3“... “‘...: .9..-“ . —-....{‘ C...¢Cdse..u C‘ .. Q'idfr 'e.a°;::$' «:.'aszzec treatzc: #11:: 32:53 t'r-r " it". I... { ro _....:. .31: la" : w t ‘ 0t the {T' g“ .L.‘ . a. . .. ma £2;r.as:s :‘Jn c ‘- YEEC~ Ru':: ‘ V J‘ 'Vl i 3.1. .Y i::' ”‘V k"... {8,3 879‘ .t\SL..e' miles}- {‘985& S of tr " the ;:‘-Q “4.52 .38 C2: Lzent t. 25 These three socio-economic and political factors, the economic depression of 1930 to 1938, and the attempt of the government to im- plement economic and social programs to cope with the effects of the depression, the appearance on the social work scene of a new clientele ready to seek professional service and counseling and the threat to national freedom as well as personal freedom in the aggressive, violent expansion of the Hitler regime, served then as major external forces ufluich helped to mold and sharpen the concept of client freedom during the 1930's. As was mentioned earlier, there were a number of internal iséicztuors along with these external factors, which were also contributing to the molding of the principle of client self-determination. Biestek identified several including a new emphasis on treatment and upon the I:)]:"'—"1c1:ica1 application of theory as well as on the refinement of the Q1 lent-worker relationship. He noted that while social work prior to 1921 emphasized treatment, the decade from 1921-1930 was a transitional one during which thr profession turned its attention to treatment per Se and that from 1931 to 1940, the entire casework process, from the :i;‘:-‘:ir1ttial contact to the termination of the relationship, was seen as Chg totality of the treatment process. In this emphasis upon treatment, the principle of self-determination found an increased importance.Partially from their own observation and partially from the borrowings from psychology and psychiatry, caseworkers grew into a firm realization that treatment was im- possible, unless the client played the dominant role in it. One of the goals of treatment was personality maturity; and the ability of the client to make his own choices and to formulate his own plans in life was considered to be a means to maurity and a test of it. \ 48Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 127. .. -..:-' ' “if/.6 1 -~ ..'3$.Ek P“ EttrrLzus dezase 1 12:: salt-ceterzm ""‘Wv for tech >4- .--w L . ‘ . ooc.q'4-01- .. .- c.4~~A\.eo o 0 he of the : 2:25 and vigrrs; 1:22.23 of the cl $331131: of tie ; izt's autonccj: we. :22: 2f relations n- . ~= .‘rzter 8.50 CI Io~ .:i 4‘ 1'.“ :.‘... .P I; ' 1 . .. ..- u... 58““ ‘H-~H «.5 :ericd was the a 4: ‘u..3.". - l ‘ \f'twsjl DQZESLO‘ a h..' . I.i“ ‘5. "~ «1 direct vork 'l- I. Lien: as Hell I‘ 3‘. '» ‘- ‘.F"“-~_ o uc‘.”£'> 1' :r"v‘cv\ ' .. . _— - "s: "avo.’,| . r ‘5§V\u 4 I ‘h \‘1‘. Y 'e \‘f'fip ‘16 ‘ e v-._ ‘I h Q ‘81. 5‘ :‘.‘l “Let 'u‘ -, ‘ u. ' :. .‘J. ”an? “L ‘...4‘. a ' ”I .'- . . ‘6 in S\ ‘ “‘4'”: ,» ' «A as .‘. ' "Tier' _ ‘ Arnie: SG‘E “ 7?! I .91- 26 This refocusing of attention by social work on the treatment process caused the profession to seriously consider how then its basic philosophical concepts could be implemented into the treatment process and how this then affected the relationship between the client and the worker. As Biestek pointed out: The previous decade in a sense, felt the need to sell itself on client self-determination, while the present decade seemingly took the theory for granted and spent its energies in learning to apply it in practice... One of the most important developments of this period was the new and vigorous interest in the concept of relationship. The importance of the client-worker relationship spurred the practical application of the principle of self-determination, because the client's autonomy was recognized as an essential i2§redient of the concept of relationship; the two were inseparable. This writer also observed that there were many articles written during this decade which closely examined both the concept of relation- ship and client freedom as an important feature of that relationship. 50 Another internal factor which was observed in the literature 0 f this period was the awareness of the use of working with groups and 1 t3 potential benefit as a method of social work. Charlotte Towle “Q ' ted that direct work with groups could bring great personal benefit t3 the client as well as provide an example of democracy in action, \ 491b1d-. 127—128. 3L§ 50In Readings in Social Case Work, ed. by Fern Lowry, the fol- §§V1ng were particularly noteworthy: Herbert H. Aptekar, "The Conti- lety of Intake and Treatment Process," 217-224; Boggs, "Present Trends," W“ 6‘293; Harriet M. Bartlett,"Problems and Trends in Medical Social Nrk," 694-709; Florence R. Day, "Changing Practices in Case Work Elfiatment," 331-343; Trout, "Understanding of Our Clients," 243=248; QQanor Heustaedter, "The Role of the Case Worker in Treatment," 294- 1 I s..- 3...». -4L... 5. .. 1 0 we "' .e' <‘ "‘..- a A... ‘ O ‘0. .‘ -" '... ‘ _,.4“ a! . -“-\.I.L‘ O . ‘C'en .. ' Mo-u.r,‘v :.': ... ‘... 5” 33 relationships, homes, neighborhoods, and nations in which human beings may live out their lives and develop their full potentialities as free peOple. That all this be positive rather than negative in approach, add the scientific bases of our sources of knowledge and methods, and we shall in due course develop a statement of philosophy around which we can rally, that scientists respect, and the public can understand. ' With so many different influences which appeared to challenge social work toward divergent ways, it nevertheless still affirmed the concept of client freedom or self—determina- tion and sought to refine this aspect of its philosophical base in keeping both with its heritage and its commitment. Some of the earlier labels still continued in use, such as "participation in plan.making," "self help," and being "free to make decisions" but Biestek observed that these phrases were used less frequently. As self—determination became the most commonly used term, the philosophy and rationale behind the principle came more clearly into focus.64 Helen Harris Perlman in writing of this period in the life of Charlotte Towle commented that Miss Towle saw self-deter- mination as a "major desideratum“ in the basic assumptions of social case work. In her writings, Towle was able to trace much of the principle‘s evolution in the decade of the 1940's. In 1941 as America was on the brink of WOrld war II, she wrote about the nature of the principle of self—determination and how it should be implemented in.practice. 63Leonard W} Mayo, "Basic Issues in Social Work," cited by Bruno in Trends, 370v37l. 64Biestek, Client Self—Determination, 143-144. :.‘...‘O' ' . I ~' ' ,. .1; ‘é::”._ . A e.‘. ‘... - u‘ . O . ...-"~".v 5: .e .---"---o ' aunh ‘.c Etc: '5? I...--A ‘v .. .0" . ’ A - ' A I. H 3E 3.2 “t. L d I V I0- Q p 0' w in. gas-v seq“. _b. n " 'd. 5. ' I;Oh“3-." “ly‘ “0:--5‘5'. g-o-.. ’. 9 -~-\' n h! (I I f. (l ('3 ‘J I? "o I) (*‘u v .. Q.‘ . I ' 3"""‘\ a0. “""-a4\..-resé In... .~ .- ” fl‘-O 5 - ,l- “ d.“a~e . In " . “.3 ‘ as A... ' H‘ a... .‘ .— ‘v-q.‘ ’...-_- >"~-~‘ O“ ”4 _‘,;‘a 3 .. s .L..., Y '4' ' . .. w.) :_ .l ’ 'o¢:‘.C :.’-0.; . . “‘..z‘ “ I" _. - . e 5; l.eb.‘c ‘ "~e .‘V. C» 1.433“: f ‘0 Vito; ‘k‘: ‘- .‘*\ 9Q , It .Cy~:Cl.:C‘ " I. n O ~e a -;' . 34 A commonly accepted idea in casework practice is to the effect that the casework relationship should offer the individual the opportunity to be self-determining. Dedicated to this idea - an idea which is greatly reinforced by the trends of the times in which we are defensive of this right - many of us lose sight of the responses which clearly indicate that some individuals are unable to use the relationship in this way. We have learned that when this opportunity has been imposed it may constitute an authori- tative demand which the individual may be unable to meet; and if so, he may react with resultant hostility, anxiety, and the response that may vary from aggressive demands to a collapse into abject dependency. Thus we may do the individual more damage in the long run. . . . Accordingly, the skilled worker is endeavoring to meet the individual where he is in terms of capacity to carry responsi- bility in any area whether it be in responding within the int 5- view, expressing feelings, or initiating and effecting plans. The overauthoritative tendency of young or inexperienced workers to routine and exhaustive inquiry emerges frequently from their need to know in order to feel adequate and capable of helping. The overauthoritative tendency to instruct, to guide, to tell, even to dictate may be produced by a need to reassure themselves as well as others that they have something to give and probably will subside when they are more secure in professional knowledge and skill.66 In 1945, Miss Towle, being the master teacher which she was, auxempted to wrestle with the problem of the use of authority especially asit.related to working with delinquents. How could work with delin- mmmts'be reconciled with the principle of client self-determination? flue appeared to be a clash of the philosophical ideal with the ever Inesent, practical reality of implementation. She focused on the pur- pose of authority, that is, what the basic goal of the agency was mud to be, and how the social workers could use that goal constructive- ly'within the framework of self-determination. She began by pointing out that as social workers: 65Charlotte Towle, "Underlying Skills of Casework Today," in Helping, ed. by Perlman, 79. 66Ibid., 86. - ; . ‘ " ’ - .. .a-: :.‘e I ... --.- u‘ n - ...-«6'56 .- V r";": ‘3 b- .. ‘ §.o-'. ‘ ‘ s, _o‘ .‘ . r. V‘ ‘ ...-w" ' C". :- .-~-"' .". v -' ‘ -4- '. .: l :43. ‘.‘4. .. ...." g . ... 9' .";". '4‘..~ 1213?: who 7&5 . :. .‘----S"“' ‘.- V“ -' 0““ -‘.5 . .....‘: arteries: 1 O I 9 ..F Y ' . V“ _- . a-w" .n‘lEAS) -" ... ... ' ' 5—: i .‘mv."' " --....»A' ,. ‘0‘...»1 L V. ...3.)! (M?! US t .:-I. g‘ - ’ a .....e: fink-an :Y~Y: Hithia 8 2222113331 “‘6. ;:ssi':ilities i: in: social :52; :2: to t" iiutificaticn '.' .1...“ 9 5.» ~'-" ‘ “5’ bbth‘lA.‘ ;:;‘.".:".'a‘ ha ~ A S c. $-v‘g ‘..I to eh-C ‘- '_- ..., . ‘ m:.LrL’ a c*ar‘ 9‘ ‘ '...: 'Qath "F 9 ..5‘ . 4: 35 we must help the individual in such a way that the demands of society as conveyed through a correctional agency, may become sufficiently desirable that he himself regulates his behavior. . . . It is clear that one must accept and maintain our identity as representatives of the law and at the same time extend to the individual help which may become desireable to him because he feels our kindly purpose, or understanding, and our respect for him as a person who has an identity other than that of the offender.67 By focusing on the total person as the unique individual, whose past behavior brought him into conflict with the law, and which has represented only a portion of his total life experience, Towle then mfl:about to delineate how authority could be used as a constructive tmfl.in the hands of a skilled worker rather than it become a negative, crawling experience for the client who in this case was a "delinquent". They (workers) may then come to use the authority of the agency in the supportive judgements of society objectively and effectively because they use them now in response to the individual's need rather than from their own need to punish and condemn. . . . Within a well planned and constructively administered correctional system, we would do well to note the therapeutic possibilities inherent in helping the individual learn to live within social limits. . . .As he is thus understood and encouraged, he may come to feel different about authority and may move into identification with the worker's attitudes towards social restric- tions, gradually making them his own. This will occur when the individual has considerable capacity for relationship, considerable capacity to endure denial, and a relatively active conscience- in short, a character structure which enables him to come to grips with reality.68 The year 1946 found Charlotte Towle writing in recognition of Hmafact that social casework was only one part of the social work Inocess and that each part was affected by the presence or absence of adequate social resources and opportunities, by the skill and knowledge twee of the profession and by the community's attitude towards helping 67Charlotte Towle, "Underlying Skills of Casework Today," in Helping, ed. by Perlman, 79. 681bid., 93l95. C3- ‘ .. Intuit! . — ..c n0 .5. Er '- '. ...-9 ‘ by :.a;-ie4 :" ' '..-. ..--0. o ..1"“ a: :..e 2- :__‘._--u o' . v "J '1 3,25 :. ‘a'b au- *‘ J" est ablis': 37.2.2.3 and EC" ”‘....J‘. ani fat 3.5 3? "you..." ;-12&:.E’...’.3‘. - l' 9 . -.:..: x bragh. u axial assists. 0' “I D ‘ ' -w .r'. .it-ze':. re :2E’ 30:: to ";".AOL. -l'- H '0:- .6 ..Je ?...‘ S yanu‘ . I v ‘ I '---=--. 83:16:? U321; 4 5 4.2"-.. :80... co. 8 OFT-e- O .2 this sane a: 1;? - . -‘" --le 4‘ bu_. .“ '1: t .- ...‘2; 335' as l Pfgf i”: "W3. ‘Iu.-..g...? in a--. ir- :':"‘ m l I.“ " A s ‘ i 5 3.32:: 4 ""1”. k .:.::::‘1, ‘ “3) were 3.‘ ‘4‘ h..‘ mtg: Sn '?0 Vig~€ a: :pyal, ". .' ‘ . ‘35.: Me Q lam lea'ned h 3:1 gape:;e3::‘. I :‘lsofl. ’ i“5 ”3" SC 211303, 3' leg. ..5 'm.ln::e: \’ ed by by: {/I‘ ' ”fin 13: 36 the less fortunate. She expanded the' concept of community to include the whole world by making an appeal to the United States to participate in the formation of the United Nations so that as a nation we could: . . . promote social and economic measures that will remove the causes of war and thus check any threat of aggression; a program that will establish a system in which business management, labor, agriculture and government together provide fair employment, fair production, and fair employment practices. In this framework it is inevitable that social services and social welfare measures should be brought up to date to assure . . . adequate financial and medical assistance, vocational and educational Opportunity to every citizen regardless of race, color, and creed.69 She went on to say that social work was a profession which was committed to the philosophy of the creation and deve10pment of a democratic society which would afford every indificual opportunity for the maximum development of which he is capable.70 In this same article Towle also reviewed the nature of the pro- fessional commitment to the concept of client freedom or self—deter— mination; how as a profession, social work was learning to use respon- sible authority in appropriate ways so as not to violate the respect of each man's dignity and worth; that these desires of each man (to be self determining) were normal and basic human needs which ultimately traced their source and foundation to a society which was committed to social justice. We have learned how to be supportive - that is, how to use authority, meet dependency, impose demands, and convey moral judgement in a sustaining way so that the individual may become more self-deter— mining or, at least, less self—destructive in his behavior. . . . a w ‘ f f Vv 69Charlotte Towle, "Social Casework in Modern Society," in Helping, ed. by Perlman, 98. 7OIbid., 1oo. kn ~ . ,..-, 1n tree :. A ,-'.».,_-; T't' :35 seat" 7'“ ' ' la." '-- 5" ...". ...: x ‘ ‘3 '~ ...... .0 ‘:":“ t ‘— u- 'x..:.v... I. r A O P" .'~e ”1: 9 2" .605 .- ‘ .'_... :-' .....- Q~F ‘ I I I ;..‘...:y "“"‘ . . .,. a; 1538 to ‘54.- -_.:-~ "' "5 -o-E a ‘ ,;. no} 5" , . . 00’.‘ ‘ ’ .... . - t .— :..:. :EZSE C. 3.; . .y o n . ": 115315.165 a..- :f the. Re knit ' Q a qa-5Qp‘...‘ '5‘ bokoe‘o. I- A .'; “I ...Q-nn~ E H.’ V ‘ 5....ch . IO.‘ 0' .V;, ' and. .38 bunt: .4 9'“ ‘,"3n n. r” to»... a. - In, A ' _ 5 5.. .-.: .... Ngaal C'-..‘,,._. I s. . ‘Vab ‘ fl..- .... rhk~e¥¥.—: --; . , u. b W. .. 6" eh} k. ‘ ‘ o. t J." ’* :.‘... . 3’ 5.. rgx...‘ :ep"'1."‘v C ‘4‘Cs‘ o. C 37 In the process of becoming what is today, social case- work has developed certain characteristics and working principles which bespeak its philosophy. . . . First a deep conviction to the individual worth of man which implies that he has to survive on satisfying terms with himself and the world. What are satisfying terms? Granted individual references by and large his normal wants are: the right to manage his own affairs, which implies the opportunity to learn, a chance to work, and desire to marry and establish a family. He wants, furthermore, a participating and contributing part in the life of the community. These are basic needs, and when he is denied the requisite oppor— tunities for normal life, he is deeply frustrated, with resultant damage to his personality growth. . . . Thus, in helping, we do not impose our wishes, needs, stand- ards, sense of values, but instead we try to understand the indivi- dual's wishes and strivings to help him solve his problems in light of them. we know that social justice implies treating 'unequal things unequally ' and we find it difficult to be helpful when this is not possible.’1 On a national level, this same call to social justice appeared at the 1948 National Conference on Social WOrk when Dr. Julius Schreiber postulated the belief that the prevention of mental illness or converse- ly, the promotion of mental health, was dependent upon the following: The social conditions necessary to insure mental health require the full protection for ALL citizens of: . . . "The right to the safety and security of persons; the right to citizenship and its princi- ples; the right to freedom.cf conscience and experience; the right to equality of opportunity."72 Returning to Miss Towle's 1946 article, she concluded that the ¢degree of self-determination was related also to the function of the iagency as well as to its structure in the exercise of professional re- f3ponsibility. The social worker needed to understand the inter-rela- tedness of social casework, social research and the newest of social work IIlethods, community organization. 711b1d., 105-106. 72Julius Schreiber, "Political Implications of Mental Health," cited ‘lt329'Bruno, Trends, 407. . ' s’ _ , "f ....“ .5... .I' he Ie ‘.‘h‘ A—‘E ' ' ‘ ,.' '- w-zeet that '- D " _.'..'-\ns’ 5”: I ‘ ‘ “:5: 0&5 ’5 ... .‘ ..vh ‘ C n v"' . '... Q ‘_. ‘ d .- s'L. -5 “.3‘” ' - .,,...«:..:¢~.a1 ‘ ,r ' ‘ n 9-" “...- Y ...-c :‘J', I‘ ...-2. ....3- - - ...-:.hLo to be 503 .-L... .. I l' . ...u -‘1'5""e. ~ g... 7'»: ‘5‘ , H t _. 9.- p... I‘- ."~”‘ .3“ .4. ...: u»- ...t..- :w.»-ve of the a 5;:_=.. we.:are pp: . .... I‘ an. aunt! wn-‘ -... . tIU . u . - u. an..- O ma-«-~ 4 né;.u55 30“- '3 :cse a2: egress < -.." -w ‘.’ - ' " ' «Ki 41:1 {7.8 "H 4-.2.’...';_ 1 u ’ " 1" Ni.’ . * .A-Hai‘k'd‘ . t \-..'~ xh‘ ’9 In... - 5 . akk’ :.‘“... ~~V :.‘ l "m-atlve 8‘3 5... .'. , a: “:3 81:22:... " A n V ' by ‘5 a ViolaOu ... 5 ‘&n It the saze a 38 Can we serve individuals best in a few focal points or should we try to meet their need whenever it presents itself? . . .In making these decisions, we may find . . .first, the function of the agency is important. Does it exist in order to promote the welfare of the individual whom it serves, . . . or does it exist to serve other ends? . . .In the latter instance, can the setting sustain work oriented to the needs of the individual, i.e., respect for his right to be self-determining; protection where rehabilitation is not possible; maintenance of the confidential relationship so that his confidences are not used against him? . . .Second, the structure of the agency is a decisive factor. Granted an avowed social welfare purpose, are the agencyis policies, regulations, and provisions so constituted as to express respect for the worth of the individual, that is understanding, acceptance of individual difference, and a desire to help him help himself or to protect him against himself? Do they instead belie the social welfare pur— pose and express disregard for the worth of the individual in harsh judgenent and an inclination to humiliate, deprive, or punish him? . . . Implicit in this discussion, is the relationship be- tween social casework, social research and community organization.73 In 1948, Towle recognized social reform as "the very core of mmial work" and "the very core of social work is the rehabilitation of the individual."74 A basic acceptance of the social reform motive, that is, the re- habilitative goal in social casework, is occurring as social work- ers increasingly see it as meeting human needs rather than fear it as a violation of man's right to self-determination.75 In the same article, Towle identified four general practices ‘vhich she felt should govern the helping relationship. Two of these (lirectly dealt with the principle of self-determination in that they EBet forth the responsibilities of the social worker to stimulate,.to the greatest degree, the fullest participation of the client. These four principles in effect are to comprise then the essential nature 1‘ 73Tow1e, "Social Casework in MOdern Society," in Hel in . 113; llu4. ___JL_Ji 74Charlotte Towle, "Casework.Methods of Helping the Client to ”[4allm Maximum Use of His Capacities and Resources," in Helping, 121. 751b1d., 122. ' r ‘ ...- . ,. $"*_.!.é§ " “u . . ‘ .' .... a. 1.:’\ 4... ; ... -.. “B ’....- . .... ‘ - :-........ 1. .. _',£ -trc“‘c“* a .' .. D‘Ap . b:;..~u undo...» ' c '9' ;¢\. "‘5, .€.€...-L... . 1- l‘na‘v'e '- 23.th wreath ‘- ' . z . ,i a ...-... or n: .3550-...E. . U I ... pa...‘ Dr'- :5. “lbs-.1 .. . "v‘:-:o:0 .. I. .1: n. I. “‘t '6. eat 5:. “ _ ”A. R "- 93-3“? 2'1 ——_~._ Q...“ t!- ‘-:.=’ 1 h———— a I ...l' h h toot. t~ Ll ' K ul- . " -{tg .-. I... :‘ Wc.:s a ‘a.. ~ —~:.af‘,_e ....“ F".-:.‘ ; .' 'L.‘.Al - 0‘ . 3 . dej§ea‘ L Pa . _. 5 B» -et;, ‘5 the “'..(lfi e “’ ‘ : Q ~""0 :e‘A-:e: '- 'u'. .' ~ 0 ‘1 ‘A .. . “Na. 11% e . "2‘ “‘.1.‘ M- . h 5. “' v. ‘7 ' A ‘ "M . y. "I ~4.. .. ' 0‘ L; ‘ . ....eg .. . . \J‘ 3c.‘a, . ‘4 L‘- "o. ‘ ‘1 E“ 5.11.? :_ : ‘ ‘Ln a t A 5.1: : \I .t v.5‘ ‘ ' , ,. n "‘u Ce-.. “ t o. 1::. 's \‘U . k ,E‘En;_‘.‘. un.“‘c ‘-“ § .“ 7,“ n. v ‘L F 1. «I, ‘ I ~ ‘3 ’11} I l . ~ 310...: . Jazr;:..‘ us:‘ .A"' n 5‘ v‘ 3 a Y ’ ‘14 .1 39 of the clientdworker relationship, one basically committed to the principle of client self-determination. l. The dependency of the client has been met freely on the assumption that normally unmet dependency produces helpless- ness, resentment, anxiety and confusion, which in turn beget further depencency and social incompetence. 2. The caseworker has affirmed and helped the client use his strengths through making it possible for him to talk freel , participate in speaki_g, planning and doing throughout. 3. The client has not been threatened or put to route _y_unrealis— tic demands as the imposition of the worker's standards and goals, by pressure for information beyond that essential in order to help, by premature interpretation, or by the worker's need for relationships beyond that sought by the client. This implies also that effort will be made.to relieve adverse cir— cumstances operating against the attainment of self—dependence. "fi' 4. Certain demands of the reality situation have not been ignored. Instead these demands have.been focused on and the client help— ed to meet them. As the profession sought to deal with the question of how to implement selfvdetermination in casework.practice, it also became the task of social work educators to crystallize the concept so that it Hugh: become a part of the professional educational preparation of socia1.workers. To that end, Towle prepared two papers which were Cmmbined in the article: "The Distinctive Function and Attributes of Social Work."77 In there, she summarized as one of the outstanding lféatures of social work, the principle of helping clients to help them- £3elves, that in fact, clients were expected to help themselves. By 111118, it would seem to mean to Towle, that the principle of client ‘Egialf—determination had come into full profesional approval and fi ‘1' 76Ibid., 124. (emphasis added). 77Charlotte Towle, "The Distinctive Function and Attributes of SC>cia1 Work, " in Helping, 234—242. . ..‘ ;. ’...;g sscad a s ' ' it‘" “ ‘...a‘ b\-K ‘ .. ...»O .. ’ A v grates: 1n 03- . Q ' - .,.. - N" “d A 1:556:35. ‘- .» 0': to Jean-e: . mrk are . a . ..vo-.:..bq‘. 1‘. ’. .(......$..Uu ». 5.. ...-.... a. a... ' H 2-13:5; » ..18. t a:=:a::e by 0:13 Q- 1 . .... :.' A 0' ‘ ‘-:~uo‘0 bettee ‘ . : I Q l u. u v- ‘ I n'v- ‘ :«uoy. V‘ fi‘EAv cot; . I . . D '1: -0 . ' " 'O :- '.... " ‘ ...-... .... d 3 ..- ...“... .....- 311211 3:388Y9C n“ .. .::I. He put t'r.-. ‘7“ " ”’1' 4" u. !c .. ....u “an, up! "‘-"1331?18 as we" ..a : ...: . . ‘ ‘..- n .fl..3ua.e :.‘.a: ... . a "~-\ ~. ... 5:7" Years 1."? 40 recognition and should have full professional acceptance. . . .Social work is singular (in) that its helping relationship is different in certain respects from that in other professions. Individuals by and large do not expect to educate themselves, to heal themselves, to conduct their legal affairs without counsel, or to get to heaven without benefit of clergy. The recipients of social work are expected to help themselves. While the active participation of the recipient of services increasingly is being stressed in other professions, still the need for help has full acceptance by both recipient and community. . . . Social work to a peculiar degree is charged and charges itself with the respon— sibility of helping people to help themselves. As he did for the decade before, Biestek drew together the many scattered references and inferences regarding the concept of self-deter- mination which appeared in the professional literature from the period 1941 to 1950. He put them into a framework upon which then the pro- fession could draw. Here he was able to set forth the basic rationale of the principle as well as the guidelines for effective implementa- tion; a rationale that was to become the subject of intense scrutiny in the twenty years which were to follow and guidelines which were to be examined, refined, re-interpreted, applied and re-evaluated as the profession of social work attempted to become one most responsive to the changing needs of its clientele, the changing methods and means of service and the changing times as well. Sufficient, at this point, is the reiteration of the principle of client self-determination as Biestek identified it in the literature of social work from 1941 to 1950, recognizing that it had drawn upon the writings of the previous decades as well. 1. The concept of client self-determination is opposed to the exercise of an authoritative, reformist role by the case- worker wherein things are done £g_ the client and wherein 781b1d., 239-240. w .. e I '.llu bl. 5.! ...-H.- \I 41 the caseworker imposes his own goals, solutions, standards of behavior and morals upon the client. 2. The concept of client self-determination is based upon the following beliefs; a. b. that the human personality has inherrent strengths and powers for growth and change. that clients have a RIGHT to solve their problems in their own wayand to make their own decisions and plans. that clients have a NEED to have this right recognized and respected in the casework helping situation. that this right and need are common to all men, to the poor and less fortunate as well as to the rich and more fortun- ate. 3. Casework, therefore, helps the client to clarify, stimulate, and activate the client's potentialities for self—help, self- reliance, and self-direction by helping him use the available and appropriate resources of the community and of his own personality. 4. Casework help denies any "pat answers in the back of the book" and abstains from exerting strong influences or pressures on the client's will.79 What has emerged then, is a summary description or as Biestek refers to it, a "minimal definition" of client self-determination which is based on the propositions that: the client has a right and need to be free in making his own decisions and choices; that this right of freedom has a number of limitations placed upon it, limitations due to the client's capacity for using this freedom of self-determination, limitations of law and authority, limitations due to agency function, services provided and operating structure, and limitations due to unwritten community standards. Finally, the social worker has a duty and obligation to respect that right of self-determination both in 79Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 147-150. . i u ' 'e :.‘". ‘ .- ...ge :e» ‘ ‘.- : o I! Do- "..q. q »: I-s s‘“‘ l. . . 21:5” ear 11> ' ..- tun " Ant. in . L: . :..:.i:€‘ bu . .6 . ix?- 5’35 1 -C :.- :1::e:t::i"‘n 0‘ 5.x In. nestek afisermc‘. ‘N o. " . W's... ‘. .... r .‘N‘v 7'er y-i‘ 11‘6“» ‘A .- .1 C ‘.v. ‘~.‘ a‘fid u~:‘ g - "Kstr; t. 5“. c x . "\C "t a r ' k~~9rfer a V, s ‘z ‘ 42 theory and in practice, by refraining from any direct or indirect interferences with it and by positively helping the client to exercise that right . 80 There yet remains to be discussed the two topics which deal with the importance of the principle as viewed by the many writers over this thirty year history and the limitations to the principle which were recognized during this same time. On the surface it may seem that these topics are not compatible with one another, however, this writer views them as related. The recognition of the importance of the prin- ciple represents the thesis or the ideal proposition to be maintained, and the recognition of the limitations becomes the antithesis or the reality factors which interfere with the attainment of the ideal. In the first period under consideration, that is from 1921 to 1930, Biestek observed in the literature that one was able to conclude that the principle of client freedom was highly respected and valued. He noted that it was only when there was the free and active participa- tion of the client in the decision making process, that only when this occurred would the more fruitful results be achieved. Client freedom was important in both theory and practice because "it promotes the effectiveness of the helping process."81 Biestek drew upon the statements of prominent social work prac— tioners and writers for supporting evidence of this concept. Mary Richmond he found, referred to client freedom as "the policy of all others" and one of the foundation stones of the social work philosophy. 801bid., 190. 811bid., 19. I J... ... 4' ..-... ’62:.ec' -- -; ... ‘ v .... O n'. 0" -" .' ;;:.e._.z 54- -‘ a ‘r ' 0L :-'._J ‘ . ,c..-~ " .- I I ' "I“..w'i'.‘ -. ." ' '.0' . t .— . . -....--‘~“-“ ‘ . . I . _ ... ' w. . z' ' "1.": a" E" ~. rob‘ » I. ;' z: . ...: u --""L . .. .-. :...;: ‘.5 stressed. \u. ‘ t I‘ p. m ‘ c -.~ ~. T-‘A: . -... v.12 that 2. -~..',:. I - a9 ' ‘M 8:50.... 0 "‘u.‘ ‘h v. nu \ _ . “‘... a . -.sh .t “A“ .... a, 3‘ I ‘... V. ...et' 3"" , . D - 9 g NE. " I : . 1.. FA ' I\;.. .. ._3 ...I .‘ \ ‘ . ’ ..., . *E 9 H ‘4' L “. I‘l‘ N ‘ ’.... \ h. _C n \ 43 Mary A. Cannon called it "a principle inherent in social work," and Irma Mohr regarded it as one of "the fundamentals of casework." Karl deSchweintz saw it as being at the root of one's philosophy.82 In the period 1931 to 1940, Biestek noted that the social work literature seemed to have taken the importance of the principle of self«determination for granted; that it was more concerned with the means and circumstances by which it might be applied; that it was noted as having raised particular difficult in certain settings. Nevertheless, he maintained that: Its necessity for effectiveness in treatment, usually considered in terms of the client's growth and per— sonality is stressed. ."83 Again Biestek drew upon the statements of leading social work theorists and practitioners as support for this position. Bertha C. Reynolds wrote that self—determination was thought to be "an essential condition of growth toward maturity of personality." Grace Marcus identified it as "one of the cardinal convictions of casework" and Harriet Bartlett referred to it as "the fundamental casework concept." Client freedom so conceived, was viewed as the essence of the casework process, concluded Biestek.84 . a T ‘r V vw 82Richmond, Social Case Work, cited by Biestek, Client Self- Determination, 19; Cannon, "Underlyind Principles," in Readings, ed. by Lowry, l9; Irma Mohr, "Training Apprentice Workers in Rural Agency," cited by Biestek, Client Selvaetermination, l9; deSchweintz, Helping People, cited by Biestek, Client_Self—Determination, l9. 83Biestek, Client Self—Determination, 50. Reynolds, Between Client and Community, cited by Biestek, Client Selvaetermination, 30; Grace F. Marcus, "Social Case Work and Mental Health,“ cited hy Biestek, Client Self—Determination, 51; Harriet M, Bartlett, "Emotional Health and Illness," cited by Biestek, Client Self-Determination, 51. . 15.‘ '0 the :e:aie ‘1 . . .\ ~““" .- :‘13‘. fifth ab‘c.’ o’" ‘ A‘ N' ’ :is Vu ' .E‘: ‘- 0e ‘ 'J.Jea:3:os :: » O; 5" '2‘: ....- '. fl" ""3 ... ‘the C: _u DUO'e' 5 3‘ -‘ the prefessi: 2:51: and tears ’ :5 self- -:eter :31: : spec: 213: 1:12: .1121: $15? 'he "ran .. 21:5 "‘ H‘Av . .... 2.3,? Per, :51"...- I. ... ‘41 goals 1: :.'“. 1‘ ”a“?! 3198'. 2:8 ‘..iic‘ :.'; 2...... I 53;." " 9' 4e. ‘32 hip-31a: ~ . ' C ‘.A: “"ESS{ an OD“ . ‘ ‘32 Casey-ca L 34: vor't‘ng . a fuajmnta. a h- V UaSic pve- the ESSQ‘W :e a Le? C3n:e: I W ‘ In: C‘ .. b‘t c I” 1.. n ”riot; :.'; “t“ I‘. A “v \‘be‘ by B...- 44. In the decade 1941 to 1950, as was noted earlier, the profes— sion of social work accepted the importance Of leaving the client free to make his own decision and choices. It also recognized that while there were limitations to this freeddm, it never challenged "the generic concept of the client‘s freedom."85 Here again, utilized the ‘writings of the professionals to support this conclusion, Biestek noted that such.writers as Henrietta L. Gordon wrote: "Under the philosophy of selfedetermination of the client, practice . . . must spring from respect for the essential dignity of human beings."86 He noted that Gordon Hamilton had written the following regarding self— determination: "Any ability to help others effectively rests on respect for the human personality — on the person‘s right to make his own life, to enjoy personal and civil liberties, and to pursue happiness and spiritual goals in his own ways."87 Finally, Biestek drew together from the many sources a series of statements which had been made during this decade which he felt described the importance accorded the principle of self—determination by the profession. In the casework literature it has been called: our working philosOphy; a fundamental premise; a basic premise; the essence of social work; a key concept of social casework; a fundamental part of the philosophy of casework; f v V‘r 85Biestek, Client §elf—petermination, 144, 86Henrietta L, Gordon, "Discharge:- Aanntegr l Aspect of the Placement Process,“ cited by Biestek, Client §elffDetermination, 144. 87Gordon Hamilton, "Helping People v The Growth of a Profes- sion," cited by Biestek, Client Self—Determination, 145. ~v‘ ‘. .. ...‘ov-~"‘ ‘ . I. . ..;¢ --" ‘ ”F _: ”.-.- . ..fl on ‘ " .t--;.3 »-." p . - P '... -..-; v :— “L“-.. p . a. bu-s ....-8 6“- , - . ...> '..- the r7 .1 -....- I3: -... u .. - ... a O D , ' u 9“..- v... V —‘-- -. -lo .- -' z-‘pu..'-:.... M 9', "“‘: J v ... ,' ' C v- :"_0 Q. “. ’1‘ VZ . v. ““ ~» ‘1 -,_ ; ‘ -~.-‘ 0 "W: 3. HE. G' -U- a... ”‘an ‘: - . .“b'ae .-.-:.‘; - ‘. LET"? m. ' -a. ‘..e n. c‘ ‘ ‘u ‘.‘ u \ '0. . - ---. s. ~ ‘ A.‘ ..- ~f“‘A“;ec ’2: v |-. 1 5., .. ‘.L “'... ', c a -..a- an: 5" 4, -. . .‘ ‘-.._ . ‘-4..- ‘- ~¢-us {-eszh- - 5 ~ 4.=~- .v . \- ‘\‘ ‘v ...,a S \. C'D : ‘ . C o s) .e he “N" "1. ‘ "‘- .n ““4: 3 "'1 \'.‘ 1 \ti’ .' . ‘ ‘ figs H I). 4'5 ‘.e 45 an essential characteristic of social casework; a basic, generic aspect of social casework method, transferable from one to another agency or setting.88 Throughout the thirty year history, the highest possible value is placed upon client-freedom in casework; it would be difficult perhaps impossible, to imagine how its value could be assessed any higher.89 During this same thrity year period in which the concept of client- freedom was in the process of becoming the concept of client self-deter- mination, many writers were aware of the theoretical and practical prob- lems pertaining to the full implementation of such a concept. In the period of 1921 to 1930, when the principle was still in the earliest stages of development, it was seen to be an ideal to which there were limitations, limitations which appeared to impose or infringe upon this right. These limitations were related to those which.were necessary in every type of social living; those related to the unique capacities and capabilities of the client; those which were related to the levels of intellectual and emotional functioning of the individual and to the limitations necessitated by practicality or reality factors.90 Questions were being raised by social workers as to the feasi— bility of the application of the principle of client—freedom. The dilemma which social workers faced was reflected in such questions as: "What is to be done when the client adamently fixes upon an unsound plan?"; "What is to be done when a client's unsound plan appears to endanger his health or morals?"; "In the case of a client who sets his 88Biestek, Client Self—Determination, 145—146. 89Ibid., 200. 901bid., 21—22. * I an ‘,..." “‘6‘... ’...,“ ‘.oo‘u r ...- 0‘ n .. ' I . ... u .. anfi' ‘..e .—-' ..t‘5 v - .h o p" . - yL ”-3 v7.22 ...e .v‘ '- '.- r .. «n ' :.‘; ...; .' {6:5 .A3.. 0 . ..: y. -:-" u-4 a J— . I ' ' .__.' “’...-cg. "E ""3 P "A‘- .4 ,0 ...... {-2 - ' .‘ f-l“ 4...? :.2'4 p..‘.6~ .b 6‘ H O 3.: .22 neg-:r. '“ 'rtqo'.:q:naO1‘ ‘-..... lat.‘§.yd.‘ . a a ,— ' ' Q I . 2.. a: at arfiie‘p‘-~ . "°' " 5n; ‘ ‘.... o .4 >.... ' - .‘ a-.‘._ '.... ‘ «-..,3. garner 1n 1': 5'32. triers were '. ~ u "C! If :39 4....r ‘ Al- 1' r- \u . ... - 1v ‘v .... :.'.229‘jne25 S C'- ‘ 5 :§‘..‘_, ‘.‘: . a“. u " v ‘3’ ‘9 ntt Cc: k““;u'.a:ign .' | the :.':e f . ... _‘ 0 t: k«Citing §., ‘ . w .2 2&3 .. —-~ " :‘1:~:5e :ze 35'5- . L. 46 heart on an unsound plan. "WOuld it not be better . . . to force the individual to adopt the plan that is in his own best interest?'"; "What should be done when the client is overly dependent and does not want to assume the responsibility for decisions?"; "Should clients be al- lowed to choose the agency and the visitors whom they wish, as they choose their physician and attorney?"; "Is this democratic principle a painfully slow process?"91 "Is coercion justified in any given case?"92 As the Report of The Milford Conference noted, the philosophy of client participation was easier to understand than were ". . . the methods of achieving it. The method becomes in each individual case a working out of a philosophical concept in terms of individual relationships."93 Earlier in the same report, the conference had noted that social workers were very aware of these norms but that they were less aware of the implications that the acceptance of such norms posed.94 Even in these days of beginning development, the principle found that it had many critics who articulated many difficult questions to the proponents of client freedom. Lucille Corbett called the theorists to task when she wrote in 1925: May we not confess, in all honesty, that there is still much of manipulation in casework, activity that does not strike deep into the life of the individual? Do not too many of our case records, allowing for all the discrepancies and inadequacies records are heir to, still recount in stereotype form the jerky, wooden gl‘lbid., 22-26. 92Milford Conference, Social Case Work, 28. 93Ib1d., 3o. 94Ib1d., 18. ' s o' o 7‘ :1!" ”£25 0. .3“ C.’ o. ‘ " ‘ 5,135? .0 .16 J" . o '.o A. '9. :‘4‘7 :7. 35.13“ “'e v _ .31; 1:321:23 L I ‘.... ' 5-33.13! inc ‘ ‘ :.' ‘n n? :1. I. :1: than c... ,- a: 51:: '.iclaters . 2:30.17: of cat“ 26:3. Yet, :35. " :.' . .‘ mug nos 1:- 8.0.5.,J ' _2-.e, 3 . . I.- uvL‘ . —0¢---. . 0- o . I‘;" q .-A 0 ‘...-3‘“ 'u ecu . '-- 3.22:2: van"; "£- " ' . :5 out .3: at: This; : 1.3 ‘-“.. z ‘ 13?- .ree. 0... -‘~“ g. .-r.£.a..;:1‘ {at L} . I t 5.9 I ~~.:,_g: a -:.,;~ _ ,. ...‘Q p_ 0 K‘ " . I \ .P-‘.“:~: Q int-3“? rc ‘e '3‘" s’ v M" .112 103315 a: 47 movements of marionettes pulled this way and that by controlling strings? To the uninitiated, ignorant of the really intensive going on.behind the scenes, it would seem as though these charac- ters in the drama of existence were clay figures indeed and that the spark of life was not in them.95 Jean M. Lucas in her article, "The Interview of Persuasion” was critical of the then current (1924) practices of social workers who were.in fact violaters of this very basic principle of client freedom. To conceive of coercion in this age of individualism is prepos- terous. Yet, must we not confess that most of us are guilty of ‘bossing‘ now and then? We are all loud in our condemnation of dictatorial manner, of withhilding a necessity until the wisdom of our decision is acknowledged. . . 96 Biestek noted that in this period there were four attitudes which reflected varying degrees of commitment to the principle of client freedom. One emphasized the right of the client to make his own deci— sions, fully and freely; the second stressed the social worker's responsibility for the direction of the.treatment process; the third reflected a middle position between the first two in that it emphasized the leadership role of the social worker with some participation of the client; the fourth.affirmed the professional ideal of client-freedom but raised serious question upon this state of attempting to implement it but finding it to be an impossible task. Jessie Taft reflected upon this dilemma when she wrote: Social work.is not uniform. Every conceivable point of view and practice is extant in the country at this time. Yet, historically, in perspective, a distinctively evolutionary process may be traced which.like any evolution, carries withit into the present, samples ___ w i — ‘ ‘ V 95Corbett, "Spiritual Factors in Case WOrk," cited by Biestek, Client §elf~Determination, 26. 96Jean.Mi. Lucas, "The Interview of Persuasion," cited by Biestek, 9.12:5; self—petepinagog, 27. fi 4- O V‘ .. .... 513:6: b-‘Ck' «IL .a.» PI ..L'C...‘J- .. g 0 n. ‘ ’- 1" :F..: \A a. “VI": - y-Eo . s . : .,..-.~ bu-aha «.7 r 1 I...‘ ......L: bk I _- i U ' I .~. .. . .. p.‘ 5,, " ' L C Irv cl... 5 .06 . . , ' N: ~». H ..t -... ...e., ..e I;:O‘;n. . salt 5‘. .-“.‘, 5-“Q.” ‘ .s - “é“u 3‘ .ne . . I: ' I :.5 -';‘;n~aqo. '.“ “'I§—Iauldsn J h .l-D Ava ’~ 3 .-...‘. . ' . 'l ‘V' , n- ‘59.!‘hr... ‘ul ' “3-1fi13f4‘5'--. as ; _~ .I -‘ ‘i:;..o"~ ."-. , ~~ua5 “rI:S fl .15.; tie fa.- I s ’.x b. :-‘ nae Sfll" AQ‘ ‘ ..‘h, . " "'1i 4'7}. . it. tn .1. U L..' :2 ..‘a -' "3‘:.."' 0; , -_ ‘ b 51 In the third period (1941-1950) studied by Biestek in his original work, he found that the primary function of the social worker as it related to the principle of client self-determination was directed towards applying the principle in social work practice. By now he ob- served, the literature maintained a consistent commitment to the ideal of the principle and sought the means by which it might effectively use it. As long as caseworkers discussed the general theory of the prin- ciple, prescinding from its application to the variety of settings in which casework help was given, there was considerable like- mindedness. There was much uniformity; the term 'client self- determination' or its equivalent was found in abundance; the client's right to make his own decisions was unanimously declared essential to casework philosophy; all agreed that it was necessary for effec— tive treatment, that it was in conformity with the basic human dignity of the client; and the general description of client self-deisgmination was comparitively clear, elementary and uncon- tested. In implementation of the principle, however, there arose a great deal of discussion as to how to do so, especially as it related to specific types of settings or agencies; medical, work with unwed mothers, probation and parole, public assistance, social work in psychiatric settings, in working with children, the aged. the retarded, and with the family. Differences seemed to emerge which were related to how the social worker's function was conceived; to his theoretical framework of Operation; to the nature of the agency and the services it provided; to the variations of how the social workers evaluated the capacity of the clients to make their own decisions and plans; or finally in relation to how the worker viewed the use of authority, be it professional authority or legal authority. 106Ibid., 150. a R O'. gr}, c' 'L .. . . d ‘ ...... “'f' — '7' \‘.D\ -u- ' 5»: 4 in a: ‘1’. .4..~...¢o " ...ob - a . fis- an 4 9 a. a ' ... .... ....~ .- - ~~¢~ .-n :0? '-— g...‘, .... A0. duet... . , . o o; 1‘ n . -r ...-nor i. '..b“. bu. . : ‘;~'-Ctfla :- - O nona- ivkounguab d: . U h" '5‘ {".‘— no . "““"- "5.5.x” . ’ I ‘ ... 9' -. r- ., . ....-‘ ' , V‘ ‘ ""' .IIC‘: a In... 1:... 52 This chapter began with Kelso's quotation from his address before the 1922 National Conference on Social Work, in which he ob- served that basic truths did not change. What changed was how man understood them and interpreted them. A third element I would add, that is, how man attempted to apply them. Towards this end, the principle of client self-determination has been traced from its nebulous beginning as the concept of client freedom to its present, formalized statement, which has been clearly defined in terms of its ideal nature. There are still problems related to the implementation and interpretation of the principle. How the profession attempts to resolve these problems shall be the concern of the remainder of this paper. I' “2". . “I, nr- — - I .- 3--. .. - «I ‘ . ,. -- Ana rt“. ~ v o . ..A' car’s J. 9-... .I. “G -— ..: . -u...»a;..b G- 'C C A III .9 . A- n‘ «'3‘ h:- n ‘...C ten--. I . .- < ‘ .» . 4-:-- out that a "‘ ‘e A; Oh... o v‘ §Uc§ . ""‘-I‘ not; 0'— "“.s-: “Add 5.. -' ". ..:.:'~... _ ' . A- . ~-.-a..-e ;: a 2" ‘-.. “ -. u‘._ - .4- “ use: hf” .. ...,ir . .5 g u “: 5"; .. . ‘;. ~. ‘1 "E q . A. ' .ré'e . . a '-, ..’|. '_ -.. L“ - ¢t .V;—. I rub: CHAPTER II SELF-DETERMINATION IN THEORY: 1951 - 1960 The real commitment, and the unique nature of the entire social work institution, its professionals and lay supporters, its technicians and its volunteers, is not to any one method or even to one concept, but rather to human need in the sense indi- cated. The role is dynamic - and never completed. The danger is the loss of that flexibility essential to the recognition of new horizons and the understanding of the consequent responsibilities. Social work is committed . . . to encourage implementation of needs in a manner consistent with concern for individual dignity, legal rights, democratic institutions, and that maximum self-realization of people which does not infringe on the rights of others. The tone of the decade of the fifties is well characterized in the preceeding comments by Alfred Kahn. This decade found the nation as a whole, and social work in particular, struggling to understand the significance of the events of the period, to comprehend their impact upon the democratic philosophy of the country, and to come to grips with the stresses and anxieties which appeared to affect every— one's life. There was turbulence and strife at our nation's front door in the presence of the "Cold War" in Europe, the "Hot War" in Korea, the emergence of the Soviet Union as a nuclear power and the subsequent strained relations between our two countries. At our national back door, we found ourselves as a nation attempting to deal 1Alfred Kahn, "The Function of Social Work," in Issues i3 American Social Work, ed. by Alfred J. Kahn (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 16-17. 53 ‘ O V . . --v ‘ ‘...- :::SS‘.e Co ” y .- 9n C‘f'e t ”....- . '- v— ;‘:':"'.5 DU ‘ o ’ .: 4 ‘ . .-A g? ’. -t Z'o-oi! 3"- f. - - 9 . 52-2." to assxe t. . ' 4 1.:215 t.:e, V o—IDC'oa «gov-A ’- v- --:..-o “.5 Loo ‘u ' O. J '- ...... .- - ~- L... - ...e 0 v5.5 .. O I a W" .7. ' - v. 5.5.; ,‘.. ‘_ I . I. U h ': "A-o ‘" ”5...: ‘35 lien ~53: Resures as ‘ ”331 work . a: h: the {azure 54 with the pressure of rapid industrialization and urbanization, as well as beginning to come to some common underStanding of both the reaponn sibilities and privileges of freedbm in this country and the means necessary to assure civil liberties and civil rights. At this time, some sought to resolve gross inequities and injustice among the people through increased awareness of and partici— pation in the democratic processes. Others attempted to impede, stifle or crush such efforts through bloodshed and violence or through the implementation of means which totally disregarded human compassion and even human life.' Such means not only brought about an abridgement of the rights of personal freedom, but also fostered the use of totalw itarian measures as were found in Hitler‘s Germany and Stalin‘s Russia. Social work as a dynamic entity attempted to understand and deal with the nature of the dilemma and sources of the conflicts, and to meet the needs of the people it served, In doing so, it came face to face with the awesome task of having to redefine its basic beliefs in the nature of man, in his dignity and worth as an individual and in a reconciliation of the individual‘s sense of personal freedom and liberty with the common goal, i.e., the rights and needs of one's neighbors, community or nation. Included in this redefinition was the belief in the need and right of the individual to make his own choices. As part of this process, social work sought to better understand the meaning of such concepts as autonomy, authority, conformity and deviance. It also worked at integrating new knowledge and understand— ing of human behavior coming from the social and behavioral sciences and the impact of certain factors upon the individual, such as the .. 'A a ’...-f .\ -. . ’.I" ----‘. . '... /' ’ 0.0 , ..ai . _ .. ‘..-. .— :_. ...—.- Jr” ' --; an?" a! L‘a '.-.C,_-v . . _,,.-;.: ..— .-.: ..‘;“-~.o~--.- 0"- b- A';:'C‘ ”'...—t. .. ~5~u- v I n . .-....,.>~-- {‘5 Oh. - ;.--.--:u-~u U- ‘- -‘ QQ ".... 'p-..'.. --- 5- 0‘ ‘ -—':-~’ A-AGAU-C3- .' .... _ ‘ f " St' . "’ ..—.. v. . . ~ ' ‘_' O‘A g.-- A. A‘” ' .--. . mob --.... L. . .4--~ ___ . 5 " ‘ .--“ C-’C“3 I . ..__ O. . . a.,_.- a‘ -— ‘.. ... 8‘ 53...».-9“ fi. - . . ' :.‘ ...._ 1 . s- I_‘_.:-‘ .‘-a .H .‘ b ’ “ _ .» 's.-' u. ‘ ..o. . S -_ _ _ ' “- L..;_ “;-- -- . u“, ' A- . . ’. " 5‘oe C '5.‘ --~.‘ v. ‘ .0 ““.- . . . ~-- as 0“ ~ “ hue .. ‘. N n h b.- A .' “s. . 'I’ u " :t“;~- "yDb—‘l_ ., - y.‘~qf“. .. k...‘ » 55 concept of culture, role theory, the communication processes and the dynamics of community change and community power. As a profession, it also faced change as it brought together many areas of representative social work interest under a single, national organization, the National Association of Social Workers. In attempting to create a sense of unity, the professional turned to the identification of those core concepts which formed a common philOSOph- ical base, regardless of the nature of the service of the agency, or the method of service utilized. This common core was identified as the generic base of social work. There was much discussion of the theoretical aSpects of this philosophical base as well as the means utilized to acknowledge the professional philosophy and to develop the where-with-all of implementing its philosophy into service delivery. This chapter focuses upon theoretical aSpects of the concept of the client's personal freedom and his right to make his own choices while Chapters Four and Five discuss the problems related to implementation. Freedom - Democracy - Individuality "Freedom," "democracy," "individuality" - these three terms are representative of the tenor of the times, especially of the earlier part of the decade. The National Conference of Social Work (later to become the National Conference on Social Welfare) provided a forum at which the participants scrutinized the interrelationships of these concepts and the American society, as well as their relevance to social work practice. Alfred Kadushin captured this interrelationship when J ‘ g ‘I A I ...-n. ' “fl ‘- d '..III a A‘- wcr'ters, a 3....- 9"» z: 1: 965' So- rrf Iazferezce, :3 a Pa?” p: ~41 iefize-d dezocra :::1&"’ :15 orie: . I . . ‘ ..‘I; 'n‘:'..' at ‘ «... ‘ . , . .. “kt--3“ m a “i-. A . :.‘: .I‘,§tahy In t‘.‘: r»: ug‘ 3315195. be :1»..- t “o w ..e '“19 in n. :.‘: .' __ Q‘ “'er 56 he observed: The profession of social work is, like all professions, an occupa- tional subculture embedded in the matrix of the larger culture. The dominant ideas and moods of the envelOping culture exert a subtle, but inexorable influence on the ideas and moods that social workers, as social workers, regard as right and preper. So it was, that through the exchange of ideas provided by the National Conference, social workers focused on the basic elements of democracy, how democracy assessed the essential nature of man and defined the rights of the citizenry as embodied within the concept of freedom. The task then was to determine the impact of all this upon the life of the individual. As Sadie Alexander said, "We know that we live in a democracy, but too few of us realized the responsibility of an individual in a democracy."3 In a paper presented to the National Conference in 1951, Nathan Cohen defined democracy as a way of life which totally affected the individual, his orientation towards life, his choices and his decisions. To the individual, democracy represented a "New Gestalt." Democracy in this form namely as a way of life, is a system of ethical concepts which must pervade the totality of human rela— tionships, be they political, economic, social or spiritual.4 Charlotte Towle in her book, The Learner iE_Education for the Profes- sions, deve10ped this theme by showing_the interrelatedness of each 2Alfred Kadushin, "The Knowledge Base of Social Work," in Issues, ed. by Kahn, 54. 3Sadie Alexander, "The Layman Examines Social Welfare in a Democracy,"“The Social Welfare Forum: 1951 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1951), 304. Future references to The Social Welfare Forum will be identified by title and year only. 4Nathan E. Cohen, "The Place of the Sectarian Agency in Ser- vices to Groups," The Social Welfare Forum: 1951, 271—272. s ' ' I “C a ‘ o. D. - - '. 5‘ a».... 22:2 :32 p..} l . C :: :se pets: 1 D-nn * " 31.4.; 50th I -—A Au... A - :.‘-3.4.83. 1 ? 5 rated a all I I l ..., . ‘ I . ‘.1‘" {w u- ‘ .-.. .m».... ..e ‘ ':A;':: ' 0' .’ "’"" "n to .59 57 part of the human and social systems to the whole of each. . . . respect for the total person in every profession, implies that concern for one area of his welfare must not ignore his general welfare. Respect for the integrity of the individual implies that in administering to his physical health, we take into account his mental and emotional needs and responses and that, in administering to his intellectual needs, we do not ignore the physical or social self. Respect for the integrity of the person implies also that his rights to self-determination within social limits be regarded, that individual differences be appreciated - in short, that the professional relationships be oriented at all times to his identity as a person with rights as well as obligations.5 In order to understand the significance of this, one must first identify the set of beliefs associated with democracy as it relates both to the people and to society. Cohen chose to define the parameters of democracy in four statements which deal respectively with the inherent dignity and worth of each individual, the wealth of potential each person possesses, the interrelationship of each person and every institution to the society as a whole and the role of govern- ment and the private sector in seeking to affirm and maintain this state of affairs. 1. There is a quality of goodness in every individual regardless of race, creed, color, or origin of birth. The approach to man is in terms of these potentialities, that is, not only in terms of what he is, but also what he can become if dealt with justly and if given equal opportunity. 2. Man is essentially a rational being, and we have faith in his ability to learn, to think, and to participate in making deci- sions of policy to which he will adhere. Man can not only learn his rights in a democracy but also develop a sense of responsibility to other men and their cooperative undertakings. 3. Democracy involves the acceptance of social organization and social action, not as an alternative way of life, but as one of the basic facts of life without which human society could 5Charlotte Towle, The Learner in Education for the Professions: fig seen in Education for Social WOrk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), 4. 58 not exist. 4. Democracy recognizes the desirability and essentiality of both government planning and private community undertakings for human welfare. The National Conference worked year after year at redefin— ing each of these four points. Regarding the first, the innate dignity and worth of each individual, one finds such comments as: we believe that mankind's purpose is its own constant improve— ment until God's eternal plan is achieved. We do not consider that mankind consists of masses of people, but rather of the sum total of individuals; We hold that every individual is important in giving character and purpose to that sum tOtal. Because we believe the individual has real value, we reject the jungle theory of the survival of the fittest and believe that every individual is worth helping. . . .We have implicit faith in democracy and in democratic institutions, but we are convinced that demorcacy will survive only if it is built soundly and consistently and steadily. And that means only if it recognizes individual human worth. Unless it does that, it is not democracy.8 Unswerving in our purpose we go forward to maintain the respect and dignity which is the birthright of every person. Together . . . we shall meet the challenge, which is really the chal— lenge of democracy. We shall meet it resolutely and with courage. We shall strive to the utmost to maintain our faith in the sanctity of the individual personality. We shall minister to the sick and to the depressed, to the hungry and the impov— erished, whether of the body or of the mind or of the spirit.9 We have witnessed a growing recognition that our most funda- mental need is a deep conviction of the worth and dignity and creative capacity of human beings and a confidence 18 man's ability to solve his problems cooperatively. . . . *7 fi‘ fiv— 5Ibid., 272. 7Lester B. Granger, "Social Workvs Response to Democracy"s Challenge," in The Social ngfare Forum: 1952, 9. 8Benjamin E. Youngdahl, "What We Believe," in The Social Welfare_Forum: 1953, 30*31. 9Benjamin E. Youngdahl,"Social WOrk at the Crossroads," cited by Youngdahl in "Current Social Frontiers," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1956, 25. ‘fi *— 10Joseph P. Anderson, "The Response of Social Work to the Present Challenge," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1951, 48. - -.v‘.". 0-- -- 3&5““: ' 1 be.- ’9' ‘.-.-I"- L O 5.6» hb‘ I . . a . n“ ‘ "‘ -.:. ‘_ ....-- a“b.‘ 0—,. I {fir .- -. .. .-‘ 52...)-33-h “" :23 3': ’ .- -.-...-.:: a: 50:14 ....esszznal ssc .._;' n ’ ..-... :rc:ess e ‘ ' ...-c .are of r. In,“ A: ‘ .. Knowledg on .'__ t 9‘ { AQLA: he ". E: an; . ~A.‘E" A ‘ 55‘:.A3 N.: V taut; :.a~‘~ z. N "‘.. ‘-:v “fin {6‘ K.“ ‘ 59 Every man, no matter what his circumstances, must be given the Opportunity to preserve his dignity and self-respect. Without them, he is less than a man. While we try to preserve dignity and Opportunity and minimum security, we must also protect individual self-reliance. We in America believe in the worth of an individual, and that any democracy worthy of its name seeks to preserve and protect that individuality. We can move forward with continued confidence and enthusiasm for the alleviation and prevention of human want and suffering but we must do it without undermining the strength of the society on which we build.11 One also finds outside the National Conference that social work was actively engaged in the affirmation of this belief of the innate dignity and worth of man. In the Code g£_Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers, it was stated: Professional social work is based on humanitarian, democratic ideals. Professional social workers are dedicated to service for the welfare of mankind; to the disciplined use of a recognized body of knowledge about human beings and their interactions; and to the marshaling of community resources to promote the well- being of all. Social work practice is a public trust that requires of its practitioners integrity, compassion, faith in the dignity and worth of human beings, respect for individual differences, a commitment to service, and a dedication to truth.12 In the Report of The Curriculum Study conducted by the Council of Social Work Education, the first of the ultimate values which were identified dealt with the innate dignity and worth of the individual. It stated that: Each human being should be regarded by all others as an object of infinite worth. He should be preserved in a state comensurate 11Gov. Robert B. Meyner, "Message to the Conference," in The Social welfare Forum: 1954, X. ledOpted by the Delegate Assembly of the National Association of Social workers, October 13, 1960. 4..- [9 (j ‘i "5- It“ . i". . ‘- ... .. .. ~ ‘ ‘ '3- '5‘ '. .. t.- . ....- ’ n . .- . G'H‘ " “ v A ~_. .: .:-‘~: on :b '. :;.-.-"- ..- v. " ... ’----bx 3 .- .. . u «u... :.- a ' U '..- ...-....- .-L—o- .-....» I ..q... .. . .. »4 w-o-‘c-.ot Sect, 5“ v . ”' -:“ ‘I-‘W‘N' Y” ».b - ‘u ,. 'v."~_—- .' ...“-..3-‘ ‘ .. _ c _ Iv‘q’.... -'_ A a .1 .t..._,,:\‘ ¢_ ‘v— - ..-. t‘e 'VF“ ” a... ‘ ‘Lo T A“ u ' . 14a '.‘hmogl Lo . K" .‘u, . 60 With his innate dignity and protected from suffering.l3 Pumphrey went on to observe that while no two social workers would agree either on the wording or the primacy of the respective values, there would be, however, a uniform consent as to the importance of each of the values as presented in the study.14 In Biestek's work, the respect of the individual as a person of innate dignity and worth is embedded in the principle he calls acceptance. Acceptance in social work is founded upon the asssumption that each person, regardless of status, position, abilities or liabili- ties has'"intrinsic value." Never is this surrendered. Rather it is to be respected and built upon by the social worker as one of the strengths brought by the client to the social work relationship. Acceptance is a principle of action wherein the caseworker perceives and deals with the client as he really is, including his strengths and weaknesses, his congenial and uncongenial qualities, his posi- tive and negative feelings, his constructive and destructive atti— tudes and behavior, maintaining all5 the while a sense of the client's innate dignity and worth. To summarize then, during the period there appears to be marked consensus that one of the essential components of democracy is acknow- ledgement of the uniqueness of the individual as a person of innate dignity and worth. This aspect of democracy was subject to wide dis- cussion at the national level as well as at the other levels of the l3 Muriel W. Pumphrey, The Teaching_ of Values and Ethics in Social‘Work Education, CNeW'YOrk: Council on SoCial WOrk Education, 195§), 43414 14 Ibid. 15Fe11x P. Biestek, TheCasework Relationship (Chicago: Loyola university Press, 1959), 72. o; ... O. O. ow ...; a: b '35 Zat‘v 61 profession. Referring back to the parameters of democracy as identified by Cohen, the second one contains the essence of self—determination. Cohen stated: 2. Man is essentially a rational being, and we have faith in his ability to learn, to think, to participate in making decisions of policy to which he will adhere. Man cannot only learn his rights . . . but also (must) develop a sense of responsibility to other men. . . . 16 Cohen identified several key components which, when combined, produce the principle of self—determination as another fundamental aspect of society. The first component is the recognition of man as a rational, thinking being, capable of being taught to evaluate, to discriminate and to make choices. Second, implicit in the exer- cise of this right is a corresponding responsibility to exercise the right.with.the awareness of one's sense of obligation to his fellow man for each is bound to the other, in a sense of mutuality and commonality of life.17 ‘Many writers undertook the task of clarifying and refining the many implications inherent in this tenent of democracy. It is our conviction that the purpose and justification of social living is to give the individual protection, oppor- tunity for growth, full chance for self-expression and for his fullest contribution to the group which bears him.18 16Cohen, "Sectarian Agency," 272. 17That such choices would be affected by the totality of one's prior life experiences and present realities would be in keeping with the Gestalt orientation suggested by Cohen. 18Granger, "social WOrk's Response," 9. ..- _ . . ao- ~;”'é :LiJB d”‘ ' ,‘1:': -.- a":’22’.¢ho~‘53‘ . 1 :: ’... 2:58 e“‘ 0-; “a".q t...: 5.3 a. .....‘r ‘ _ ‘i ‘ _ ‘1 I . . ° ‘L'ICSO .... _J - r'" 7e 3.x 5 ,- .. .....b ieEelie'; i; racists) i 15 31‘. the in: 1&:~" : ...=. $31.01} a «C :.'. . fut an $1.142: .Je Beans 00 e In 1934 : 62 The kind of enterprise which has our support is one in.which people have an opportunity to make the greatest use of their potentialities, one in which the group as a whole makes every reasonable effort to promote individual opportunity and to protect and help those who need it and who are unable to do so for themselves. Both of these citations make reference to the right to develop and utilize one's potentials and that the role of society-government is not only to provide such opportunities but to protect these rights These statements in the context of their original presentation con- trasted the basic differences of our democratic society against the kind of society which Russia and Communism promoted. Youngdahl is very explicit in his polarization of the two societies. We believe in free speech and free information and they (the Communists) in an iron curtain; we believe that the whole emphasis is on the individual and they consider him a pawn; we believe in negotiation and compromise to settle conflicts;.whereas they adhere to force and treachery as their weapons; we refuse to sup- port an unholy means to arrive at a given end because we know that the means often determine the end. We believe in frankness, they in deceit and subversion. To them the means are unimportant. With its emphasis on the individual, social work cannot be practiced in a framework of Communism. In 1954, Brooks Potter at the National Conference stressed that it was only as our democratic society continued to provide the opportunities for bettering the lives of its people, that we would continue to find our strength. If we are to stay strong, we must continue to encourage all our citizens to believe in and practice self-improvenent, personal accomplishment, independence, self-respect, a concern for others, freedom of choice in such areas as religion, recreation, medical 1 9Youngdahl, "What We Believe," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1953, 31. 20Ibid, 32. 63 help, occupation, the list could go on forever.21 He too, went on to note the marked differences between the two societies (American and Russian) and the value each placed upon the individual. Communism, no matter how we define it, is incompatible with democracy and everything you and I believe in and are striv— ing to maintain. At its best, Communism glorifies the state; democracy glorifies the individual. And it is the individual whom you are daily trying to help and whose problems you arr trying to solve.22 Howard, speaking on the topic, "Civil Liberties and Social WOrk,“ at the 1953 National Convention, pointed out that social ‘work.was as much a product of the democratic process as it was a part of the essence of the process itself. Social work, at least as it is known in the United States, is both a creature of democracy and one of the creators of a more thorough—going democracy. Civil liberty, an ines- capable concomitant of democracy, not only undergirds social work as we know it, but in turn is enhanced by social work.23 waard's arguement views social work as providing opportun- ities for people to claim their rights, as an enabling process, leading to greater self-fulfillment of the individual. It is also an end in itself. It is one means by which a person could attain self—fulfillment through the utilization of the services provided by social workers. Therefore, social work is both a part of the democratic process and part of the fabric of a democratic society. fi‘ ‘ ‘ w w—j fl 21Brooks Potter, "A Layman Survey"s the Welfare Horizon," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1954, 33. 22Ibid., 35. 23Donald S. Howard, "Civil Liberties and Social WOrk," in The Sogial Welfare Eorum: l953, 40. 1 .‘L v'" Aode‘ . ‘ ....d .... g .5 ‘2. q A\ re » a ‘ as are fee .1 u- ‘1 lple," . Qf‘” ... I A \ C l -Lw At this pi eat to I A‘ w i . Jet'eeea the y- u h f r 13236 H be. 0L. 'f‘ x: .’ n ‘. M . r0 ‘\‘. . I. 64 Howard further assisted the profession by identifying the legal bases of our civil liberties and what rights they included. Among the rights which he recognized were: 1. religious liberty and freedom of conscience; 2. the right to attend the public schools; 3. the pursuit of happiness; 4. liberty to contract; 5. liberty to choose an occupation; 6. freedom of speech and of the press; 7. the rights of assembly and petition.24 That these rights might be presumed to be boundless was quickly chal— lenged by the recognition of the fact that in our democratic structure, there exists the regulatory powers of government, including police power. (There will be other limitations noted later in the fuller discussion of the principle of self-determination in social work. It is sufficient to say at this point that there are limitations upon this right as are found imposed upon all rights.) At this point in the discussion, it is important to distin- guish between the terms "principle" and "concept." Boehm noted that often in the literature of social work many terms are often used syne onymously and rather than serving to clarify. they instead add to the confusion. He offered as the distinction between the terms "concept" and "principle," that a concept is a means of identifying "a series of observed situations, events, or activities which are thought to be 24Ibid. (Q l) A I ‘h‘ (‘-..-.-.:1 “' --~.:-- _——.._ :w . A a I - ’“L”-:1 4?. ‘..- .6:-' FA .4--,_’ \1 '¢ ' :5 13559 T.- ‘a. x-’ m 'e services 65 related to each_other.“ A principle, in turn, is a "rule for action, a guide for behavior."25 In the context of this dis- cussionthen, we are concerned with.the concept of freedom as it relates to social work. AlSO‘Within the total concept of freedom istheprinciple of client self-determination. Self—determination is the freedom of choice as understood by client and worker and exercised by the client on his own behalf. To extend the discus— ion a step further, self—determination as a principle has as its very essence the civil rights identified in our national documents, the Constitution.gf_the United States g£_America and The Bill of_ Rights, and as expanded upon by almost two hundred years of legis- lation, case law, judicial interpretation and tradition. One source then, for the authority for the principle of self«determination is found as an extension of the civil rights of the individual, who has these rights as a member of this society. In tracing the evolution of this principle (as commented upon earlier), Biestek concluded that client freedom was: (I) a necessary, fundamental right of the client flowing from his essential dignity as a human being; (2) a necessarily fundamental right of all individuals in a democratic society; (3) as necessary for the effectiveness of casework and 25Werner W. Boehm, "Clarifying Terminology of Social Case— work," in The Social Welfare Forum: l954, 118. (Client is used here to refer to any individual, group or community using the services of the professional social worker.) :iere EYE , . 0‘ ..~--"" 1 ...—uo‘-- O o .-.. conch‘ ....— -..... Eeritaze t I .c . An-o-a—q DV .- oeucuu-v -- u. n ..-..o.-- t.“.. .-.. O». - :.‘ .A I ‘-..... .¥ ' D ‘.... $33.3. a: ‘- flu~ge ‘§ ‘ Vs ‘5“‘Lv a“ . a A. 0 ”- 5t: V;- .. \ Q._. v-,‘3'. 'J & A.- I N 66 treatment; and (4) an essential principle in casework philosophy.26 What he is saying here, and has said elsewhere,27 is that there are two sources of authority for the principle, one coming fromcivil law, the other from the moral law which is based upon man's innate dignity and worth as found in the Judeo-Christian heritage of social work. Depending upon one's orientation or philosophy, this might be seen as an appeal to the authority of tradition, humanism, and/or moral law. Nevertheless, as a supple— ment to civil authority, it affirms the individual's right to lay claim to this dimension of his freedom, to be free to make his own choices. Arlien Johnson discussed the education of the professional as it related to the ethical standards and practices of the pro- fession and observed that the origen of modern social work in America drew upon basic demorcatic philosophy as found in the humanitarian and religious movements of the 19th century. She noted that "liberty, equality and fraternity" became the key- stones of social work philosophy. These are expressed as the dignity and worth of the individual, his right to freedom of choice and action, majority rule and group effort.28 Returning to the parameters set forth by Cohen, the 26Biestek, The gesework Relationship, 104. 27Ibid., 115—118; "Religion and Social Casework," The * Seeial Welfare Forum: 1956, 86u96. 28Arlien Johnson, "Educating Professional Social Workers for Ethical Practice," Spcial Service Review_XXIX (June 1955), 126. “‘12. .s 5..- —- O t . ‘;"'] R'Ae: -4 “'1'“- Us- ..- ... eraszzzse to t O :15: :Lzezszca o ;er. ' g ...-b ‘I‘u‘é‘ a. au...: “ ‘* azy Organ; A‘"‘ A; .‘ ““5 " ma: 5:: :g‘ I‘. f. . .h“ ‘3. ac; . ' 3' u :'\d' aduse H v D ~;'="'-~..' ' ‘...«e'gflgs‘ see... " u {331‘ 7 . ‘6' ‘eiltiza . l D- ' If“; u.h"p. “““'c “E ‘I ‘3 ) “one: i. 67 third recognized the necessity for both social order and social organ— ization in order to assure the functioning of the society. At first, this may appear to be a contradiction of the principle of self-deter— mination. Is this need for social order and social organization recon- cilable with the assumption that the most effective changes cannot be imposed upon others? If "man's potentialities include his capacity to discover or direct his own destiny," does he not become then a victim to social order and social organization?29 In order to make an ade— quate response to these questions, it is necessary to consider still another dimension of the principle of self-determination; and that is the matter of authority. Biestek commented that authority and law were realities to be found in any organized society and that law was essential for the func- tioning of that society, "The general purpose of law is to prevent the individual from abusing or misusing his liberty and to protect society from such abuse."3o Bistek went on to observe that it was necessary to distinguish between the legitimate authority and an authoritative attitude. Legitimate authority is that which is exercised by persons in positions to which authority was legally vested. For this kind of authority, he felt there was an acceptance on the part of the clients and a willingness to adjust to the restrictions or limitations set down. The authoritative attitude, on the other hand, is described as "a rigid, emotional, domineering manner wherein the person of the ad- ministrator of the authority is made to appear as the only basis of 29Pumphrey, Values and Ethics, 44. 30Biestek, The Casework Relationship, 113. ’-v 9 'LE 3'“..- . . . “-4 l o «to-- “ "2 it a. . — ’-.- .'."__ ‘fvu 5“. CC V ectei r,- .O as. a I .... a :"V’ ’0' b5..‘,‘ - ¥ ' v a’J “'5 ~- edger ‘ "-« v‘. ‘s‘s C‘s 2;: a. .‘R- . f " D .1) l .' (D 4 u r I (7‘ (a: 68 the authority."31 Elliot Studt extended the discussion further by noting that one also needed to distinguish.between power and authority. Power, she defined as: ...participation in the making of decisions, with emphasis on the fact that power is that form of influence-relation which involves effective control over the policy of others. Authority is defined as "formal power," expected and legiti- mate or that use of power that has been legitimized in the institutional structure of society.32 Later on she emphasized the fact that authority was conditioned upon three factors; the legitimate delegation of power to a person in position to use the authority; the acknowledgement and acceptance of the exercise of that power by the person being affected by the use of the power (the individual towards whom the authority is exercised); and the exercise of power which is "just and proper."33 It seems appropriate to add a fourth dimension to this discussion, for authority not only involves acceptance of the authority by the client, but acceptance and assumption of the power on the part of the worker. Although Studt had referred earlier to the need of the social worker to have "a comfortable attitude toward authority,"34 she did not consider it in relationship to the point in question. Helpful to this discussion is a paper presented again at 311b1d. 32Elliot Studt, "An Outline for Study of Social Authority Factors in Casework," Social Casework XXXIV (June 1954), 232. 33Ibid. 34Ibid., 231. '—— 69 the National Conference in 1960 by Dr. Samuel Mencher. He began with the recognition of the fact that:' Authority is looked upon as a phenomena alien to our culture. Al— though authority is present in almost every situation in which social interaction occurs, Americans in general, and particularly social workers, tend to deny its existence. Mencher also found it helpful to distinguish between authority and power. Basically he concurs with Studt's position, with increased emphasis, however, upon the need for acceptance of the authority of the person to whom it is being directed. Authority may be broadly defined as the power to induce changes in, or to exert control over, the behavior of another. Its in- fluence is dependent upon how it is perceived or accepted by those to whom it is directed. . . . It is the willingness to be in- fluenced, whatever the origin of the willingness, that determines the authority or power. In effect, authority can only be recog- nized by its effects on the person who accepts it - the acceptor. It is in the perception of the acceptor that authority comes into existence. . . . Authority may be redefined as the acceptance of the influence or control of another beyond what the individual or group would normally do or would do merely through the exchange of ideas.36 Mencher, however, went beyond Studt by breaking authority down into several different types to which there might be associated varying degrees of acceptance or resistance on the part of the acceptor; the dependent variable would be how the authority was perceived by the acceptor. Mencher saw that authority might be perceived and cate- gorized by five major types of authority relationships. 1. where the agent is able to provide rewards; 2. where the agent is able to coerce him or to provide punishment; 35Samuel Mencher, "The Concept of Authority and Social Case— work," in Casework Papers: 1960, (New York: F.S.A.A.), 126. 36Ibid., 127-128. J9 ' .. ,. .- 0 , .... o.. 0.. ' :.‘B' :.'.e a '4 c -".-o ' $3273.16; tau: 32:1: ' A':'q ‘ gb‘-‘ LLEZI ET“ ' .5 ' ..LE 32 111;} 5A.:‘.V‘ s\‘~~. qt. , u E55 88:: 7O 3. where the agent represents an appropriate reference figure (role model); 4. where the agent possesses special wisdom or expertness and 5. where the agent has the legitimate right to regulate the acceptor's behavior.37 How the authority is pergeived as well as how it is actually used are crucial factors in the social work relationship. It is also recognized by Studt and Mencher that the forms which authority may take during the course of the.helping relationship may change. But most critical to the relationship is a mutual understanding between client and worker of the dynamic, constructive intent of the use of the authority. As Swithun.Bowers said: "This enabling process is not easy. There is a widespread tendency to want to play God. Much discipline of self is involved in leaving the client free."38 we come now to the fourth parameter suggested by Cohen, the fact that democracy fosters not only the belief in the individ- ual, in his capacities and abilities to make his own choices, in the cooperative relationship of man to his fellows and of the need for social order and organization, but also that our American society sees democracy as a joint venture between the public and private sectors of society. Government, the private citizen or his agents should have an active and vital role in the planning and establishment of services and conditions which will provide greater opportunities for the development of the potentialities v, ‘— ‘ fit a. 37Ibid., 130—137. 38Swithun Bowers, "Social work and Human Problems," Social Casewprk XXXVI (May 1959), 189. “$ _‘ fi {1233' n I .3 ca. FE ~v- C‘§ I} or. 4.. e 9.; 9.. v.. . .. as a .v. a . aLu L-” .c .u ... ..o ow. ad ... no .c e to \a. I Q :13 c 0 Q ‘* ug‘ St E . ‘- L. S ...: S ‘A- 71 of all men. As Joseph P. Anderson said, we need to see that there is present in our society an option which neither denies all free- dom for the sake of security or offers freedom, but little secur- ity. Rather there is a third choice: . . .which is that we have a democratic society where govern— ment can assume responsibility for human welfare . . . where we can.preserve freedom and personal initiative and a democra— tic way of life and still have the government discharge re- sponsibility in helping to meet the . . . needs of all people.39 Or as Altmeyer said in 1955: Our own problem in fully achieving the promise of democracy, equal opportunity and the good life for everyone, is not dependent on the acquisition of greater natural resources or the development of a higer level of technology. It is de- pendent on our ability as fellow Americans to cooperate with each other . . . so that every American citizen will have an equal opportunity to achieve for himself a personally satis- fying and socially useful life.“0 Client Selwaetermination: Theoretical Implications Thus far, we have examined the frame of reference, the setting of the times during which the principle of self-deter— mination evolved. The preceding discussion pointed to the fact that the principle.was gaining increased recognition. Whereas other phrases had been used interchangeably, they were now less frequent and there was increased deference to the term client self—determin- ation. It was in this decade, within the context of the discussion concerning personal liberties and rights, that the principle was v w ‘ q i 39Anderson, "Present Challenge," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1951, 56. 40Arthur J. Altmeyer, "The Dynamics of Social Work," in The Social Welfare forum: 1955, 110. o ' ‘ .’.~-¢o- e C SEE- ,‘ {C ‘13:? «ate 1 H. ”I", (D [In a ‘ Q 72 finally to emerge in a succinct form, with a stable definition to which social work theorists would consistently refer and react. As was identified earlier, the major work in the delineation of the principle of self—determination was conducted by Felix P. Biestek.41 The definition of self—determination which is utilized in this study is taken from his book, The Casework Relationship. The principle of client selfdetermination is: . . . the practical recognition of the right and need of clients to freedom in making their own choices and decisions in the casework process. Caseworkers have a corresponding duty to respect that right, recognize that need, stimulate and help to activate that potential for self-direction by helping the client to see and use the available and appro- priate resources of the community and of his own personality. The client‘s right to self—determination, however, is limited by the client's capacity for positive and constructive decis— ion-making, by the framework of civil and moral law, and by the function of the agency.42 While other definitions appeared in the literature, none seemed to differ greatly from Biestel's definition or to be as complete as his. For example, Bowers, in writing about the prin- ciple chose to define it in a very similar fashion to Biestek's. Self-determination is: . . . the principle that the human being can attain his own perfection only through the exercise of his free will, that he has both the right and need to be free in his choices. To each person has been given the responsibility of living his life in such a manner as to achieve its goals, the immediate goals as well as the ultimate goals. . . . This freedom is limited by restrictions of law, natural and positive, and in '1' j V7 V— 41Felix P. Biestek, The Principle_ of Client Self—Determination in Social Casework (a doctoral dissertation), (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University Press, 1951); "The Principle of Client Self- Determination," SCW XXXII (_November 1951), 369—375; "Principle 6: Client Self-Determination," in The Casework Relationship (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1959), 100—119. 42 Biestek, The Casework Relationship, 103. ‘... ';- 5r ' u "3 - 3 ..CCM . O k. “.‘,:.--\G .- '..L...V“ Ix' u '33:. 53: we 0 ..v- l."“ N: - :223-5 v¥ .- ’ " _ . Q n- -«o"““" J '...-‘3‘ I - :.1‘ .. J ::.E-a¢u-er .In-l. a. a :.‘“... ‘5 I .In. nqquo; " I no Ls“... $33., or 53:13 25:5 are and r. "--O" . o ‘ n. ‘ A— N . 5...“. I.~n a“ Tit. u. ...:.y ' ..h’..‘.J:-I . I. ll ... :.rrezt Pra' \ run" ‘ ' . W to arm A .‘ L; “:1, “‘5 0'“ a :5 J ': 'H an; 3.5 a bul‘. I ‘ 54;: 30:: He a '- 5 .8“ c u 5 i. t “a ~.e. I: f“ . 4‘. 0., v .«S p"."‘ A‘.‘\ 4:; {er-... ‘ ‘n v :‘Nuatlcr ’ .u “5., .al_er \lfly‘ H ' 0“, 1n ’. 9). 392?" : 73 situations in which there exists some incapacity of the individual to use his freedom in an advantageous way. Occasionally, we have the obligation to prevent a perSon from misusing or abusing his freedom, but we should always assume that he is capable of making his own constructive decisions, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.43 Friedlander identified the principle of self—determination as the second generic principle in his schematic presentation. There he described it as: . . . the conviction that the individual who is in economic, per- sonal, or social need, has the right to determine himself what his needs are and how they should be met. . . . The individual is en— titled to retain his right of self—determination. His claim to exercise 'self-help' is accepted as a human civil right. Henry Maas described the principle of self-determination in conjunction with another principle which he called 'the principle of participation.‘ In current practice, the principle of participation guides the case- worker to elicit from the client his own definition of the situa- tion, his own analysis of his current and possible modes of adapta- tion, and his active use of all of his own resources to achieve the goals both he and society consider satisfying, effective, and acceptable. In this context, the important corollary principle of client self-determination must be mentioned. In the course of the client's decision-making in regard to many elements in the stressful situation is almost always his, once the caseworker has helped him clarify what the alternative courses of action and their consequences may be.45 Where Maas' principle of participation differs from the principle of self-determination as defined by Biestek or as he defined it, is 3Bowers, "Human Problems," Social Casework, 189. 44Walter A. Friedlander, "Introduction: Generic Principles of Social Work," in Concepts and Methods gf_Social Work, ed. by Friedlander, 3. Henry S. Mass, "Social Casework," in Concepts and Methods, ed. by Friedlander, 86-87. .. ‘ ...-‘4-0‘ q"S _:.J-‘ .' “‘1 0.14 I‘ a cs"; 1 C": E. O 74 unclear. It appears he is using both labels to describe different dimensions of what is inherent in the Biestek position. Herbert Bisno, another social work educator and theoreti— cian discussed the principle of self—determination within the con- text of the following: The normally competent individual is the best judge of his own interests and he must make his own decisions and work out his own problems. . . . . . .The philosophy of selfvdetermination implies that the ‘client' need not forfeit his personal integrity nor accepz the label 'incompetent' as the price for receiving help. 5 Gordon Hamilton, while seen using three terms interchange— ably (self—help, self-determination and client involvement in change), her exposition of what she is seeking to describe par— allels Biestek's basic definition of self-determination. That the client has the right to be himself, to make his own decisions, to use his own abilities and resources, and to Work.out his own problems is an extension of the deeply—root— ed casework.belief in self«help.47 In 1951, Helen Harris Perlman.proposed an extended defin— ition of selfodetermination which.first appeared in a paper present— ed to the National Conference. A.more fully developed definition was presented in a subsequent paper. From the combined presentations, the following definition is drawn: Now it becomes necessary to revexamine what we mean by self— determination. We affirm again that to determine what one wants to do, to live by the exercise of one's own will rather than by the will of another - these are inalienable rights of free men. . . limited rights. . . because in order that they be exercised. . . they must be bounded by certain responses v i V 46Herbert Bisno, The Philoso p19: Social Work, 96. 47Gordon Hamilton, Theory and Practice , 44. .\ e 9 —. n 1 .. ..r 1 S . 2 5;. f .. : .i e t I .... .. .. ... C ... Y. E k E .u E E 5 C a ...... v. P. ... (z I Z : ... ... ...L .. v. ... o. .. v. : ... T. \J a“ ... .0. e ..C ?. ... p“ ... a. w.. .. —_ e a .C a. ... cc we ~. ‘11 \Il. .... ... C ... .I ... a. n. .. C .D n. a u. a? n3 - S I. ”I“ .34 ( a. on.“ e e ... .c “an. A an.“ a O. V N. «7 MI Km 75 to others and to the common.will of the community or expressed in custom and law . . . our rights to self-determination are limited in many ways . . . by explicit or implicit expectations of us, bycustom, by fashion, by ingrained habit. Full self- determination is an illusion; . . .48 We know that all our rights are limited by certain responsibil- ities to the rights of others. . . . Any valid and free choice of what we want to determine for ourselves rests upon out clear understanding of what the consequences of that choice are likely to be. . . .We work to help our client make free and conscious choices. We actually influence his choices because, by our questions, by the considerations we place before him, by our examination together . . . of his feelings and impulses and their relation implicit or explicit to social expectations, we attempt to affect his decision to act in ways that are com— patible with society's standards and values. The client remains self—determining, free to choose the way he will go.49 It would appear that we have.come full circle, returning once.more to Biestek‘s definition. It seems that the three basic propositions of his definition provide a succinct framework in which the various aspects of selfvdetermination can be assessed. These three prepositions are: (l) The client has a right and a need to be free in making his own decisions and choices. (2) The caseworker has a corresponding duty to respect that right and to refrain from interfering with it, but instead should help the client to exercise that right. (3) The client's right of freedom is limited, by his capacity, by the framework of social and moral good, by law, custom, community standards and agency function.50 WW7 v—vfi— fir 48Helen Harris Perlman, The Caseworker‘s Use of Collateral Information," in The Social Welfarngorum: 1951, 194-195. 49Perlman, Social Components of Casework Practice," in The Social_W§lfare Forum: 1953, 129-130. soBiestek, "The Principle of Client Self—Determination," Social Casework XXXII, 369-370. ’e L-d... :- v-9..- ' -8 “ E we \|ll ’1‘. 76 As one reviews the various definitions presented above, several minor variations appear which need some clarification. Also as a consequence of Biestek's basic definition appearing in the lit- erature, much discussion ensued as both theorists and practitioners sought to refine the concept and draw out from it the implications essential for applying the principle in the social work relation- ship. It is necessary then to review the propositions as presented by Biestek and the theory base that developed each of them. I. The Client has §_right and a need tg_bg_free ip_making his own decisions and choices. The essence of this propositions has already been presented in the preceeding section of this chapter in the discussion on freedom, democracy and independence. In brief review, the points were made that: (a) Each person, because he is a unique being, possesses the right to freedom of choice, based on his inherent dignity and worth. As a human being, he (the client) has the responsibility of living his life in such a manner as to achieve his life's goals, proximate and ultimate, as he conceives them. Corresponding to the responsibility he is endowed with a fundamental, inalienable right g2 choose and decide the means for . . . his own destiny. Each human being should be regarded by all others as an object of infinite worth. He should be preserved in a state comensurate with his innate dignity and protected from suffering. . . . In order to realize his potential— ities every human being must interact in giving and taking relationships with others and has an equal right to ffii fi _ w fl 511bid., 370. ’--A" '5' , n - .:.e I S: :12 9'— ‘ 55o ‘ 77 opportunities to do 80.52 The feelings, attitudes, orientation and practice of social workers in the American culture are inspired by the following democratic values: conviction of the inherent worth, the integrity, and the dignity of the individual; . . . The second generic principle is the conviction that the individual, who is in economic, personal, social need has the right to determine himself what his needs are and how they should be met.53 Prominent in any expression of our philOSOphy and purpose must be a simple declaration of our articles of faith set forth in language of unmistakeable charity: our concern for people; our respect for the dignity, integrity, the rights of the individual; our abhorrence of injustice as one of the greatest foes of freedom; our responsibility to speak and act with respect to the causes as well as the results of social maladjustment; and our major concern, not only for prevention, restoration and rehabilitation but for helping to create relationships in which human beings may live out their lives and develop their full potentialities as free people. One of the most basic of all principles in social work is respect for the dignity of the individual. It is not a monopoly of social workers. Indeed it is essential to the western way of life. . . . Each person has independent ethical worth. . . .55 We affirm again that to determine what one wants to do, to live by the exercise of one's own will rather than by the will of another - these are inalienable rights of free -men.56 As I understand it, the democratic philosophy implies those basic tenets which are the core of our social and political life, and which embrace a common creed, freedom, equality 52Pumphrev, Values and Ethics, 43-44. H 53Friedlander, "Generic Principles, ed. by Friedlander, 2—3. in Concepts and Methods, 4Leonard Mayo, "Presidential Address," in Trends ip_Social Policy, ed. by Frank J. Bruno, 370—371. 55Arthur P. Miles, American Social Wprk Theopy, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), 33. 6 5 Perlman, "Collateral Information," in The Sociaquelfare Forum: 1951, 194. 9 , a. . .9 ou’su‘. to 5kn§uéb Pu. ‘- c - 5 ‘.‘~ 78 and the pursuit of happiness - grounded in the primacy of the dignity of man and supremacy of the human spirit.57 The common thread which runs through these citations is the persistent recognition of the individual's right to be self- determining, based upon his "fundamental, inalienable rights" as a citizen in this democracy; based upon his being an "object of infinite worth," "an individual of integrity and dignity." (b) Not only does the client have a right to make his own decisions, he has a need to make his own choices. The client, like every human being, can achieve his prox- imate goals, the perfection of his personality, intellectual- ly, emotionally, socially, and spiritually, only through the exercise of his basic freedom. The client, specifical- ly as a client, needs freedom to make his own choices of the available means in order to make casework help effective. . . . Social responsibility, emotional adjustment, person— ality growth and maturity are possible only when the client exercises his freedom of choice and decisions.58 The exercise of responsibility is one of the principle sources of personality growth and maturity. Only through the exercise of responsibility in free decisions can the client strive toward the maturity of his personality, intellectually, socially, emotionally, and spiritually.59 It is not without significance that social work refers to both the right and the need of self—determination by the client... . . Social work has applied, in concrete fashion, the principle that the human being can attain his own perfection only through the exercise of his free will that he has both the right and the need to be free in his choices. To each person has been given the responsibil— ity of living his life in such a manner as to achieve its ~. \, '\ \ 4“ ‘ fi,fiw V“‘T—‘"'v“fifiv 57Martha Branscombe, "Basic Policies and Principles of Public Child Care Services," The Social Welfare Forum: 1951, 337. 58 Biestek, The Principle of Client Self—Determination," ‘r—‘ficwfiffi‘ 59Biestek, The Caseworijelationship, 104—105. h—r .fi—fi 79 goals, the immediate goals as well as the ultimate goals. The caseworker guides him to his own acceptance of his problems and to his own decision to find a new way. His freedom of choice forestalls any frustrated, discouraged feeling that he is asking for help, that another person is interfering with his private life or managing his affairs. He regains confidence in himself when he recognizes his ability to find solutions for his problems and to decide on his way of following through.61 Each person has the obligation, as a member of society, to seek ways of self—fulfillment that contribute to the common good. . . . Each person requires for the harmonious development of his powers, socially provided and socially safeguarded opportunities for satisfying his basic needs in the physi- cal, psychologicalz economic, cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual realms. Social workers are concerned with meeting basic human needs in the social realm. . . . The position is based on the view that the satisfaction of basic human needs is an essential condition for the attainment of human dignity and constitutes a necessary basis for individual self-fulfill- ment, the goal of social work as well as other professions. Not only does the client have a right to make his own choices, he also has a need to do so. The fulfillment of this need respects his personal growth, maturity and social respon- sibility. It is part of his total self needs, and any depriva- tion of these needs will negatively affect other parts of his social being and will in turn, bring about feelings of frustra- tion, discouragement and loss of self confidence. 60Bowers, "Human Problems," Social Casework, 189. 61Friedlander, "Generic Principles," in Concepts and Methods, ed. by-Friedlander, 3. 62Werner W. Boehm, "The Nature of Social Work," Social Work 3 (April 1958), 12. 63Werner W. Boehm, The Plan for the Social Work Curriculum Study, (New York: Council on Social Work Education), August 1956, 36. .0 ob. 3:: :36 3:: :68: ities 0”“ 0 . .‘O qup ...-35--..I “" ob. ...e..L 5 .~. ‘0' \ '5.- “Ouo.5 SJ r-x Lu / ’..4 u) Vi w 80 II. The caseworker has a_ggrresponding dutyt2_respect that right, ip;thepry and ip_practice by_refraining from any direct pg igdirect interference with it_and by_positively v—“T— rfi helping the*clientftgfexercise that right. This proposition places both positive and negative restraints upon the worker who is responsible for respecting the client's right and need for self—determination and for helping to provide opportun- ities which would build upon the client's capacities for self-deter— mination. Perlman, in her definition of self—determination, pointed out that the social workerappears to be violating this right of the client‘s through.the "influence" and "attempts to affect his (the client"s) decision."64 This then raises the question of and the need for consideration of the implications of self—determination as it pertains to the role of the social worker. Biestek noted infghgfgasework_Relationship a number of activities which he felt were in accord with the principle of client self—determination, to wit: (1) To help the client see his problem or need clearly and with perspective. (2) To acquaint the client with the pertinent resources in the community. (3) To introduce stimuli that will activate the client's own dormant resources. ‘fifi V‘fi-fi‘rfiu vV w 64Perlman, "Social Components," in The Social Welfare Forum: --1953, 129-130. 81 (4) To create a relationship in which the client can grow and work out his own problems.65 Charlotte Towle in viewing the client-worker relationship, added another dimension as she spoke of the need of the social worker: (5) To assume and sustain responsibility for the relationship. This recognizes that it is the professional responsibility of the social worker to create the atmosphere in which the client can develop and strengthen his capabilities. I have stressed this concept of client-centered activity and of professional responsibility to understand individuals in order to strengthen motivation and capacity because of a current tendency to depreciate social casework as a measure which violates individual's rights through taking over the management of their affairs and which thereby pauperizes the personality, making individuals dependent and less able to function on their own. This may have occurred but it need not occur and it definately is not implicit in the nature of the casework helping process. Another point which relates to the clientdworker relationship and which.Towle stressed as being necessary to facilitate the client‘s capacity to use self-determination, can be stated as: (6) To be aware of the worker's own feelings, attitudes and needs so as not to confuse his needs with the client's. This calls for increased self—awareness and requires self understanding so that the social worker can sus- tain an objective viewpoint. ~_‘\. ~ . 65Biestek, The Casework Relatiopship, 105—106. ‘ .“. 66Charlotte Towle, "Generic Trends in Education for Social work," in Helpipg, ed. by Perlman, 157-158. 82 Decisive also in purposeful relationships are the readiness to assume and sustain responsibility, the capacity to meet the dependency of others without taking the management of affairs out of their hands, the faculty for playing a minor subordinate, or major role, and an ability to separate one's self from another so that one's own feelings, attitudes, and needs are not blindly projected onto others. While both of these factors do serve to expand the creation of a conducive relationship as presented by Biestek, the profes- sional responsibility of the worker for the relationship and the professional use of self understanding are stressed time and again in the works referred to in the BIBLIOGRAPHY. Towle, as the master teacher, often chose to utilize the studentvteacher relationship to describe what she felt was im- portant and should be paralleled in the clientdworker relation— ship. In this context, she stressed the need for there being the capacity to change and for the capacity to do critical thinking on the part of the student. The capacity to change, she reflected, would reveal the need for the student to be either rigid or flexible, to be accepting or rejecting. By carrying this over then to the clientdworker relationship, it might be stated that the social worker needed: (7) To be open to change as part of the continual, self- evaluative process, to increase one'e self awareness. Towle noted that the social worker's attitudes in the learning process often.were not as important as the capacity for change itself. It is this added dimension of the social worker's \ '~. fi~fiiw ‘~‘ v—‘fi—‘i‘ifi 67Charlotte Towle, "Implications of Contemporary Human and Social Values for Selection of Social Work Students," Social Service Review, XXXIII (September 1959), 272. prztessxnal 5 * '«O '.J ., ‘ro»ess {A a“. 8:» k u. “E“ 83 professional skill and understanding that demonstrates one's ability to develop skills in relationship and one's own level of emotional development as well. It has been our observation that the individual's capacity for change has been more important than the attitudes them- selves. It has also seemed that the factors of rigidity or flexibility related primarily to the nature of the student's relationship experiences, hence to his emotional develop- ment, and prominently to his capacity for deep and mean— ingful relationships. Hence, deep resistance to change or readiness for it will be contingent on the extent to which the student is tied into past6§elationships or free to emancipate himself from them. (8) To have the capacity for doing critical thinking. Towle observed that one of the essential factors in the selection of students for professional training was that the student possessed the capacity: " . . . to think critically and analytically and to synthesize and to generalize; a capacity to break things down in order to build them up for use; a capac- ity to apply knowledge and a well established habit of seeking it, using it, testing it critically and formulating it as a principle."69 Towle continued the discussion and noted that this process is much like the professional study and assessment (diagnostic) process that was a crucial factor in the social work relationship. This is a part of the "scientific inquiry" whicb.is an integral part of the professional preparation along with.self«study and self-scrutiny. Capacity for scientific thinking in the affect-laden fact situation of social work relates to the emotional develop— ment perhaps to a greater extent then in the natural and .‘_ www “ ‘.‘wa‘v. ‘— 68 69 Ibid., 270. Ibid., 271. 84 biological sciences. . . . An expanded demand today, one which calls for emotional-intellectual integration, arises out of our readiness to conceptualize. . . . Professional perception is perception out of knowledge put to me, i.e., experience. It is necessary, therefore, that the two go hand in hand.70 During this decade, there was increased appreciation of the availability of knowledge from the social and behavioral sciences which needed to be integrated with the existing fund of social work knowledge. Among the concepts which seemed to have immediate relevance was an appreciation for the impact of culture upon both the client and the worker. Articles appeared which focused directly upon the nature of culture and the cul— tural processes, the impact of culture in shaping and molding attitudes and behavior as well, and the multi-dimensional sources of the demands made upon each individual as a result of his being a part of many sub-groups or sub-cultures found in every society. The identification of certain types of behav— ior as acceptable or unacceptable, i.e., deviant, was deter- mined by values and the priorities given to certain values.7 The social worker, then, should have an understanding of 7OIbid. 71Grace Langwell Coyle, "The Bridge Between Social Work and the Social Sciences," The Social Welfare Forum: 1958; 216—238; Walter B. Miller, "Implications of Urban Lower-Class Culture for Social Work," XXXIII (Sept. 1959), 219-236; Brook Chisolm, "World Mental Health," TheSocial Welfare Forum: 1960, 42-53; David Landy, "Problems of the Per- son Seeking Help in Our Culture," The Social Welfare Forum: 1960, 127— 145; Florence R. Kluckholn, "Dominant and Variant Cultural Value Orien- tations," The Social welfare Forum: 1951, 97-113; Paul Barrabee, "How Cultural Factors Affect Family Life,"The Social Welfare Forum: 1954, 17-30; Irving weisman and Jacob Chwast, "Control and Values in Social ibrk Treatment," Social Casework, 60 (Nov. 1960), 451-456. shared values. their ' i the effect of evaluat value orientation, i.e ii:e:tive to guide the relationship: (9) To understand attitudes, an; client and we] is Euckholm FUt it: Value systems are are so often uses: conscious awarenes tors, social work: have difficulty it difficult still tt differ in their bq selves and for ot? value orientation follov.72 HaVin mm of th 3 a consciou aspects of t socia groups of whh reference group tha‘ self emotionallv and 72 “H‘lilizluckholm "V ue 731de 85 cultural values, their impact upon individual behavior, and the effect of evaluating others in relationship to one's own value orientation, i.e., ethnocentrism. Another Operational directive to guide the social worker in the client-worker relationship: (9) To understand the effect of culture in shaping values, attitudes, and behavioral options in the lives of both client and worker. As Kluckholm put it: Value systems are so often implicit, rather than eXplicit, are so often unconsciously adhered to rather than held in conscious awareness, that all of us, whether we be educa- tors, social workers, public administrators, or whatever, have difficulty in recognizing them at all. It is more difficult still to see that in many cases, a reason persons differ in their behavior, or create problems for theme selves and for others, is to be found in the system of value orientation they either choose or are required to follow.72 Having a conscious awareness of cultural factors as impor- tant aspects of the total action and motivational systems of the individuals in different societies or subgroups is a first step toward a fuller understanding of individual personalities. A systematic conceptualization of the major and alternative cultural values (the dominant and the variant) and the relations between them is the second and necessary step. Increased understanding of culture and the life of the individ- ual called for seeing the individual within the context of the social groups of which he was a member, or which he used as a reference group, that is, a group to which he identified him- self emotionally and used their values as guides to direct his 72Kluckholm, "Value Orientations," The Social welfare Forum: 1951, 11—112. 73Ibid.,'113. 86 behavior. The meaning of everyone's environment is for him largely determined by the values he uses in trying to understand it. This is of tremendous importance to the social worker who is constantly called upon to interpret the behavior of clients. Since this worker is most apt to evaluate a particular client in terms of his own values, he may well assume that the client behaves according to the same values. Obviously, the social worker might therefore consider as deviant behavior what might be normal in the client's subculture. Clearly, if the worker is really to understand his client, he must be sensitive to the impact that his client's cultural values have upon the meanings he attaches to the world about him.74 Typically, responsibility in social life is evaluated in terms of the values of the groups to which a person be- longs. The values upheld by the "responsible" person are those of his reference groups, such as his family, school, play group, gang, club work group, professional group, community, and nation.7 Man's concept of himself among men is determined by atti- tudes and responses of others to him. For security in the group, he identifies with its prevailing sentiments. Processes through which attitudes, favorable or unfavor— able, are acquired are fundamentally alike. In setting goals for treatment, the worker should endeavor to evaluate the apprOpriateness of his value-laden con- cepts of desirable behavior and adequate social function- ing. If the worker makes the error of considering his own values "universals," his treatment efforts are not likely to succeed. The worker should endeavor to understand the client's values, recognizing that relatively few standards can be validly applied to all members of society. Failure to recognize relative personal and cultural patterns, in ‘ face,can only defeat the purpose of helping persons to attain 74Barabee, "Cultural Factors," The Social welfare Forum: 1954, l7. 75Miuzafer Sherif, "Social Responsibility and the Group," The Social welfare Forum: 1956, 233. 76 Charlotte Towle, The Learner ip Education, 47. sezr-rulttument i Thus, if the socia into the meaning c he tries to handle the nature of the a and see how those ' and to his needs, - of solidarity upon olt'n'n his family. strategic position gain from rebelllor fears will be the c chooses a partlcula (ll) To view the :1 relationship. he final direnslon sit. on the relationship a: pay contained in the lathe literature as a worker see the client Partner in the relati Grace Coyle n; ‘35 at the heart of t that it “8 Primarilv ‘0 insure its applice violated or abused To understand at 7,110 mans the . ourselves of as the c”Walling paCt of all Objec 87 self-fulfillment in a democratic sense.7 Thus, if the social worker is to gain a deeper insight into the meaning of stress to the client and of the ways he tries to handle it, he must not only be informed of the nature of the values which are unsatisfactory to him and see how those values relate to other pertinent values and to his needs, but also he must be aware of the type of solidarity upon which the client is basing his security within his family. Then the worker will be in a much more strategic position to understand what the client hopes to gain from rebellion, against what he is rebelling, what he fears will be the consequences of rebellion, and why he chooses a particular way to rebel. (10) To view the client as an equal partner in the relationship. One final dimension which is an outgrowth of Biestek's focus on the relationship and which gets to the heart of the philos— Ophy contained in the principle of self-determination appeared in the literature as an expression of concern that the social worker see the client as a member of the team and a true partner in the relationship. Grace Coyle noted that the sharing in participation, was at the heart of the theory behind self-determination, and that it was primarily the responsibility of the professional to insure its application. She urged caution lest it be violated or abused. To understand about values, our own or other people's, is by no means the same as to achieve and internalize for ourselves or as a profession the guiding principles and the controlling ethics we require. In fact, the first im- pact of an objective approach to the examination of values 7Heisman and Chwast, "Control and Values," Social Casework, 455, 78Barra‘bee,"Cu1tural Factors," The Social welfare Forum: 1954, 76. uh ’1 - ' e'.‘ . 1.".- 88 seems at times to throw some peOple into such a relativis— tic confusion that they hesitate to deve10p any well-fourrled convictions. It has been long recOgnized that those who eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge are thereafter con- fronted with new problems regarding good and evil. In our terms, it becomes increasingly true that the more we under- stand of human behavior, the more possible it becomes to control it; in the worst sense of the term, to manipulate it. This realization has made us at times refuse to face our inevitable responsibility.79 We must rather push our thinking further until we have learned how to ensure that our dealings with groups and communities are based on shared purposes. we must function with an integrity which does not refuse the responsibility of authority where it is required but exercises it in the interests of the full deve10pment of each individual and the expansion of democratic functioning. The better our tools, the more responsible we become for our use of them. we must be guided by an adequate phiIOSOphy which deals with both the individual and society and a professional ethics in which human relations are treated with integrity in the interest of a constantly enhanced human life.8 By describing this partnership between client and worker within the team.frame of reference, one is able to draw upon material which deals with the team approach to problem solving and extend it to apply to the client-worker relationship. Two articles appeared during this decade which made significant contribu- tion to this discussion. Between them, they focused upon how a team functions and what the quality of the inter—personal relationships between the team members should be.81 79Grace Coyle, "TheBridge Between," The Social Welfare Forum: 1958, 234-235. 801bid., 236. 81Eleanor Cockerill, "The Interdependency of the Professions in Helping Pe0ple," in The Social Welfare Forum, 1953, 137-147; Frederick A. Whitehouse, "Professional Teamwork," in The Social HEJfare Forum, 1957, 148-157. i’nitehouse def . . , a close, C091 union devoted to a for the fundarenta work through 3 C035 ,3.ng planning; and balance in act Cockerill enp'n. thing which "is create. shared by every partic of these definitions a totes a "good" apprcac part of the process an of a 800d team. This I .0: ’ enat which drains i saterial.8a 18?) [I 89 Whitehouse defined teamwork as: . . . a close, cooperative, democratic, multiprofessional union devoted to a common purpose — the best treatment for the fundamental need of the individual. Its members work through a combined and integrated diagnosis; flexible, dynamic planning; prOper timing and sequence of treatment; and balance in action. Cockerill emphasized that the team concept was some- thing which "is created" and responsibility for which "must be "83 What emerges then from both shared by every participant. of these definitions as a succinct expressions of what consti- tutes a "good" approach and Operation, what is included as part of the process and what would characterize the performance of a good team. This has been pulled together in the following foremat which drains upon both the Whitehouse and Cockerill material. A good team philosophy is based on: 1. a common philosOphy stemming from a whole-person (Gestalt) commitment and faith in the method as implied in the team concept. 2. the democratic nature of team leadership and its application administratively. 3. the equality of its status pattern. 4. the form of its clinical freedom. 5. the extent of the maturity or stage of development of the relationship. 82Whitehouse, "Professional Teamwork," in The Social welfare Forum: 1957 , 148 . 83Cockerill, "Interdependency," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1953, 144. 8(.Whitehouse, "Professional Teamwork," 156-157; Cockerill, "Interdependency," 144. 90 A "good" team provides: 1. Opportunity for communication. 2. specific sessions for self-examination of its process and mutual educative exchange. 3. a realistic setting for clienttesting; trial and observation. 4. full and sufficient time for the client to respond and progress. A "good'team is characterized by: 1. freedom of discussion. 2. a concensus in its decisions. 3. good personal relations between members. 4. respect for Opinions and accomodation for minor differences. 5. flexibility and dynamic planning. 6. mutual responsibility for preparation. Through the development of an effective team relationship which is based on an understanding of basic democratic philos- ophy and through the development of the give-and-take of a team.process and the factors which characterize the team rela— tionship, the social worker is able to fulfill his commitment to client self-determination, that is, "the engaging of the client in both defining and solving the problems."85 Biestek also made mention of some negative factors which could be detrimental to the clientdworker relationship and which would be implicit or explicit violations Of the es- sence of the principle of client self-determination. While 85Towle, "Generic Trends," in Helping, ed. by Perlman, 158. all the above pair. have their negativ State the: in the me the points t: Segatively, t1“ Considered to 1- To assure out of the a SUbordi: "' I0 insis: tional 11! he reques: 3. To deter-23' 1‘ ueon :2 4° To adViSe feels fcr‘ 5. TO manipu: To PerSua\- In sun—“nary then, taining the priaa tionship which we principle of die: facilitate the pa nity for him to u self-determinatio: see his problem c in: iomation to hi 91 all the above points are expressed positively; they each would have their negative corollaries. It is not necessary to re— state them in the negative at this point. Rather one should note the points to which Biestek explicitly called attention: Negatively, the following activities of a caseworker are considered to be at variance with the principle: 1. TO assume the principle responsibility for the working out of the problem and to allow the client to play only a subordinate role. 2. To insist on a minute scrutiny of the social or emo- tional life Of every client, regardless of the service he requests. 3. To determine the treatment plan and then to superimpose it upon the client. 4. To advise and Offer plans in such a way that the client feels forced to accept the worker's suggestion. 5. To manipulate, directly or indirectly. 6. TO persuade in a controlling way.86 In summary then, the role of the social worker is seen as con- taining the primary responsibility for the creation of a rela- tionship which would build on the phiIOSOphy inherent in the principle Of client self-determination and which would further facilitate the participation Of the client and create Opportu- nity for him to utilize his right and respect his need for self-determination. This would include helping the client to see his problem clearly and with perspective by presenting information to him regarding both agency and community re- sources, as well as helping him to capitalize upon his own personal resources. This would also require that a relation- ship be established which would provide for such an Opportunity 86Biestek, The Casework Relationship, 106-107; Biestek, "Client Self-Determination," SCW XXXII, 371. '.5 pain both worker a: sense of the word. Towards this sate of his own feel stand the impact of C! open to the impact of Such oppenness in tur' searching, and have a Eclient's m _t_C tli_e“t_'_s capacity :3: an_d authority,_bl SE Biestek, in i the fact that self-d; t° many limitations. tions of the Princi (1) pl Limitations aris Positive and co- (2) Limitations aria (3) Limi tatiOns 31:1 (6) Limitations ar‘.’ (5) Limitations ari norms of the CC 92 wherin both worker and client are partners in the fullest sense of the word. Towards this end, the social worker also needs to be aware Of his own feeling, values, and attitudes; to under- stand the impact Of culture upon both their lives; to remain Open to the impact of new or added dimensions of knowledge. Such Oppenness in turn demands that the worker be flexible, searching, and have a willingness to learn. III The client's Eigh£_£g_freedom, however, is limited by;thg_ client's capacity for positive and constructive self—deter- ‘mination, by_the framework g£_social and moral good, by law and authority, by the standards gf_the community and by_t (D function g£_thg_agency. Biestek, in presenting this third proposition, affirmed the fact that self-determination is, as are all rights, subject to many limitations. Specifically, be identified the limita— tions of the principle of client self-determination as: (1) Limitations arising out of the client's capacity for positive and constructive decision making. (2) Limitations arising from civil law. (3) Limitations arising from the moral law. (4) Limitations arising from the agency function. (5) Limitations arising from the unwritten standards and norms of the community.87 87Biestek, The Casework Relationship, 109+118; Biestek, "Client Self-Determination,” SCW XXXII, 372. wins this “ca“ 57331-3 aspects i “:.t tions then (1) Limitations positive and Biestek observed potential, equal folly avail hints one of us has a awareness and ur limitations due lectual, and 83.: disadvantaged or The ideal 0.- mOdified by Since the Ca Client, the him to great . , . . The tion of this in casework Ralph Tyler in 1* Behavioral Scier hilities and hi 5 observatiou 93 During this decade, many writers sought to clarify and simpli— fy many aspects Of these duggested limitations. Each of these limitations then, bear fuller consideration at this time. (1) Limitations arising out of the client's capacity for positive and constructive decision making. Biestek Observed that ideally, all persons would have equal potential, equal resources, equal Opportunity in order to fully avail himself of this right. In reality, however, each one of us has a wide variety of levels of skills, levels of awareness and unique capabilities. we also have areas Of limitations due to past and present physical, social, intel- lectual, and emotional conditions and events which leave us disadvantaged or handicapped in respective ways. The ideal of each client being fully self-determined is modified by the realities in each individual instance. Since the capacity to make decisions varies from client to client, the worker is aware of the client's mental and physical capacity to act for himself and does not force him to greater self-determination than he has capacity for . . . . The capacity of clients has degrees. The evalua- tion of this capacity is one of the more important skills in casework. Ralph Tyler in his article "Inplications of Research in the Behavioral Sciences,‘ commented on this unevenness of capa- bilities and his statement is supportive of Biestek's Observation. Another interesting fact is that most persons do not recognize problems equally well in all subject areas. One person may be very facile in identifying and attacking problems in engineering and yet be quite lacking in the ability to recognize and to attack problems of human 88Biestek, "Client Self-Determination," SCW XXXII, 372. relations' A30: in business and although some pi all areas and a‘. cost persons wt to field-6 Perk-an discussed t banen to 8 person' that are realistic: Self-detel‘mnat when emotional perception of ‘-' standing 15 d”: such times our neat and object we take under 5 they are both 5' I. another point which aiaation can also b1 awareness or suffic the choice he is ab put of others, in tl 50, he is deferring professional authori Yet a third lini self-determiner; results or the“ When an i understan- P ications of h t such a t be .1. 0 trust what 1 clear 94 relations. Another may be skillful in attacking problems in business and yet blind to problems in civic affairs. Although some persons are highly sensitive to problems in all areas and are flexible in their attack upon them, most persons vary in their problem—solving from field to field.89 Perlman discussed the effect Of emotional stress and what can happen to a person's ability to think and function in ways that are realistic, objective and reflective Of good judgment. Self—determination is limited for all of us at those times when emotional stress or involvement is so great that our perception Of what is realistic is dimmed, our under— standing is dulled, or our perspective is distorted. At such times our capacity tO be self-determining with judg— ment and objectivity is obviously impaired. The choices we make under such circumstances are not free choices; they are both shackled and distorted by anxiety.90 Another point which Perlman brought out is that self—deter- mination can also be limited when one does not have a full awareness or sufficient information as to the consequence of the choice he is about to make. Then he must rely on the in- put Of Others, in this instance, the social worker. In doing so, he is deferring his ability to make his own choice to the professional authority of the worker. Yet a third limitation lies on self-determination. True self-determination can only take place when we know the results or the meaning of the choice of action that we make. When an individual is not equipped by knowledge or clear understanding to judge what the consequences or im- plications of his choice will be, he is not free to choose. At such a time his choice may have to be to trust or not to trust what is accepted to be the responsible and more expert Opinion Of someone else. When, for example, I go to a doctor with pain in my chest I am in no way equipped 89 1960, 124. 90Perlman, "Collateral Information," in The Social Welfare Forumn_ 1951, 195. Tyler, "Implications of Research," The Social welfare Forum: to decide whe th whether he s'nou whether he shoal the doctor I saw.- telling me that lhave any objec is done out of 1: helpful to me. . t': 1 L fine final observatic tions to full self-c client. This relate the influence of cuI to: and culture, an; believe to be avail.- alternatives . Our rights to se subtle ways of s Cit or implicit by ingrained ha‘. 51°“; it 18 alwa necessary to 0m lives would be « about each acti; energies VOUld 1 bus? exercisin. Possibility 056. maolot problems ‘ no“ imposed b). °iherg VhiCh are two, are “mans in relatiOn to One other diner-51 - on is L toe considerati, r atiOnalizatiOn fr, rarticipation in t‘ claims that s 0119 'C 91I ~§1‘- 97 95 to decide whether I will or will not have an X-ray, whether he should or should not consult with a colleague, whether he should or should not get a medical history from the doctor I saw last year. I expect the courtesy of his telling me that he will do this or that, or asking me if I have any Objections, but I must assume that what he does is done out Of his professional judgment that it will be helpful to me.91 One final Observation Perlman made, also bears upon the limita— tions to full self-determination which are found within the client. This related to the earlier discussion dealing with the influence of culture. We are all creatures of habit, cus- tom and culture, and thereby are limited in the Options we believe to be available or at least which seem to be viable alternatives. Our rights to self-determination are limited in many subtle ways of which we are not even conscious - by expli- cit or implicit expectations of us, by custom, by fashion, by ingrained habit. Full self-determination is an illu- sion; it is always closely limited. Actually, limits are necessary to our integrity and even to our survival. Our lives would be intolerable if we had to make a decision about each action we had to take. Our physical and mental energies would be totally dissipated, and we would be so busy exercising self-determination that there would be no possibility of focusing our thought and energy on new and major problems of living. The limits upon self—determina- tion imposed by habits, customary procedures, decision of others which are impersonal and general in their applica- tion, are means by which we are freed to think and act in relation to significant problem-solving.92 One other dimension of limitation by habit, custom, or culture is the consideration of limitation due to social class. One rationalization frequently used to exclude or to deny clients participation in the decision-making process is one that claims that one "class" - usually the lower class - or one glIbid. 921bid. gazegory - usuallj Lack of adequate 1 Tyler answered t'r. :hildren and adul bezoae involved 1 rarity then, soul deterrination . one question social classe Others, The studies show £038 bOth ch partiCUlar pr and the 3553: Changed Vary because of th. at Chair dis? Sarding "ECCQI optimsIn in ti all SOCial Cl. Skill in Prob; It seems Valid, t‘: worker to Seek to ulion his capachic Ever Poseib 1e . 9' “e 96 category - usually children - are less capable because of the lack of adequate preparation or participation in the process. Tyler answered this challenge by pointing out that all peeple — children and adults - of all social classes can be and do become involved in decision—making. To deny them this Oppor- tunity then, would constitute a violation of client self- determination. One question that frequently arises is whether certain social classes are more adept at problem-solving than others. The evidence is incomplete, but the present studies show that there is a good deal of problemrsolving among both children and adults of all social classes. The particular problems, the language in which they are couched, and the assumption made about the factors which cannot be changed vary from one social class to another, probably because of their different situations, the different forces at their disposal, and the different conventions re- garding "acceptable" behavior. But there is cause for optimism in the indication of large numbers of peOple in all social classes who have potentialities for developing skill in problem-solving.93 It seems valid, then, to reaffirm the need for the social worker to seek to deve10p client's Opportunities for building upon his capacities for self-determination whenever and where- ever possible. we who are committed to the belief that each person is unique, that each has the need to be seen as an in- dividual with inherent dignity and worth, are thereby com- pelled to encourage the fullest possible participation of the client in the decision-making process. As Perlman concluded: Let us be sure that the social caseworker will work with his client in such ways as to understand, relate to, and use differentially each client's individual motives, 93Tyler, "Implications of Research," The Social welfare Forum: 1960, 124. desireS. 3115:}? nethod by de.l-- Seals. too. at: client wants a: (I) Lizzitations arr In any mod- serve to regulate towards or away ff Amrican society 1 individual and to order to assure ti“. powers, including Sane individual ri state. Biestek, i “Perience showed limitations of the rePresented , Caseworkers ar the clients at tions °f Perso The Seneral pu tom abUSlng O society from S as been that , adeSt t0 the Another d1: imita ' tions "181:1,- Ea flier it was not e 97 desires, and capabilities. That is to say, the casework method by definition is an individualized method, and the goals, too, are individualized in terms of what each client wants and how far he is able to go.94 (2) Limitations arising from civil law. In any modern society there are a series of laws which serve to regulate human behavior, to guide and direct action towards or away from certain acts. The purpose of law in American society is twofold: to protect the rights of the individual and to protect the welfare of the society. In order to assure the protection of the rights of peOple, certain powers, including the police powers, are vested in the state. Some individual rights are deferred to regulation by the state. Biestek, in commenting upon this noted that social work experience showed that clients often were accepting of the limitations of the legitimate authority which the social worker represented. Caseworkers are primarily interested in the skills whereby the clients are helped to accept and adjust to the limita- tions of personal freedom arising from law and authority. The general purpose of law is to prevent the individual from abusing or misusing his liberty, and to protect society from such abuse. The experience of caseworkers has been that normally clients are willing to accept and adjust to the limitations set down by legitimate authority95 Another dimension of this discussion regarding the limitations arising from civil law is this matter of authority. Earlier it was noted that there were several types of authority 94 1953, 128. 95 Perlman, "Social Components," in The Social welfare Forum: Biestek, "Client Self-Determination," SCW XXXII, 373. atich needed to 1 Itvauld serve t 3' Elliot 5335: satial work $913 Biestek that, "1 During t relating to 8981’ housing, educati :inority people. éecision ruled t that the laws 1.": tional systems w facilities are i illustrate how t the rights of al Pimple from havit PefSOUal CiVi l 1 do! Of Choice am to a mvth . (3) LmtatiOns E Biestek, 13386 of SOCial w fall? , ’ The Con: LAW-1‘? (Ju 98 which needed to be considered in the social work relationship. It would serve this discussion well to recall the observation of Elliot Studt that, "Authority of some sort appears in all social work relationships," and add to it the caution of Biestek that, "It must be used delicately and skillfully."96 During this decade, there was much interest in matters relating to segregation, and the inequities of Opportunity in housing, education, voting and employment for many of the minority people. The Supreme Court in 1954 in a most momentous decision ruled that segregation per se was unconstitutional, that the laws which established "separate but equal" educa- tional systems were invalid because, "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."97 These laws served to illustrate how the purpose and intent of the law to protect the rights of all the peOple could be abused to prevent some peOple from having the right of access to or exercise of their personal civil liberties. This then was a violation of free- dom of choice and reduced their right of self—determination to a myth. (3) Limitations arising from moral law. Biestek, in his discussion of the concept of moral law, spoke not only of the recognition of the Judeo-Christian her— itage of social work but also spoke from.his own personal 96Studt, "The Contribution of Correctional Practice," Social Casework, XXXIV (June 1954), 264; Biestek, "Client Self-Determination," scw mu, 373. 97Patrick.Miurra.y Malin, "Civil Rights and Civil Liberties," in The EncycloPedia of Social WOrk: 1957, ed. by Russell H. Kurtz (New York: NAsw, Stratford Press, Inc., 1957), 165. philossehical an: 1 Jesuit priest . hinted out that pt thcices did not G Rather it was the client to deal wf the client, the 1 experience as a < The natural I own life does have the phys no real right fronting the the framework the client is moral. The c Philosotahy of ference Sion . . ”any ”We Prohibi civil law . . Church's leg: YW- net is mPOrtan t retains the fish t 99 philosOphical and religious commitment related to his vows as a Jesuit priest. Within this frame Of reference, then, he pointed out that the individual's right to act and to make choices did not extend tO the performance Of moral wrongs. Rather it was the social worker's responsibility to help the client to deal with the moral dilemma, and to anticipate with the client, the range of feelings which the client might experience as a consequence Of his violation of moral law. The natural right to make choices and decisions about one's own life does not extend to moral level; a person might have the physical power to make such a choice but he has no real right to do so. Ordinarily, the choices con- fronting the client in most casework situations are within the framework Of moral good, but cases do arise in which the client is inclined to a course of action which is im- moral. The caseworker who Operates within a well—integrated philosophy Of social work does not assume an air Of indif- ference . . . but helps the client to avoid such a deci- sion . . . . Many Of the commonly accepted moral laws, such as those prohibiting stealing and murder, are covered by civil law . . . . Some moral laws are a part Of the Church's legislation only.98 What is important to remember here is that the client still retains the right to make his own choices, that the worker must not attempt tO impose his own value structure upon the client or to judge him,and that the worker, if in a conflict over the moral issue, has a right to his feelings and Opinions. If he is unable to continue working with the client, unless he (the worker) feels a loss Of personal integrity, the client should be assisted or directed to continue with another 98Biestek, The Casework Relationship, 115—116. 99 yorker . (4) Limitations E Briefly I social agencies . function or on t‘ 5032 limitations found due to the which prescribes occasions, priva‘ Ind/or adaption 1 licensing, laws 1 or by the amount ice delivery, As Each social 3 eStablished t tions t0 its 1 t0 agency f, atawards e11 Offered, 160 PEIl: 100 worker.9 (4) Limitations arising from agency function. Briefly stated Biestek noted that public and private social agencies each have prescribed limitations on their function or on the services which they can Offer. At times, some limitations, as is also true of the public agencies, are found due to the statuatory authority or enabling legislation which prescribes the scOpe of the intended services. On other occasions, private agencies, such as those related to the care and/or adOption of children are affected by laws relating to licensing, laws regarding the rights of parents and children, or by the amount Of funds which are available for use in serv- ice delivery. As Biestek commented: Each social agency, whether public or private, has been established to perform a more or less specifically defined function in the community. TO achieve its purpose the agency has the right and the need to establish limita- tions tO its services. These boundaries are incorporated into agency function and are concretely expressed in rules, standards eligibility requirements, and kinds Of services Offered.160 Helen Harris Perlman also referred tO the constraining effect which agency function and services posed at times, thus limiting the Options Of choice for the client. The focus Of his concern and work with the client is determined in large part by the function Of his agency; many Of the things the caseworker can or cannot dO and some Of the ways in which he can or cannot Operate are determined by the agency's policies; and the goal toward which he and his client work, whether it be within ready or remote realization, is a goal which is considered to be, at the least, socially acceptable, at the best, 991b1d., 118. looIbid. «Ink 101 socially desirable . . . . Obviously, the client and his behavior will be judged either by the worker's own personal standards and values or by the prevailing standards and values which society sets up the social agency to maintain or to further. In the first instance our client would be subject to the per— sonal standards and prejudices Of an individual worker, Of which the worker may not even be conscious. In the second instance he and his behavior would be gauged consciously against that which society and its social agency hold to].01 be conducive to the individual's and the group's welfare. Other limitations tO client self-determination arising out Of the agency, its purpose, function and service provided are' those due to the amount Of time and effort necessary to bring about change or reform, the demand placed upon agencies at times tO cut back services and the red tape which seems to interfere with the provision Of services. Group action sometimes fails because the participants ex— pect tOO much. They refuse to accept political com— promise. They do not appreciate the length of time and the amount Of effort needed to achieve governmental reform.102 Undue emphasis upon the reduction Of caseloads . . . has been shown by experience to lead to an unimaginative and insensitive approach to recipient's needs and Often to most restrictive, punitive practices which have destroyed self-respect and created additional dependency thus defeating even their stated Objectives . . . .103 Before it is tOO late, a "breakthrough" of the bureaucracy Of social work must be made tO a vast public. People are so irritated by what they call "red tape" and by what seems to be a cold, technical approach that they turn to the black market in adOptions, the unsupervised home for the 101Perlman, "Social Components," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1953, 126—127. 102Guy C. Larcom, Jr., "Democracy vs. Bureaucracy - The Citi zen's Role," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1953, 60. 103"Notes and Comments: Public Assistance - Straws in the Wind," Social Service Review, XXIX (March 1955), 75. th gglfigo or S and distreS (a) Linitatiws the cmunit One need tional by virtue '.it‘n others, in group or comuni of conduct, whic mores. Biestek . variety of behav: social, moral an: here is that the milieu in which t his consideration available. Biest Beat of the disc. needs to be part 4 soda1 work . 102 aging, or they stay in the tragic, dark places Of poverty and distress rather than seek help. (5) Limitations arising from unwritten standards and norms Of the community. One needs tO consider the limitations which are Opera- tional by virtue of the fact that we all live in interaction 'with Others, in groups and in communities. Found in each group or community are a number Of standards, unwritten codes Of conduct, which are commonly referred to as folkways and mores. Biestek Observed that these standards relate tO a wide variety Of behavioral situations and can include the health, social, moral and religious aspects Of life. What is important here is that the worker and the client understand the cultural milieu in which the client functions and how it impinges upon his consideration Of alternative possibilities which are available. Biestek concluded that consideration Of the adjust— ment Of the client tO the social community in which he lives, needs tO be part Of the assessment process for effective social work. In some closely knit communities, most Often in neighbor- hoods where one racial Or religious group dominates and in small towns or villages, there exist certain Opinions, standards, and norms that are not written into any civil law. These may relate to health, social, moral, or reli- gious standards Of behavior. Since they are unwritten, there is frequently a vagueness and uncertainty in iden- tifying what these standards are, how they were estab- lished, and how they can be accurately recognized. . . . The important fact to a caseworker is that these standards 104Margaret Hickey, "Presidential Address," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1957, 6. are realities the 80315 °f must include as an indivii These tions to clie caseworker is these standat treatment are In this factor of often finds that cmunity. As we considerations 1: and the attitudes services. Evelin create problems 5 welfare programs No concept is than the come societ int . thr y er, 0" US back Ptiate compro: and the intere the moat diffi the Effort to :2 no 3Ction, y eWand p05 103 are realities in the client's life. As such, they affect the goals Of casework. The client's personal adjustment must include a sound, realistic social adjustment, because as an individual he lives in a definite social community. These standards, which inevitably denote limita- tions tO client freedom . . . . The function Of the caseworker is to help the client accept and adjust to these standards. Truly effective casework service and treatment are not possible without this adjustment.105 In this factor Of the unwritten standards Of the community, one Often finds that they reflect the bases and prejudices of the community. As was mentioned, these attitudes are important considerations in both the creation and delivery Of services and the attitudes towards those who are recipients Of such services. Eveline Burns noted that these attitudes can and do create problems for the develOpment and enactment Of social welfare programs, especially those initiated by the government. NO concept is given greater veneration among social workers than the concept Of self-determination. Obviously, no society interprets this concept literally; to do so would throw us back to anarchy. But the discovery Of the appro- priate compromise between individual self-determination and the interests Of the community as a whole is one Of the most difficult issues Of our time. For it involves the effort to understand the true consequences Of action and no action, including the fact that compulsion on some may expand possibilities Of selfedetermination for Others, and a weighing Of competing social values. Uncertainty as to the moral justification for invoking compulsion is undoubtedly one Of the reasons why we are cautious in the use Of government for social welfare Objectives.106 Perlman in her discussion Of the many limitations to the right Of self—determination also included consideration Of the 105Biestek, "Client Self—Determination," SCW XXXII, 374. 106Eveline M. Burns, "The Role Of Government in Social Welfare,’ in The Social welfare Forum: 1954, 73. mutation t0 5‘ the communityV 35 be just another We affirm as to live by t1 the will Of a w". A freeman. i order that t? bounded by ce others and tc expressed in As I revi liaitations which ‘5 an exPansion 0 variables which 1‘ fit“ Proposed ad; (5) Limitations 31 inability to a “Nut? and c This Preps is an utension of observed 11211 tatio the cmfines of ci‘ self. 104 limitation to self-determination due to the "common will Of the community as expressed in custom and law." This seems to be just another way Of saying what has just been discussed. we affirm again that tO determine what one wants tO dO, to live by the exercise Of one's own will rather than by the will Of another - these are the inalienable rights of free men. They are limited rights, Of course, because in order that they shall be exercised by all they must be (bounded by certain responsibilities Of each individual to Others and to the common will Of the community as expressed in custom and law.107 As I reviewed the literature, there are two other limitations which appear and which I feel should be considered as an expansion Of the preceding limitations and also as variables which lend new insight tO this discussion. The first proposed addition to the limitations: (6) Limitations arising out Of the worker's inexperience, inability to accept the client, own lack Of personal maturity and capacity for insight. This proposed addition to the list Of limiting factors is an extension Of the discussion as presented by Biestek. He Observed limitations arising from within the community, within the confines Of civil and moral law and within the agency it- self. What he failed to include is recognition Of those limitations related to the social worker. The case was made earlier, Of the worker's responsibility to provide Opportunities through which the client may exercise and develop his capacities regarding self-determination. It was also suggested that the Forum: 107Perlman, "Collatoral Information," in The Social Welfare 1951, 194. sccial worker nee care of his own ate diagnosticall iglicit, but shc tins coming fro: Such linj restrict then the able to extend tc Isle elaborated Peters. Decisive alsc working relat sustain respc 0f others wit their hands, role as well one's self f: tUdES’ and DE An individua; likes to 1an People. He, his mm need PIEdileCtiOn. Stringer“. thl " - only a the Client's act on SOCietyvs la SOCial PrObl The the“ 108\ Towle, Th L . 109 \ t \ {'5 pt 5353112 dRUth Shane)- e Practice 1: 1’ ' u 105 social worker needed to be able to think critically, to be aware of his own feelings, biases, and attitudes and to evalu— ate diagnostically. The other side of this - which may be implicit, but should be explicit, is that there are limita- tions coming from the worker's side of the partnership. Such limitations on the part of the worker serves to restrict then the amount and quality of the assistance he is able to extend to the client in the social work relationship. Towle elaborated on this point, as did Ruth Smalley and Mary Peters. Decisive also in establishing and maintaining purposeful working relationships will be a readiness to assume and sustain responsibility, the capacity to meet the dependency of others without taking the management of affairs out of their hands, the willingness to play a minor or subordinate role as well as a major one, and an ability to separate one's self from another so that one's own feelings, atti- tudes, and needs are not blindly projected onto others. . An individual may have entered a profession because he likes to influence, mold, reform, punish, cure or help people. He cannot serve them in ways that serve primarily his own need. Instead, he must subordinate his ideas and predilections to the way of the profession and its in- strument, the agency.1 . . . only as the student (or worker) has conviction about the client's right, responsibility and capacity to make and act on his own decisions within the framework of society's laws is he able to help the client with a social problem.1 The client's inherent right to choose what services he ‘will accept from the agency places definite limits on the 108Towle, The Learner, 10-11. 109Ruth Smalley, "Can We Reconcile Generic Education and Specialized Practice," in The Social welfare Forum: 1953, 323. usefulness C in his de$er He (the "'0“ philosophy I ever be 3 cc to the achié ice is not E something dc (j) Lizitations of inequitil of these in availabilit the client Khat is discrepancy bet philosophy as c present reality full implement: Lerner, in spe.‘ reflected that for chaos," th- that this was “330: Struggle To set again refer to 1\ 10 33% ”3‘7 We ems addegm puhl ll ' 33:11 . ‘ax \ 106 usefulness of the worker who does not inspire confidence in his desire to be helpful . . . . He (the worker) will make a part of his working social philosOphy the truth that being of service to another must ever be a cooperative undertaking with both contributing to the achievement of some worthwhile goal, and that serv- ice is not something done to or for another person, but is something done by working with another.110 (7) Limitations arising from the recognition of the presence of inequities in our democratic society and consideration of these inequities as limiting considerations to the availability or lack thereof of Options which otherwise the client might be able to consider. What is suggested here is that there is a marked discrepancy between the ideals as expressed in the democratic philosOphy as contained in our national documents and the present reality of the inequities which reveal the failure of full implementation and attainment of those ideals. Max Lerner, in speaking before the National Conference in 1957 reflected that Voltaire once observed man as having a "taste for chaos, the chaos of incompatible values. Lerner concluded that this was at the "very core of our power structure, in the major struggles of our era."111 To set the tone of the following discussion, I would again refer to Lerner's address and use the paradox of ideal 11oMary Overholt Peters, The Caseworker . . . Person With Value. (Chicago American Public welfare Association, no date given), 26; (emphasis added). 111Max Lerner, "What Kind of American Civilization," in The Social welfare Forum: 1957, 44. rs. real VbiCh he 6 America 18 the potentials for it completely a with us. The r The impetus address presented I by Ira DeA. Reid .1: tures that year am Social Relations a: Reid, in t‘ rental value orien present in our Ame Show in the follo Ideal K (1) "we believe in ciple of ethic - that Spirit;- equill. " y al Com . «at In our A t. ion of Some Mr L bi ases, prejudice l . 181011 and/Or re; 107 vs. real which he described as my springboard. America is the first country in human history to have the potentials for abolishing poverty - and I mean abolishing it completely and utterly. Yet the Skid Rows are still with us. The rotten tenements are still with us.112 The impetus for this discussion is found in a major address presented to the 1955 National Conference on Social Work by Ira DeA. Reid.113 Reid delivered one of the Lindeman Lec- tures that year and addressed the Conference on "Social Change, Social Relations and Social Work." Reid, in the discussion, drew out seven basic, funda- mental value orientations and their paradoxes which are present in our American society.114 In brief, they can be shown in the following representation. Ideal Real (1) "we believe in the prin- (l) 225, "we know that actu- ciple of ethical equality ally we are not a nation - that spiritually, of equals in many respects. essentially all of us are Sex, age, race, religion, equal." and refugee status still carry their stigma." Comment: In our American society, full and equal participa- tion of some citizens is limited by discriminatory attitudes, biases, prejudices and practices related to sex, age, race, re- ligion and/or refugee status and thus denies to the individual 1121b1d., 46. 113Reid, "Social Change, Social Relations and Social Work," in The Social Welfare Forum: 1955, 75-85. It is important to recall that the Edward C. Lindeman memorial lectures were established to provide a forum for the effective exchange and collaboration between social work and the social sciences and therefore, command serious consideration by the profession. 1141b1d., 80-83. so affected, his OPP (2) "We believe in ‘ ciple of an open society - that a should have 8 Ch advance beyond I age of their bir to fall from tha if so minded." Count: In our Ase denied Opportunities such denial of Oppor of decisions which r nil in his exercise (3) "'u'e believe in < ciple of fair c - the freedom c coupe“, to wir get hurt in the 818 for econ o: -‘ survival _ H ‘ Cofluent" 108 so affected, his Opportunity for full freedom Of choice. (2) "we believe in the prin— (2) But, "We continue to deny ciple Of an Open-class access to certain areas society - that all peOple Of society's Operations should have a choice to by reason of law, custom, advance beyond the herit- ritual or status." age of their birth, and to fall from that heritage if so minded." Comment: In our American society, when an individual is denied Opportunities by laws, customs, rituals or class status, such denial Of Opportunity thereby limits the scope or range of decisions which might otherwise be available to the individ- ual in his exercise Of full freedom Of choice. (3) "we believe in the prin- (3) But, "We are constantly ciple of fair competition faced with the problem Of - the freedom Of men to how properly to show com— compete, to win, and to passion for those who are get hurt in their strug— "hurt" in the economic gle for economic struggle." survival." Comment" In American society, the presence Of such conflicting values as "rugged individualism" against "humanitarianism" or ' as against "The poor shall always "Love for one's neighbor,’ be with you," or the concept of "the worthy poor and deserving" and "the unworthy poor - who are so Often identified as the lazy, the loafer, the cheat - hence the undeserving," provides resistance to programs being developed under governmental leadership, so that Opportunities which might otherwise be available, are prevented from coming into being. This then limits the client having available means which would enhance his fuller freedom Of choice. (a) "lie believe in t ciple of Chec‘r‘s. antes as a regu- our social inst: that deaf-“tic can be obtainfii maintained only church. fail?! sent of the gc‘: operate with 12‘- accord, rights responsibilitit Cment: In Arteril to "the consent of itpcrtant of elect where one sees the ential legislatior of the peOple, whe 05 justice depend: representation, t t‘ nese rights, the choice. 5 l) me believe 1 Ciple Of urin acy.‘ that a: 109 (4) "We believe in the prin- ciple Of checks and bal- ances as a regulator Of our social institutions — that democratic values can be Obtained and maintained only if state, church, family, and "con- sent of the governed" Operate with mutual accord, rights and (4) But, "Our society remains in a state of indefinite equilibrium, now balanced in favor of this interest, now in favor of that one. We know that the state cannot allow private par- ties to bargain or con- 8pire away the advantage which the community has in access tO human rights." responsibilities." Comment: In American society, where there is the commitment to "the consent Of the governed," and yet even bathe most important of elections, many fail either to register to vote, where one sees the power Of lobbyists in soliciting prefer- ential legislation which seems to benefit only a given portion of the people, where there is unevenness in the diapensation of justice depending on the ability to have competent legal representation, that such inequities affect the guarantee Of these rights, that the effect is to limit his freedom Of choice. (5) "We believe in the prin- (5) But, "Among the tragedies ciple of universal liter- acy - that all Of us have a right to knowledge and Of our time is the waste Of human resources result- ing from basic and func- tO the use Of its tools of expression." tional illiteracy found in our labor force and military manpower resources." Comment: When a society has the means to assure and require universal education and yet when the products of such a system repeatedly show that certain people are unable to or are pre- vented from learning up to their fullest potentials, that such an inequity works tO the individual's personal disadvantage and denies him access to the fullest of participation in that szciety and denies oku fits and tonal" society; this set Pixies. {6) “He believe i ciple 0f free tion. freedO: freedOm 0f 1:! Of expreSSiC: dom to PIOPOS Content: The poi day society the a formation without in the words and we hear of "manag. lists of names be: the national exec; arestraint to fre in order to Speak Speech. In the ea: witchhunt" and "b exPress ice as 1 n 3 en. Joseph ‘lcC . ar tun as 110 society and denies the other members Of the society the bene- fits and contributions which might otherwise accrue to that society; this serves to limit the freedom Of choice Of both parties. (6) "We believe in the prin— (6) But, we see, "how diffi- ciple of free communica- cult is this communica- tion, freedom of speech, tion when so many Of the freedom Of press, freedom nation's subgroup speak Of expression, and free- neither the same language dom to prOpose changes." nor with the same tongue Of eXperience . . . . How difficult becomes com- munication when the exer— cise Of such freedom may bring forth additional insecurities and frustrations." Comment: The point that is made here, is that in our present day society the ability to communicate, to give and receive in- formation without fear Of reprisal is a right which is embodied in the words and intent Of our founding documents. Yet today, we hear of "managed press," "slanted editorial policies," lists Of names being compiled of those who speak out or question the national executive leadership. Fear of reprisal serves as a restraint to freedom of speech. Denial Of freedom of assembly in order to speak out is in fact that a denial Of freedom of speech. In the early fifties, with the "Red Scare," "Communist Witchhunt" and "blackball lists" Of those who may or may not express ideas in Opposition to what was deemed acceptable by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his committee, such denial Of Oppor- tunity serves to severely restrict then the freedom of choice as eXpressed in the principle Of client self-determination. (7) "We believe in ances - since m ethically differences as among us are a without collec prejudices." Cement: As long on the basis of e 10118 as we fail t Gm strengths and Participating in because they are and the need of 1 called self-deter AS long 4 democratic SOCie< and ideals and t! of affairs which inequity effeCts the freedom of cl 111 (7) "We believe in differ- (7) But, "We continue to ences - since all Of us Operate as if differences are ethically equal such res natura, differences differences as may appear in the natural order of among us are accepted man's equipment, differ- without collective ences Of certain ages, prejudices." sexes, races, differences Of regions, religions, and nationalities, automatical- ly relegate their posses- sors tO the caste Of the untouchables." Comment: As long as we have in our society evaluations made on the basis of exaggerated caricatures or stereotypes, as long as we fail to assess the individual on the basis Of his own strengths and merits, as long as we exclude peOple from participating in all aSpects Of our democratic life, simply because they are "different," we are in fact denying the right and the need of the individual to his freedom Of choice, called self-determination. As long as there exist these wide gaps between the democratic society as it should be according to its values and ideals and the realities of American society in the state Of affairs which is currently found; the presence of this inequity effects the range, reduces the Options and deters the freedom of choice Of us all. Summary we began this chapter with an examination Of the concepts of freedom, democracy and independence and how the principle Of self- determination is one means for translating the democratic philosOphy Of our government from the ideal level to the real. we examined in some depth the four parameters of democracy as suggested by Cohen and - l ... ..n 112 saw the efforts Of the profession of social work and those concerned 'with social welfare as they attempted to understand, interpret and apply the philosOphical beliefs in the helping relationship. This required looking at such concepts as authority, power and civil rights. we then considered the principle of self—determination, first as defined by Biestek and then as evaluated and reacted to by others. we expanded upon the three basic prOpositions by showing how writers in this decade viewed these. The need and right Of the client to be self-determining was reaffirmed. The role and responsibility Of the social worker in relation to the principle of self-determination was first considered in terms of the functions identified by Biestek; to help the client see his problem or need clearly and with perspective; to acquaint the client with the pertinent resources in the community; to introduce stimuli that would activate the client's own dormant resources; to create a relationship in which the client could grow and work at his own prob- lems. To these were added several additional responsibilities as they emerged from the literature Of this decade; to assume and sus- tain the responsibility for the relationship; to be aware Of his (the worker's) own feelings and attitudes so as not to confuse his needs with the client's needs; to be Open to change; to have the capacity to do critical thinking; to understand the effect of culture upon the lives of worker and client; to view the client as an equal partner in the relationship. Finally the limitations to the concept of freedom were dis- cussed. Again, there was first a review of the limitations as noted by Biestek: limitations arising from the client's capacities; from 33:11am from moral :::a:stan..ards and nor: azaerged in the litera 251:; free the worker' s :iilé limitations which 5:132:15 of ideal goals 'n'e need now tO ex 3252 problems they enc - . C“:- ..a.'.;le of self-de termf 113 from.civil law; from moral law; from agency function; from the un- written standards and norms Of the community. Two other limitations also emerged in the literature Of this decade: the limitations arising from the worker's capacities, capabilities, his level Of skills and the limitations which exist because of the diaparity between statements Of ideal goals and current levels of reality. we need now to examine the efforts of the practitioners; and the problems they encountered as they sought to implement the principle of self-determination. sue—DEER!" Principles do not ch :hey ”a administers MI 38113 to fit Cl". indulgence! "it" no The purP°se of 1 :22: self-deteminati : 3 dynamic and 3°“ a through this Pr°°e 55 mice; of implemnta' muons. These 8‘1 ermine” and/ or t allow the two-fold c first is concerned wit ma of social cases iOriel group work (‘90 4m IethOd (working administrati CHAPTER III SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: BY METHOD Principles do not change as such, but only the manner in which they are administered. They must be applied and reapplied over and over again to fit changing conditions, otherwise they are academic indulgences with no connections with real peeple and a real world. The purpose Of this chapter is to examine the principle Of client self-determination - not in theoretical isolation but rather in the dynamic and sometimes frustrating process of application. It is through this process of application that one must deal with the problems of implementation, the conflict of value priorities, and the variations. These arise as a response to changing times, situations, circumstances and/or theories. The organization of the material will follow the two—fold orientation of the field Of social work. The first is concerned with the methodsof social work endeavor that is the method Of social casework (working with individuals), the method of social group work (working with groups), the social community organiza- tion method (working with communities), and the method Of social wel- fare administration, including administration, supervision, consultation 1Dorothy Hutchinson, "Basic Principles in Child welfare," Selected Papers in Casework, 1952 (Raleigh, NO. Carolina, Health Publications Institute, 1953), 122. 114 :1: research.2 This shal the second orientati :zzpopulations, such as szizuricnalized. Here at‘ zen or for whom the pr: 3;: of as being less it: 23535325. This shall be Self-Determine: The definition 0 f .Iers has received wide 1 " ‘m art in which 33% 51111 in relation ififidual and r " "3'15:th betwe esour en t‘r “ a" "mm“. the foe a in: s kiddual and the E 3% 1‘34 § 8 a 3 ‘1 Partnersh. 312s. . . is Skills in the 5-. ”kit‘s . . 9L: :' r I 0n ' A ‘igere another t ti 1:553 NI Friedlenzo t a?“ 5 L '3‘: Er {\flhork Prenti if"? 10. Theol- (\‘C 74"], 14 OQeSSQese “:.‘A . “\iati tion, e C “73' “(,Yl with 115 and/or research.2 This shall be the focus Of this chapter. The second orientation focuses on agency settings or certain client pOpulations, such as the aged, the child, the family and the institutionalized. Here attention is directed towards those "clients" to whom or for whom the principle Of self-determination might be thought of as being less important or less applicable for any number Of reasons. This shall be the content Of the next chapter. Self-Determination and Method 2£_Application Social Casework The definition Of social casework as set forth by Swithun Bowers has received wide acceptance. Social casework is defined as: . . . an art in which knowledge Of the science Of human relations and skill in relationships are used to mobilize capacities in the individual and resources in the community apprOpriate for better adjustment between the client and all or any part of his total environment. For our purpose, the focus is upon the mobilization Of capacities in the individual and the skill in the use of the relationship. Bowers saw this as a partnership between client and worker, with the worker using his skills in the assessment of the problem.situation, Of the dynamics which contributed to it, and of the capacities Of the client 2Typically social work textbooks identify these four methods of social work. At times, administration and research are separated from one another, so that there may be five methods identified. Walter A. Friedlander, Concepts and Methods gf_SOcia1 Work (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1958); Arthur P. Miles, American Social WOrk Theory (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954); "Group 10: Processes and Methods," in The Social WOrk Year Book, 1960, 14th Edition, ed., by Russell and Kurtz, (New York: National Association of Social WOrkers, 1960), 78. 3Swithun Bowers, "The Nature and Definition Of Social Case- work," Social Casework, XXX (December 1949), 3. 116 available in the resolution Of the problem. However, all of this does not occur within a vacuum but rather, as the literature Of the decade bears out, the "doing" Of social casework is dependent upon the theo— retical model first and then consider how to Operationalize the philo- sOphical principles. As one examines this dimension Of the literature, several theoretical models are referred to and dealt with by the pro- fession. These models include the diagnostic orientation to casework, the functional orientation tO casework, the introduction of the model presented by social role theory, a renewal Of interest in a more as— sertive, aggressive approach to casework identified under a variety of terms such as "reaching Out, casework with the hard-to-reach," and "aggressive casework," models related to short term or "crisis inter- , vention" casework, models drawn from new insights gained from ego psychology and from work with clients with character disturbances. As each Of these appeared on the scene, social work practitioners sought to understand the relationship between the client and worker and the effect of the model upon the concept Of client freedom as expressed in client self—determination. At the beginning Of the decade, there was intense discussion between the "diagnostic" and "functional" schools of thought. Though these two possessed some similar aspects, there were some very basic differences. Diagnostic casework drew upon the personality theory develOped by Freud and his followers. The functional school found its .... she work of 0:: g“... .... - l,t both schoc f: '3») :17. Rose of the fr . . . the fashions tie influence Of i3 it? development, t he eg'fort Of t gables.) It (the functional 33: in the casewor zasisting of enga :liezt's mm power Elasizes man as fianmships and . “dus‘ng ralation 501C131 caseworke saresult, the funct: "(it -'1 . I I": 5 A"? «ocus "38 upon Saga," with the we '.... sue}. to release the“ e1; . as the end teSUlts af'cibility.|'8 4 For 153M Ofp a “"9 exce la OS ,. 7‘" \Smfl s: 117 base in the work of Otto Rank and his focus on "will" psychology.4 As a result, both schools viewed the person who came for help differ- ently. Those of the functional orientation saw him as: . . . the fashioner of his fate and although they do not rule out the influence of inner drives and outer circumstances on personal- ity development, they attribute even pathological phenomena . . to the effort of the will to effect a solution of a psychic problem. It (the functional school) sees the center for change as residing not in the caseworker but in the client, with the worker's method consisting of engaging in a relationship process that releases the client's own power for choice and growth. The functional group emphasizes man as 'determining himself from himself' and from the relationships and external conditions of his life and acting on and using relationships, including a potential relationship with a social caseworker, in the continuing creation of himself. As a result, the functional caseworker sought to engage the person and to draw upon the capacity of the will. In the functional model, the primary focus was upon the client giving direction to his "own process of change," with the worker taking responsibility for helping the client to release these processes.7 The client's choices and goals as well as the end results are seen as being his "right and responsibility."8 4For a more extensive discussion see Cora Kasius (ed.): A Com: parison of Diagnostic and Functional Casework Concepts (New York: Family Service Association of America, 1950); Ruth E. Smalley, "Social Casework: The Functional Approach," and Florence Hollis, "Social Case- work: The PsyChosocial Approach," in The Encyclopedia gf_Social WOrk, 16th edition, ed. by Robert Morris et. at., (New York: National Association of Social work, 1971), 1195-1206; 1217-1225. 5Kasius, Casework Concepts, 9. 6Smalley, "Social Casework," 1195. 7Kasius, Casework Concepts, 11. 81bid., 12. Smiley Sumarized .. . being the releas ;--:.:i:ies for persc: 12.52 of social power axial policy and soc rszpcssible for all Three prizary {1] respect for the concern that eve his potential as 3) concern that 53; stitutions, fos: £-' sees agprOpriate the: I :2 right and need of L! 225:: suppositions o 31:“;C0393263t to the s “:.’ ‘.I gae diagnostic s ‘..c ‘ ‘ . .t .....a 3 cool stressed l =““‘a""cr"‘~91'- It deal1 «sal and his soci ...,ajzzaic and their .1 a. me "V-e o H. d‘ *he bureau upon by reality D diagnosti inter acti :.‘“. ad \‘V-“ze ‘ D. and his bat 118 Smalley summarized the purpose of the functional school as: . . . being the release of human power in individuals, groups, and communities for personal fulfillment and social good and the re- lease of social power for the creation of the kind of society, social policy and social institutions that make self—realization most possible for all men. Three primary values of such a purpose are: (I) respect for the dignity and worth of every individual, (2) concern that every individual has the Opportunity to realize his potential as a fulfilled, socially contributive person and, (3) concern that society as a whole, through its policies and in- stitutions, fosters and supports such Opportunity.9 It seems appropriate then to conclude that there was full recognition of the right and need of the client to make his own decisions and that the basic suppositions of the model sought to implement that belief as a key component to the success of the model. Now what of the diagnostic model? The diagnostic school which was later to be called the psycho- social school stressed the importance of diagnosis on the part of the social worker. It dealt with both the personality structure of the individual and his social environment, the conflicts which might be intrapsychic and their effect upon current functioning. As Kasius et a1. noted: "The human being, from the beginning of life, is not only acted upon by reality, both inner and outer, but also acts upon it."10 The diagnostic caseworker saw the individual as being molded by the interaction and interrelationship of his physical and social environment and his basic needs. This approach focused.on the role of the social worker as helper, working with individuals, and as inter- ventionist, dealing with social institutions or others on the client's 9Smalley, "Social Casework," 1197. 10Kasius, Casework Concepts, 9. i... O .1 , 1: (the diagnostic or pS' :the sense that the cl 11'scbjectives are vari :eed,':elping him to dea nizh he is confronted, :: function comfortably azé distress, and enhan: fulfillment of his mm c pessible, the individua icraoiifying his envir in: there are times wh inirisably slow proces Izzazuis seems to be 531‘ zziverale in the plannini : nevertheless, based up 2:23:31" places the clien ”era is enphasis placed L‘ :3"but there is also an n: recognize that a pro" 11.15”. st.: .‘WLESSi anal authority a.- iize: ted activities of t:1 tilt and ‘ n are consenaq 119 behalf. It (the diagnostic or psychosocial viewpoint) is client-centered in the sense that the client's will being is its central concern. It's objectives are variously described as meeting the client's need, helping him to deal with the predicament or problem with which he is confronted, strengthening him in his general capacity to function comfortably and productively, lessening his suffering and distress, and enhancing his opportunities and capacities for fulfillment of his own objectives and aspirations. Insofar as possible, the individual has been helped to take reaponsibility for modifying his environment himself, but it is well recognized that there are times when this is impossible, or would be an inadvisably slow process.1 What Hollis seems to be saying is that while the worker has a more active role in the planning and shaping of the treatment process, it is, nevertheless, based upon the client's desires and goals. "Client— centered" places the client squarely in the center g£_focus. True, there is emphasis placed upon "increasing the individual's ego capac— ity" but there is also an implicit assumption that the client first must recognize that a problem exists and has a desire to change. In enlisting the help of the social worker, the client acknowledges the professional authority and skill of the worker and sees that the goal- directed activities of the worker are for the self-deve10pment of the client and are "consonant" with the client's needs.12 As has been summarized by Kasius, the focus of the treatment process is on helping the client to find a solution to his own problem drawing upon his own resources, with the worker serving to point the way through directing the discussion towards meeting the particular needs of the client. 11Hollis, "Psychosocial Approach," 1219. 12Kasius, Casework Concepgs, lO—ll. :zteatnent, the case enable solution to h 252'.- of the discussi E1: boundaries and $2225 of the discussic 'e ' "c it and on t'r feelizgs, that stand 1 tree? at is to reinfc salutious to his prob] satisfactory level.13 :.‘.5, in discussing the cm. the recognition 1 :; worker. ice of the chief ingr‘ nationship between 3 L: be genuine conce :zceptance and desire a: 11s as a person ..s own decisions. "( :im - is, Of course, , . Hm " L _..ethe fact that thi It?’ I 3“"? nation received 5 t Kissed abo u t the worker' a. . M "I ~ I k ‘ ea "‘t- tr ' ., 120 .In treatment, the caseworker attempts to help the client find a suitable solution to his problem. The subject matter - the £227 tent - of the discussions, although client initiated, is held within boundaries and is given direction by the caseworker. The focus of the discussion is centered on the problem and ways of resolving it and on the obstacles, both those in the area of feelings, that stand in the way of treatment. The general aim of treatment is to reinforce the person's ability to find suitable solutions to his problems and to Operate on a more mature and satisfactory level.13 Hollis, in discussing the relationship between client and worker stressed the recognition of the principle of self-determination by the worker. One of the chief ingredients of treatment is recognized to be the relationship between client and worker. On the worker's side there must be genuine concern for the client and wish to help him, warm acceptance and desire to understand without condemnation, respect for him as a person, honesty, and recognition of his right to make his own decisions. (This last right- often called self—determina- tion - is, of course, a conditional one.) Despite the fact that this recognition of the client's right to self- determination received strong support, there was frequent concern ex- pressed about the worker's activity both in the diagnostic formulation as well as in the treatment process itself. As Lola Selby observed: Many casework practitioners sincerely believe that diagnostic typologies in particular, can do injustice to the client by pro- viding a worker-oriented rather than a client-oriented approach to helping. These workers see classifying as to type as a first step toward taking over responsibility for the outcome of treat- ment - which responsibility really belongs to the client rather than to the worker. These practitioners would have to rid them- selves of the fear of stereotyping and controlling before they could conceive of typologies as useful . . . . Treatment which 'feels' helpful to the client, which enables him to resolve some of his difficulties or make some choices of action is predicated upon the worker's adequate under- standing of the person and the problem . . . . What a social worker does with this understanding reflects his concept of his 131mm. , 17. 14Hollis, "Psychosocial Approach," 1219. we and professions m: of help might b 32' differential trea :.‘-“toe adapted to t V sizntion' and to t ":25 the controversy 5 :erezisn of what were are observed that the} 3541 in the field: “I N :ei ":.elp with while . k! .3: .V 1 u add. 5 needs and a: -2 ready interre late lei :' understanding of 'iith this in mi filing with: (l) the location of r.) the description ‘ fasted; 3) the e“ uective d elements in the a tne difficulty » te assets for environment 121 role and professional responsibilities and his recognition of what kind of help mdght be appropriate in a given situation. The idea of differential treatment stems from the belief that helping efforts must be adapted to the needs and desires of the 'person—in-the— situation' and to 'the question for solution.‘15 Out of the controversy surrounding both schools, there emerged a recon- sideration of what were the features of the diagnostic process. Fine— stone observed that there were different notions about diagnosis which were held in the field: one emphasized that it was what the client wanted help with while another emphasized the worker's appraisal of the client's needs and his situation. He, however, saw that the two were really interrelated and that both were essential for a "consis- tent" understanding of the purpose of diagnosis.16 With this in mind, he summarized the diagnostic process as dealing with: (1) the location of the difficulty, that is, where is manifested; (2) the description of the difficulty, that is, how it is mani- fested; (3) the effective determinants of difficulty, that is, what are the elements in the client and his environment that are maintaining the difficulty and are susceptible to change; and (4) the assets for change, that is, what resources in the person and environment can be enlisted for change.17 Lillian Ripple, in a study which attempted to isolate the fac- tors which influenced a client's continuation in treatment, developed as a critical part of the diagnostic process an assessment of the kind 15Lola G. Selby, "Typologies for Caseworkers: Some Considera- tions and Problems," Social Service Review, XXXII (December 1958), 348- 349 O 16Samuel Finestone, "Issues Involved in DevelOping Diagnostic Classifications for Casework," Casework Papers, 1960 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1960), 141. 17Ibid., 142. of the clier U l r . ' . "1: 1 ‘ :.‘“--.J J .2. factors which , s. ’.‘ezt's choice towards :lties': [1} the client's ho resolved; the nature of t problem; ‘3‘ the appropriate agency; and the client's di life situation. a... g," _, ‘ \F’ attain this fra :.‘”. "3 ' has mat the Clie ..v v .:e it, the purpose :eg: and carry through 21;:ee client solve h self-determination . During this dec iegztstic model which ' filing the concern for Ehiques" which beca‘e End “ interest and us mutation of the pro‘: Emen at 5%. Orig 148110313," :fibel. \al 3 122 and quality of the client's motivation. She associated four motiva— tional factors which, when properly assessed, served to affect the client's choice towards continuation of service. These items included: (1) the client's hape that the problem, as he defines it, can be resolved; (2) the nature of the client's drive toward resolution of the problem; (3) the apprOpriateness of what the client is seeking from the agency; and (4) the client's discomfort about the problem and in his total life situation.18 Within this frame of reference then, motivation is thus de- fined as "what the client wants and how mu£h_he wants it."19 Or to restate it, the purpose of diagnosis is ". . . to enable the client to begin and carry through a relationship and a mutual activity which help the client solve his problems,"20 and so reaffirms the principle of self-determination. During this decade, there were several extensions of the diagnostic model which were brought about by a number of factors, in- cluding the concern for the "multiproblem family" and the "reaching out techniques" which became associated in working with those clients, the renewed interest and use of knowledge drawn from ego psychology, the presentation of the problem-solving model, and a developing awareness of the nature of role theory and its potential contribution to the 18Lillian Ripple, "Factors Associated with Continuance in Case- work Service," Social Work, 2 (January 1957), 91. 191b1d., 89. 20Doris Campbell Phillips, "0f Plums and Thistles: The Search for Diagnosis," Social Work, 5 (January 1960), 84. gag: mderstandini '.‘ith r8831rd to :1: can in a more i niere was much inté “_‘zts who had not be: :rsewices. Articll :17, the "non-volun Eese failies were ch 511:1 individual ser 1121's attention to :szetizg resistance c "333‘? Suggests ‘ II. ._‘\ :QA "‘“es : 111C hid in g 4 '-€gree °f Preparal h!‘ “using to re fer. Iu.’ seeking of help . 2" \ . @3333: d. “be to the p. 3’ 0f the Cl ...:1 in turn sewed 25... 23 123 increased understanding of the social worker. With regard to the multiproblem family and the need to reach out to them in a more forceful or aggressive manner, during this dec- ade there was much interest in developing services for this group of clients who had not been responsive to the more traditional social work services. Articles appeared about working with the "hepeless" family, the "non-voluntary" client and the "multiproblem" family. These families were characterized as the "hard—to-reach" which were last in individual service. The literature first turned the profes- sional's attention to the identification of the factors which might be fostering resistance or rejection of the social work service. Henry suggested that there might be several interrelated cir- cumstances, including the client's distrust of the worker's intentions, the degree of preparation and participation which the client had in the decision to refer, and the feelings the client has associated with the seeking of help.21 Babcock noted that there was a degree of im- pairment due to the presence of pathology22 and Grunwald stressed the possibility of the client being overwhelmed by a sense of hopelessness which in turn served to intensify his apparent unwillingness or apathy.23 Eisenberg, in discussing the circumstances of these families, 21Charlotte 8. Henry, "Integrating Service with the Non- Voluntary Client," Casework Pepers, 1958 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1958), 22Charlotte Babcock, "The Contribution of the Family Agency," Social Service Review, 32 (September 1958), 231. 23Hanna Grunwald, "Group Counseling With the Multiproblem Family," The Use gf Group Techniques in_the Family_Agency (New York: F.S.A.A., 1959), 33. zazterized them as b imsiip systems to r szety's standards and :.‘2': ever-helmed them. grassive, restless, c Kermit Wiltse I having "even t s n no. e.:,hovever, to the i'ezlients' seeking 0: Leaf cozunication l 2.: orientations of 1 Finally, Kadus! ixcf service - not 4 ME. but rather as p' 115:. The client, hi izit "@lied a conf¢ 3. . a failure to mail ‘ Haas, in come: 541513 study showed 1 salad Seer under Stanc 124 characterized them as being people who were alone, without the support of kinship systems to rally to their needs, a peOple who rejected society's standards and authority because they were subject to forces which overwhelmed them. As a result, they became non—conforming, aggressive, restless, deprived and neglected.24 Kermit Wiltse, in his study Of the "hOpeless family" depicted them as having "events control them rather than they control events." Basic, however, to the list Of contributing causes which worked against the clients' seeking Of help was the fact that there was serious limita- tion Of communication between worker and client because Of the different value orientations Of the worker and the client he sought to aid.25 Finally, Kadushin preferred to identify this process Of rejec- tion Of service - not as resistance or avoidance in a truly negative sense, but rather as part Of this communication lag between worker and client. The client, he saw, was Opposing receiving help because to him it "implied a confession Ofihilure to fulfill one's social roles, . . . a failure to maintain a mastery Of one's self."26 Haas, in commenting upon his communication problem, Observed that his study showed that frequently clients did not have sufficient knowledge or understanding Of the service being Offered; the worker 24Leon Eisenberg, "The Family in the Mid-Twentieth Century," The Social Welfare Forum: 1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 104—105. 25Kermit Wiltse, "The HOpeless Family," The Social Welfare Forum: 1958 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 137. 26Alfred Kadushin, "Opposition to Referral for Psychiatric Treatment," Social Work, 2 (July 1959), 41. Lizacmmicate or ggaiecision about Iitb all this i are of preparation , slim, alienation, :. to build a relat attire influences. I esthe need to project :15 foster responsive "353.50 needs to be abl .1, relationships, to "Aide client where h ‘.‘fesdt in a chain r "£355! is one becomes isrelationship as to Fantl: Henry, a: STxtl'Je use Of author; Ethan . or authority ti 125 failed to communicate or the client failed to comprehend "what he was making a decision about when he failed to respond to the offer of case- work help."27 With all this in mind - the degree of client distrust, the degree of preparation, the interference of pathology, the feelings of isolation, alienation, and communication problems - the worker then needed to build a relationship which would serve to countermand these negative influences. Included, then, in the worker's responsibilities was the need to project feelings of acceptance and sincerity which could foster responsive feelings of trust on the part of the client.28 He also needs to be able to give and receive affection in interper- sonal relationships, to be aggressive and creative in his efforts to help the client where he 18,29 and to be a "catalytic agent."30 These may result in a chain reaction of self-examination and behavioral changes, as one becomes aware of his own feelings about authority and his relationship as to its use.31 Fantl, Henry, and Beck, as a result, saw the need for the con- structive use of authority by the worker, authority that was not co- ercion32 or authority that would not become a rationale "for sadistic 27Walter Haas, "Reaching Out - A Dynamic Concept in Casework," Social Work, 4 (July 1959), 41. 28Henry, "Non-Voluntary Client," 144. 29Wiltse, "The Hopeless Family," 141. 30James F. Cooper and Elizabeth Kittrell, "One Group for Both Parents: An Experiment," Social Work, 3 (April 1958), 29. 31Bertha Fantl, "Integrating Psychological, Social and Cultural Factors in Assertive Casework," Social Work 3 (October 1958), 30. 321bid. 33 .;se '.0 control,‘I b“: wists which the client . Q 0 V n 'k‘ and nelp st.e gt“ , )4 '.; tlaas noted that . , ‘ :2, wt rather was a ' zzszization of the soci other the means is phys Wiltse suggested :3 '.th the client. 7:;25e of the relations? 1. To give consists 5011, in other we . To offer oneself To teach by prec To supervise and To join active 1v improvement of t °Ppcrtunities fo toward the same U.hwc-a .- The parenting to ..a: of a viable partner 3”. “Le: we ‘ “1d Sdpervise, a. the client would be rv' ..gg i r, d in Such a w 33\ $0,~' hrtram M' BE t. .tal welfare 1“ "a 188,\ £15; 34 Henry. H /I'.;' 1‘. .w_ u gr Nona.‘ 35 Haas, "Rea:E 36 " Hilfige’ "The. 126 impulse to control,"33 but a rationale of authority that would allay the fears which the client might have regarding loss of autonomy, and which would help strengthen the client's motivation towards accepting help.34 Haas noted that reaching out was not simply an act or a tech- nique, but rather was a "frame of mind, a psychological readiness, a determination of the social worker to find a way to help the patient, whether the means is physical, psychological, social, or some combination."35 Wiltse suggested that the social worker assume a "parenting role" with the client. This role would be molded and shaped by the purpose of the relationship, that is: 1. To give consistent warmth of feeling and concern for each per- son, in other words, to love. To offer oneself as an ego ideal. To teach by precept and example. To supervise and set limits. To join actively with the family in seeking Opportunities for improvement of the family's welfare, its social status, and Opportunities for its members to exploit their talents toward the same end.36 ‘1‘wa o o o The parenting role, then, would be directed towards the crea- tion of a viable partnership between worker and client, wherein the worker would supervise, set limits, and offer himself in such a way that the client would be free to grow towards or grow against the worker, and in such a way that the demands presented by the worker 33Bertram.M. Beck, "Can Social Work Prevent Social Problems," The Social Welfare Forum: 1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 19607: 188. 34Henry, "Non-Voluntary Client," 158. 35Haas, "Reaching Out," 44. 36Wiltse, "The Hopeless Family," 143. 8-: “:1 related to reality a“ 37 fiance . Within the context it possible to serve t1 rialso to protect the in Eeresponse to this quest .‘tbe client has not used fez-the service is, or be :‘fered, then the client I 132225;; this, the socia iient's behalf . ll) Xany individuals because they do n (2) Hany such individ opportunity to de ultimately made i tions or social c (3) Social workers it “t3 can in fa determination by a decision 1 (a) and our Villingn e process 0 our convict i lilting: 127 were related to reality and were within the client's capacity and ego tolerance.37 Within the context Of the discussion, the question was raised, "Is it possible to serve the community in this way (by reaching out) and also to protect the individual's right to self—determination?"38 The response to this question can be stated in several ways. First, if the client has not used the service because it is unclear to him what the service is, or because he cannot come to where the service is offered, then the client has been denied full Opportunity of choice. TO remedy this, the social worker can and should intervene on the client's behalf. (1) Many individuals are desperately in need and may not get help because they do not know about it or are unable to apply. (2) Many such individuals therefore do not have a fair, democratic Opportunity to decide if they want help - a decision which is ultimately made for them by default because of personal limita- tions or social conditions beyond their control. (3) Social workers in reaching out to these involuntarily referred clients can in fact protect the individual's right to self— determination by giving the individual a real Opportunity to make a decision based on firsthand knowledge of our service and our willingness to begin where he is. (4) In the process Of reaching out with our professional skills and our conviction about the helping process, we are construc- tively laying the groundwork for a strong casework relationship that mag ultimately lead to greater individual happiness and growth. 9 With this in mind then, the social worker can provide a sense of direction for the client, can Offer support and even confrontation 37W11tse,"The HOpeless Family," 144-146; Fantl, "Assertive Casework," 31. 38Haas, "Reaching Out," 41. 391b1d., 42-43. 2.3mm without viola gin. He can be a giVl site. He needs to ext :iself-ieternination by r rLZ'ae the client's decis| sites will be used and sinister! out, means a «‘.l ' 1 ~54 bin 'before the e: tease." As one social 1 mm is a represent "it? to protect (the In the early fift :eeLaEI‘zcstic SChool, . 1:5,, ....arized the CO“ I'PYOVid has 1 es C0ncept5 it; so Con-e t0 lnC ‘: king) the wayS hi ..on inner '"Ces a‘ '“lronmenmz ‘ 128 to the client without violation Of the principle Of client self-deter— mination. He can be a giving person without being demanding and coercive. He needs to extend and insure the client's right and need of self-determination by reassuring the client that "ultimately it will be the client's decision or responsibility to determine whether services will be used and in what way."40 This type of service, Bab- cock pointed out, means a greater going out to the client in an effort to help him "before the emergency becomes an irreparable disaster and disease." As one social worker has stated it, "Does not the case- worker who is a representative of the community's concern have respon- sibility to protect (the client) from further destructive handling?"l'1 In the early fifties there deveIOped another Off-shoot of the diagnostic school. This was brought into being by the increased attention being given to ego psychology by social workers. Isabel Stamm summarized the contribution of ego psychology in the following: It provides concepts about intrapsychic aspects Of personality and has also come to include concepts about individual's total func- tioning, the ways he handles the complex needs and demands both from.inner forces and from forces in his sociocultural environment.42 Casework practice is directed toward a goal of insuring a social- psychological environment which promotes the development of mature autonomous ego functions, so that each individual is capable of 'exercising freedom under the law.‘ Casework is also directed tO helping individuals resolve their problems of adaptation through measures designed to support and strengthen ego functions as well 401bid., 43. 41Babcock, "Family Agency," 231. azlsabel L. Stamm, "Ego Psychology in the Emerging Theoretical Base of Casework," Issues $3;American Social Work,_ed., by Alfred J. Kahn, 80. as to modify 0"8 “'11 reality - :ssibly diffi :5: not underes :fiiriduals uh??- 5g: functions . Social work :ei :.‘-zitnent to gain in regards iii-:.': freedom w. aggrovided a fra riapgreciation l ifféiiéd the clie. self-ieterninatio ii: functions and 2. PSVCuOlOglca rlilies within . he: “L or {Elatior ‘- .12? . for others To par a 23.1.; QQIiQS, t0 129 as to modify overwhelming stress or threatening demands in their social reality. We cannot settle for a goal of adjustment to an impossibly difficult, even detrimental, social situation; and we must not underestimate the strength and potential capacities Of individuals whzg primary relationships and social milieu support ego functions. Social workers attempted then to integrate this knowledge with their commitment to the philosophical principle of the profession. It is again in regards to the client-worker relationship that the concept of client freedom was re-examined. Stamm pointed out that ego psychol— ogy provided a framework which increased the worker's understanding of and appreciation for how cultural, physical, and personality factors affected the client's exercise of his rights, especially the right of self-determination.44 As a result of the worker's awareness of the ego functions and his assessment of these factors (cultural, physical and psychological), he must help the client to "make use of Oppor- tunities within the social environment, for learning, for achievements, and for relationships which support a sense of self-esteem and iden- tity for others.45 To paraphrase Vera Margolis, social work treatment within the ego psychology frame of reference helps the client tO expand ego boundaries, to modify destructive defenses, and to make the client more adaptive to reality. The client is capable of handling himself more constructively and with less need to suffer, without fear Of domination or control by the social‘worker.46 431233;. 96. 441bid., 102,103. 451b1a., 104. 46Vera S. Margolis, "Ego Centered Treatment of the Adolescent Girl," Casework Papers, 1960 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1960), 100, 106. Grace Marcus conclu ;,‘;33:'.ter to see once ; greenand his underst. :c'vet'nis new power of k. - advantage of the ' this situation and t nun casework knows been found in a dynaz. tithe forces at play iii-thin the human heir. to strengthen his cor: ninthere is the reaffi Emulation. In the early fif'. is: as the problem-501' tomb the diagnostic 4103.0! H “ rowed, so she wr '... 32': allroblen on his 0- mummy to Work k mite gayS .1149 Upon this prem- be aimed (Wards. 130 Grace Marcus concluded that his new knowledge enabled the social worker to see once again the need for him to be aware of his need to expand his understanding Of the dynamics Of human behavior and to»use this new power of knowledge to assist the individual in taking greater advantage Of the "motivating power" he has within himself tO act in his situation and to improve his relationship to it.47 Social casework knows that the first real key to that secret has been found in a dynamic understanding of man's mental functioning and the forces at play in his relationships and his societies. Within the human being is a largely unused capacity to change and tO strengthen his command over his own destiny. Again there is the reaffirmation of the principle of client self- determination. In the early fifties, Helen Perlman develOped what became known as the problem-solving approach in casework. This approach drew upon both the diagnostic school and the develOpments of ego psychology. It "borrowed," so she wrote, from the functional school as well. The basic assumption Of her model was that "a person's inability to cope with a problem on his own is due to some lack of activation, capacity or Opportunity to work on, solve, or mitigate the problem in appro— priate ways."49 Upon this premise, she proposed that the social worker's role then be aimed towards: 7Grace F. Marcus, "The Advance of Social Casework," The Social Welfare Forum: 1955 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 24- 25. 48Ibid., 33. 49Helen Harris Perlman, "Social Casework: The ProblemrSOlving Approach," Encyclopedia 3: Social WOrk, 16th ed., (New York: NASW, 1971), 1207. ,1} releasing. energi activation; (2) releasing and hel tional and action and/0r himself as {3) finding or creati in working out hi Izzttbis model, the gc titer and the worker's e tiaal more effectively Perlman drew up 0 my :0ncept in relatic '.:..' " 1....03. Effectance cl ‘ merel fat use and reward his drive is signi taids a d nsior Presence of a push sense use 0 131 (l) releasing, energizing, and giving direction to the client's motivation; (2) releasing and helping to exercise the client's mental, emo— tional and action capacities for c0ping with his probelms and/or himself as well; (3) finding or creating Opportunities for the client to utilize in working out his problems.50 Within this model, the goal was mutually agreed on by client and worker and the worker's efforts were directed toward helping the person to deal more effectively with his present problems. Perlman drew upon the'effectance drive" of Robert W. White as a key concept in relationship to the principle of client self-deter- mination. "Effectance drive" is prOposed as: . . . the innate push within man to extend himself, to use his powers in order to be an active cause of happenings, to seek pleasure not merely to release tension but in new experiences that use and reward his competence . . . . This drive is significant for the problem-solving model in that it adds a dimension to the concept of personality: the innate presence of a push for self-actualization, for the expansion of the sense and use Of self. 1 Elsewhere during this period, Perlman wrote regarding the client's treatability and how it was essential to understand the indi- vidual patterns and qualities found in the client. Restated, they in— cluded: "The client volition - what he wants, what he wants to cast out Of his life or to make a part of his life; his capacity - what 50Ibid. 51Robert W. White cited in Perlman, "Social Casework," 1209. 35,51,210 do about wit. 3:211; available to hi: Even as she descr: sale to see the philosc titles, that is, the re, riittbe client's right rabilities to attain t’r. tried a mutual comit: Eerel can only name faith, at the same in. and capacity for usi: it. We help the cli» 331:5 and then what " ud stretch himself I toeXpress and share to see himself and h :larity and realism“ we; to feel safe :3 5103 with competence gue'weighing 0f ch0‘ i:18 of increased a Chg" As we engage. me!“ Of willing, I 33 his treatabil our Ziorly he can 0' 52.53 pectation of Briefly, a fEV its, sions of the 80c!“ 132 he is able to do about what he wants; and his opportunities — what is 52 actually available to him outside himself." Even as she described the activities of the social worker, one is able to see the philosophy behind her delineation of his responsi— bilities, that is, the regard for the innate dignity and worth in man and in the client's right to select his goals and to develOp his capabilities to attain those goals, and that the social work process involved a mutual commitment Of working towards those goals. Here I can only name some of the common ways we help our clients which, at the same moment as they nurture the client's motivation and capacity for using treatment, also test his responsiveness to it. We help the client to know more clearly and surely what he wants and then what he must do to get it; to mobilize his energies and stretch himself for attainable goals and with realistic hOpe; to express and share the feelings which block or drain his energies; to see himself and his problem and its solution with greater clarity and realism; to focus on one part Of the problem at one time; to feel safe and at one with a person who combines compas- sion with competence; to gain knowbhow; to exercise consideration and weighing of choices and decisions to the trial action on the basis of increased security, knowledge and provisions, and so forth. As we engage the client in moving into any one of these changes of willing, feeling, thinking, or action, we are building into his "treatability." By his reaponses we can know how well or how poorly he can or will work on his problem, and from this, what oursgxpectation Of him and Ofourselves and of our joint goals may be. Briefly, a few other comments need to be added regarding other dimensions of the social casework method, the "diagnostic school" ori- entation and the principle of client self-determination. There emerged during this decade recognition Of other dimensions of social casework, especially as they pertained to clients with character disturbances, 52 1956), 33. 53Ibid., 39. Perlman, "The Client's Treatability," Social Work 1 (October ":2 introduction of 50: V F 1': azazneat (later to " ...- is the following 1 515361 of social case. asszrxinized and evalu. afi-ieteraination, and al 251:, fmdanental belief I lager ing working witI find-s the principle c apnopriate treatment character neurosis b: r - , I or social functioni' .. . It seems to he he has a character oihis pattern of f'.‘ and to improve his 5 treatient for this c' and supporting his e. Integrative capacittI he goal of treatne: reach a higher leve resyonsibility for undertakes to help tam, they are like oratoo heavy for t' twinge of frustre ate their prob lenul in an analogous “a. Or "Quins what , neglects his child \ 54 Otto Fallacy er Mamba-l 3', 37""; . “Ham 55 Jean H, LeaI 0-. 50! h 53, derS. tan b 56 Iwing Kauf CtEr (:10). 103180118133” 133 to the introduction Of social role theory and to intensive but short- term treatment (later to be more commonly termed crisis intervention). As the following representative quotations will show, as each new aspect of social casework appeared on the professional scene, it ‘was scrutinized and evaluated with regard to the principle of client self-determination, and as a continuing affirmation of its being a basic, fundamental belief of social work. Regarding working with clients with character disturbances, one finds the principle of self—determination reinterpreted. The apprOpriate treatment plan . . . is not to attempt tO alter the character neurosis but to help the client increase his capacity for social functioning. . . . It seems to me that the aim Of treatment with the client who has a character disorder is to help him within the framework of his pattern of functioning to find solutions to his problems and to improve his social reality. As with all other clients, treatment for this client must be directed toward identifying and supporting his existing strengths and toward increasing the integrative capacity of his ego.5 The goal of treatment is to help these impulse-ridden peOple reach a higher level of development - to grow up and take greater responsibility for their actions. However, if the person who undertakes to help them makes demands that seem unreasonable to them, they are likely to run away from treatment. Demands that are too heavy for their capacities add to their stress and their feelings of frustration, and serve only to perpetuate or exacer- bate their problems.56 In an analogous way, the caseworker must take responsibility for deciding what action should be taken when a parent abuses or neglects his children. The caseworker's first effort should be to 540tto Pollack, et al., "Differential Diagnosis and Treatment of Character Disturbances," Social Casework, XLI (December 1960), 515. 55Jean M; Leach, "Casework Techniques in the Treatment of Character Disorders," Casework Papers, 1956 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1956), 58. 56Irving Kaufman, "Understanding the Dynamics of Parents with Character Disorders," Casework Papers, 1960 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1960), 10. be children. ‘me great admiration use-utter whose task triplicated problems I that appears in t :.aiiant t0 self-deter: abelindted due to the heist of choice. ln s; is gtcfessional jud gate :1“ ...1' of society. b‘ith regards to 4 ..... Tee problem facing I talize the proper Si pate to support hi‘ pocial psychologica' udischarging this trough identificat Elasely to those of :beir roles in the fouls the client sentify. A coroll 5 l hp and reference {ment With thoSe C with he has A. 134 engage the client in treatment but, if this fails, he must make a judgment about what needs to be done to protect both the parent and the children. Such decisions are not easy tO make and one can only have great admiration for the devotion and steadfastness of the caseworker whose task is to deal, day-in and day-out, with the complicated problems Of this group of disturbed clients.57 What appears in these citations is recognition Of the right of the client to self-determination as well as the fact that this right may be limited due to the client's emotional capacity to exercise his freedom Of choice. In such instances, the worker may have to utilize his professional judgment and authority on the client's behalf or on behalf Of society. With regards to the introduction of role theory, self-deter- mination is again reassessed. The problem facing the caseworker is how to help the client inter- nalize the proper social norms and acquire an ego structure ade- quate to support him in performing his roles satisfactorily. Social psychological theory has much help to offer the caseworker in discharging this responsibility. The client may be helped, through identification, to modify his ego ideal to conform more closely to those Of individuals who are successfully performing their roles in the community. The change may be facilitated by helping the client substitute ego models with which he can easily identify. A corollary approach is to help him substitute member- ship and reference groups, the norms and values of which are con- gruent with those Of the majority Of the community, for those with which he has previously identified. In this manner acceptable be- havior is reinforced in the client, psychologically and sociolog- ically, by and through his experiences of social interaction. The new standards are internalized by the client, they become part of him, and he communicates better in his interpersonal relationships because he 'sees' the world more as others in the community see it. .I_t_ _i_§_ important that the client b_e helped 53 d2 these things for himself. .222 goal g§_casework, ip_whatever setting;_i§_£g_ enable the client Egndg_and act for himself. If the client's ego- directiveness is enhanced in the casework situation, the modifica- tions in his behavior become permanent and lasting. He is not sim- ply conforming for fear of reprisal or suffering. Casework can help individuals £g_perform their social roles with ease and 57Ibid., 15. i: xternerscta1 EL:— sgardins Wm aE-ieternination once :3. ha short term ' 3.131 verker's role is 5:353 of tine linitatic fiat's request. focus sauces including th01 is: attempt to engage ‘ 3";iecision regarding Laliecision is the c There are insta' fete because the clien 1‘23, there he might ne it"3131021. In such case 133. the social worker :suShip E ‘ I v en 80, as "d: filial “tins and inf 13 self-d etemination . 3.. ”Wu ‘Eual Centerh?‘ :kl. 135 spontaneigy, with satisfaction 52 themselves and £2 others who are $2 interpersonal interaction with them, and thus £g_function better ithheir social world. Regarding working in short but intensive or intake situations, self-determination once more is expanded upon and adapted to the situa- tion. In a short term relationship or in the intake setting, the social worker's role is a dual one, for he is working under the added stress Of time limitation. On the one hand he must listen to the client's request, focus upon the primary need and evaluate the possible resources including those Of his agency. At the same time, he must also attempt to engage the client, to enable him tO make a knowledge- able decision regarding ongoing social work activity. Ultimately the final decision is the client's. There are instances, however, as mentioned in previous sections, where because the client is limited by handicap or immobilized by anx- iety, where he might need additional assistance in making a responsible decision. In such cases, and only as the result of sufficient evalua- tion, the social worker may take on a more active role in the rela- tionship. Even so, as the worker is engaged in the process of listen- ing, evaluating and informing, he still respects the client's right to self-determination. All caseworkers learn to listen, to wait, to assert, to focus, to select, to inform, to support, to be skeptical, to engage the client in the discussion of his problem and leave him free to make his decisions. Our job is to give him information about the re- sources he really needs or to help him decide for himself whether he is ready for resource help. 58Robert K. Taylor, "Identification and Ego-Directive Case- work," Social Work 5 (January 1960), 45 (emphasis added). 9Dorothy Eklund, "Short Contact Services in an Information and Referral Center," Social Casework XXXII (December 1951), 435. There are a flux-5‘ ante and more effecti giegree of concern f and. in a major arti aiuderson point out 1 :zstmclate the client 2310 use treatment h: Leads which the clier. ci;3hile at the same fa: such an investment that the client begins EEtc-inst the cost of 73th that the client c 'mitions and miS-inf '5“? or service. Hithin the framewo; aarily a process of testing, expected 1 cuts, 1 136 There are a number of articles which deal with both short term service and more effective use of the intake process. They reflect a high degree of concern for the social work activities in this critical period. In a major article dealing with the intake period, Kiesler and Anderson point out that a primary responsibility of the worker is to stimulate the client tO evaluate his problem as well as his readi- ness to use treatment help. The worker is urged to focus upon the demands which the client will face in undergoing a treatment relation— ship while at the same time, he needs to attempt to reassure the client that such an investment is worthwhile. It is in this initial period that the client begins to weigh the emotional cost of ongoing services as against the cost of the problem continuing. Too, it is at this point that the client can be helped to sort out what fantasies, mis- conceptions and mis-information he may have brought regarding the agency or service. Within the framework of the intake interview, it has become pri— marily a process of activating the patient's own evaluation of his problems and his own readiness for treatment. Psychological testing, expected frequency and length of interviews, the Office hours, loss Of time from work, the inconvenience of travel to the clinic, all become reality factors against which the patient can test his motivation and willingness to make the necessary invest- ment of his time and emotional energy. The patient usually develops a degree Of positive relationship towards the worker who can, if he chooses, directly influence the patients choice. The worker may be tempted to take the decision making control away from the patient. A.more productive approach is to point out the patient's feelings about involving himself in therapy. This further identification, together with the worker's demonstration of confidence in the patient's ability to take the necessary responsibility for himself . . . builds up the relationship. The patient may be reluctant to consider the changes in himself and that they will come about only through his active participation in the treatment process. . . . It is important that the patient begin to feel that he is doing something about his problem, rather e: that sow“ is Erances Scherz’ .. and Anderson'8 ' :e:lient's right to 5‘ ExFloration baSEd 0 client understand t. neclient's abilit the intake process- self-determination of factual knowledg hit-self. in Katherine Ch aihcemker services, aetine to explain th fations and its eXpec Lezmes more fully awar Fitness. By doing so, 1335 put upon his reqt ”:9 agency. I393 the client hac {mains clearly ' the client will khc Shines) from him Efiless he indicafe« rEither matters), ti ‘ I maid“8 any nec M131.0? area 0 \ 60 .. Frank R «.9 l is e atake Interviezl" 61? ’ l{shivtzrms 3"" (June 1953 62 t... Kathe «3131c Iine C‘ \ W XXXVI 137 60 than that someone is taking over from him. Frances Scherz, in referring to the intake process, parallels Kiesler and Anderson's observations, again with repeated emphasis on the client's right to self-determination. Exploration based on the concept that both the caseworker and the client understand the bases for the request, indicates respect for the client's ability to participate and to understand his part in the intake process. The caseworker respects the client's right to self-determination and understands that only through mutual sharing of factual knowledge is the client able to choose what is best for himself.61 In Katherine Chambers' article dealing with the intake process and homemaker services, she emphasized the necessity of the worker to take time to explain the agency, its demands, standards, roles and functions and its expectations of the client. In doing so, the client becomes more fully aware of his contribution to the therapy or service process. By doing so, theciient becomes aware that there may be limita- tions put upon his request due to the limitations of the services of the agency. When the client has presented his . . . situation, the worker explains clearly . . . the agency's standards and roles, so that the client will know how and why the agency expects (certain things) from.him. The final decision has real meaning to him; Unless he indicates his need and wish for agency help in planning (other matters), the worker will leave with him the responsibility for making any necessary adjustment.6 A major area of concern in the discussion of self-determination 6oFrank Kiesler and Delwin Anderson, "Helping Towards Help: The Intake Interview," Social Casework XXXV (February 1954), 75. 61Frances Scherz, "Intake, Concept and Process," Social Case— }?ng XXXVII (June 1956), 235. 62Katherine Chambers, "The Intake Process in Homemaker Service," 3_°<.=1\al_ Casework XXXVI (May 1955), 219. r.“ intake or short ld leave the aria: shou “at, i.e. interve II: ‘- m Loo—a :1. "to Eklund , contrc ‘8 Bringing him back tc r2. :5, spoke of the case'. Lisen’ices to the cl. Easier and Anderson di :batali of the welfar tabeginning of the cl hiring decade. Town Ejarpoint: regardles iaright to make the f elation to reSpect the here are many time o: the situation. 5.1419“ of the inte :16 intake Vorker c :11 38k for help :3: take “Sponsrr (upped t0 SiVe. {y experiencing t" e intake worker“ 138 and the intake or short term process centered around how and when the worker should leave the passive role and become‘more active in helping the client, i.e. intervene. This again reopened the question of con— trol. To Eklund, control meant nothing more than stOpping the client and bringing him back to the focus of the interview. Chambers, in turn, spoke of the caseworker becoming active in offering other avail able services to the client without his prior awareness of his need. Kiesler and Anderson discussed the worker assuming a very active role in behalf of the welfare of the client and society. This may well be the beginning of the client advocate or ombudsman as is seen in the following decade. Townsend, however, returned the discussion to the major point: regardless of the situation, the client, in the end has the right to make the final decision and the social worker has the ob ligation to respect that decision. There are many times when the caseworker has to take over control of the situation. . . . There are times when the worker has to stop the client in his discussion or has to bring him back to the subject of the interview.63 The intake worker cannot remain passive in the hOpe that the client will ask for help for himself in other aspects of the problem, but must take responsibility in interpreting the help the agency is equipped to give. The client learns and involves himself . . . by experiencing the understanding, acceptance and help given by the intake worker.64 A few patients with serious incapacitating disturbances may lack the capacity to make a responsible decision about treatment and the worker must assume a more direct responsibility for the wel- fare of the patient and society.65 63Eklund, "Information and Referral Center," 438. 64Chambers, "The Intake Process," 220. 5Kiesler and Anderson, "The Intake Interview," 75. is: every client is s an reject it altcge sizle for interpretirl ‘ . possible and in rela. the professional know. :erviev, but in the :.'-re a negative. 85 ‘ Riesler and Mice :intaite process and t' fixing quotation: {The intake process) to explore his prob] entering treatment a if the services avai participation. . . with the patient, a: social and cultural 1Jal's capacities an In this sectior athad of social work i .i animation. The d " L Ste“ 1 . =1? A r '. trier Situation So- ‘.l 6'. ‘v. y'. a ' ! mat models and I $55011 a ant it's hel p. 66\ Gladys s 53 " r ' 0C1: \. q. ' 1 :13 67 . .. KlQSler 3? _' 139 Not every client is so ready to use help. Indeed, many clients will reject it altogether. The caseworker can only be reSpon— sible for interpreting the agency and his own role as simply as possible and in relation to the client's request. He must use all the professional knowledge and skill at his command in guiding the interview, but in the end, he has to respect the glient's right to make a negative, as well as a positive decision.6 Kiesler and Anderson have summed up very briefly and concisely the intake process and the principle of self-determination in the following quotation: (The intake process) . . . can be structured to allow the patient to explore his problem, to identify some of his resistances to entering treatment and to test his motivation against the realities of the services available, to encourage full and active patient participation. . . . The worker must have the capacity to feel with the patient, an understanding of resistances, a knowledge of social and cultural realities and a genuine faith in the individ- ual's capacities and his right to self—determination.67 Summary In this section, the focus has been upon the social casework method of social work with regard to the principle of client self— determination. The discussion has shown that while the nature of social work is dynamic and changing, it has continually reaffirmed and adapted the principle of client self-determination to the client- worker situation. Social casework during this decade was called upon to integrate knowledge from.the behavioral sciences, to deal with new treatment models and with the changing nature and needs of the people who sought it's help. It also saw the need to be more available to 66Gladys S. Townsend, "Short Term Casework with the Client Under Stress," Social Casework XXXIV (November 1953), 395. 67Kiesler and Anderson, "The Intake Interview," 76. '=.~;;apulations who, wires of help. In :r’;:i;le of self-deter: 154113 theories, new t :nfession repeatedly re U310: as a critical 2 1:3: and worker- Social group so :zinas one of the so 2:32 one finds attenti .....tion of group wor a groin eXperiences . geld“ . ....cation of the y :32 amp method built and. . wactinties of the 1 {saliva of authority 3 The Single has 140 client populations who, for any of a number of reasons, did not avail themselves of help. In so doing, social workers reinterpreted the principle of self-determination. Never—the—less, regardless of changing theories, new treatment models or the client situation, the profession repeatedly returned to the client's right to self—deter- mination as a critical feature of this creative partnership between client and worker. Social Group Work .Social group work during this decade came into greater recog- nition as one of the social work methods. Consequently, in the liter- ature one finds attention being given to the establishment of a clear definition of group work which would distinguish it from other kinds of group experiences. Part of the discussion also focused upon the identification of the value base or philOSOphical beliefs upon which the group method built. Finally there was much discussion of the role and activities of the group worker, eSpecially as it dealt with the question of authority, leadership and freedom of choice. The single basic reference point of group work was a definition adopted by the American Association of Group Workers in 1948 which set forth the functions of group workers as: Through his participation the group worker aims to affect the group process so that decisions come about as a result of know- ledge and a sharing and integration of ideas, eXperiences, and knowledge rather than as a result of domination from within or without the group. Through experience he aims to produce these relations with other groups and the wider community which contrib— ute to responsible citizenship, mutual understanding between cul- tural, religious, economic or social groupings in the community adaparticipation : toward democratic go in this definitic aiecision making proce :etar’rer as facilitator grass was the central : artererged and which 1 Gertrude Wilson tigroup life is affe 23ersona1 relationship :fgc-als which care cont heart on to eXplain ‘ 5533315 of the group. 315'“ help“ to part assists then to become It”: 3 er “and, are helped as growth and develOp' K3159! defined 141 and a participation in the constant improvement of our society toward democratic goals.68 In this definition, emphasis was placed upon the sharing of the decision making process, the exchange of ideas and the role of the worker as facilitator or enabler. The purposeful use of group process was the central idea of the several definitions of group work which emerged and which reinforced these three points. Gertrude Wilson defined group work as "the process through which group life is affected by workers who consciously affect the in- terpersonal relationships between members toward the accomplishment of goals which care conceived in a democratic frame of reference."69 She went on to explain that the goals could be bg£h_individual goals and goals of the group. It is through the group process that individ- uals are helped to participate in group eXperiences. This in turn, assists them to become more effective human beings. Groups, on the other hand, are helped to achieve ends which are significant towards the growth and develOpment of a more democratic society. Kaiser defined social group work as a means for releasing the capacities of human beings "to grow and to function" more effectively as individuals and as members of social groups.70 68"Definition of the Function of the Group Worker," American Association of Group Workers, 1948. 69Gertrude Wilson, "Measurement and Evalutation of Social Group work Practice," The Social Welfare Forum: 1952 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 206. 7oClare A. Kaiser, "Social Group work Practice and Social Responsibility," The Social Welfare Forum: 1952 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 103. Paul Simon offe. :2; work by identifyin :7; work process . .11 It is a way of V (2) It is a method < group entity to :3) It is an enabli others to use t [5) It is a conscio he is doing and (5) It demands a pr relationship be 31"“ Pointed out that is: is it helps Demo: Eerseif-expresflo“; d£ .: is "ways of working ..72 . may, %. K181!) Saw the 142 Paul Simon offered a more definitive interpretation of social group work by identifying five propositions central to the social group work process. (1) It is a way of working with people in groups. (2) It is a method devised to help both individual members and the group entity to grow and achieve in social relationships. (3) It is an enabling process, a procedure whereby the worker helps others to use their capacities for helping themselves. (4) It is a consciously controlled process - the worker knows what he is doing and assumes responsibility for his own work. (5) It demands a professional relationship rather than personal relationship between the worker and the group members.71 Fisher pointed out that social group work was 'treatment—focused' — that is it helps persons develOp capacities for adequate Opportunities for self-expression; develOpment of self-respect and respect for others. It is "ways of working together that are associated with the term democracy."72 Klein saw the purpose of the group as bringing about individual change "through reorientation of role expectations, teaching role behavior" and by affecting attitudes and values which motivate role behavior.73 Eisenstein expanded on this by including the enhancement 71Paul Simon, "Social Group Work in Camping," The Social Wel— fare Forum: 1952 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 194-195. 72Raymond Fisher, "Social Group WOrk in Group Service Agencies,‘ §2£$gl_Work With Groups, 1952 (New York: N.A.S.W., 1959), 21. 73Alan Klein, "Individual Change Through Group Experience," .119. Social Welfare Forum: 1959 (New York: Columbia University Press, 19595 , 11,3, sea: person's sense c m then 53" as one attire helPing 0f ind ifiiibent and 80d“ ' ' 75 :12 31 gm? work. Self-fulfillmer inof role expectatic egrzunded upon the (it first the democrati: eriers set about to it :31: to the group wor‘: Zieproiession had reg air, the values which fend- in social casewo 53,13 carried over th Slagested by Gordon Ha L"'"nnfi with groups 1‘ tiny ability to ""5““ and civi 8032.5 in his own 143 of each person's sense of self which the group experience can provide?4 Hurwitz then saw as one of the major professional purposes of the group work the helping of individuals to achieve a greater measure of self— fulfillment and social adjustment. This be identified as the ultimate role of group work.75 Self-fulfillment, enhancement of the social self, reorienta- tion of role expectations all occur through the group experience which is grounded upon the democratic frame of reference. In order to clar— ify what the democratic frame of reference involved, social group workers set about to identify the values which were seen as being basic to the group work method. In recognition of the concern which the profession had regarding the common or generic base of social work, the values which were identified were either the same as those found in social casework or extensions of them. Kaiser, for example, simply carried over the value structure as related to social casework suggested by Gordon Hamilton and in essence said that it still applied in working with groups. 1. Any ability to help others rests on respect for the human personality - on the person's right to make his own life, to enjoy personal and civil liberties, and to pursue happiness and spiritual goals in his own way. 2. Help is most effective if the recipient participates actively and responsibly in the process. 3. Respect for others, acceptance of others they are, and as po- tentially they can be, tends to induce between worker and client, between the one who seeks and the one who offers help, a relation— ship which is not only the medium for educational counseling, but for a therapeutic process. 4. Respect for others includes respect for their difference. 5. Self-awareness is essential in understanding others. 75Jacob Hurwitz, "Systemizing Social Group Work Process," 322% M 1 (July 1956), 67. 5. The individu trend the soci These c affcrded to gr: find explicit I Cristian reli Others att ireiin social g: s: as being hasi :e'zrere essent ill a desira‘ in it to reSpect, his feli as well (2) Every 1 have a {3) There a 0i int: (k) The de. that m 144 6. The individual has responsibility not only for himself but toward the society in which he lives. These concepts are as pertinent to the helping process when afforded to groups of peOple as they are in casework. In them we find explicit expression of the beliefs implicit in the Judeo- Christian religions and in the democratic ethos.76 Others attempted to look in detail at the social values as found in social group work. Helen Phillips identified four which she saw as being basic to all of social work and two additional values which were essential for social group work. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) A desirable society is one that provides for every human being in it the freedom to develop and use his capacities with self- respect, to discover and maintain satisfying relationships with his fellows, and to be responsible contribution to the whole as well as a receiver from it. Every living person is of value as a human being. All pe0p1e have a capacity to grow and change. There are dynamic possibilities for social growth in the process of interacting relationship. The democratic way of life rests firmly ppon the assumption that means must be consonant with ends.7 Added, as distinctive for social group work were: Each individual finds something unique for himself and his own growth as he relates to differences in fellow members of his group as well as in his worker. The individual can achieve a wholeness in himself as he becomes part of a group that does not demand uniformity and loss of self but that can use his own particular difference as a contribution toward unity. The belief that "groups can, and do, make an impact upon society and can have a real part in effecting social change. The American Association of Group Workers, in a discussion of the function of the group worker, expounded upon the philosophical 76Gordon Hamilton, cited by Clara A. Kaiser, "The Social Group WOrk Process," Social Work 3 (April 1958), 69. 77Helen Phillips, "Social Values and Social Group Work," Group EgflkiPapers, 1957 (New York: N.A.S.W., 1957), 24-26. 781b1d s , 26-27 0 lieu - the demo -2. ”,4 iuk 1. tatterent in the soci The guiding purpose assuzptions of a de (l) the opportr in freedom (3) to reapect (3) to assume ' constantly Out of this pt. at; work. These pri tire system of the pr attested b implement :.“izciples which she i . q ‘ u" “A. “med: (1) the right 0f 1 tion as long 4 Others; (2) the right 0f : decisionflmh1 the ethical u: the use of th. for its Value 3 the “Se Of Co' hat . :Ee ‘ 7. "an" as "helping "Cit t° m(We toward 79 “men "1 American A fit I: m icatiOnc {€10 - run: . \ "Que. 145 value milieu — the democratic frame 0f reference — which was felt to be inherent in the social group work process. The guiding purpose behind such leadership rests upon the common assumptions of a democratic society; namely, (1) the opportunity for each individual to fulfill his capacity in freedom, (2) to respect and appreciate others, and, (3) to assume his social responsibility in maintaining and constantly improving our democratic society. Out of this philosophy there emerged the principles of social group work. These principles drew upon the philoSOphical base and value system of the profession and became guides for the methods which attempted unimplement the principles. Gisela KonOpka summarized the principles which she felt there was almost universal agreement. They included: (1) the right of the individual and the group to self-determina- tion as long as this right is not misused by limiting that of others; (2) the right of individuals and groups for participation in decision-making; (3) the ethical use of confidential material by the social worker; (4) the use of the group method only when competent judgment calls for its value to the group; and, (5) the use of consultation when need arises. What emerges as pivotal to the implementation of these principles is the enabling function of the social group worker. KonOpka defined enabling as "helping the members of the group and the group as a whole to move toward greater independence and capacity for self-helpIBl 79American Association of Group Workers, cited in Nathan E. Cohen, "Implications for Social Group Work Practice," The Social Wel- fare Forum: 1955 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 57. 80Gisela KonOpka, "The Generic and the Specific in Group Work Practice in the Psychiatric Setting," Social Work 1 (January 1956), 77. 811bid. irrecognition of this t :nediscussion around Gertrude Wilson aria: as a combination user, blending values seeds that respect the diet, in this instant. is a philosopher he values and manners I pressed in many £115 or a consumer of SC processes which ore and accepts as real society. He famili of the different ac and of the particul he individualizes ushers, which he knowledge of behav discovers where as the bear-er of s t Negro") t0 move Istand new ba :soiia 0f social ; latent with ‘ "Imp w Mindual.s 0:“: As the 5°Cia I2.“ Storm “Whats , t “is. is Seen 82\ Emma f Gertrude 146 The recognition of this became then, the common thread which appeared in the discussion around the function of the social group worker. Gertrude Wilson and Gladys Ryland describe the social group worker as a combination of philoSOpher, social scientist and practi- tioner, blending values and beliefs with professional knowledge in methods that respect the client's right to self-determination, the client, in this instance, being each group member. As a philosopher he recognizes the difference between basic human values and manners and customs, and that basic values may be ex- pressed in many different forms of behavior; as a social scientist, or a consumer of social science research, he understands the social processes which create subgroupings within larger groups of peeple and accepts as real the existence of social classes within any society. He familiarizes himself with the characteristic behavior of the different social classes within American society as a whole and of the particular region and locality in which he is working. He individualizes the behavior of each group, and its constituent members, which he serves against the background of his generalized knowledge of behavior of the various social classes. In this way he discovers where the group with which he is working is. As a practitioner he helps the group to find a direction in which it wishes to go. The group may wish to maintain its manners and customs or it may wish to change them. The worker as the bearer of society's values, the basic human values, helps the group to move in the direction of reenforcing or learning to understand new basic values, but he does not attempt to change the manners and customs of the group unless they are in conflict with the basic values. Through consistent participation in the proc- esses of social change aimed toward realization of behavior more consistent with the ideals inherent in democratic beliefs the social group worker contributes to the welfare and happiness of individuals, of small groups, and of society as a whole. As the social group worker relates and interacts with the vari- ous group members, his role and function is described in a variety of ways . He is seen as helping people towards independence and positive 82Gertrude Wilson and Gladys Ryland, "Social Classes: Impli- cations for Social Group Work," The Social Welfare Forum: 1954, (New York; Columbia University Press,.1954), 186. my of self worth at maependence and res pi, he encourages indi 15m support; he is shutters, and util: tiprlation and NOdifll :‘xical restraint when I is." He needs to cor. turn will help the a til: at the same time 3'“ by the members < m “met to see co: as recognition that in J esires, “ally w an ts veg, and n :8, eaCh pet-S “Dd each is EMmfi 0th: 147 feelings of self worth and at the same time towards realization of inter-dependence and responsibility of man in society.83 Towards this goal, he encourages individual discussion and interpretation as well as group support; he is supportive, gives advice and guidance in prac- tical matters, and utilizes such control techniques as environmental manipulation and modification, verbal and nonverbal cues, and even physical restraint when necessary to stimulate the interactional proc- ess.84 He needs to convey feelings of respect, trust and concern which in turn will help the members to develop their own unique personalities while at the same time allowing freedom of choice and rejection of choice by the members of the group.85 At times this may also lead the group member to see conformity - not on the loss of autonomy but rather as recognition that in our society, one values what one "cares about, desires, really wants and works for."86 Each person enacts roles through personal motivation to meet needs and drives, and no matter how much one's goals are influenced by others, each person behaves in accordance with his own personal goals and each is impelled to achieve a desired objective ig_his own special way.87 83Gisela KonOpka, "Social Group Work: A Social Work Method," Social Work, 5 (October 1960), 53. 848. Robert Berg, "Combining Group and Casework Treatment in a Chmp Setting," Social Werk, 5 (January 1960), 59; Irving H. Kaplan, "Some Aspects of Group Werk in a Psychiatric Setting," Social Work, 5 (July 1960), 89-90. 8SBetty Schwartz, "Knowledge and Skills Used in Social Group Work Practice," Social Work With Groups, 1959 (New York: N.A.S.W. , 1959), 2; George Brager, "Group Autonomy and Agency Intake Practice," Grogp‘Work and Communitnggganization, 1953-1954 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 2. 86 Klein, "Individual Change Through Group Experience," 142. 87Ibid., 148 (emphasis added). i‘nile much more _-_ grasp sorter and t :35 Faiser and Bernar the social group wo ass. By use of his he establishes rela the potentialities cially productive e the group worker va grzup, the agency w the individual ment and the group, and possesses. Sat-ithstanding the uniqueness of the to help members us of being used. This or the agency whici The worker Process, his insig‘: the group with the Pursue their conce “his, and identi ‘3 °ne looks 1 5"“? Ethod is USed h: .‘ “~ L1 . enethod, Espeq it: - 148 While much more could be said about the performance of the so— cial group worker and the group itself, it is succinctly summed up by Clare Kaiser and Bernard Shiffmsn when they said: The social group worker is primarily an enabler in the group proc— ess. By use of his understanding of group and individual needs, he establishes relationships through which he seeks to develOp the potentialities of the group . . . to find satisfying and so- cially productive experiences. The specific role and methods of the group worker vary depending on the nature and purpose of the group, the agency which sponsors it, the needs and capacities of the individual members, thetype of relationship between the worker and the group, and the knowledge and skills which the worker possesses. Notwithstanding the need for further study of the practice, the uniqueness of the social group work method is that it is designed to help members use their groups for their own fulfillment instead of being used. This idealized concept is limited only by the goals of the agency which supplies the worker. . . . The worker uses his knowledge of peOple and the group process, his insights and observations, and his "self," to help the group with that which is of concern to them. In helping them pursue their concerns, he may introduce new concepts, teach new skills, and identify attitudes. The group members deepen their insight into themselves, their group, and their community by becoming participants in the directed group process wherein they make decisions and take action to accomplish the purposes of the group, both expressed and unexpressed. As one looks at the variety of settings in which the social group method is used, he also finds repeated reference to the value of the method, especially as it relates to client freedom and self- determination. Recognizing the right of the individual to participate in decision- making, the group worker (in the hospital) contacts the new patient 88Clara A. Kaiser, "Group WOrk," in "The Group in Education, Group WOrk and Psychotherapy," American Journal gf_0rtho-Psychiatry, XXIV (1954) , 130. 89Bernard M. Shiffman, "Effecting Change Through Social Group Work," The Social Welfare Forum: 1958 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958) , 192-193. a: one or more 0C :‘ge group, may 19 an. , . , V’ari recreational, and as:rong emphasis inplanning and C desirable . . . . the decision to ; offered a patient Paranount among 1 the ward self-go‘ any special intc group work servic his circumstance: expression of hi: changes in his e:- The establishmen‘ snare girls and l ities. establish 355312, and assil the desired grou; in their own aff, tion, and partic: "03131118 that has are more readily of informal grou] 'vle need to reexa: “"1181“ 0f the ' ' o T00 many ( tires of nation: “Wasted rather Wing ”01319.93 The general Soc 15 Straps” ranam G 1953 Ex among Inst \ . York: F's 93 35335 n him A "683’ \ Social 149 on one or more occasions, may casually invite or urge him to join the group, may lead him by the hand or enable him to come on his own . . . . Various aspects of programming, including cultural, recreational, and informational activities, are interpreted with a strong emphasis on the fact that the patient's participation in planning and carrying out the program is both welcome and desirable . . . . In the authoritative setting of the hospital, the decision to participate in a group is one of the few choices offered a patient.90 Paramount among them (group activities in a mental hospital) were the ward self-government and the social peer groups as well as many special interest groups . . . . An important part of the group work service has always been to help the patient adjust to his circumstances, while at the same time allowing room for the expression of his feelings and an Opportunity to bring about changes in his environment. The establishment of cottage councils in each living unit - where girls and staff together can discuss problems, plan activ— ities, establish a few ground rules of behavior, and identify, assume, and assign work responsibilities - offers a vehicle for the desired group interaction. Permitting girls to have a voice in their own affairs with staff acceptance, encouragement, direc- tion, and participation in therapeutic and educational . . ... Programs that have been initiated with the girl's participation are more readily accepted by the group through the mobilization of informal group controls. 2 We need to reexamine the existing programs for young adults in the light of the new knowledge about their develOpmental needs. . . . Too many youth programs today function to serve the objec- tives of national adult organizations. Tocamany are adult- dominated rather than based upon the self-determination of young people.93 The general social goals for human welfare in which everyone is 90Robert R. Woodruff, "Group Work in a Children's Hospital," ‘figcial Work, 2 (July 1957), 58-59. 91Arnold Eisen, "Group Work with Newly Arrived Patients in a Mental Hospital," Social Work with Groups, 1958 (New York: N.A.S.W., 1958), 95. 92Abraham G. Novick, "The Mmke-Believe Family: Informal Group Structure among Institutionalized Delinquent Girls," Casework Papers, 1960 (New York: F.S.A.A.,l960), 55. 93Melvin A. Glasser, "The Young Adult in the Current Social Scene," The Social welfare Forum: 1952, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952) , 175. Lzeres ed certain .espo Feasible daze Trese tines offer C not juSt to deraocra : ..--:.istic 01' fad 331?. In communes individual 18 5'4"” 55:033th emphaSis car In our 70“" 3:31p responsibilit b.1Ch We all believ re.ationship5 95 Social group w. I recognized methods of resulted in a re-exani nized developed. Th: ‘licples were used to hernias structure 0 self~ termination a' it sane, was a key nrl experience. A resExtensive to clier .“l‘p scsely interrelate 94‘!“ W11 ‘athe Public In 175:1 ‘14. Oranizat: «Ca um 95 £11, a. 150 interested certainly include the aim of group work agencies to help peOple to grow into mature and happy individuals and socially responsible citizens. These times offer challenges to the basic concepts of democracy, not just to democratic institutions. Dictatorships, whether communistic or facistic, demand unquestioning loyalty to the group. In communes, in youth organizations, and the like, the individual is submerged. This is in direct contrast to our democratic emphasis on the value and development of each individ- ual. In our youth serving agencies especially, the self—governing group responsibility is a democratic process on a small scale, which we all believe fervently carries its value into enlarging relationships.95 Summary Social group work during this decade emerged as one of the recognized methods of social work. Part of the need for recognition rresulted in a re-examination of the value base upon which the group Imathod developed. Through both the theory and case application, examples were used to demonstrate that one of the main components of the value structure of social group work was the principle of client Self-determination and recognition of it, as such, or failure to do the same, was a key determinant to the success of the social group work experience. A positive social group work experience had to be responsive to client self-determination, the two were seen as being Closely interrelated . 94Mrs. William C. Treuhaft, "How Can we Interpret Group WOrk t0 the Public in These Times," Selected Papers it; Group Work and ..Communitz Qggmization, 1951 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951), 62. 95 Ibid., 66. "the third met .1: summit}! organi: :izsive term which I.E.Y-.c.\'eil, in the 2:: was not definit: axial work aSpect o 2;;11ed to activitie F'Ilitical parties, 1 tin-e: segments of co: During the p '1 "IA: ..et in a number of via: purpose it was 1 tins in the definit. :tganization was bei: ities" which were be: im and/or a partim The f°110wini 151 Community Organization The third method of social work considered during this decade was community organization. Community organization represents an inclusive term which embodies a wide range of services and activities. C. F. McNeil, in the Social Work Year Book, 1951, complained that the term.was not definitive and that it was difficult to sort out the social work aspect of community organization. It was "frequently applied to activities of such organizations as chambers of commerce, political parties, labor unions, educational organizations, and many other segments of community life."96 During the period 1951—1960, community organization was de— fined in a number of ways depending on who was defining it and for what purpose it was being defined. Nathan Cohen observed that varia- tions in the definition also appeared depending upon whether community organization was being assessed as "a method," "a process," as "activ— ities" which were being described, or the "structure" of an organiza- tion and/or a particular point of view. The following are illustrations of the variety of definitions which appeared. As one can observe, the tone of the definition ap- pears to change and reflect a particular orientation. Community organization, as the term is to be used in this book, is to mean a process by which a community identifies its needs or objectives, orders (or ranks) these needs or objectives, finds 96C. F. McNeil, "Community Organization for Social welfare," I§g_Socia1 Work Year Book, 1951 (New York: A.A.S.W., 1951), 123. 97Nathan E. Cohen, "Reversing the Process of Social Disorgan- 1zation," in Issues ig_American Social Work, ed. by Kahn, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 139. the resources (2 or Objectiws’ 1 extends and dew Practittes in th‘ . commit" nity Capacj Change as casth like case“rk a: sense of their ‘ m participant: tins of persona the sense °f pe‘ sense of person‘ 335: recently. ‘ to macs 1 a cross SeCtion together :0 idet effective part5 achieve an 13:95 ‘ mungful bas appropriate 8:0“ a cannon Pr°b 1e: Other def 1111 which they were b it} organiution Vi at," the definitiox at Social Council 81 152 the resources (internal and/or external) to deal with these needs or objectives, takes action in respect to them, and in so doing extends and develops c00perative and collaborative attitudes and practices in the community. . . . community organization practice is directed at increasing community capacity to solve problems induce constructive social change as casework and group work induce personal change; but, like casework and group work, it implants in the participants a sense of their ability to command their own destiny. It relieves the participants from the sense of being hOpeless and hapless vic- time of personal or social forces of irrationality. It reinforces the sense of personal and social responsibility for events, and the sense of personal and social ability to shape events.99 Most recently, community organization is seen as a direct service to communities through which individuals and groups representing a cross section of diversified special interests are helped to work together to identify and meet their own needs by participating as effective parts of a democratic society. The goal here is to achieve an integrated community through the broad involvement on a meaningful basis at every level of participation of the many apprOpriate groups and sub-groups in the community concerned with a common problem.100 Other definitions also appeared which varied due to the context in which they were being utilized. For instance, in discussing commu- nity organization within the frame of reference of "community develop- ment," the definition which emerged from the United Nations Economic and Social Council stated: Community development can be tentatively defined as a process de- signed to create conditions of economic and social process for the whole community with its active participation and the fullest pos- sible releases upon the community's initiative. . . . Community development implies the integration of two sets of forces making for human welfare, neither of which can do the job along: (1) The opportunity and capacity for cooperation, self—help, 98Murray Ross, Community Organization, Theory and Principles, (New York: Harper, 1965), 39. 99BertramM. Beck, "Shaping America's Social welfare Policy," Issues in American Social Work, 209-210. 100Violet M. Seider, "What is Community Organization Practice?" §h§ Social Welfare Forum: 1956 (New York: Columbia University Press, 956), 162 . ability to 88313111“ Least latent in ever ad tools in every 8 wide experience and oats and agencies . Commit? 01'8“” Emmity planning for :.'.iizh individuals ant ethane, establish . a militias which in the 22’ individual and com: ell-being for all peo. ninthods which guid can from the communit f n 1:: \I‘emard \ 8 1952)% W ’ l 153 ability to assimilate and adapt to new ways of living that is at least latent in every human group; and (ii) The fund of techniques and tools in every social and economic field, drawn from world- wide experience and now in use or available to national govern- ments and agencies.101 Community organization as it related to "social planning" or "community planning for health and welfare" was defined as "the process by which individuals and groups in a community consciously seek to determine, establish, and sustain these conditions, programs, and facilities which in their judgment will help to prevent the breakdown of individual and communal life, and make possible a high level of well-being for all people. Underlying this concept are the philosophy and methods which guide the wisest leaders in obtaining full expres- sion from the community as to its needs and their priorities, and in organizing a plan of action in relation thereto."102 Even in the Social Work Year Book, the definition of community organization demonstrates ongoing refinement. In 1951, McNeil defined community organization as: . . . the process of bringing about a progressively more effective adjustment between social welfare resources and social welfare needs within a geographic area or functional field . . . . It's primary focus is upon needs of people and provision of means of meeting these needs in a manner consistent with the precepts of democratic living. In 1957, Campbell G. Murphy proposed a definition that was a synthesis of the current attitudes towards community organization as 101United Nations, Social and Economic Council, Principles gf_ Community DeveIOpment, (E/CN 5/303), January 31, 1955, 13-14. 102Leonard M. Mayo, "Community Planning for Health and Wel- fare," The Social welfare Forum: 1952 (New York: Columbia University Press 1952), 221. 103 C.F. McNeil, "Community Organization," 123. mm. a new Of :zerest. imity organizc‘ Engaged in health of the skillful u: aorkers engaged i! by providing in d problems involved vices now found i' vices in the ligh use of a professi areas of social n that will meet th activity in socia prinary function or the joint fina Cmmity may ref state, national o In the 1950 X article on community hzhy article on to: iese tvo articles 81: tenent of both are q We distinctiveness 'the process of comru lated to community de 92:": ' in refereflce to fire," TH Campbell ‘\e Social w- \ \‘ 105 "'31, 196 Arthur D. \ (x8? YOZ" 154 a process, a field of activity, a geographic area and/or a community interest. Community organization is a process used by professional workers engaged in health and welfare planning. It consists, in part, of the skillful use of 'enabling' techniques through which social workers engaged in community organization practice make it possible by providing in direct leadership, for citizens groups to work out problems involved in coordinating the complex range of social ser— vices now found in most communities, and to modify and change ser- vices in the light of new ones. Implicit in this activity is the use of a professional approach to the problems of identifying areas of social need and of promoting and interpreting programs that will meet them. Community organization is also a field of activity in social work and as such is occupied by agencies whose primary function is social planning, coordination, interpretive, or the joint financing of direct service agencies . . . . Community may refer either to a defined geographic area — local, 104 state, national or international - or to a community of interest. In the 1960 Year Book, there appeared for the first time an article on community development by Arthur Dunham, in addition to the Murphy article on community organization. What is significant is that these two articles appear in the same issue of the Year Book, for the content of both are quite similar. This would seem to imply there is some distinctiveness in them, and yet Dunham himself observed that "the process of community organization seems especially closely re- lated to community develOpment."105 From the tone of Dunham's article, it seems that he has a preference for using the term community develOp- ment in reference to a more global or national approach towards inter- vention at the community level than community organization per se udght seem to denote. However, this is a distinction which seems 104Campbell G. Murphy, "Community Organization for Social wel— fare," The Social work Year Book, 1957 (New York: N.A.S.W. 1957 ), 179. 105Arthur Dunham, "Community Deve10pment," The Social WOrk Year lflflflg, 1960 (New York: N.A.S.W., 1960), 184. rsficial and one "MC £12,111 the article h a: w ch he viewed as 1. The emphasis on Wraith to the 2' The emphasis on the amnity; 3. The idea that th for initiative: 15.8 13 lore iii; need; 5. The idea of the tunity develop“:E lent of the trac' of commity 0‘5 ’ concern With C0" 3. The idea of sel As one compares nity organization as Insee where they diff :‘oservation that commu ’1 . May put almost an Llest any change in J l iereIOpment . "'107 x 155 artificial and one which Dunham.does not use consistently. For ex- ample, in the article be identified five concepts of community develOp- ment which he viewed as being important. 1. 2. The emphasis on the unity of community life and the need for an approach to the total community life; The emphasis on the inter-disciplinary team in the service of the community; The idea that the inner strength of the community, its capacity for initiative, cooperation, and the ability to solve its prob- lems is more important than the meeting of any one specific need; The idea of the multi-purpose worker, . . . a new type of com- munity development generalist who might have some of the equip- ment of the traditional 'city planner' united with knowledge of community organization and adult education, and an intimate concern with community and group process and program development; The idea of self-help.10 As one compares the above with the following principles of com- munity organization as suggested by C.F. McNeil, it is very difficult to see where they differ. One may have to agree with R. Clyde White's observation that community development "is a loose concept into which one may put almost any idea which suits his fancy, and he may call almost any change in the direction of community improvement, 'community development. 'u107 Principles 13_Community Organization for Social Welfare 1. Community organization for social welfare is concerned with people and their needs. Its objective is to enrich human life by bringing about and maintaining a progressively more effective adjustment between social welfare resources and social welfare resources and social welfare needs. The community is the primary client in community organization for social welfare. The community may be a neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation. Rapidly, too, there has emerged the international community. 106Ibid., 184-185. 107R. Clyde White, "The New and the Old in Community D8V91°Pment;' Social Work 3 (July 1958), 50. 3. It is an to be und 6. All of th and velfa elements ipation a 5. The fact tionships in the co 6. Interdepe organizat usefully its funct 7- Coaunity Part of g skill in growth ar needs.105 The Pictt "in?“ t0 idem 5% 109 156 3. It is an axiom in community organization that the community is to be understood and accepted as it is and where it is. 4. All of the peOple of the community are concerned in its health and welfare services. Representation of all interests and elements in the population and their full and meaningful partic— ipation are essential objectives in community organization. 5. The fact of ever-changing human needs and the reality of rela- tionships between and among people and groups are the dynamics in the community organization process. 6. Interdependence of all threads in the social welfare fabric of organization is a fundamental truth. No single agency can usefully 'live unto itself alone,’ but is constantly performing its function in relation to others. 7. Community organization for social welfare as a process is a part of generic social work. Knowledge of its methods and skill in their application will enhance the potentialities for growth and develOpment of any community effort to meet human needs. The picture becomes even more complex and confusing as one attempts to identify and categorize the various kinds of community organization endeavors which this country has known, either under the rubric of community development, self-help groups, or types of the community organizations. The list necessarily extends from the fron— tier mutual aid practices, local government, private and public pro- grams designed to encourage grass-roots prosperity, tenant communities, social and friendship groups, farmer's cooperatives, and rural self- help groups, community planning, regional planning and city develOp- ment groups, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the United Com- munity Defense Services and the San Bernardino, California County Council of Community Services.109 There are also the self—help groups from community and neighborhood councils to those consumer-initiated or directed movements like Alcoholics Anonymous, Recovery, the movement 108C.F.‘McNeil, "Community Organization," 123-124. logDunham. "Community Development." 179-1803 Murray on“: "Public Housing," 60. is: retarded children, e algims cooperatives 5 Am: :si, Hennonite and One is left wit‘ the literature, and 43‘ 5!! new direction ers, it seems ”prop: first is g development 1. Calamity orga 2. "Willy orga to any one narrow, 3. Commity org a 'lhese conclusj :rglnization there as 3.2990919 and the fig "M the BPECialiZed :itiun participants . 'w i be’ "mid not be .K’I’t What they have I i‘km’ileEEd that th 157 for retarded children, etc.110 Then, too, one should also include the religious cooperatives as they have been known in this country in the Amish, Mennonite and Amana Colonies. ‘One is left with a couple of alternatives which are suggested in the literature, and which might serve to clarify the discussion and lend some new direction. Though they have appeared in separate con— texts, it seems apprOpriate to bring them together at this point. The first is a develOpment of the points made by Charles Hendry, when he concluded that: 1. Community organization is not a monOpoly of social work. 2. Community organization cannot be confined in its application to any one narrow, water-tight area of human need. 3. Community organization cannot be limited by arbitrary of artificial political or geographic boundaries. 4. Community organization cannot rely chiefly on specialists who are only specialists. These conclusions were based on his premise that in community organization there needs to exist a true sense of partnership between the pe0p1e and the technicians. One expects a partnership which builds upon the specialized knowledge of the staff who join with responsible citizen participants. Unless this happens, the goals whatever they may be, would not be attained. Hendley recognized that: "People sup— port what they have a share in creating and peOple share when it is acknowledged that they have a stake in the situation involved."112 To this is added the comments made by Violet Seider, who re- defined community organization as: 11°1b1d., 185. 111Charles Hendry, "Teamwork in Rural Communities," The Social welfare Forum: 1953 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 270—221. 112Ibid., 271. . . . A dynamic c‘ helpins Pe°p1e to Others: toward pl" to effect t1“?1r C! mm associatiOI conceived 30815-1 This definiti' :3 changing times, Ci with the generic prin :Tigrdty and worth of ities and his freedom :abe attained and th pcinted out : Tue contribution 0 social change has the ar :5“; rather the‘. out the needs 0} 158 . . . a dynamic concept in which change is brought about through helping people to reorient their attitudes toward themselves and others, toward programs and problems and to mobilize their forces to effect their chosen goals. This is the antithesis of a com- munity association created and managed by eXperts to achieve pre- conceived goals. This definition allows for both flexibility and adaptability to changing times, circumstances and needs. It is closely identified with the generic principles of social work which recognizes the innate dignity and worth of the individual, respect for his inherent capac— ities and his freedom of choice in both the setting forth of the goals to be attained and the means used to attain those goals. As Beck pointed out: The contribution of the community organization practitioner to social change has the same elements as the contributions of the caseworker and group worker, but quite a different emphasis. Un- like his colleagues, the community organizer does not work with people with the articulated purpose of serving their personal needs; rather they work with people on the basis of their concern about the needs of the community.“-4 In reviewing the literature of the decade, there is frequent reference made to community organization and its relationship to the generic or common base of social work. These include the identifica— tion of the generic elements as stated by Cohen, that is: 1. Helping the individual, the group, or the community, to help himself or itself. 2. Beginning where the group, individual, or community is and moving at a meaningful pace. 3. Focusing upon the individual, the group, or the community as well as on the problem. 4. Taking into account the stage of develOpment of the individual, the group, or the community. 113Seider, "Community Organization Practice," 170. 114Beck, "Social welfare Policy," 217. 115Cohen, "Social Disorganization," 139-140. this also incluc :rLich she draws upon :19 the level of the nihis comunity. Commity organizan philosophy common 1 cial work is a wot} demoracy itself f 30641 work is cha their own problems P18 to determine a 0f their ability, further recognizes fare 0f each 8f fe find it natural a. ii the fle: 5’: social work, furt needs t° be part mm, achieve With other STOUps The full the right to 5911 "”1 "Sanizatiom 0f the majority. to thOSe indiVid unassisted may 159 This also includes the statement offered by Violet Seider, in which she draws upon the Judeo-Christian heritage and brings it up to the level of the interrelatedness of the individual, his family, and his community. Community organization as social work practice has its roots in a philosophy common to all areas of social work specialization. So- cial work is a working expression of a democratic way of life; and democracy itself finds its aegis in a Judiac-Christian phiIOSOphy. Social work is characterized as a process which helps people solve their own problems. It recognizes and respects the rights of peo— ple to determine and to meet their individual needs to the extent of their ability, and their right to personal fulfillment. It further recognizes the interdependence of peeple and that the wel— fare of each affects the welfare of all. It knows that peOple find it natural and necessary to come together through association in the family, small groups, and special interest organizations. Social work, further, is based on the knowledge that the individual needs to be part of the larger life of the community. This is most generally achieved as he becomes a member of a group which works with other groups to achieve cOmmon social objectives . . . . The full expression of our democratic ideal demands that the right to self-determination and the autonomy of individuals and organizations must be neatly balanced against the common good of the majority. Social work, then, becomes a necessary service to those individuals, groups, or segments of a community which unassisted may fall into difficulty or fail to reach their full potential development in this process of change and adjustment. The recipients of this service we refer to as our clients; thus the client becomes the individual or family, the group or the com- munity. It follows that the client is always a person or people - human beings; and that no manner in which of these three settings they come to the attention of the social worker, inevitably they must be seen and helped in the other aspects of their relationships. For example, to fully help the individual, the social caseworker must know of his relationships to his family (his social and economic groups), and his role in the community. Thus we see casework, group work, and community organization all identified as related parts of social work practice. The common core is found in a disciplined use of self in working with peOple; a common working philosOphy; in an emphasis on working with (not for) clients; a problemecentered approach; in the use of social diagnosis based on analysis of the articulation of the problem 116Seider, "Community Organization Practice," 164—165. mi the facts; in f continuous evaluati tion is involved i muryow process As one reads t1 IE!!! that runs throu fixation of the need 22:10:: at the commu agart of the common 8m. His 3031 th‘ We. In a gefine a solutio w thin“ done “Putty to deal The incr M PTOblems as Partner to the 8 160 and the facts; in formulation of a plan toward solution or action; continuous evaluation; and in fact that each area of specializa- tion is involved in varying degrees with interpersonal group and intergroup process. As one reads through the preceeding comments, the common thread that runs through them is the repeated reference to and reaf- firmation of the need for respect of the right of client self-deter- ‘mination at the community level of activity. Beck regarded it as being a part of the common base of social work philosophy which is found in all the methods of practice. Social work methods aim to strengthen individuals and groups so that they can make their own choices. The caseworker does not press upon the client a particular solution to the client's problem. His aim is to help the client make a free choice within the realm of possible alternatives. He seeks to create ability within the client to solve his own problems. The group worker does not himself assume executive leadership and advocate a pro- gram. His goal is to build participation and leadership within the group. In a similar sense, the community organizer cannot define a solution and "sell" it or pull the strings of power to "get things done," for his role is to increase the community's capacity to deal with its own problems. The increase of the community's capacity to deal with its own problems as a part of social work's function is a necessary partner to the social reform program.118 To say that the practitioner of these social work methods does not aim to superimpose his judgments does not, of course, mean that he has no Opinions or that he never expresses them. It means that his major emphasis and goal are to increase the inner-directedness of the individual, group, or community.119 During this period client self-determination as a working philosophical concept appeared in association with a number of other concepts such as a part of the feeling of community in public housing, 117Ibid., 166. 118Beck, "Social Welfare Policy," 208. 1191bid., 208. :i‘it'n citizen part: itizen representati' mintent of each 0 tuned to the indi ieisions and choice 3- Ragarding ti: An adeqL dividual as One do something, ' ‘ result,’ We “a: W are of it,' this feeling anc llleiduals fee: VhiCh are made I Tuese feelings I in face-co-fac e resulting from 1 ass at Wary le‘ Positive fefilinl sioility. Tana; °f poor co m it.”120 uni‘ There must be a egree of Petso; 161 or with citizen participation and constructive participation, and also citizen representativeness and citizen input in planning. Critical to the intent of each of these various concepts is the highest value accorded to the individual having a right and a need to make his own decisions and choices in the social work process. a. Regarding the concept of 'Community' in Public Housing An adequate community can be defined in terms of the in- dividual as one where most of the individuals feel that 'we can. do something,‘ 'Our feelings and actions will play a part in the result,‘ 'We want to participate and this community is ours and we are of it.‘ A successful community will have individuals with this feeling and conversely, the weak community is to one where individuals feel that they can do nothing about any decisions which are made and quickly jump to the feeling, 'To hell with it,' These feelings are basic_to the survival of democracy. Success in face-to-face, small group relations, with positive feelings resulting from successful actions, is essential to the whole proc- ess at every level. Public housing is clearly weak in these positive feelings related to individual participation and respon— sibility. Tenants tend to feel frustrated and isolated because of pigs communication, lack of ability "to do anything about it." There must be a strong feeling of belonging and yet a higher degree of personal freedom of choice_with responsibility than yet experienced by so varied a population.121 Without a sense of participation and involvement in specific pro- grams of action, it is usually impossible for individuals (in public housing projects) to deve10p community or group spirit and a concern for the general welfare. 22 This realization (of effective participation) enhances their sense of worth as they rediscover the dignity of having rights and learn that they have a contribution to make to their housing project and to their neighborhood. In the process, participation increases 120Drayton S. Bryant, "The Next Twenty Years in Public Housing," §pcial Work 4 (April 1959), 49-50. 1211bid., 54. 22Murray E. Ortof, "Public Housing: New Neighbor in Old Com- mmnities," Social Work 4 (April 1959), 59. and standards 9 11C present, the vol”! active involve“: ‘3, Regarding Ci‘ ?articipation is net its own prO' or affected by, sensor in the so he impact of th ticipated by def acceptance of th The strength of andqualit of t titizens.1‘-6 M Particip Networked and h encourage the id 3317 citizens, a motion a few. artificial barri All are citizens less. All must Objective is to intereSts and Ca 162 and standards, norms, and controls over behavior are evident. At present, the workers' goal is to evaluate peogle for self—help by active involvement and providing assistance.1 3 b. Regarding Citizen Participation and Constructive Participation Participation is essential if we believe that the community should meet its own problems. Peeple who are concerned, interested in, or affected by, the problem situation should be involved in some manner in the solution.124 ' The impact of the fact that community groups had originally par- ticipated by defining need as they saw it was very great in the acceptance of the programs in the communities.1 The strength of our democratic society is dependent on the extent and quality of the participation and contribution of all of its citizens.1 6 Citizen Participation - this term, "citizen participation," is overworked and has many unfortunate connotations. We seem to encourage the idea of lay vs. professional, key leaders vs. ordi- nary citizens, agencies vs. central planning and budgeting, to mention a few. we need to get rid of the 'versusi' These are artificial barriers to getting important community jobs done. All are citizens with a desire to help solve human welfare prob- lems. All must be given an opportunity to participate. The real objective is to involve them in activities according to their interests and capacities.12 Services to people are given where the pe0p1e are - in local com- munities. They are not given in Washington or in the national headquarters of private voluntary agencies. It is the local come munities that are in the best position to evaluate the social needs of residents. It is the local agencies that can best determine what services they should provide in the light of their aims and traditions and in relation to the services available from govern- ment agencies . . . . Together, public and voluntary agencies of 123161d., 62. 124Mildred C. Barry, "Current Concepts in Community Organiza— tion," Group Work and Community Organization, 1956 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 10. 25Florence Ray, "Planning Decentralized Programs," The Social Welfare Forum, 1955 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 223. 1251b1a., 226. 127Howard F. Gustafson, "Emerging Concepts in Community Welfare Planning," The Social Welfare Forum: 1960 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1960), 160. internment °fficj “notion C0 the 5U“ ’u‘nat consent of ‘ participation is CltlZI The concept as raised more prob lines, and like the specificity. For in regresentativeness r we group into anot‘r. tothe structure uti iethat a group is n insative of groups Barry pointe he delegate of auth lives and defined ar selected by the inte iii Const ituency but this: itueflCYo and y( \ lazy SociZBCharles S, 31 ”Elf are saucy n GOrion s: I]. ) selent e h 8 ' Nth Puma: 163 government officials, and private Citizens can make a real con- tribution to the solution of the problems that confront us.128- What consent of the governed was to our forefathers, constructive participation is to our own generation. Citizen Representativeness and Planning The concept of representativeness in community organization has raised more problems for it has meant different things at various times, and like the term community development, it lacks clarity and specificity. For instance, Alexander and McCann note that usually representativeness refers to the role which an individual carries from one group into another.130 However, representativeness may also refer to the structure utilized to carry out the social intergroup process so that a group is made up of individuals who "represent or are repre- sentative of groups in the community."131 Barry pointed out the representativeness can be of three types. The delegate of authority, with clear-cut responsibilities and preroga- tives and defined areas of authority; the non-delegate representative, selected by the intergroup because of his own attributes or those of his constituency but who lacks the authority to act on behalf of the constituency, and yet has the ability to influence it; the 128Charles I. Schottland, "Trends Affecting Public and Volun- tary Social Welfare Planning," Social Security Bulletin XVIII,#2 (1955) 6. 129Gordon Hamilton, "The Role of Social Casework in Social Policy," Selected Papers in_Casework, 1952 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1953), 79. 130Clarence A. Alexander and Charles McCann, "The Concept of Representativeness in Community Organization," Social Work 1 (January 1956), 48. 131Helen D. Green, Social Werk Practice in_Community Organiza- tion, (New York: Whiteside, Inc., 1954), 35—36. egresmtative from at its: larger group in raged person, a bla icon behalf of the 5739.132 Alexander .I-JIitical idea of the iibehalf 0f another if“ °f typifying The reason ti first, the concept 0: Mica history, Wi‘ Enslam! buI18 a real in Pointed out, thi is so basic to Our d toinclude the Cons: :lient “lf‘determin harem“. 134 The second I this now "presence, he minatioa frOm ' U ml in: to a Prin Emlton, "Alexandé 164 representative from an unorganized or non-self—designated group or from a larger grouping, such as a "sample of representativeness" of an aged person, a black, a physician, one who has not authority to act on behalf of the others but speaks forth as a symbol of the group.132 Alexander & McCann distinguish only between the socio— political idea of the authorized functioning or acting by one person in behalf of another and the statistical frame of reference of being typical or typifying a group or class.133 The reason this is significant for this discussion is twofold. First, the concept of representation has been a prominent one in our American history, with the rebellion of the American colonies from England being a result of taxation without representation. As Alexan— der pointed out, this is the "consent of the governed" principle which is so basic to our democratic society. Hamilton in turn extended this to include the constructive participation of the citizenry, that is, client self-determination as seen at the community level of intervention.134 The second reason that this is significant is in the fact that this now represented an extension of the phiIOSOphy of client self- determination from a concept based solely upon ethical principles and moral law to a principle based upon civil law. In 1954, Point Seven 132Barry, "Current Concepts," 11. 3Alexander & McCann, "Concept of Representativeness," 49. 134Alexander 8 McCann, "Concept of Representativeness," 48fn; Hamilton, "Role of Social Casework," 79. gaefiorkeble Progr '33. required that: . , , my politi federally aided : city must prox ticipation on ti organizations wi generally and 11 which is necess; This legal 1': unrbm renewal pro island that some com their legitimate, 1e Seqmt legislative itil lama“ as re '1“ becoug identif in and in the vari tan-trol. achiever , We 165 of the Werkable Program.for Urban Renewal under the Housing Act of 1954 required that: . . . any political entity whiCh wishes to participate in federally aided programs for the renewal of blighted areas of a city must provide in its planning for "communitydwide" par— ticipation on the part of individuals and representative citizen organizations which will help to provide both in the community generally and in selected areas the understanding and support which is necessary to insure success.135 This legal requirement of evidence of citizen participation in urban renewal programsserved then as an impetus for citizens to demand that some communitydwide direction be giVen to this process as their legitimate, legal right. This precedent becomes a base for sub- sequent legislative action in the 1960's which served to broaden the civil law base as related to the principle of freedom of choice. It also becomes identified in the growth of the welfare rights organiza- tion and in the various develOpments related to the issue of community control. However, even as a legal construct, self-determination was not fully accepted or honored. One finds this soon recognized in the cau- tion which was expressed regarding representativeness and the possibil— ity of it becoming a tool of the power structure or becoming diverted from its intended purposes. Even a democratically conceived structure can become a machinery for a small group with power to control large segments of social policy and to protect the status quo.1 Democratic urban society cannot survive unless the decision- making process is widely diffused; unless the average citizen finds an effective way of participating in that decision-making 13531eder, "Community Organization Practice," 172- 136Cohen, "Social Disorganization," 152. 166 process. Perhaps social work can point the way . . . . It begins with building a board in which minority members are accepted as 37 something more than a mere symbolic testimony to our liberalism. If we believe that it is the right of the peeple to participate in the planning of services, if we believe that . . . planning in democracy in action, and that we as welfare council people have an ever increasing responsibility in helping the machinery of our democracy work, the district council and the planning divisions must move rapidly toward a closer interrelationship so that our welfare councils are vital instruments in this democracy.138 In at least one recent development a closed association of citizen leaders has become a self-perpetuating body of guardians of the welfare interests of the community. They serve not only in the selection and setting of priorities in welfare problems to be considered, but also as judge, jury, and executer in planning and action. Because of their key roles in the community power struc- ture, one may assume they also wield authority in their ability to influence the implementation of their plans . . A precious part of our heritage in the U. S. A. is our belief in the God-given right and responsibility for individuals to think and act alone and in concert; and to play an important role in shaping their own destiny. This they do by forming organizations through which individuals with a common intent or purpose can make themselves felt. This right cannot be delegated solely to a tap citizen elite . . . . Paternalism which plans £g£_and not with the community weakens its potential for self-help and overloads the responsibility of the planning organization for discovering and developing new leadership in every walk of life as a goal equivalent with that of attainment of specific service goals.1 Recognition of the community power structure and the barriers to the changing of the status quo can then be added to the list of factors which serve to prevent the full exercise of freedom of choice. this is one limitation which has special relevance to be considered the community organization method of social work. 137MacRae, Robert H., "Services to Agencies and Communities," 133 Social Welfare Forum: 1957 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), 24. 138Robert L. Neal, "The Interrelatedness of Community Aid and District Planning," Selected Papers in Group Work and Community Organ- ization, 1951, (Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publishing Inc. , 1951), 111.139 Violet M. Sieder, "The New Look in Community Planning," §ocia1 Work 5 (April 1960), 165-108. 167 Another limitation which has increased significance is the limitation which arises out of consideration of the common good as against the rights of the individual. Specifically, it is important in the consideration of urban renewal policy and program, with the use of regulatory power in the form of ordinances and codes and the use of the police power of the state in order to condemn property for the renewal project. It was Cohen who observed: "What is the unit of decision in this case? Is protection of the principle of self-deter- mination for the immediate group more important than the consequences for the larger community?"140 Of course, the response is made with regards to the fact that as society has become more complex and man more interdependent, the concept of self-determination involves levels of choice which considers larger sholes extending from the individual outward to all of society. R.H. Collacott's response to this dilemma would also support this position: The corollary observation is that this interdependent society has sharply reduced the opportunity of planning for one's self or even of amusing and developing one's self without having to take into account the effect upon others, their attitudes, and their support. The late Justice Holmes once remarked that even the sacred constitutional right of free speech did not give a man the right to holler 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. I submit that we all are finding ourselves more and more in a theatre of some sort with the consezgent abridgement of rights of which we are still very jealous.1 Another limiting factor which affects the full implementation 140Isadore Seaman, "Social Welfare and Urban Renewal," The Social Welfare Forum: 1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 207. 141R.H. Collacott, "Community Team in Social Work Education," §gcial Work 1 (April 1956), 119. 168 of the principle of self-determination as it is seen to apply to the community level of social work endeavor is the limitation due to the lack of citizen interest, the apathy and insensitivity to the needs of others in the neighborhoods and community around them. It is here then, that the assertive or aggressive role of the social worker needs to come to the forefront. Through an educational approach, community awareness and concern can be stimulated, and remedial or corrective action initiated. This can be done without violation of the principle of client self-determination on the basis of the fact that decisions can not be made without full consideration and understanding of the facts. As Hollis Vick cautioned: "When a system is created which isolates a citizen from knowing what the problem is and what is being (or can be) done to solve it, social services are on dangerous ground."142 Summary During this decade, community organization methods of social work received increased recognition as a valid entity of the profes- sional practice of social work. Through ongoing evaluation of the principles and philosophy of social work, the principle of client self-determination not only was seen as having particular relevance but became established as a legal precedent as one of the federal regulations associated with the Urban Renewal portion of the 1954 142H01118 Vick, "The Role and Responsibility of Voluntary Agencies in Building a Total Recreation Program," Selected Papers 13; Group Work and Community Organization; 1952 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Health Publication, Inc., 1953), 32. 169 Housing Act. As such, it not only encouraged citizen participation in the decision-making process but required it. That problems of implementation arose was not unanticipated. Still, social workers involved with the community organization method (and all social workers are seen as having some degree of in— volvement in community organization) were challenged by Leonard Mayo to take hold of and fulfill their reaponsibility with regards to the fostering of client self-determination at the community level. Our responsibility, and our obligation, is to the entire community, as it is to the whole person and to the whole group in casework and social group work practice. That responsibility must be ex— pressed . . . by creating the climate and helping to set the stage wherein and whereon individuals and groups may be free and en— couraged to determine community needs, establish priorities, select their own solutions, and jointly decide upon and then pursue a common plan of action.1 Administration - Supervision - Consultation The fourth method of traditional social work has been referred to as administration, and is collectively identified with the executive functions of management of the agency, the supervision of the staff and the consultation services which are offered to other groups or agencies,‘ and it too, as with other methods of social work, deals with the "art of human relationships."144 The functions of administration may be summarized to include: the determination of the goals to be achieved and the tasks to be 143Mayo, "Community Planning," 231. 144Harold Silver, "Administration of Social Agencies," The Social Work Year Book: 1951 (New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1951), 19. 170 performed; finding the necessary resources to perform the required tasks and to achieve the stated goals and to manage the resources in such a manner that efficient and effective services are performed."145 It is the agency which serves as a role model to both the people it seeks to serve and the community at large. If the agency is able to demonstrate the democratic process within its own Operation such as in the staff relationships or in the develOpment of agency policies and practices, it then becomes a relevant example and refer- ence point. In this way then, the administration of the agency reflects the generic knowledge of social work philosophy, knowledge and skills. As Kruse pointed out: Knowledge and skills, and a phiIOSOphy of goals and services which are generic to all social work practice, have profoundly influenced social agency administration. These influences have resulted in an emphasis on good human relations in administration, sound personal policies and practices, democratic versus authoritarian structure and processes, high recognition of the professional staff component in achieving a quality service, and major attentizg to the content and method of staff supervision and development.1 How does this commitment to the democratic philOSOphy and especially to the principle of self-determination become translated in this, the administrative method of social work? In Phyllis Osborn's article on administrative responsibility she observed that it was a responsible administration which encouraged that fullest use of the agency resources and workers' own skills on behalf of the client. Agency resources and goals should be responsive to the needs of the client group being served, and thus would neces- sitate that the services and resources be flexible and subject to 145Arthur H. Kruse, "Administration of Social Welfare Agencies," Ike Social Work Year Book: 1960 (New York, N.AJS.W., 1960), 79. 145rbid. 171 change based upon the observations and concerns reported by the workers. Administration whould be an enabling process. On its quality depends the extent to which the skills and abilities of each and every staff member may be used in furthering agency goals . . . . Social workers have traditionally regarded administration as exclusively management, as something that is done for them or to them, rather than be them . . . . Miss (Mary) Fawlett's basic thesis stressed the constellation of ideas which centered in her belief that organization and adminis- tration will succeed only to the extent that each individual par- ticipating can be motivated and enabled to make his maximum con- tribution as an effective member of the group and of society.147 Kruse noted that good psychodynamics in administration ap- peared and were fostered when all the staff in the organization became more conscious of and achieved agreement with respect to the issues in the agency.148 During this decade, there was considerable discussion center- ing upon the amount of choice which the worker should have, how the supervisordworker relationship could facilitate respect for the worker's right to self-determination and what were the inherent values located in the contrast of the terms supervision and consultation. Supervision has traditionally been a means for stimulation of learning, exploration and insight develOpment, much like the teacher-student relationship, it has been through the supervising re— lationship that the experienced worker was able to share his knowledge and skills with the inexperienced worker. One goal of supervision was to develOp the worker's capacity for professional autonomy, as 147Phyllis Osborn, "Meeting the Needs of Peeple: An Adminis- trative Responsibility," Social Work 3 (July 1958), 74. 148Arthur Kruse, "The Psychodynamics of Administration," The Social Welfare Forum, 1958 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 169. 172 149 well as a means to offer structure and direction when necessary. Aufricht expressed concern that too frequently supervision either eXplicitly or implicitly implied control Of the worker by the superviser and so would serve to hinder the worker's growth and ini- tiative. She saw this control affecting such things as evaluations, promotions and assignment Of cases. Rather than continue in the teach— er-student model, she urged a peer-to-peer, colleague model, which would be based upon peer relations with one another, offering consulta- tion which "implied availability without control." The consultant makes his knowledge available to the worker in a relationship that will further the worker's growth. It is the consultant's responsibility to give Opportunity for progress to the worker, but he is not responsible for the worker's actual performance or for the progress of the client.1 Jeanette Hanford responded to Mrs. Aufricht's concern by noting that while consultation indeed seemed to allow for greater freedom of choice on the part of the worker, one still had to consider the agency's responsibility to provide responsible service to its client. Rather than an either/or situation, she felt that there needed to be increased consideration Of how "the teaching method and administrative aspects of supervision are interrelated, what teaching methods and content are under consideration, and what are the actual needs of staff at various levels Of experience."151 149Charlotte S. Henry, "Criteria for Determining Readiness of Staff to Function Without Supervision," Administration, Sppervision, and Consultation, (New York: F.S.A.A., 1955), 38-40. 1SOEmmy Aufricht, "Control and Freedom in the Caseworker's Growth," Admipistrgiion, Supervision & ansgltagign (New York: F.S.A.A., 1955), 48. 151Jeanette Hanford, "Integration Of the Teaching and Adminis— trative Aspects of Supervision," Administration, Supervision & Con— gpltation, (New York: F.S.A.A., 1955), 58. flaw/inn .u ..e.»...u...¢fl. .. 173 In relating to the climate Of freedom for the personal growth Of the work, Corrine Wolfe referred to it as being a basic compliment of the supervisory process. I believe the social work concept baSic to the supervision of staff is the complete acceptance of the individual as a creative person who wants to develOp to his full capacity.152 Leyendecker pointed out that regardless of whether one's personal preference was for the supervision as traditionally offered, or sought the advice of a consultant, or utilized one's peers for I insight and direction, there was still a basic principle which applied to every position and to every person who holds a staff position, which is that with the delegation of responsibility there is a cor- responding delegation of authority and accountability. In order to carry out the responsibilities delegated to him, each staff member is given the authority to make decisions and judg- ments, and tO take action within the range of his duties and functions. Each staff member in turn has the obligaiggn to account for the fulfillment Of his responsibilities. She continued by charging the supervisor as having the respon- sibility for: . . . promoting the supervisee's self-reliance and creative thinking, and for encouraging experimentation. Self-reliance . . . includes the following: ability to make sound judgments, decisions and plans through a system of internalized controls and through wisdom inasking for help when it is needed.1 This clearly parallels the responsibility of the worker to do the same for the client within the context Of the worker's providing 2Corrine Wolfe, "Basic Components in Supervision," The Social Welfare Forum: 1958 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), 185. 153Gertrude Leyendecker, "A Critique of Current Trends in Super- vision," Casework Papers: 1959 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1959), 49. 154Ibid., 52. 174 opportunities within the social work relationship for the client, to develop his capacity for making his own choices. Before we leave the methodsof social work, we need to consider that aspect of administration which involves the consultation services which are provided social workers to members Of other professions. Within this frame Of reference, consultation has been defined by Siegel as "seeking of advice, the taking over, and having regard for which are directed at a purposeful discussion and at problem— solving."155 Bartlett speaks of consultation as "a process of shared thinking that brings enlarged insight and increased responsibility to deal with the problem but leaves responsibility for decision and action with the persons seeking consultation." That is it has a "take it or leave it" quality.156 Leyendecker stressed the fact that: The consultee is free to use or not use the knowledge gained. The consultant has no responsibility for the application of knowledge nor does he share responsibility for total case planning.157 Again as develOped by Siegel, the consultation process re- flects tO a great degree, the professional commitment to self—deter- mination, which in this instance, is extended to the consultee. The consultant starts where the other person is in terms of both 155Doris Siegel, "Consultation: Some Guiding Principles," Ad— ministration, Supervision & Consultation,(New York: F.S.A.A., 19557: 99. 156Harriet M. Bartlett, "Consultation Process in Relation to Individual Cases," Division of Services for Crippled Children, Univer— sity of Illinois, Report of Institute for Medical Social Workers, June l4-July 1, 1948, 51. 157Leyendecker, "Current Trends in Supervision," 58. 175 his thinking and his feeling. This method implies sensitivity on the part of the consultant to the person seeking consultation and an ability to assess his need for help and his feeling about taking it . . . . Only as we help a person with what he needs - additional know— ledge, deepened understanding, possible alternatives of action, and give this help with a belief in his ability to use and inte- grate it, can we really perform a useful function . . . . Consultation, to be timely effective, must be paced to the needs of the consultee, both in amount and rate of help given.”8 Conclusion This chapter began with the Observation that principles do not change as such, but only in the manner in which they are administered}59 We have examined the four methods of social work, social casework, social group work, community organization and administration and have seen how the principle of client self-determination was adapted and refined to meet changing needs, theories and methods. With repeated consistency, we have seen the principle re-affirmed. That there are conditional limitations which preclude the ideal being achieved is recognized and accepted as a reality with which one must contend. By examining the principle of self-determination through the method orientation, we first saw it as a philosOphical construct of ethical value and based upon moral law. However, it was within the framework of the community organization method, that we were to find self-determination become an expression of civil law as based upon precedent-setting federal legislation. In this chapter, we also saw the principle being broadened to include individual relationships, 153$iege1, "Consultation," 102—103. 159Hutchinson, "Basic Principles in Child Welfare," 122. 176 group relationships, community, neighborhood, and national affairs. It was also extended to include the worker in the supervisordworker relationship. Within every method of professional effort, social workers sought to direct and develop their relationship with their client pOpulation within the framework of the principle of client self-determination. CHAPTER IV SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: BY AGENCY/CLIENT SITUATIONS This chapter considers the application Of the principle of client self-determination as it was discussed within the context of certain types of agency settings or client pOpulations. Special attention is given to those clients to whom or for whom the principle Of self-determination might not be thought of as important, relevant, or practical. These include such client categories as the aged, the mentally ill or mentally retarded, children, the public assistance client, and the client found in correctional settings. With this in mind, the organization Of this chapter follows a tOpical foremat rather than a progressive pattern. Client Self-Determination and the Aged A commonly held stereotype portrays the aged person as a dot- tering, senile individual who has lost his ability to reason or to make sound judgments for himself. However, the social work literature does not support this prejudicial picture of the aged client, con- versely it clearly shows that the need to respect and support the aged client's right to make his own decisions is as important as with any other client. One finds repeated emphasis on the worker's reSpon— sibility for assessing the aged person's capacity for participation in 177 assists It is Age; ton hens free eati are 178 planning for himself as the worker would do as a matter of professional principle with all clients. This holds true whether the aged client is being assisted by a public or voluntary agency or is found in some type of institutional care. The following citations are a sampling of the concern expressed by the profession regarding the right to self-determination and the aged. It is a basic principle in the administration of our program (Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program) that peOple must be left free to make their own decisions about how and when they will apply for benefits and how they will use their benefit money. They must be free as well to decide whether they will follow through on infor- mation given them about community resources. The great majority are capable Of making these kinds of choices.1 we want to eliminate the implications of the term 'care Of the aged.' TOO often this has meant doing something for or imposing upon the Older person. It has led to assumptions that older per— sons are largely dependent and cannot be creative. It has led the Older person to the internalization of the same negative attitudes held by the community at large.2 There is no greater social work principle than the choice the client has - a fundamental right - to take help or not . . . . We must see his rights and desires.3 We have learned that our basic casework concepts are as generic with this group as with any other group; that Older persons are individuals in their own right and their needs as diversified as any other group . . . .4 The applicant and caseworker examine together the specifics of the care and services available at the home (for the aged), the realis— tic limitations Of these services, and the applicant's feelings about separation and residency. A point is reached when it is 1Neota Larsen, "OASI and the Social Services," Social Work 3 (January 1958), 13. . 2William Posner, "Adapting and Sharpening Social Work Know- ledge and Skills in Serving the Aging," Social Work 2 (October 1957), 41. 3Ibid., 40. "Ruth C. Cohen, "Casework with Older Persons," Social Work 2 (January 1957), 30. 179 determined whether residency at the home is what the applicant really wants and whether he is able to use this service in the light Of his Objective needs and capacities.5 The basic needs Of the aging are common to us all: to be loved, to be needed, to be wanted, and thus to be secure emotionally; to belong to a group and to retain one's status in it; to be creative, to achieve, and to get recognition for such achievement; to be se— cure economically; to have a voice and a choice in the way in which one's life is to be spent; in short, to retain one's dig- nity and self-esteem. These references support the conviction that self-determina- tion is not to be disregarded when working with the aged. Rather, the literature points out that if the right tO self-determination is denied to the aged client, severe damage may be done to his self—re- spect and self—esteem. This may effect him more than other clients because Of his heightened vulnerability and sensibility which Often times is increased at this stage in life. The resultant effect may be depression, feelings of rejection, regressive behavior and devalu- ation as a person Of dignity and worth. When the client's skills, capaCities and ambitions are not under- stood Or accepted (by the social worker), his self esteem is destroyed and he may regress. A caseworker helps clients to bring out feelings; gives them full Opportunity to share in planning for themselves; gives reassur- ance; gives feelings Of independence and helps them feel they are still important people even though they must give up a part Of their previous way of life.8 5Theodore Rosen and Abraham Kostick, "Separation and Adjustment Problems in a Home for the Aged," Social Work 2 (January 1957), 38. . 6Minna Field, "Introduction: The Problems Of Aging," in Social Issues and Psychiatric Social Work Practice, ed. by Gordon J. Aldridge (New York: N.A.S.W., 1959), 56. 7Helen Lokshin, "Casework Counseling with the Older Client," Social Casework XXXVI (June 1955), 263. 8Frances Preston, "Homemaker Service for Older Persons," Selected Papers ig_Casework, 1951 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Health Publishing Institute, Inc., 1952), 47. 180 Most important of all, we have learned how desperately they (the Older person) want to feel important and to he wanted - above all to be loved, not cared for, but cared about. The atrophy of hOpe, of not being painful and almost as debilitating as the chronic illness which may beset them. Some writers observe that the social worker at times may assume a parenting role with the aged; others, however, urge caution that the role Of the worker not detract from the client's ability to be involved in the decision—making process. Instead, the worker is urged to be sensitive to the aged client's needs, helping him to use his strengths and capacities to the fullest. At times, especially with a client who seems to be poorly motivated, without hOpe, or otherwise resistive, the worker is encouraged to be aggressive and to reach out in such a way that the client is stimulated and becomes motivated to achieve within his capabilities, and thus have greater freedom Of choice. Prior to hospitalization, the caseworker saw Mrs. A . . . for the purpose of allaying her panic in relation to specific events in her daily life and of helping her to decide to enter the hospital voluntarily. . . . She was encouraged to test her own ability to be self-supporting and to live independently.10 The aged group do not want institutional care nor do they want Others to plan what is best for them; they want to participate in planning for themselves . . . and they are usually vocal in expressing their desires and are able to use casework help in formulating plans.11 Keen judgment, too, plays an important part in working with older persons. Finding the neat balance between 'doing for' and 'doing with' is most essential. . . . Older persons display amazing inner strengths at times and caseworker's judgment is always 9Cohen, "Casework with Older Persons," 32. 10Lokshin,"Casework Counseling," 260. 11Anne Goodman, "Medical Social Work with the Aged in a Public Institution," Social Casework XXXIV (November 1955), 421. 181 necessary to help them use their strengths to the fullest and, at the same time, tO give them the necessary warmth and support in their efforts to effect positive change. 2 We want to give the Older person a sense Of security and responsi— bility for himself. We want to develop a sense of independence in both young and Old, so that their own lives become emotionally stable and secure . . . . Social work supplies the skills and methods . . . to stir (aged) patients out of the stupor of institutional life and stimulate their interest in social satisfactions . . .14 The tasks for social work were to motivate patients to give up institutional existence, to enable them to enter into planning for their return to their own homes or to go to family care homes; and to sustain them in the community when they returned to it.15 In a brief but concise statement, Goodman seems to have dealt with all the arguments against the extension of self-determination to the aged client when she observed: Age, in and of itself, is not a disability that prevents Older persons from expressing their own ideas and making their own decisions. Above all, we must have the conviction that the aged have a right- ful place in the total pattern of community life and that positive direction can help them to find that place.1 Client Self-Determination and Children Children compose a second group for whom the principle Of self-determination has been raised as seemingly to be inapprOpriate. Children.as has been suggested, are too impulsive, incapable of 12Cohen, "Casework with Older Persons," 32. 13Posner, "Serving the Aging," 41. 1"David Freeman, "Rehabilitation Of the Mentally Ill Aging," Social Work 4 (October 1959), 71. 15}bid,, 65. 16Goodman, "Medical Social Work," 418. 17Ibid., 422. '1“. UJ‘ fli‘z-a'lwy .h. \ «cu-r...— . Mi 182 rational thinking, illogical, emotional, etc. These reasons are offered as evidence as to why they are incapable of exercising freedom Of choice within the social work relationship. Again, in turning to the literature, however, one finds that evidence fails to confirm this contention. Rather, there is recognition of the need of the child, as part Of his develOpmental process, for Opportunities through which he can learn how to make his own choices as part of his preparation towards adulthood and maturity. The literature acknowledges the right of the child, as a human being Of dignity and worth, to have access to those same Opportunities. The role and responsibility of the social worker in working with the child is seen as providing such decision- making Opportunities as are within the capabilities of the child, the social worker being in viable partnership with the child. Finally, there is also recognition that the child's right to self-determination is not unconditional, but is subject to a number of limitations, in- cluding those related to the child's physical, psychological, social and emotional capabilities, the agency structure and setting, and the resources of the social worker. Let us consider first the need of the child for Opportunities to exercise his freedom of choice. Dorothy Hutchinson in an article in which she discusses the basic principles of child welfare, pointed out that children all too frequently are "seen but not heard." As a result, the adults in the child's world fail either to communicate with him or to understand him or his needs. The loss then is that of a potentially beneficial relationship. Childhood has been correctly defined as that period of life when one is misunderstood. Child welfare workers, along with educators, have been preoccupied with knowing about children, with methods 183 for remodeling them into conforming personages and in rooting out traits of character which they are afraid of in themselves. TOO little weight has been given to learning from the child himself, to hearing what he has to say and to being guided by him. I think we have rationalized this fact away on the grounds that the child has few words at his command, and even more that he would not be able to tell us even if he had the right words. The en- lightening thing is that to an adult who unselfconsciously wants to bear, out of love and respect, the child can really talk and show the little profound workings of his mind.18 The need of the child to utilize those innate capacities are associated with later feelings of selfdworth, creativity and self-ful- fillment, basic to what the adult world is all about. The process, however, has its beginnings in childhood. Our own Observations and our own individual experiences tell us that, throughout all his days, every living thing is the center of his own life - seeking, choosing, willing, calling on his inner resources, making use Of the resources he finds about him, in order to achieve the ever more perfect accomplishment of himr self, as he defines and affirms that self. To get what he wants is only part of a man's larger and more significant effort to become what he wants to be . . . . I am.mere1y speaking against viewing the school child or any living person as a victim, whether of his own nature or of circum— stance. I am speaking £25 viewing him as creator as well as creature, as the center of his own growth and change, acting upon as surely as he is acted upon, doing something with what befalls him, using what he finds both within and outside himself toward a purpose that can shift as his conception Of himself shifts and finds new definition and affirmation.19 He (the child) is a growing, changing, self-directing organism who has the power and the necessity to use his own resources, as well as outside resources. . . to accomplish his own develOpment. He is a unique individual with his own purpose and integrity, con- strained to use help in a way which is £13 way in order to achieve a self identifiable as his own self, a self which he will not let be pushed around, violated, obliterated, or transformed into some- thing it is not and for which he therefore would not, or could not, 18Dorothy Hutchinson, "Basic Principles in Child Welfare," Selected Papers ig_Casework, 1952 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Heath Publications Institute, Inc., 1953), 125. 19Ruth E. Smalley, "The School Social Worker Helps the Troubled Child," Social Work 1 (January 1956), 104. 184 and should not take responsibility.20 Does the child really know what he needs? DO we really miss the cues and clues? The answer to these questions, at least from Mildred Arnold's viewpoint is, "Yes." Though she wrote regarding children in foster care, her position tends to be supportive of the case for all children. Lastly and perhaps most important, the children themselves are telling us what they need in foster care. They are telling us, in many different ways, . . . they are telling us that they need so many things just for themselves.2 While children's needs are not unlike those found in the adults around them, Children also are seen as possessing similar rights as well. With respect to the principle of freedom of choice and the rights Of children, Arthur Young pointed out that children recognize that they have this right and will seek to claim it. The worker in turn has the responsibility to respect this right and to assist the child in his exercise Of it. While we certainly want to help them live in the real world, we achieve our purpose, not by hammering away at what the world de- mands, but by recognizing their individuality and their right to find their own relation to social forces . . . . Though the real self was all but buried by unwholesome life experience and the immediate reality of distorted parental attitudes, each of these boys clung with awesome tenacity to his right to create a self Of his own. Supported by a relationship with an adult who can respect this right, their struggle to separate need not take the form Of rebellion in either a destructive or self-destructive sense.22 2°1bid., 105. 21M’ildred Arnold, "Techniques and Methods in Child Welfare," The Social Welfare Forum: 1957 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957) 114. 22Arthur K. Young, "Counseling with Emotionally Disturbed Adolescents," Social Work 3 (January 1958), 41. 185 Beck saw the acknowledgement and respect of the child's need and right to self-determination as a part of the tradition through which social work achieves "its greatest clarity and its most beneficial results."23 The key to how the social worker brings this all about as he works with children is found in the professional relationship which he develops with the child. He may do this by identifying the relation- ship tO be one Of a partnership of equals, one in which there is Open- ness and honesty, where the child is a participant in the planning and the evaluation. The child must know what is happening and what is expected of him. He (the social worker) tells the child that he is together with him - together with the part of the child that is troubled about his problem and longs to vanquish it . . . . They are finding each other, as persons and as partners . . . . He (the child) and the worker weigh together whether his problems and what he wants to do about them are such that he could get help from the worker. If the worker tries to dodge what the problem is, . . . No help happens. If it is the child's problem it cannot be solved unless it is solved with him and within him.2& Ghe child) does not belong to himself sufficiently to know his own desires or to have any sense of his own powers of creation. It is our task to convey to him his potential; to control the speed and direction Of his efforts so as to involve his maximum investment, concentration, and perserverence in areas of accomplishment attain- able at any one point in his development.25 . . . They will weigh together the wish or need to work together longer . . . . By setting such a period, the worker reveals his 23BertramA. Beck, "The Adolescent's Challenge to Casework," Social Work 3 (April 1958), 94. 24Grace W. Mitchell, "Casework with the School Child," Social Work 2 (July 1957), 77. 25Sidney N. Hurwitz, "The Child Who Belongs to Himself," Social Work 5 (January 1960), 54. 186 belief that something can be done . . . that the child is essen— tially able to handle his own life, even though he may need this interlude of assistance.26 These are many formal and informal Opportunities when he can be helped tO a somewhat more Objective self-evaluation and evaluation of the environment. Ordinarily, the child is drawn into planning around our periodic conference reviews Of his progress. He will be asked how he evaluates his use of programs and people, and what problems he feels remain to be worked on. Conference findings, to t3? extent that he can comprehend them, will be shared with him. Equally important, the children must be conscious Of why they are in this setting and what it is designed to do for them . . . . They should want to help themselves to get better and get out. When these concepts take form in living, a culture develOps.28 TO make the best use of . . . treatment the child feels relatively secure in the environment and comfortable with the peOple who care for him. He needs supportive relationships to be able to tolerate anxiety-producing and painful experiences. He must be given Op- portunity to express that part of him which is well . . . so that he can accept constructively that part of him which is sick. He must, of necessity, accept increased dependency but he should also be given opportunity to exercise his capacity for self-determina— tion and be helped tO express his feelings . . . in socially acceptable ways. A relationship between a child and a social worker which accepts the child as his own creative force facilitates the change process by removing a primary cause of resistance - the fear or threat of being dominated. The child is helped to see the need for construc- tive limitations and to come to accept them as necessary for personal growth and development. This is part of the corrective experience ’ which increases his own understanding of the reasons for his behavior 26Mitchell, "Casework with the School Child," 78. 27Ibid., 49. 28Norman V. Lourie, "The Children's Institution: One Step in Casework Treatment," The Social Welfare Forum: 1954 (New York: Colum- bia University Press), 1954), 144. 29Carol Young, "Social Group Work with Children in a General Hospital," Group Work Papers: 1957 (New York: N.A.S.W., 1957), 52. 187 and provides Opportunities for learning new behaviors. The worker's frank acknowledgement of and respect for the child is the center of his own change, and as the one who will achieve his purpose for himself, in his own way, are felt by the child. They lessen his need to fight the_alien will of the other person, even the most well—intentioned person, to make him over.30 In the child's eye, he (the social worker) may be seen as a symbol Of authority, as a protector, as an enemy, as a parent, as all— powerful, symbolic Of love or hatred, in short — according to the child's needs . . . . We might anticipate that the need to relate and the fear and possible panic induced by the imminence of a developing will heighten the child's ambivalence and activate his defenses. How does the therapist meet this situation? First there is a supportive aspect to the relationship. The child is left free . . . tO pick his own time to relate to the adult or to his peers . . . . At the same time, the child is helped by the therapist who demonstrates in his acceptance of the child that a satisfying relationship can be experienced on a basis which pre- cludes dominance or exploitation. 1 It is (the child's) growing awareness that the . . . social worker respects his individuality, his unique difference as a human being, and is not seeking to change that pattern that is so basic and rightly precious to him, which frees him to use his difference in a way that is not destructive to himself or Others. He learns how to be a unique individual within a setting that limits what he can do but not what he thinks or feels; and to find that in these very limits, the form and discipline that facilitates the creative expression of energies that could Otherwise be dissipated or employed in sporadic, fruitless, unresponsible upsurges against authority!32 The worker demonstrates respect . . . initially by accepting them where they are, with their symptoms - infantile, dependent, ag- gressive, submissive, impulsive - however, they are expressed. . . . Here belief in the child is manifested by belief in his capacity to develop controls and to relate to peers and the adult in a more mature manner. 308mlley, "The School Social Worker," 106. 3J'Malcolmliarks, "Group Psychotherapy for Emotionally Disturbed Children," Group Work and Community Organization: 1956 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 76. 32 Smalley, "The School Social Worker," 107. 331Malcolm.Marks, "Group Psychotherapy," 79. 188 Casework treatment of a child may have one of two treatment aims: (l) to improve the child's functioning by fostering the process of normal maturation and helping the child utilize to his fullest capacity his potentials for healthy adjustment; . . . In other words, the caseworker offers the child an experience with a mature, understanding adult who both gives permission and sets limits in realistic terms; (2) to improve the child's functioning by correcting some of the psychological impediments within him which interfere with normal maturation and the fullest use of his capacities.34 As was mentioned before, there is recognition in the litera- ture that this is a right, limited by circumstances which may not allow the child full utilization of his right to self-determination. At times the worker may need to prepare the child for events in which the decision-making is out of his hands. Also one must acknow- ledge that when one is working with children, there usually are parents involved and they, too, have rights. On most occasions, their rights include the right to make_choices for their children. Nevertheless, the worker still is urged to assist both the child and the parent in achieving the maximum degree of participation in the decision-making aspects of the social work process. Again the following are a sampling of the literature pertaining to this position. In a democracy it is believed . . . that one has the unalienable right to develop as an individual, so long as other individuals are not jeOpardized. . . . Although in principle our culture places value on the individual's right to choose his own pattern of self-develOpment, in practice, it penalizes those who do not recognize the difference between license and liberty. Certain controls are essential . . . for the maintainence of society.35 Planning with children in relation to certain realities during 3I'Alice R. McCabe, "Casework with Children in a Family Agency," Casework Papers: 1956 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1956), 113-114. 35Irene Josselyn, "Social Pressures on Adolescence," Social Casework XXXIII (April 1952), 184. 189 their life at the center and after they are discharged may from time to time call for administrative decisions on the part of the worker, which may have an authoritative connotation. While the child should and may participate in the plans, none—the—less, they may involve differences from the child's point of view and some deviation from.his wishes. No matter how carefully the work is planned so that breakdowns can be anticipated and plans worked out, the fact remains that the child care worker will always be exposed to sudden crises or emergencies and will have to take immediate responsibility for the environment.’ She will find herself in action, rather than in her more familiar role of enabling peOple to act and think for themselves; and in her subsequent casework with the child. She will have to spend time working backwards, explaining her action and helping the child come to terms with it and with her. This is very different from the usual method of working forward, so that action is understood and accepted and the momentum to put it through is gathered together for it. 7 we accept the parents' rights to make his own decision but we question the wisdom of having him bear it solely on his impulse to resist help and not include his wish to help the child. . . . The limits imposed on us by the client's right to make his own decision about using help is a valid and essential part of the process. . . . A client's decision to use help will be influenced by the degree of firmness and persistence with which we approach him. . . .: We need to be more aggressive in our approach, so that if we finally have to accept the client's refusal of our help, we are sure we have used, 'to the fullest extent,‘ every available meangsto demonstrate our ability and desire to be of help to him. Work with a child in difficulty - whether normal conflict with parental authority, delinquent behavior, or neurotic response to parental rejection and childhood deprivation - requires not only knowledge but maturity on the part of the worker. 9 36Herschel Alt, "Psychiatric Social Worker's Role in Residen- tial Treatment," Social Casework XXXII (November 1951), 366. 7Clara Button, "Casework Techniques in Child Care Services," Social Casework XXXVI (March 1955), 4. 38Lionel Lane, “Aggressive Approach in Preventive Casework in Children's Problems," Social Casework XXXIII (February 1952), 66. 39Gladys E. Townsend, "The Intake Process in Casework with Runaways," Casework Papers: 1955 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1955), 64. 1' ~x' El V“) L. 190 Client Self-determination and the Mentally Handicapped A third population for whom the principle of client self- determination needs to be reaffirmed is those cliennswith severe emo- tional or mental handicaps.‘ Identified here are the emotionally dis- turned and the mentally retarded, and the institutionalized. While the etiology of their problems may be vastly different, these clients' needs are quite similar. One finds, however, an abundance of misunder— standings about their abilities and potentialities, especially as it relates here to participation in the decision-making process. Much of this misinformation is a carry-over of stereotypic thinking and preju- dicial rejection of them because "they are different." Not long ago there was a fairly widespread feeling among case- workers that there was no point in typing to offer casework serv- ice to the mentally retarded. The fact of his mental retardation loomed so large that it was assumed there was no way of estab- lishing a meaningful relationship with him. We saw retardation and not the person. We can no longer speak, with scientific reverence, of the retarded as being inherently delinquent or immoral, or capable ofpening remarks of John Turner to the Pre-Conference Working Party. In the twentieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is timely that national and international organizations should examine the extent to which the rights set forth in this remarkable document are engaged. The International Council on Social Welfare is uniquely accountable for making an examination of the progress of human rights as they are served by social welfare.. . . There is a continuing need to examine the progress attained by nations and communities in securing human rights. There is constant need to promote and bring about a greater realization of human rights. But there is also the need to redefine human rights in the light of changing political and economic conditions. Each generation must become involved, must come to know the meaning of human righgg in the context of its contemporary social order and its future. The task then was first to assess the factors which affect human rights in any nation and then to relate these rights to the political process. Turner Observed that one Of the primary functions of government and especially of those agencies of government related welfare "is to safeguard and promote the well-being of its peOple." What is required to maintain and improve human rights is a process 61Martin Teicher, "Conclusion and Summary," Values ig_Social Work, 107. 62John B. Turner, "Report Of the Pre—Conference Working Party,’ Social welfare for Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969) ’ 3-4 0 242 rooted in the history and traditions of the nation, implemented by socio-ecOnomic policies and regulated by the Socio-political and legal structures of the nation.6 The conference first recognized that in any nation human rights are governed by three factors: (1) national goals, aims and values; (2) the institutional and political framework of the govern— n5 ment; (3) the stage of the country's economic develOpment.64 In addi- tion, it stressed that any change — to "improve, advance and protect" human rights was bound to create stress and a state of tension espe— cially as one attempted to integrate human needs and priorities with programs and resources. Governments and citizens together have mutual concerns and are involved in a symbiotic relationship, a state of mutual dependency or interdependency. Change which positively bene- fits the citizens as individuals, with regards to their rights and well-being, serves to benefit the nation as well. Conversely, what happens to the disadvantaged of the citizenry, is detrimental to the well-being of the nation. The conference sought to relate to the values as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in terms of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and security of person) and to pro- mote their implementation as in civil and political rights - rights which implied the mutuality Of rights and responsibilities. To this end, social welfare was seen as a basic tool to bring about the securing these rights. 631bido’ 4-5. 641bido, 4o 243 Advocacy of rights without advocacy of duties is non-productive. A mature understanding of the interdependency of rights and duties, and of the individual and society, is an important requisite for bringing into realization the goals of freedom, justice, equality, and well-being. . . . There is now, however, a growing awareness that social welfare must not only conceive of itself as a champion of the goals of human rights, it must see itself as a basic tool or means to the achievement of human rights. The conference characterized a number of factors which inter— P‘ fered with or prevented the achievement of these human rights: Some are complex, rooted in tradition, culture or history, steeped in fear, prejudice, exploitation, worship of power and property, and unrelated to humane value systems. Some are illogi- cal and bureaucratic, and some center on political guild, and economic self-interest rather than on human concern. Some emerge as a result of the uneven development in the various nations which : comprise the world . . . (and) continue to limit self— determination.66 The conference sought to stress the need for nations to become aware of the need to establish social justice for their citizens. Social justice was seen as part of the foundation of social welfare along with social and economic develOpment. Social welfare was defined as including "a number of activities and functions which are directed toward the promotion of social well-being and which increase the choices which a§_individual can make £2_realize his human rights."67 In setting forth the definition Of social welfare in this manner, the conference emphasized the belief that providing for the social well- being of the citizen was only part of the role of government in social welfare. Equally important was the provision of opportunities for self-determination as a necessary component Of social welfare. This needed to become a part of the social welfare policies, programs, and practices. To assume the right of the citizen to be self—determining 65mm, 6-7. “1229-, 8-9- 67Ib1d., 14 (emphasis added). ls. 244 served to insure the sustainment of the concept of social justice. The role Of the social worker, as set forth by the conference, ' one in was as had been described elsewhere as an "enabling role,‘ which the worker enables the client to participate in the fullest possible use of his freedom of choice, his use of available resources, in effect, his right to self-determination.68 " The conference sought to clarify the intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as to what was meant by rights and what rights were to be included. "Rights" were defined by the conference l on a practical level, "as legal and well-defined normal rights in the framework of a system which has set its norms . . . (and includes) rights to social security, to relief payments, rights to services and to participate in decisions."69 During the course of the conference, these rights were expanded by the various participants. Andre Montoro, Professor of Law and a member of the Brazilian Parliament, saw as additions to the rights of life, justice, housing and Habeas Corpus: "a new category of rights and guarantees of a social order: the right to work, equal pay, educa- tion, . . . and others, which have to be insured, not by abstention by the state, but by its very presence, by its controlling action, norma— tive or direct, which makes itself felt in more and more areas."70 68Turner, "Pre-Conference Report," 21. 9Eugen Pusic, "Response,' cited in Turner, "Pre-Conference Re- port," 25. 70Andre Franco MOntoro, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Its Bearing on Social Welfare Activities," Social welfare and Human Rights, 41. 245 Montoro went on to identify these rights as being predicated on two new social rights: "the right to develOpment" and "the right to participate actively in the process of develOpment." The right to participate is the one, for the purposes of this discussion, to which we want to attend. Montoro saw this right to be an imperative one, one which recognized man's right "to be considered a person, consci- entious and responsible, able to function as a human being and as an agent" in the change process. He develOped the case for participa- tion from Article 22 of the 1948 Declaration in which it was stated: Every one, as a member of society, . . . is entitled to realiza- tion . . . of the economic, social and cultural rights indis- pensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.71 This, MOntoro maintained, characterized the "right of participation" as "a natural and responsible claim made by human beings."72 MOntoro summarized the importance of the principle of partici- pation as follows: 1) The decisions and the programs are enriched the more people know about them and the more people can share their experience. 2) Therefore, there is a greater chance of meeting real needs and thus of being more efficient. 3) The person who is involved in the decisions becomes more interested and related to their implementation; he does not have to be convinced. 4) When passivity is replaced by participation, the interested persons are given the Opportunity to increase their knowledge and to improve their competence. Participation is an important tool in fighting con- formity, passivism, the spirit Of dependency, and stagnation. In returning to the delineation of rights, one seens justified in raising a question as to the relative consistency of Montoro's 711bid., 44. 721bid. 731b1d., 46. 246 position when it is compared to the contributions of other partici- pants in the conference. Did Montoro Speak with a collective voice or as a solitary individual, raising a lone, radical voice? The answer is found in the voices of the other participants: The Declaration is an affirmation of values, a statement of the aspirations of world conscience on behalf of the common man. . . . It covers the right to nationality, freedom of movement and the freedom to seek asylum; it affirms the right to freedom from discrimination and exploitation; it covers the freedom of thought and conscience; it covers the right to work and to be paid; and it covers the right to social security, to an adequate standard of life, and to the Opportunity for the free and full development of individual personality. Finally, in a very significant addition, it refers to the duties of the individual to his community in which alone the free and full development of his personality can take place. g No relevance . . . lies mainly in the fact that it une- quivocally recognized the worth and dignity of the person and asserts that he has a right to "seek the free and full develop- ment of his personality.: Social work proceeds from the same basic assumption that the human individual is worthy in himself, independent of his material or social condition, and that it is important to provide him with every facility for the full develOp- ment of his potentialities.74 These social rights are to some extent related to the traditional civil and political rights. Many of them are not purely legal principles. . . . They are not so much more legal principles as rules of action. . . . Social rights insist on the need for man to resist and to modify it (the natural order) in a given sense. . . . Social rights are no longer uniquely or mainly individual rights, but also and especially collective rights. . . . Social rights . . . have a relative character. They correspond to a given stage of technical, economic, and social development, to a given state of civilization. Social rights . . . imply that the well-being, the security, and the future of each person should no longer be regarded solely, nor perhaps fundamentally, as an individual responsibility but as a collective responsibility. Social rights . . . are the 74Madhov 8. Core, "Social Work and Its Human Rights Aspects," Social Welfare and Human Rights, 57. 75Pierre Laroque, "Human Rights, Social Work, and Social Policy," Social welfare and Human Rights, 77-78. 247 fruit of a positive and continuous effort, the result of a social policy.76 Social rights and civil rights then are seen as being connected. They both are necessary for the individual's right to dignity. Self- respect and the respect of others, equality and self—determination are bound together as the "essence of human dignity." "There can be no dignity if there is no liberty."77 Civil rights which are in harmony with social rights, serve to create the state of social justice which in turn is "an expression of human brotherhood."78 Unfortunately, as was noted elsewhere at the conference: "To set up human rights is one thing, to make them effective is quite another."79 we have moved from the theoretical and philOSOphical dis— cussion of the principle of client self-determination to the se- curing and augmentation of social rights as civil rights, with these being viewed as the natural and necessary extension of the philosOphi— cal rationale of the principle of self-determination. This then brings into focus the two dimensions Of the principle of self-deter- mination: one as it relates to the philosophical realm; the other as it relates to the political.80 It is by means Of this merger that the conditions are prepared for the establishment and maintenance of social justice. There needs to be a society in which social rights are recognized and where social justice exists. This is necessary 763113., 78-79. 77Ibid., 82. ”Ibid., 87. 79Dieter Hanart, "The Rights of the Client," Social Welfare and Human Rights, 163. 80webster's New WOrld Dictionary g£_the American Language: Collegg Edition, (1968 ed.), S.V. "self-determination." 248 so that the individual can develOp his potentialities to their fullest capacity as is man's nature and right.‘ We are now led to consider the state of affairs related to civil and social rights and to self-deter— mination in the decade of the sixties. As Jane LaCour observed at the Social Welfare Forum in 1967: The goals of American society are expressed in the Declaration of fit Independence. We seek to maintain the natural equality of all men and sustain their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . Today, our way of measuring equality of man is expressed in the value that all men should be equal under the law and in their Opportunities to exercise their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . The goal with the most pervasive influence, to sustain the in- alienable right of all men to liberty, is also one for which there is the most difficulty in formulating an acceptable standard against which to measure our progress toward it.81 Self-Determination - Civil and Social Rights The decade of the sixties was one of turbulence and strife in the matter of civil rights. "Picketing, marches, boycotts, religious assemblies, freedom rides, and sit—ins"82 were part of the vocabulary of the decade, as were "bombings, beatings, bloodshed and bullets." Black and white, rich and poor, young and Old, together joined hands to wage war against the forces of inequality, prejudice, discrimina- tion, and injustice and to establish the premise of democracy for all the people of the country, and not the privileged few. This promise of democracy called for a return to the principles of a "participatory 1Jane K. LaCour, "Technology and Human Values," The Social Welfare Forum: 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 69- 70. 82Alan Reitman, "Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the 1960's," Encyclopedia of Social Work 15th ed. (New York: N.A.S.W., 1965), 160. 249 democracy." Attention was fully called to the fundamental principles of our society and they were challenged to see if the rhetoric was just that, empty hollow words or if there was indeed vitality and sub- stance to this democracy of ours. This came about "because of both the gap between ideal values and social reality, and increasing skep- ticism as to whether the ideal values, themselves, are valid."83 As we discussed in the preceeding section, the concept of social justice was seen as a necessary factor in the Opportunity of the individual to exercise to the fullest, his freedom of choice, his right to self-determination. "Freedom to choose - what?" This question was answered many times during this decade both on the streets and in the courts. In that "what" one finds embodied a great many rights which were being abused, neglected or violated, and each violation took away some of the freedom of us all. Specifically the denials of freedom included: the right to assistance, the right to equality of opportunity in education, housing and employment, and right for freedom of movement, the right to freedom of choice in family planning, the right to due process, to fair and equitable treatment, to a hearing, the right of appeal, the right to health, to life, to freedom from hunger, the right to equal representation, the right to counsel, to privacy, to confidentiality. As this list indicates the lines of distinction between civil rights and social rights quickly becomes blurred. Theclaim to these rights contained a common thread which was the appeal based upon the dignity and worth of the individual and 83Roland warren, "Politics and the Ghetto System," Politics and the Ghetto (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 28. 250 the exercise of his freedom of choice. With the rise of client organ- ization, with increased availability of legal resources to the poor under programs of legal aid and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as the legal staffs of the various civil rights groups, there was greater sensitivity to violations and infringements upon the rights of clients. The literature indicates that the issue of rights often came to the forefront as a result of gnoss violations which in turn served as a catalyst for demands of reform. As we begin this area of our discussion, it is well that we begin with the rights of the public welfare clients because Of the volume of material which, during the decade of the sixties, focused upon their legal rights. In the 1935 Social Security Act, the authors of that legisla- tiOn established a principle which was new for this country: "that of legally enforceable entitlement for social security, unemployment and public assistance."84 This provided the precedent for the welfare re- cipient to lay claim to public funds, to equality of treatment and to the right of appeal if he felt he was being discriminated against. In effect, this then is not a single right but rather a collection of associated rights including the right to assistance, the right to equality of treatment, the right to due process and the right to appeal. Change, as has been noted earlier, many times comes about as a response to a crisis situation. During this decade, several crises occurred which stimulated broad discussion and ultimately legislative 84Elizabeth Wickenden, "Social Change Through Federal Legisla— tion," The Social Welfare Forum: 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 32. “'" “:7 251 action with the end result being a reaffirmation of the rights of the welfare client. The first crisis in public welfare drew national attention to the plight of the welfare recipient and to this date the city Of New- burgh, New York, sustains a blackened reputation. In 1961, the city council who administered the public assistance program instituted a program which was intended to tighten up the requirements for assistaux: and which were seen as both punitive with the public assistance client and a violation of their civil rights, including due process. The fol— lowing begins the story. On May 1, the city manager of Newburgh ordered assistance re— :fipiints to appear before the police for questioning or lose grants. This was done because of increasing costs of maintenance Of the public assistance program by the city. Newburgh was spending one-sixth of its budget at the time for its welfare program. As a city it had five percent of its pOpulation on public assistance. It had also experienced increase in its non-white population with the major increase being newcomers from the South, so that what was a non- white population of 6.4 percent in 1950, had grown to 16.6 percent in 1960.86 As a result of the order of the city manager, the area direc- tor of the State welfare Department warned that the city was faced with the loss of state and federal funds and that the city's order 8"Notes and Comments," Social Service Review XXXV (September 1961), 310. 86Ibid. 252 was illegal. You had no right to call a muster which consisted of ordering ambulatory welfare recipients, including the aged, the blind, the disabled, the handicapped, and mothers to go to Newburgh police headquarters.87 The stage was set then for a major confrontation. As their response, the city council upheld the position of the city manager, accused the state of attempting to interfere in local matters and issued a thirteen point program of restrictive rules. Ultimately eleven of them were ruled illegal and the remaining two were seen as unnecessary. The rules sought to deny aid to "unfit" mothers, to reduce the amount of the assistance grants, to limit assistance to two weeks for newcomers and three months a year for persons not aged, or handicapped, and established a "suitable home" requirement. The thirteen rules included: 1. 2. All cash payment which can be converted to food, clothing, and rent vouchers and the like without basic harm to the intent Of the aid shall be issued in voucher form henceforth. All able—bodied adult males on relief of any kind who are capable of working are to be assigned to the chief of building maintenance for work assignment on a forty-hour week. All recipients physically capable of and available for private employment who are offered a job but refuse it, regardless of the type of employment involved, are to be denied relief. All mothers of illegitimate children are to be advised that should they have any more children out of wedlock, they shall be denied relief. All applicants for relief who have left a job voluntarily, i.e., who have not been fired or laid off, shall be denied relief. The allotment for any one family unit shall not exceed the take-home pay of the lowest city employee with a family of a comparable size. Also, no relief shall be granted to any family whose income is in excess of the latter figure. All files of all Aid to Dependent Children cases are to be brought to the Office of the corporation counsel for review monthly. All new cases of any kind will be referred to the 87Ibid. 253 corporation counsel prior to certification of payment. 8. All applicants for relief who are new to the city must show evidence that their plans in coming to the city involved a concrete offer of employment, similar to that required of foreign immigrants. All such persons shall be limited to two weeks of relief. Those who cannot show evidence shall be limited to one week of relief. 9. Aid to persons except the aged, blind and disabled shall be limited to three months in any one year. 10. All recipients who are not disabled, blind, ambulatory or Otherwise incapacitated, shall report to the Department of Public Welfare monthly for a conference regarding the status of their case. 11. Once the budget for the fiscal year is approved by the council, it shall not be exceeded by the Welfare Department unless approved by Council for supplemental appropriation. 12. There shall be a monthly expenditure limit on all categories of welfare aid. This monthly expenditure limit shall be es- tablished by the Department of Public welfare at the time of presenting the budget, and shall take into account seasonable variations. 13. Prior to certifying or continuing any more Aid to Dependent cases, a determination shall be made as to the home environ- ment. If the home environment is not satisfactory, the chil- dren in that home shall be placed §n foster care in lieu of welfare aid to the family adults.8 The battle then moved into the public press. The New York Times stated in an editorial: Cruelty anywhere is the concern of mankind everywhere. The city of Newburgh, New York, should not be surprised at finding itself famous overnight for writing its own rules for dispensation of welfare grants to the needy. The State and Federal governments, supplying a considerable percentage of the money, have a legal as well as moral interest in standards. Albany has always been timid in asserting its discipli- nary power to correct local deficiencies, but the State Board of Social welfare will hold a public hearing July 7 to investigate the Newburgh situation. The State has a duty to help in Newburgh as well as forbid cruel and unusual punishments for the crime of being poor. New- burgh, enjoying know-nothing applause from near and far for 'getting tough' on the needy must be made by the State to realize that it is not a law unto itself. We suppose a good many cities would like to order their masses of poor out of town by sundown, 881bid., 310-311. 254 or week's end. But what if everybody did that?89 The crisis continued throughout the summer. Newburgh city council were forced to modify their rules under pressure of the state welfare department. The Newburgh Crisis received congressional atten- tion and as a result new guidelines were prepared under the 1962 Public Welfare Amendments. These guidelines made it mandatory for states in h order to receive federal funds for their programs to adopt the follow— l. ing policies: 1. Prohibit practices that 'violate the individual's privacy or personal dignity, or harass him, or violate his constitutional rights. 2. Require that assistance be given promptly and continued regularly until the individual is found to be ineligible. 3. Prohibit the practice of assuming that a recipient of public assistance receives some regular income from relatives or other sources and subtracting that amount from the assistance check, whether or not the recipient actually receives such income. 4. Permit the use of a declaration form, filled out by the appli- cant, as a principal source of information about an individualhs eligibility with verification limited to what is reasonably necessary to assure that expenditures under the program will be legal. 5. Simplify instructions for computing both needs and resources, thus enabling much of the task of budget determination to be done by auxiliary staff and freeing trained workers for other essential duties.90 as Hm. I All these were seen as reinforcing the respect of the rights of the welfare recipient, as a means of affirming their dignity and providingservices based upon objective guidelines rather than sub- jective impressions.91 g 89"The Dark Ages in Newburgh?" The New York Times (June 29, 1961) . 90U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Welfare Administration, Bureau of Family Services, Handbook Transmittal 223.119 March 18, 1966; Handbook Transmittal No. 16, December, 1965. 91Ellen Winston, "The Contribution of Social welfare to Econom- ic Growth," The Social Welfare Forum: 1966 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 17. 255 Throughout this decade, there was repeated concern expressed regarding the welfare system and what it was doing to the peOple it sought to serve. Eveline Burns in 1962 wrote: The principle on which public assistance payments are determined is scarcely calculated to strengthen the initiative and self- respect of the recipient. . . . First it makes a mockery of our professed belief in the 'right to relief.‘ How can anyone feel that he has a 'fight' when to secure it he has to sit down with some official and expose to him the intimate details of his living habits and expenditure patterns? How can he feel that he has a 'right' when it is made clear to him that the only kinds of expenditures qualifying for aid are the kinds and amounts recog- nized by the all-wise peOple who draw up the Official budget. . . . Social work has developed a rationalization for the disparity be- tween what we are constrained to do and what we preach about the right to relief and importance Of maintaining the self-reSpect of the client. . . .92 We often speak . . . of the right to relief. What precisely do we mean by this? Is it an absolute right? Are there circumstances in which society may require reciprocal obligations? If so, what are they and what is the nature of the required behavior? . . . If we had clearer and more consistent answers to questions such as these, we would be in a better position to help the nation grapple with the many challenging problems facing public welfare.93 They (the poor, in particular the AFDC) are unable to speak for themselves, and few are able or willing to speak for themselves in the crisis of their social demise. They are indeed vulnerable to human indignities and the impending if not already existing loss of their privileges and rights as Amirican citizens. Theirs is a tenuous hold on those rights. . . .9 First Of all, we reaffirm our basic philosOphy and belief in the dignity of man and in his right to assistance. In this connection please recognize that the welfare recipient is not unique because he gets a subsidy from the federal government. He is unique be- cause he gets less Of a subsidy from the federal government than some 65 percent to 70 percent of all other Americans in our sociegn 92Eveline M. Burns, "What's Wrong with Public Welfare?" Social §ervice Review XXXVI (June 1962), 113-114. 93Ib1d., 121-122. 9"Lloyd Setleis, "Civil Rights and the Rehabilitation of AFDC Clients," Social WOrk 9 (April 1964), 4. 256 We forget about all the other subsidies that go to peOple who are home owners - middle-class home owners - through taxes; that go to farmers to keep them from producing; and the subsidies that went to poor white peOple in 1932 when they were unemployed and rioting. we must reaffirm our basic belief in man's desire to be independent and not to want a handout. Men.want to stand on their own two feet. The right to public assistance is a contingent right, as is the right to social insurance. In both programs the right includes the right to "equal treatment" under the law and "due process" in its Operation. . . . The right to public assistance is a con- tingent right dependent upon the law's remaining in force and upon apprOpriations from year to year. Contingency implies risk and uncertaggty. In a free society the contingent aSpects must remain. The State has a definite obligation to make sure that citizens share in consumption of the goods of society in relationship to their needs. Therefore, ethics demand that the State take the necessary steps and make the necessary arrangements to bring this about. Elsewhere during the ongoing debate, this right to assistance was phrased in many different ways. For example, Gil referred to it as: . . . a basic civil right, a fair share in the affluence of Ameri- can society which will enable them to live decently throughout their lives, in spite of potentially adverse effects of economic trends and the many risks connected with age, ill health, and physical, emotional and social handicaps.9 Erich Fromm contrasts a psychology of scarcity which produces 'anxiety, envy, egotism"with a psychology of abundance which 'produces initiative, faith in life solidarity.’ He contends that 'for the first time the guaranteed income would free man from the threat of starvation and thus make him truly free and 95Whitney M. Young, Jr., "Reason and Responsibility in the Elim- ination of Bigotry and Poverty," The Social Welfare Forum: 1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 150. 96Hasseltine Byrd Taylor, "The Nature of the Right to Public Assistance," Social Service Review XXXVI (September 1962), 267. 97Rev. Robert P. Kennedy, "A Catholic VieWpoint," The Social Eglfigggnggggg; $212 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 70. 98Donald D. Gil, "Worker's Wages — an Alternative Attack on Poverty," Social Work Practice, 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 187. 257 independent from any economic threat. . . . It will also estab- lish a principle rooted in western religions and humanist tradi— tion; man has the right £2 live regardless! Robert Theobald, in developing his rationale for a program which protected the right to assistance, referred to the need for a constitutional amendment which would provide a guaranteed income as the right to basic economic security. Why do I demand a constitutional amendment, even though I am aware of the fact that my actual program of guaranteed income, or basic economic security (BES), as I prefer to call it, would have to be introduced before the amendment could be finally passed? It is my belief that a decision to provide resources to all within the American system as a right does represent a fundamental reaffirma— tion of basic democratic values, which should be marked by a con- stitutional amendment. In addition, it would dramatize the neces- sity for an absolute guarantee if this measure is not to become a source of despotic power. Unfortunately the progress towards the recognition and accep- tance of these rights does not reflect a process of steady growth. Often times clients have had to seek recourse, and redress through the courts. For instance, in 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union was called upon to assist the plight of Joseph LaFountain in upper New York State. LaFountain and four other men were sentenced to jail for allegedly refusing to work on a work-relief project. As Betty Mandell reported in the Journal g£_Socia1 Work: The case of these five men was unprecedented in the recent history of this country, for although the State legally claims the right to force its citizens to work on punishment for a crime, it has 99Erich Fromm, "The Psychological Aspects of the Guaranteed Annual Income," in Robert Theobald, ed., The Guaranteed Income (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 176. (emphasis added). 100Robert Theobald, "The Guaranteed Income: A New Economic and Human Right," The Social Welfare Forum: 1966 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 144. 258 never before claimed the right to force its free citizens to work under threat of being jailed.101 The circumstances of this case, in brief, dealt with LaFountain and four others who had been assigned to a work relief project by the county welfare department in order for them to receive welfare assist— ance. They had been working several months cutting brush, cleaning up cemetaries and building shoulders on new roads. In January, 1963, they had been working in the same area cutting brush within twenty- five feet of an unpaved road. "The snow was up to your knees, and some of it was above your knees." Although the temperature was 12 or 15 degrees above zero, the men had not been provided with adequate cold weather clothing and had been going home every night, soaked from the snow. 0n the morning of January 30, 1963, when the foreman picked the men upflfi . . (they) told him that they were willing to do any other work, but they would not cut brush because the snow was too deep. . . . They were willing to cut brush next to the road in the same area, to sand roads, or to take any other reasonable assignment. But no one listened."102 On February 1, 1963, affidavits were filed with Justice of the Peace at the instigation of the County welfare Director, who "intended to use the Justice of the Peace for quick prosecution of welfare clients who did not cOOperate with him."103 lOlnetty Mandell, "The Crime of Poverty," Social Work 11 January 1966), 11. 102.1121- 103mm. , 12. 259 The families of the men were taken off Temporary Aid to Dependent Relief and transferred to home relief on the grounds that the refusal of the men to work made them ineligible for TADC grants. However, as Mandell observed: Actually, the change was made in an attempt to prove that the men's'refusal to work' increased the cost of their support to St. Lawrence County. . . . Rather the increase in cost was owing to the welfare departments juggling of categories in an attempt to build a case against the men. The men were not notified of this change as their right to an appeal, although this is legally re- quired. 04 The men were indicted, tried by a jury and found guilty. La- Fountain was sentenced to eight months in jail and the other men to four months. The ACLU appealed the decision on the grounds that the men's imprisonment was in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and the antipeonage act, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Appelate Division of the Supreme Court of New York State reversed the conviction on May 19, 1964, in support of the ACLU appeals position.105 In another case which reached the United States Supreme Court, the Court decided that states must also provide legal services for a poor person facing criminal charges.106 In Gideon v. Wainwright the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment "makes provision for fair trial obligatory on the states . . . reason and reflection require us to recognize that . . . any person hauled into court who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is 1°41b1d., 13. 1°51b1d., 13. 106372, U.S. 335 (1963). 260 provided for him"107 One other case of tremendous impact in setting forth the rights of welfare clients, children and the mentally ill, was the Gault case which also reached the United States Supreme Court. In this case,108 the Court's decision upheld the rights of the poor, including adequate notice of hearing, due process, time to prepare a reply or defense, the right of appeal and to confront one's accusors. It, by implication, also affirmed the right of the client to be eval- uated by standards based upon fairness and restricted the welfare practice of midnight welfare raids, illegal entry and search of recip- ient yielded to these tactics.109 Test cases also restrained the welfare agencies from using polygraphs to determine paternity for prosecution, from taking puni- tive action against families with illegitimate children, and ruled that residency requirement which were used for determination of elig- ibility for public assistance to be unconstitutional.110 With regards to the residency laws, Mogulof identified them as restrictions to the right of freedom of movement.111 Or as Savilla Simmons stated: We have a confusing chaotic crazy quilt of provisions among pro- grams and states, costly and time-consuming in administration. 107"Notes and Comments," Social Service Review XXXVII (Septem— ber 1963), 321-322. 10§23”52_Gau1t, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). 109B. James George, Gault and the Juvenile Court Revolutions (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute of Continuing Legal Education, 1968) 79-82 a 11°Ib1d., 90-91 111Melvin Mbgulof, "Creative Federalism," Politics and the Ghetto, 135. 261 It produces two groups of peOple: 1. Some American citizens are stateless, having lost residence in one place without gaining it in another and ineligible for assistance anywhere. Some of these people can never become eligible because in certain areas they cannot gain residence unless they are self-supporting. 2. Others are sent back to their place of residence even when their return is undesirable from the point of view of the individual or the community. 'Welfare clients became very conscious of their rights and repeatedly welfare agencies found their policies and practices under Sharp criticism and subject to scrutiny by the courts. Shlakman, in her discussion.of the plight of the unmarried parent and her own dealings with welfare departments reported instances of sterilization, withdrawal of payments, compulsory criminal action against the alleged father. Enactment of compulsory sterilization laws was advocated, and bills to this effect were introduced in several state legislatures. In- deed, it was recently reported that a California court offered a defendant, a young mother of an illegitimate child, the choice of a jail sentence or a tubal ligation. The air in some state capi- tals resounded with charges that AFDC was rewarding women for ‘having children out of wedlock. Legislators demanded the exten- sion and intensification of punitive and deterrent controls. At one stroke, for example, more than 22,500 children were dropped from.the rolls in Louisiana. Sometimes she is forced to name the putative father of her child, and if necessary, bring him to court in a criminal action, a pro- cedure that is hardly calculated to consolidate a relationship that may have had, as we have seen, some potential for stable development. Through application of the 'suitable home' or 'sub- stitute parent' clauses invoked by many public agencies, public ‘welfare regulations may serve to drive men out of the woman's life, or drive her and her children off the rolls, or even prevent 112Savilla Millis Simmons, "Services to Uprooted and Unsettled Families," The Social Welfare Forum: 1962 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1962), 171. 113Vera Shlakman, "Unmarried Parenthood," Socia1 Casework XLVII (October 1966), 495. "dfl'iln ~ 1LT“ ID. I,» . 262 her from seeking help in the first place.114 In 1966, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, John Gardner issued a policy statement which did two things; it established the right of welfare clients to the availability of family planning services; it restrained welfare departments from the use of coercion or pressure towards the client to compel them to use birth control. Thus it affirmed the right to family planning services and the right of self-determination. A key provision of this statement concerns a right that is dear to social work: "Programs conducted or supported by the Depart- ment shall guarantee freedom from coercion or pressure of mind or conscience. There shall be freedom of choice of method so that individuals can choose in accordance with dictates of their consciences." . . . To facilitate achievement of these objectives authorization was granted to combine child welfare and AFDC services, and to pur— chase services from public and voluntary services. In addition, Congress has authorized an expansion of family-planning services through the maternal and child health programs. This 1967 legis- lation specifically safeguards freedom of decision-making and choice.1 5 Clearly the matter of client self-determination and the matter of his civil rights are clearly seen as being intertwined. This poses a major dilemma in terms of the value conflict which exists between the need to respect individual choice and the countervailing force ever present in the Protestant work ethic, ingrained in the ways of Our land. As the Presidential Commission on Income Maintenance Pro- Sraun reported: In addition to our concern for adequacy of benefit level, we felt that the recipient of the supplement should know clearly his 114Ibid., 498. 115Eunice Minton, "Family Planning and Social Work," Social £9.13 Practice, 1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 95-96. 263 rights and entitlement to the supplement. Federal administration, according to objective eligibility criteria, would in large measure replace the discretion and action by whim or vindictiveness now exercised by local administrators.1 6 On the other hand, the Commission also observed that: We are aware of the power of the work ethos in America. We know that any program which provides income without work may affect work effort. The Family Assistance Act of 1970 pending in the Congress takes notice of this fact in the provisions which re— quires every member of a family receiving family assistance bene— fits, with specific exceptions, to register with an employment service for training and employment. This act, further, would terminate benefits for an individual who refuses training, "suitable employment," or rehabilitation services. The Commis- sion rejects any idea of a work requirement. Given the level of the basic income-support program, we believe that 'the disincen— tive effect will not be powerful.' Work will always produce in- creased income. This will give the recipient the financial in— ducement to work.11 One is able to assess first how strong of a shaping influence the work ethic is, by examining what has been called the Nixon Welfare plan as presented in HR 14174 of the 9lst Congress in 1969. The plan at that point contained the following provisions: 1. Any person found eligible for welfare will be required to register with the local state employment office. 2. If a person fails to register, his portion of the family welfare will be canceled, "thereby reducing the income of an already needy family" and penalizing all family members for the actions of one. 3. If the person failing to register is the only adult member of a family, no welfare grant will at all come to that family until the responsible adult registers. In such cases, the secretary of health, education and welfare "may, if he deems it appropriate" (make provision) for payment of . . . benefits . . . to any person, other than a member of such family who is interested in the welfare of the family.11 116Barbara Jordan, "Income Securities Policies - The Heineman Canumission Proposal," The Social Welfare Forum: 1970 (New York: Calumbia University Press, 1970) , 21. 117Ibid., 21-22. 118HR 14174, 9lst Congress, lst Session, 1969, 17-19 (emphasis added) , 264 As William Taylor protested: This provision would destroy one of the basic tenets of American social welfare policy - the right of a public welfare recipient to use a cash grant as he deems best. In social welfare, this right is as basic a guarantee of individual rights as the Bill of Rights in the total area of civil rights . . . . The work and training prOposals of the Nixon welfare plan deny freedom of choice . . . to persons who must rely on welfare assistance for support.119 Or again, in the words of David Gil, the essence of social justice requires reconstructive thinking of the grandest prOportions. A society which honestly aspires to social justice,and is serious about eliminating poverty and its disastrous concomitants, must be willing to institute a resource distribution system designed to maximize societal responsibility for the well—being, develOpment, and self-realization of all its citizens, in place of a distribution system designed to maximize individual profit and economic self— interest.12 As the poor have become more aware of their rights, as they have demonstrated their ability to join together in a mutual endeavor and to become politically vocal, the question, asked earlier, as to "who will listen?" still remains unanswered. As Barbara Jordan con- cluded in her comments on the Heineman Commission PrOposal: The poor have been x—rayed, dissected, examined, probed, accused, belittled, isolated, and brutalized. We have done everything to them except give them their humanity. Their plight is an indict- ment of every American whose stomach is full. We try to hide the poor under the freeways and behind billboards and bury them in bureaucratic red tape, but their presence cannot be denied. They are developing vocal and articulate spokesmen, and the poor will be heard. 121 What will be their forum? 119William W. Taylor, "Unintended Consequences of the Nixon Welfare Plan," Social Work 15 (October l970),16. 120 Gil, "Worker's Wages," 189. 121Jordan, "Income Securities," 25. 265 Thus far, we have found through a review of both federal legislation and administrative guidelines related to federal welfare programs and the civil case law that the right to assistance - which has been variously referred to as the "right to life," "guaranteed annual income,‘ and "basic economic security" - is a right which by interpretation, application and judicial decree has been extended to include the right to cash grants, the right to determination based upon equitable, objective standards, the right to due process including the right to notification, to appeal, to representation by counsel when unable to pay for one, the right to freedom of choice in family planning, with corollary rights of freedom from coercion, threat or force, the right to services, the right to freedom of movement. All of these rights find themselves to be expressions of the basic right to freedom of choice - that is, self-determination. As Setleis summarized it: The recognition of the client as a citizen carries with it both the form and the impetus for an individual's realization of him? self as one who has the possibilities for meaningful living. . . . The status of citizen gives each individual the opportunity for a partnership in the development of a democratic enterprise.122 Returning to the Gault decision, it also served to set the precedent for establishing the rights of the mentally ill. Included in the body of rights are the right to evaluation by fair, objective 8tZandards in hearings to determine mental incompetency and the need for: civil commitment, the right to representation by counsel, the risght to treatment while confined for that purpose and the right to 122Setleis, "Civil Rights," 7. 266 re-evaluation by established standards for return to the community.123 That these rights are in need of judicial safeguarding is demonstrated by the many cited instances of violation noted in the literature during the decade. When this writer studied mental health commitment practices and compared rural with urban practices, it was clear that an urban person alleged to be mentally ill was far more likely to have a fair hearing than a rural person in a similar situation. Urban sanity commissions were more apt to employ psychiatrists as ex- aminers, and it was more probable that they would arrive at clear disguises. In rural situations, it was typical for the family physician both to recommend to the family that the allegedly mentally ill person be committed and to serve as a member of the sanity commission that heard the case. Furthermore, rural sanity commissions were inclined to include physicians who were lacking in psychiatric knowledge. The rural commitment process tended to result from the wishes of the family rather than from the thoughtful deliberations of experts.124 While the Indian has the "same needs, concerns, and wants as everyone else," apparently he does not have the same rights as everyone else. For example, Mr. Means noted that on the reserva- tion any Indian can be declared incompetent without a hearing, and he has no legal recourse. Whenever the state proposes to deprive a person of such posses- sions as his liberty, his life, or his status . . . the case for the exercise of state power must be clearly made. Moreover, the person proceeded against is permitted and, indeed, encouraged to challenge such assertions of state authority by any prOper means, including challenges to the evidence produced by the moving party and the introduction of countervailing evidence. The essence of the adversary system is challenge. It serves as a continuing reminder to those clothed with state authority that their powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed by the community. It expresses the shrewd insight that those possessed of powers 123George, Gault, 98-106. 12"Leon Ginsberg, "Social Problems in Rural America," Social Work Practice, 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 180- 181 . 125T. George Silcott, "Social Welfare Priorities: A Minority View," The Social Welfare Forum: 1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 139. 267 are prone to laxness and excess unless subjected to effective challenge and supervision.126 Before this section on civil rights is concluded, there are several other rights which were identified in the survey of the liter- ature as being related either as direct expressions of client self— determination or as extensions of the right of the client to freedom of choice. For instance, in the 1965 Health legislation, President Johnson noted that it established, "a new basic right for all Ameri- "127 cans - the right to health and medical care. Related to this was earlier OASDI legislation dealing with the establishment of "free choice of physician" as "one of the basic rights" to be respected, a right based upon freedom of choice.128 Also during this decade, the right to self-determination was used as the basis for client—subjects refusal to participate in re— search programs. If subjects' rights are truly a matter of concern, the right to refuse to cooperate is a basic one. No one has yet seriously proposed that researchers, like policemen, inform all contacts of their right to refuse to talk. Unlike police interrogation, research questions are generally superficial and innocuous, and the threat remote. But in cases where sensitive tapics are in- volved, such as drug use, draft evasion, riot activities, perhaps such notification would not be unreasonable.129 126Frances A. Allen, "Law and Psychiatry: An Approach to Rap- prochement," in Communitprsychiatry, ed. Leigh M. Roberts, Seymour L. Hallock, and Martin B. Loeb (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966), 189-90. 127Ellen Winston, "The Contribution of Social Welfare," 15. 128William Tollen. "Financing Care for Aged," Social Work (April 1961), 6. 129Carol H. Weiss, "Ethical and Political Issues in Social Research," Social WOrk Practice, 1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 77. 268 Elsewhere this right has been labeled "the right to privacy," one in which "there is almost universal consensus that in a free soci- ety, privacy is one of mankind's most precious rights, if not indeed the most precious of all."130 In terms of political rights, two rights which were drawn to center stage in this period were the right to vote and the right to prOportionate representation. For these rights to be violated were seen as infringements upon the basic rights of the people. The right to vote again was related to the old residency laws. The right to adequate prOportionate representation was seen in a two-dimension perspective: provision of funds for urban services and the dissemina- tion of knowledge vital for people to be informed and knowledgeable. The right to vote is an inalienable right and should be guaranteed and protected. Residence laws for receipt of welfare payments have been invalid by the Supreme Court of the United States.”1 Most of our state governments are failing to modernize their insti- tutions and to keep pace with the complex problems of modern Amer- ica. While pleading for state rights, they have too often ignored state responsibilities - and through rural-dominated legislatures, too often have denied their urban citizens the opportunity at the polls to which they are entitled. In an historic decision the Supreme Court struck effec- tively at this failure to provide democratic representation to millions of Americans. But the process of legislative reform is slow, and the basic problem remains high on our agenda.1 Nothing has been more frustrating for me than to go into a 13oRuben G. Cohen, "Right to Privacy," Illinois State Univer- sity Journal 30 (April 1968), 23. 131Wilbur J. Cohen, "Social welfare Priorities for the 1970's," The Social Welfare Forum: 1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 4. 132Chester Bowles, "Domestic Prerequisites for Effective Foreign Policy," The Social welfare Forum: 1963 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 42. 269 community where there are no public meetings of the school board and to have to tell peOple that they have a right to demand such meetings. When such issues are raised, some peOple are surprised to learn that this is their right; others recognize the injustice of the situation but are so demOralized that they doubt their ability to change the traditional operation of the system.133 Finally, a few words of comment are necessary about civil disobedience as a means of asserting, claiming and protecting the civil rights of a peOple. The question calls for one to distinguish between the preservation of rights and what constitutes invasion of rights.134 The Constitution guarantees equality under the law which involves, "the deepest political principles" of this society.135 Seg- regation, discrimination of any kind, the use of illegal procedures against any individual raise serious value conflicts for this demo- cratic society. A government, so committed to democratic ideals and philosophy must assume its obligation to protect the "rights and free- dom" of the individual and of society.136 This brings into being the necessary fundamentals through which social justice would be a reality. As Senator Eugene McCarthy said to the Social Welfare Forum: The problem for democracy is to be right both with regard to its ends - its ultimate goals and objectives in the state — as well as with regard to the methods and the means by which it seeks to 133M. Hayes Mizell, "Southern School Desegregation: Conse— quences of Reform," Social Work Practice, 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 171. 134Mary L. Hemmy, "Protective Services for Older PeOple," Social Work Practice, 1963 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 119. 135Margaret Berry, "Civil Rights and Social Welfare," The Social welfare Forum: 1963 (NBW’YOIR: Columbia University Press, 196$L 44 136Eugene McCarthy, "The Anatomy of Poverty," The Social welfare Forum: 1961 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 40. 270 accomplish its ends. What is sought in a democracy is not only an external objective order which is based upon justice, but also an internal or subjective one; that is, an ordered society understood by the people, and one whose government acts with the support of the peOple, with their knowledge, and also with their will. This tremendous challenge involves two things: justice with freedom, and order with individual responsibility.. . . What we are called upon to do is to take all of these together and prove that our total way of life profices the best way and the best hOpe of man in his efforts to achieve a fuller measure of justice and happiness and a greater Opportunity for self— realization and perfection.1 7 Unfortunately, reality, as it existed for many in our society in the decade of the sixties, was far from ut0pia. As James Dumpson characterized the decade: For many peOple city life came to represent a purgatorial existence which was commuted by affluence. Similarly, it was a springboard through which the poor and minority groups could advance along the continuum of middleclassness toward rising status, one goal of which was withdrawal from the city that made their affluence pos- sible. The urban-suburban process became a crisis when our visible minority groups - the Negroes and Puerto Ricans - inherited or predominated in the hulks of the cities that had served as the incubators for other emerging groups, and discovered that they were anchored there. The credentials they needed for exit were excessive and unalterable: the political and economic development upon which group success depends was cut off from them, as were too, the probabilities of success even if the necessities were achieved. The city became for these peOple, blacks and other minorities, a purgatory made permanent. . . . Against this backdrOp, talk of social justice has a hollow echo. Given the atmosphere of social competition in our culture, almost everyone at one time or another suffers exploitation of some form. This is inherent in the system; it is tolerated, and encouraged perhaps by law and certainly by custom. And when practices operate within the sanction of law and custom, how can they be unjust? But they are definitely immoral when measured against our cultural idealism. This is a fair way of characterizing the plight of the ghettos: they are peOpled by those who have no clear options for leaving, and in staying are subjected to a life of socially imposed immorality. 38 137Ibid., 44. 138James R. Dumpson, "Fantasy and Reality in the Ghetto Problem," Politics and the Ghetto, 72—73. 271 What options are available to the people, given this state of affairs? A government that does not hear them; little power — economic or political, diseased, discontented and discouraged, the peOple's recourse is civil disobedience, a civil disobedience based upon a rich heritage of political self-determination. This heritage extends from the "barons at Runnymede" at the signing of the Magna Carta, to Inde- pendence Hall and signers of the Declaration of Independence on down to the marchers of Selma, Alabama. There are significant similarities among these three groups. Each has challenged the established order to fulfill its promises. Each has demanded a reconsideration and re-establishment of the rights of men. For all three groups the time has been called 'revolutionary,' but in each case the revolution is a reaffirma- tion of ancient ideals rather than a destructive, anarchistic blood bath. There is not a fresh start but a surge of building upon old premises. It is a time of constitutional rehabilitation. The revolution stems from a respect, even a love for the past, if not a blind adherence to it. It is one aspect of the maturing process of mankind. It is, finally, man's escape from the dark- ness of tyranny. It is the flowering of democracy.13 139Sol Morton Isaac, "Law and Social Welfare," The Social Welfare Forum: 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 6. CHAPTER VI SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: 1961-1970 This decade reflected a shift of attention regarding the principle of client self-determination. In the earlier portion of the decade the reassessment and reapplication of the principle to individ- ual client or group situations continued. The literature from these years built upon the substantial base of the decade of the fifties. However, a marked change occurred as the profession turned towards broader social concerns, with one of the deliberate goals being pre- vention through intervention. The principle of client self-determina- tion took on new dimensions as it was molded and adapted to issues of social planning and social action. This chapter will first examine the continuation of the discussion of the principle of client self- determination as it related to the individual and the group situation and the incorporation of self-determination in the treatment models of role theory and behavior modification, with attention upon the worker in the client-worker relationship. From this, we will move on to a consideration of intervention at the societal level, the need for social planning and social action with particular attention being given to the changing role of the worker. 272 273 Self-Determination: Applied £2_Individual Situations Self-determination during the first part of this decade con- tinued to be recognized as one of the basic values of social work. The definition as presented by Biestek provided the major framework for discussion. One of the clearest restatements of the principle appeared in Edna Wasser's discussion of responsibility and authority and protective services for the aged in which she summarized the basic components of client freedom and self-determination. The right to self-determination and freedom of choice is deeply rooted in the cultural and professional being of the social worker, and is essential to his own psychic needs as a human being. Human- itarian ideals, faith in the worth and dignity of the individual, and self-determination are values that are embedded in the culture and democratic structure of American Society, which social work reflects. On the other hand, that the concept of self-determination is not an absolute, nor indeed the most basic consideration in a democracy, has been recognized by society as well as by social work. Each individual's freedom is limited by innumerable social and psychological controls which are essential if many individuals are to live with each other in an operating society. These include not only external controls, but the built—in controls within the structure of the individual's personality, representing the accu- mulated force of parental and societal influence which have be- come familiar through psychoanalytic exposition.i Wasser continued by describing the goal of the worker to be one which "motivates, engages the will, enables" or "releases individuals or groups so that they may think and act for their own benefit and improvement and in harmony with their social situations."2 (The role of the social worker portrayed as an "enabler" is one which we come to 1Edna wasser, "Responsibility, Self-Determination, and Authority in Casework Protection of Older Persons," Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961), 263. 21bid. 274 hear more frequently throughout this period). Wasser concluded that the worker needed to underStand this basic principle of social work and that violations - real or apparent - represented "a formidable force to be dealt with."3 The operationalization of the principle of self-determination was seen by Virginia Satir as one of the goals of family therapy. It was also evidence of a "functioning family" as contrasted with a "dys- functional family," that is one in which there are strained interper- sonal relationships and a breakdown in the communication processes. Each person in a functioning family will be able to make choices and decisions for himself in accordance with his age, in terms of his needs and wishes, assets, and liabilities, operating within the particular context in which he finds himself. He will be able to take responsibility for his choices and decisions as well as for the resulting outcomes. In other words, each peison in a functioning family learns to take charge of himself. As one moved throughout the writings of social workers during the decade, self-determination was seen as a critical component of the clientdworker relationship. Repeated references are made to it, from one client situation to another. For example, in working with: The Aged Practitioners have come to place great importance - and properly so - on the individual's motivation to seek and use help, on self— determination, on a verbalized request for counseling, and on the client's capacity for growth and change. Growth and change are concepts which have special meaning when associated with the crises and tasks of the later years of life. 31bid., 264. 4Virginia Satir, "SchiZOphrenia and Family Therapy," Social Work Practice, 1963 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 216. 275 Viewed objectively, the caseworker's goals and expectations in work with the older client are more limited than in work with younger persons, but their achievement may represent subjectively to the client an experience of enormous change. Social workers are urged to be aware of the needs of the older and aged client, especially their need to be treated with respect and dignity, and to be seen as having the potential to contribute to the social work process. With the majority of older people, mourning is a reaction to both current and past losses. The caseworker's task then is to support the client's capacity to master the current trauma. . . . The worker has to make an unusually heavy emotional investment in the older client - not a personal one, but a feeling, professional one - through which the client learns that he, his thoughts and his feelings are truly important. If the worker fails to make this kind of controlled investment, the client may interpret his various attempts at ego-restoration as empty reassurance, attack or pressure to do what seems impossible. Social workers should use the special services available for old people with discrimination. The two most important criteria for utilizing any services (with the exception of protective serv- icas) are (1) Will using the service increase or maintain the client's capacity for mastery? and (2) Will it tend to lessen his sense of isolation and increase his feeling of being needed? At times, the role of the worker is extended to helping the adult children of the aged client to respect his need and right to participate in the decisions which affect his own life. The social worker can be most supportive if he can help the client understand that his parent is not a child for whom he must assume complete responsibility: the parent is an adult, who, although suffering from serious limitations, has a right to make decisions and to take responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. 5Edna wasser, "The Sense of Commitment in Serving Older Per- sons," Social Casework, 45 (October 1964), 446-447. 6Margaret Milloy, "Casework with the Older Personand the Family," Social Casework, 45 (October 1964), 452. 71bid., 453. 276 The worker can lift a great burden from the adult child by helping him see that he does not have to act as if he were omnipotent. He also can help him look at alternatives realistically and share the responsibility of decision—making with the parent. By insisting on discussing plans directly with the parent, the worker can strengthen the adult child's ability to support his parent and to refrain from taking on too much responsibility. Unless the client is suffering from extensive mental deterioration, he should be recognized as having the capacity for continued self- direction. The caseworker's positive attitudes must be conveyed to the client in both his words and in his actions.9 One of the major purposes of public assistance programs is seen as assisting in the aged client's caring for himself, maintaining a position of individual responsibility and in the exercise of his right to freedom of choice. Public assistance agency administrators must make explicit through their policies and staff that financial assistance must be given in such a way as to help the person obtain the maximum degree of economic and personal independence of which he is capable, with special emphasis on self-care. The program must enable the elderly person to remain in his own home as long as possible and to participate in the life of the community. This will mean that the recipient of assistance will retain for himself and his family the freedom of choice and decision regarding the expenditure of his money and the manner of his living that is granted to others in society.10 Therefore, by supporting him and by assuring him he will be helped to enter an institution when he needs to, the social worker encourages the older person to live independently as long as he can safely manage it. The word safely refers not only to physical safety but also, more important, to emotional well- being.11 81bid., 455. 9Helen Lampe, "Diagnostic Considerations in Casework with Aged Clients," Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961), 243. 10Esther Lazarus, "The Influence of the Social Structure on Case- work Practice with the Aging," Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961), 232. 11Milloy, "Casework With the Older Person," 454. 277 Social work with the aged involves assessment of the client's physical and intellectual capacities, his personality make—up, his self-concepts, his life style and his ability to relate to the worker. It is the worker's belief in the worth of the client and in his sen- sitivity to his feelings and needs that often is the critical factor in stimulating or encouraging the client to go on.12 Upon occasion, the worker may have to exercise his professional judgment on behalf of his client such as to protect him from physical harm. In such in- stances, professional authority needs to be used only after the worker has carefully determined the assessments of the client and his situation. Use of authority, or the authoritative act represents a means by which social agency and social worker affect and influence the client. It connotes intervening, power in the sense of ability to do (rather than to dominate), acting, taking initiative or responsibility. It is essential to relate the use of authority to the intent to the purpose of the action taken, and to distinguish between that which is "authoritarian" and that which "authorita— tive." If the intent is a capricious robbing of rights, the action is authoritarian. If the intent is to guard the worth and dignity of an individual who lacks capacity to assert his rights, the action is authoritative and the use of authority is protective and humanitarian.13 Although the client must believe in the worker's authority and power if the worker is to use them on his behalf, the worker should take care that he does not actually invoke authority as a weapon against a person who wants protection against the re- taliatory actions provoked in others, including the worker, by his disturbing behavior.1 12Theodore Rosen, "The Significance of the Family to the Resident's Adjustment in a Home for the Aged," Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961), 239-240. 3Wasser, "Casework Practice," 265. 4Helen Turner, "Use of Relationship in Casework Treatment of Aged Clients," Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961), 249. 278 Our concern in a protective service, should relate to those older persons who, whether by reason of physical infirmity, mental ill- ness, or both, are so incapacitated that they cannot, unaided, prOperly care for themselves or manage their affairs. The degree of incapacity must be such that their inability to manage, even with supportive help, is likely to place them in a position of self-danger or to endanger the community.1 Finally, the social worker is reminded to refrain from stereo— typing the aged client, lest, in doing so, he deny the client's right to his individuality, his dignity and worth. In conclusion, it is worth while to repeat a warning against stereotyping older persons simply because they share one common characteristic, advanced age. Older peOple differ in their per- sonalities and needs, in their internal and external resources, and in their capacity for change and growth. If social workers are to help them make the most of their remaining years, they must deal with them as individuals and not as undifferentiated representatives of a social category.16 Parents and Children Thomas Wolfe, in You Can't §2_Home Again described that free- dom of choice which is the fulfillment of the promise of democracy. . . . to every man his chance - to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining golden opportunity . . . to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him.17 This is the dream of every man, woman and child. Gertrude Noar described this dream as a vital part of the child's need to learn about democracy and the responsibility inherent in the parenting role 15Louis L. Bennett, "Protective Services for the Aged," Social Service Review XXXIX (Sebtember 1965), 286. 16 Milloy, "Casework With the Older Person," 455. 17Thomas Wolfe, You Can't §g_Home Again (New York: Harper Bros., 1934), 15. 279 or in the role of the teacher is to nurture that dream and to provide Opportunities wherein the child can learn how to assume his rights and obligations. If the young are to be committed to democracy and become competent in citizenship, they must know that they have a right tO partici- pate in decision—making and the right to become something Of their own choosing. Decision-making requires skills that can be devel- Oped only through practice. Parents and teachers must realize therefore, that to become effective adults their children need to know how to take part in discussion . . . how to define problems, set goals, gather and use information from many sources, weigh facts for relevant values and make decisions likely to produce the desired consequences.18 Varley in her discussion of treatment of disturbed adolescents viewed the freedom Of choice and the adolescent's participation as crucial tO the therapeutic process.19 Hallowitz and Cutter urged the participation of the child in working with a family unit approach as a natural process which "enhances the relationship and reduces initial "20 resistances to treatment. The child becomes a full participant in the process of securing a description of his problems and symptoms; the discussion includes the onset Of his difficulties, their subsequent ramifications, and significant medical and developmental history. He as well as the parents are involved in the search for causal connections. This sharing quality contributes to its richness.21 With the youthful Offender or the institutionalized youth, a basic criteria Of treatment is seen to be the development Of awareness 18Gertrude Noar, "To Every Man His Chance, "Children and Today's World (New York: Association for Childhood Education Int., 1967), 62. 19Barbara K. Varley, "The Use Of Role Theory in the Treatment Of Disturbed Adolescents," Social Casework 49 (June 1968), 364. 20David Hallowitz and Albert Cutter, "The Family Unit Approach in Therapy," Casework Papers, 1961 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1961), 52. 211bid., 46. 280 by the child, to utilize Opportunities in which he can exercise his freedom Of choice. His use Of such Opportunities reflects his poten— tial for rehabilitation and his ultimate return to the community. We have found that the conscious utilization Of each child's ego strengths, particularly his desire to remain at the Children's Home can be the fulcrum of power which enables us to be of service to the disturbed adolescent.22 The young Offender is faced with the fact that he has some clearly defined choices to make for himself, for the probation Officer has the responsibility to spell out to him in Specific terms at the very beginning Of the probation, what is expected of him and what he can expect Of the court. The court, unlike the voluntary agency, has both the authority and the Obligation tO enforce limitations set up for a particular client, but the Offender, like the client Of a volun- tary agency, is free not to use the experience that is Offered to develOp more responsibility. If the probationer does begin to make constructive choices for himself within the limitations Of the probationary experience, then the help that is available can unfold. Both in order to guide the youth into a helping relation- ship and out Of respect for his right tO refuse it, the probation Officer should never attempt to force or intimidate his client into complying with the terms of his probation.23 Throughout the readings, there is repeated acknowledgement of the need for the social worker tO use his authority wisely; they affirm the need for Opportunities to be provided for the child which are within his present level Of skills and knowledge. If children are not ready for assuming such Opportunities with responsibility, a poten— tially disasterous situation exists. Elizabeth Ferguson captured the dilemma which comes as social workers attempt to maintain this delicate balance between the use Of their authority - ip_1oco parentis and their need tO respect the self-determining behavior of their student clients. 22Harry Finkelstein, "Containment of Acting-Out Adolescent in an Open Institution," Social Casework XLII (March 1961), 138. 23William Lquuist, "The Framework and Experience Of Juvenile Probation," Social Casework 48 (January 1967), 18. 4...!” I. a .u a Jul-i J. . .3. 281 Caught between the highly vocal demands Of students for freedom in every aspect Of life, and their responsibilities ip_loco parentis colleges have Often sidestepped the issues. In an effort tO en- courage responsibility among students, colleges have Often thrown tOO much of a burden on students unprepared tO make reasoned deci— sions. Many observers feel that firmer limit—setting by colleges would be greeted with relief by students troubled by tOO many de— mands. Farnsworth comments that the setting Of some limits not only helps the student to make mature decisions but may reassure him by making it evident that someone cares what happens to him. The . . . primary responsibility is the develOpment of the whole personality of the student, and the provision of opportunities for fostering maturity in personal and social as well as intellec- tual aspects of that personality. Parents tOO, are recognized as needing to have their rights recognized in the therapeutic process. They are part of the helping team, partners in the treatment efforts with the professional team, with much to contribute. At the onset Of the casework process the social worker let the parents know that he regarded them as adults, capable of working out their own problems and able to help their children, partic- ularly the middle boy who was in treatment. The rationale here is, of course, that in order to become effective parents the clients at least have to approach an adult status. It was a unique experience for this man and woman to have an 'authorita- tive' person regard them as worthy Of respect. The caseworker and clients learned to know and trust each other.25 He (the social worker) helps them recognize their own feelings and examine their own rationale, and also the feelings and rationale of their child. Recognition Of the child's feelings and some kind Of communication Of this understanding to the child are, Of course, basic to all effective fathering and mothering, but this achieve- ment is an especially difficult one for these parents . . . . Gradually, the parents begin to make their own decisions. They approach another goal when they discover that they are more cer— tain Of making effective decisions regarding their children. They will have learned a method; more than that, they will have 24Elizabeth Ferguson, "Changes in Values," Social Work Prac— tice, 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 71. 25Thomas Litherland and Imogene Smith, "The Dilemma Of Self— Identity Of Parents of Psychotic Children," Social WOrk Practice, 1962 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 103-104. 282 experienced their children as separate selves and can see them- selves as effective parents. As was Observed in the decade Of the fifties, the right of self-determination, within the bounds Of reality, is extended to the mentally retarded, the brain damaged and the emotionally dis- turbed child and adult. The presence of such a handicap, in and Of itself, is not a reaSon for withholding from the handicapped this basic right. At times, families have difficulty in accepting this and the social worker needs to assist them in understanding the rationale of this position. Demands upon the child should be reduced to the level of his maturity, with full recognition of his emotional immaturity. This child, like any other, needs to be proud Of something and tO feel that he pleases others. Finding areas where the child can accomplish and cultivate these can be helpful. Of course, he needs love too.27 From the standpoint of everyone concerned, there was a prepon- derance of Opinion that including retarded children as members on an equal basis in all activities was a good idea and should be continued. . . . Interactive demands during the life of all types Of groups include participation with single individuals, with several members and with the whole group. A member must be able to conform minimally to community norms and agency rules, but there can be much lati- tude. Nevertheless, there are limits to the amount of impul— sivity and immaturity that can be tolerated. Participation is valued and isolation causes much leader concern. The fact that both individual and group achievement is expected and recognized places constant demands upon the retarded child. A.member must also be able to show enthusiasm and liking for the peOple and the activities and to control his need to complain, tease, and criticize.28 251bid., 107. 27Ray Creager, M.D., "Diagnosis and Treatment Of the Brain- Damaged Child," Social WOrk Practice, 1963 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity, 1963), 66. 28Muriel Pumphrey, Mortimer Goodman and Norman Flax, "Integrat- ing Individuals with Impaired Adaptive Behavior in a Group Work Agency," Social WOrk Practice, 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 159-160. 283 Families found it difficult to realize that the mentally ill per- son had certain rights and capacities as well as weaknesses.2 SO it would appear that the writers continued to reaffirm this basic need and right of children, whether handicapped by retardation, brain damage or emotional problems or not, the right Of self-determina- tion, a crucial right Of children and their parents. With Groups As the use of the group method continued to be viewed as one of the major methods of social work, theorists and practitioners alike stressed the need to respect the right of the client to self- determination. Regardless of the focus of the group, (educational or therapeutic), or the client population served (the welfare recip- ient, the middle class client, the post—hOSpitalized psychiatric patient), client self-determination was seen as essential to the success of the group process. Each group had to identify common problems and develop corporate, satisfying ways Of cOping with the group situation. . . . Indeed, many public assistance groups have come together through testing the validity of the worker's insistence that the service is not compulsory. When it was found that there really was a choice, then the choice for the service, to be a part Of the group, became real also and the impetus for movement in making use Of the service. There is need for both the individual goals Of the treatment group and the social develOpment goals implicit in the experience a group has in being helped to develOp a group life peculiar to itself. 29Joseph Toll, "The State Hospital as a Consultant to the Community," Community Organization, 1961 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1961), 180. 3oLouise Shoemaker, "Group Work in Public Welfare," Social Work Practice, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 133. 31Ibid., 135. 284 As members are encouraged to understand, to challenge, and to question, their view of the various tasks Of parenthood is en— larged. During any series of sessions, at least some of the members begin tO say that they 'see' what was formerly hidden to them. They also begin to test their own ideas against the ideas Of Others and to test new-found information and under— standing in their daily living. Many parents say that their im- proved understanding Of themselves gives them increased sureness as parents, a greater sense Of adequacy, and purposeful direction in their parental roles. Group support, increased perSpective and reality orientation, im- proved understanding Of child develOpment and family interaction, and a broader knowledge Of alternative ways of dealing with family situations are all important to the process, which is aimed at freeing parents to make greater use of their capacity for healthy parental functioning.33 In working with groups, the social worker is reminded that he is responsible for creating the environment in which the client is helped to utilize his capacities and potentialities for self-deter— mination. Here again is the struggle between the restrained balance Of authoritative activity and the encouragement Of the client's self-determination. It is important for him (the social worker) to establish a per- missive atmosphere so that the members of the group feel free to determine the direction Of the discussion. At the same time he must take responsibility for steering the discussion to tOpics of general interest and Of general value to the group.34 Thus the give-and-take Of group life can deeply affect one's atti- tude toward oneself and toward others. It leads to an increased capacity for Objective judgment, increased self-control, clearer perspectives on one's own needs, greater acceptance and under- standing Of the situation in which one finds oneself, more effec- tive use Of the services being Offered, more social responsibility 32Maxine Craw,"Preventive Intervention Through Parent Group Education," Social Casework, 48 (March 1967), 163. 33Ibid., 135. 34Irene G. Flint, "The Application of Casework Principles in Family Life Education," Social Casework XLII (April 1961), 136. 285 and finally, pre aration for more effective living in the larger society. As the workers became aware of the vitality of a social system which they had not expected to find, they were required to fit their initial expectations to the goals of the tenant group. Tenant leaders seemed to teach workers to do this and to protect them as they learned, a process which became mutual as the workers became more comfortable. 5 The workers sought to find that delicate balance point between protecting and enabling, between focusing on the pathology or on the strengths, between expecting or encouraging too little or tOO much behavioral change.37 Vinik provides a lengthy description Of the worker's role with the group. He portrays the group worker as using the relationship "to give acceptance and support, to help clarify goals and means for their realization, and to help develOp responsibility and individual self- determination."38 Group growth is the focus Of the enabling function of the group worker. It is attained only as the group is free to act upon its stated or implied purposes. . . . The group is not a tool. . . . It has a right to its own purposes and may expect help from the worker in seeking to realize its own purposes and work out its own problems. . . . The worker does not direct group growth, but rather provides Opportunities for the group to determine its own direction for growth.39 35Emanuel Tropp, "The Group: In Life and in Social Work," Social Casework XLIX (May 1968), 270. 36Jean Shapiro, "Group Work With Urban Rejects in a Slum Hotel," Social Work Practice, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 155. 37Ibid., 157. 38Abe Vinik, "Role of the Group Service Agency," Social Work 9 (July 1964), 103. 39Ibid. 286 Within Other Client Situations One finds in a number Of other client groups or agency situa— tions, the continuing endeavor Of the professional to put the principle of client self-determination into Operation. Parad who furthered the method of crisis intervention referred to the need Of the worker to "communicate confidence in the client's ability to deal with the problem." As he does so, Parad continued, the client is Offered hOpe for the alleviation of the stress impact. "Thus the client receives enough ego support to engage in constructive efforts on his own behalf."40 In another reference to the role of the social worker in crisis intervention, Mayo and True emphasized the need for the worker to focus upon the strengths of the client rather than to focus upon the negative aspects Of the crisis. . . . (by) looking for the strengths, or just one strength, the client will leave the Office with a greater confidence in his ability to cope with his life situation, even if it is not greatly modified. Adapting such an approach may well make the difference between discontinuance and ongoing counseling. Another client pOpulation for whom the principle of self— determination required reconsideration was the alcoholic client. Alcoholics were seen as a patient pOpulation who had diminished self— respect and self-confidence and who Often were depreciative of their 0Howard J. Parad, "Preventive Casework: Problems and Implica- tions," Crisis Intervention: Selected Readings, ed. Howard J. Parad 41Claire Mayo and Susanne True, "Turning Negatives into Posi- tives in Treatment," Social Casework XLVIII (February 1967), 97. 287 own capabilities. Restorative treatment with the worker helped him to regain a measure Of self-acceptance and self—respect and served to "increase his confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and assume more responsibility for himself and Others."42 A treatment program for alcoholics instituted at Patton State Hospital in California was described as being based upon these basic concepts, the first Of which is the principle of self-determination: (1) increasing the patient's responsibility for his own treatment and for setting limits and controls, (2) solving problems in interpersonal relationships through identification with a social group; (3) enhancing the communication of ideas and feelings be- tween staff and patient; and (4) reducing the custodial aspects Of hospitalization for the purpose of stimulating social improvement. Limitations were acknowledged to be in existence, but were re- lated either to those due to the hospital structure or to the limits of reality, that is to the client's capabilities and strengths which could be built upon by the worker and hospital staff.44 Another effort Of the profession which had been identified ' or "reaching-out" in the fifties as the assertive, "aggressive,' type of social work continued to be used. This approach focused upon the client's latent motivations, to increase his awareness of resources available to him. As Ruth Chaskel commented, the assertive or aggres- sive approach did not always need to be used, but that in fact, there were situations in which it was both "appropriate" and "proper." The worker's skill is expended towards the engagement of the client and 42Frances Horn, "Emerging Role of a Social WOrker with Hos— pitalized Alcoholics," Social Casework XLII (March 1961), 118. 43mm. 44Ibid., 120. 288 towards enabling him to "do something" about his troublesome problem. Self-Determination and the Role Theory Model One of the newer models of social work theory which con— tinued to be expanded, was the model based upon social role theory. Primarily through the insightful writings Of Helen Harris Perlman the incorporation Of social role theory occurred. In a number Of articles and in her book, Persona: Social Role and Personalityfieshe defined social role as: Social roles mark out what a person in a given social position and situation is expected to be, to act like, and to feel like and what the other(s) in relation to him are expected to be, to act like, and to feel like.47 Role theory, for utility in social work practice, was based upon a number of assumptions. 1) Role implies that certain activities and behaviors are required of any given status. 2) Role implies interaction Of the individual with Others: indi— vidual to individual, individual and group, and individual‘ and community. 3) Role implies that there are "social expectations" and social norms which serve as guides in regulating the interaction. 45Ruth Chaskel, "Assertive Casework in a Short—term Situation," Casework Papers, 1961 (New York: F.S.A.A., 1961), 120. 46Helen Perlman, Persona: Social Role and Personality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). 47Helen Perlman, "The 'Social' in Social Casework," Social Service Review, XXXV (December 1961), 374. 289 4) Role is the interactional product of both the personality structure and processes Of the individual on the one hand and the effect of groups structure and processes on the other. 5) Social functioning is expressed through the performance of social roles. 6) Role implies that the values or statements are injected in the interactional process.48 Based upon these factors, then, the task of the social worker is established. In the several statements pertaining to the social worker's role and responsibilities, one finds the principle of client self-determination continuing to serve as one Of the major keystones of the social role model for Perlman's position is quite clear: The caseworker will need first to learn from the client what his ideas of the role norms are (as well as what he has invested in them emotionally). He will need to match those conceptions of norms against the range Of what is given acceptance or sanction in the community. He may need to help his client come to accept different norms, or to help his clients, two or more, develop compromises among their standrads for themselves and for one another. But, except in instances of legal violation, the casework- er surely will not plant his feet at one spot in the continuum of of behavior and say to the client, "There is only this way to act as a mother, or wife, or child." Nor, hopefully, would he com- mit the Opposite folly and say in effect, "Since nobody has codi— fied exactly what a mother should or should not be and do (heaven help us if this were to happen), I will help you," - tO do or tO be what? to overcome discomfort in relation to what? Therefore, treatment Of a problem of role conflict or role viola- tion requires that the caseworker start where the client is - with the client's own definitions Of what his role required of 48Ibid., 376-377; Paul Glasser, "Social Role, Personality and Group Work," Social WOrk Practice, 1962 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 63-65. 49 Perlman, "The 'Social' in Social Casework," 377. 290 him and ought to provide for him, then with the "other's" ideas of his expectations Of himself and his "partner" in terms of giving and getting. . . . The caseworker who starts from what his client sees and wants, and who works to bring that client into more harmonious relationship with what others require or expect, will not readily "impose" his values, "middle-class" or other. The essential point, however, is that the carrying of one or more vital roles at any stage of living is intimately related to our sense of self, to our sense of who and what we are. If this is true, it follows that one of the crucial ways by which caseworkers can help peOple to find themselves, to enhance their sense of identity, to increase their feelings Of self-worth and purpose, is to help them to undertake and to carry some essential social role with adequacy and gratification.51 What is important is that the caseworker attend to his client's conscious discomforts and hOpes, to what his client thinks or feels he wants, to what his client has tried or has thought to do about the problem for which he is needing help, to what the client wants and sees of the agency in its relation to his problem, and then to the unity or conflict between the conscious striving and stated goal and the unconscious motivations that make themselves known through the client's behavior.52 The possible values in this added dimension in our diagnostic thinking are these: the person, our client is from the first seen as his own potential problemrsolver. (Actually this must be the essential meaning Of the concept of "participation"). Case- work will be seen as the effort tO help him to carry this responsibility.53 Glasser's position regarding self-determination parallels Perlman's as he states the purpose of the social worker's role to be: Further, he wants the client to see himself, his strengths and limitations, with greater reality so that he can maximize his strengths, minimize his limitations and, in general, function better in interpersonal situations.5 5°1b1d., 378. 51Perlman, "Identity, Role, and Casework," Social Work Prac- tice, 1963 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 182. 52Perlman, "What is Social Diagnosis?" Social Service Review xxxv1 (March 1962), 20-21. 531229;, 24. 54Glasser, "Social Role," 70. 291 With the incorporation Of the role model, the role of the social worker also needed to be assessed, especially since the worker was a part of the interactional process with the client. Stream stressed the need Of the worker to be accepting of the client including his resistances, his dependency and his aggression.55 He pointed out that he believed one of the contributing factors in the premature closing of cases, was due to a lack Of acceptance of the client by the worker. A "good" client is expected to assume this "role set" and any deviation from these roles (involving himself in the relationship, keeping appointments, focusing on his feelings, etc.) is con- sidered a resistance to casework help. . . . If the caseworker is truly to 'accept' his client, he must accept him with his defenses, with his wish not to use help, and with his desire to talk about everybody but himself. A genuinely accepting role implies going along with the client's projections and denials, respecting his right to arrive late for an appoint- ment, listening to his advice and counsel, his diagnostic assess- ment of the worker's defects and so on.56 This acceptance Of the client "as he is and where he is" is based upon the respect due to him as a person Of innate dignity and worth. It requires the worker to engage in a sincere confrontation Of his own feelings about the client rather than to retreat behind a professional shield Of "non-judgmental" attitude. Responsible thera- peutic behavior in this model requires this Openness since the worker serves as one Of the role models available to the client. This re— focuses the concept of mutuality necessary for this relationship to be beneficial for the client.57 55Herbert S. Stream, "Role Theory," Social WOrk 12 (April 1967), 81-82. 561bid., 83.. 57Ibid., 84-85. . - 343354 Y Q . 292 Schwartz restated these tasks for the worker as: l. The task of searching out the common ground between the client's perception of his own need and the aspects of social demand with which he is faced. 2. The task of detecting and challenging the obstacles which obscure the common ground and frustrate the efforts of peOple to identify their own self-interest with that of their 'significant others.' 3. The task of contributing data — ideas, facts, value concepts - which are not available to the client and which may prove useful to him in the attempting to cOpe with that part of social reality which is involved in the problems on which he is working. 4. The task of 'lending a vision' to the client, in which the worker both reveals himself as one whose own hOpes and aspira- tions are strongly invested in the interaction between peOple and society and projects a deep feeling for that which repre- sents individual well-being and the social good. 5. The task of defining the requirements and the limits of the situation in which the clientwworker system is set. These rules and boundaries establish the context for the "working contract" which binds the client and the agency to each other and which creates the conditions under which both client and worker assume their respective functions.58 As both Glasser and Schwartz have indicated, their perception of the role of the social worker is one of heightened activity, or better, of interaction wi£h_the client. Schwartz commented that the worker's reaponsibility is for participation, not withholding either himself or information from the client. He acknowledged that in the past, this attitude was held on the grounds that the client needed to find his own way - to choose in relationship to the exercise of his sovereignty, his freedom of choice. Schwartz suggested that this position might not reflect as much concern for the welfare of the client but instead a reflection of the worker's own feelings of inadequacy. 58William Schwartz, "The Social Worker in the Group," The Social welfare Forum: 1961 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 157-1580 293 Thus, nothing can be more destructive to the worker's function than his decision to withhold knowledge on the sole grounds that the member must make his own way. Such withholding is inevitably interpreted by the individual as deprivation, hence rejection; and the result is generally the very Opposite of what the worker in- tends. It is common, for example, to find situations where the group members spend a major part of their energies in straining to find answers which lie hidden in the worker's questions; in this game of educational hide-and-seek, dependency increases as furstration mounts and as the members learn to search for hidden answers rather than to explore the nature of the problem itself.59 Perlman returned to the more positive nature of the clientdworker re— lationship, as she noted that the focus is on the client and his feelings, his thoughts, his aims and his goals. This, again, is a recognizable restatement of the philOSOphy of client self-determination. But, as always, the caseworker's first movement is to help his client define what he feels and sees as his role problem, to help him express and lay out between them its conflicts and areas of uncertainty, to help him to say what he wants to do or be better or with less conflict. When his aims and goals are within what is 'allowed' by society, then casework help is to enable him to choose the actions and use the Opportunity that will give him a greater sense of certainty and satisfaction in his role performance. I have suggested that in carrying a socially valued role a person does something and therefore is something. The conscious sense of being something is most real when a person uses himself - his energies, his emotions, his skills - in carrying some work or tasks that he and others feel are important. His sense of self expands when, as in the casework interview, he is accepted and affirmed, and then supported as he learns to perceive and modify his feelings and actions. His sense Of worth is bulwarked as the caseworker, a person he has become attached to, a representa- tive Of society, supports the importance and value of the role he works on, and his efforts. His sense of aim and of future is sus- tained as the caseworker keeps before him his realistic goals. His rewards modify his behavior, lie in his sense of mastery when he succeeds, in the casework's unflagging encouragement when he fails, and in the responses and recognition he gets from other persons who are involved with him. This last is of great moment, 59181d., 164—165. 60Perlman, "What is Social Diagnosis?", 29-30. 294 for the testing ground for selfhood and self—worth is the reflec- tion of self we see in the eyes of the peOple who are part of our everyday life. The eyes of the caSeworker are important mirrors; even more important are the eyes of the peOple with whom we live, from whom we want love or recognition, who affirm both our person and our value. 1 Self-Determination and the Behavioral Model The second major theoretical approach to be developed during the decade and applied in the field of social work was the behavioral model. Thomas. The theorist most articulate in this area has been Edwin J. It is his articles which have appeared in the journals and in the Engyclopedia pf Social Work.62 In addition he prepared mater- ials for the Council on Social Work Education and has presented this model before the Social Welfare Forum. Using the framework suggested by Thomas, the behavioral assumptions which are "common to all behavior modification techniques" include: 1) 2) 3) 4) Behavioral approaches emphasize the learned aspects of behavior. There is a focus upon observable responses. Treatment consists of achieving behavioral maintenance or modification. The Objectives of behavioral intervention are the acquisition, strengthening, maintenance, weakening or elimination of behavior. 61Perlman, "Identity, Role and Casework," 193. 62Edwin J. Thomas, "The Behavioral Modification Approach," Encyclopedia pf Social Work, 16th ed. (New York: N.A.S.W., 1971), 1226. 295 5) Strong emphasis is given to the role that may be played by contemporary sustaining conditions.63 The behavioral method is based upon an assessment of the be- haviors which "define the problem for the client."64 During the assess- ment phase, the client's behavior is Observed as well as the anteced- ents to and the consequences of the disturbing behavior. 0n the basis of the assessment, a behavioral modification program is develOped either through the use of Operant-related techniques. The Operant techniques are those which focus upon its consequences, behavior which is "voluntary" and "governed by its consequences." The six Operant techniques identified are positive reinforcement, extinction, differ— ential reinforcement, response-shaping, negative reinforcement and punishment. There has been much concern expressed about the use of Operant conditioning techniques, especially with reference to the use of pun- ishment. As Thomas pointed out, punishment though utilized by profes- sional social workers, has frequently been disguised under the "cloak of euphemistic labels,' such as "worker's expression of disapproval," "the withdrawal of privileges," "the limit setting behaviors," and the "use of authority."66 There are various forms of punishment including punishment which is part Of the purposefully directed behavior Of the 63Ibid., 1226-1227; also see Thomas. "Sociobehavioral APPr°39h3' Encyclopedia pf Social Work, 16th ed. (New York: N.A.S.W., 1971), 1226. 6"Thomas, "The Behavioral Modification Approach," 1228. 65Thomas, "Sociobehavioral Approach," 15. 66Ibid., 22-23. 296 social worker, based upon his study and diagnosis and his participa- tion in the mutual process of goal delineation by client and worker together. Related to this discussion are other charges which have been levied against the use of the behavioral model on the grounds that it 13 "manipulative," "IObOtism," "atomistic" and "unethical."67 TO deny that social group workers attempt to influence and manip- ulate the group process and the collective minds of the members is to delimit the range of therapeutic possibilities Open to the worker. To call this process something other than the practical application of the behavioral theory, including reinforcement theory, is to eliminate applicable knowledge that is sapecially significant to the practice of group work. Leonard Krasner suggests that it is the reaponsibility of the helping person to accept his role as an influencing person who effects change.68 Since these charges are related to the use of authority as based upon one's level of professional knowledge and skill, and are intrinsically related to the philosOphy of the client's freedom of choice, it serves us well to briefly consider the nature of such charges. Robotism This is the portrayal Of the behaviorally oriented therapist, the person who advocates the application of learning theory to treat- ment of the individual or who insists on systematically applying psychological science to societal problems, as one who is cold, impersonal, and mechanical in his approach, as a destroyer of freedom, an enemy of love, a little un-American, and ultimately a menace to society. The picture is of a mechanical robot who advocates the control and manipulation of behavior as a good think in itself. . . . Eugene Aronowitz and Denise weinberg, "Reinforcement Theory in Social Group Work," Social Service Review 40 (December 1966), 390— 393. 681bid., 39o. 297 Herein probably lies the heart Of the difference of view. What (Rollo) May says a behaviorist is advocating, the behaviorist argues actually exists, namely that psychotherapy is an influence process. To deny it is to hide from one's real responsibilities. It is neither good nor bad, it is the therapy process.69 Thomas, Murrow, and Gochras concur that such a charge is based either on a lack of understanding of the behavioral model or a misin- terpretation of the language. The behavioral approach is all the "therapies" which are concerned with bringing about behavioral change. The client comes or is brought to the worker because his behavior is disturbing someone. The behavior model is based upon the interactional process and draws upon the respect for the innate dignity and worth of the client and except in extreme instances, requires the cooperation of the client.70 Atomistic This charge claims the behavioral approach is too limited, focusing on only a single stimuli and response, instead of dealing with the whole person in his total environment.71 The response here notes once again the difficulty of semantics and their misconception. The focus upon a single stimuli parallels a technique which the profession has used widely in the past, that of partialization of the problem to be worked on. Each part — or symptom 59181d., 390-391. 70Thomas, "Sociobehavioral Approach," 22-24; William Murrow and Harvey L. Gochras, "Misconceptions Regarding Behavior Modificationsf Social Service Review 44 (September 1970), 300. 71Murrow and Gochras, "Misconceptions," 300. 298 - or stimuli - is not an isolated event but is interrelated with the totality of the individual's behavior and it is also highly individ— ualized as Murrow and Gochras pointed out: A striking feature of the behavior modification approach is its emphasis on careful individualizing of details in dealing with specific client problems. Such individualizing includes the following: pinpointing precisely each class of problematic be— havior or behavior-deficit Of the particular individual; planning individualized procedures for keeping Objective records of the behavior to be modified; identifying suitable consequences custom- tailored to the particular individual; planning practical contin- gency arrangements, in the light of the individual's particular life situation, whereby suitable consequences may be delivered contingent on chosen target behaviors; planning individualized programs for shaping desired behavior in successive steps (when that behavior is not initially in the individual's repertoire); and so on. Individualizing is also involved in selecting and adapting from the wide variety of behavior-modification tech- niques available, a particular technique or combination of techniques suited to the individual case.72 Manipulation Concern has been expressed that the behavior modification approach may be uniquely manipulative, antithetical to client self-deter- mination, hence ethically questionable. Thus Hollis asserts that if "the current Operant-conditioning approach" is given a central theoretical position . . . it means the abandonment of our pres- ently highly valued principle of giving priority to enhancing the client's control over his own treatment. 3 Thomas noted any new viewpoint or theory as part Of the process Of establishing itself, must answer the charges of being unethical. His response is that all knowledge possesses the potential of being used for good or evil, that the ethical questions relate to the pur— pose as intended by the worker, the goals of the client and the manner of application. 721bid. 731bid., 301. 299 Knowledge itself is ethically neutral and values become engaged only when knowledge is used. . . . The method of change requires for its implementation a well-trained, ethical, intelligent and sensitive helper. The qualities in practitioners valued in current social work practice will not become outmoded by this new orienta- tion since similar skills are needed for both approaches.74 Murrow and Gochas also referred to current social work practices and especially the behavior of the social worker to illustrate that "protestations to the contrary," there is a "pervasive use Of social influence and indoctrination." But there is growing evidence that a therapist of any persuasion, wittingly, or unwittingly, shapes the behavior of the client in interviews by differential reinforcement of selected kinds of client behavior. The worker does this by differential attention, interest, and friendliness, as well as by direct approval of selected client behaviors and by ignoring or conveying disapproval of other behaviors.75 Bruck, in his critical review of behavior modification countered this position by Observing that it was the "active orientation" of the behaviorists which "leads him to exercise much greater influence and control over the conduct of the treatment . . . than does the more non-directive, traditional practitioner."76 Mbrrow and Gochras, in turn, acknowledge the role of the behavior therapist to be most active but also one which more adequately implements the "therapist-client" partnership. The behavior therapist assumes full responsibility for guiding the process. The behavioral modification approach, moreover, enables him to implement with more than usual explicitness and specificity such traditional social work values as therapist—client 74Thomas, "Sociobehavioral Approach," 25-26. 5Murrow and Gochras, "Misconceptions," 301—302. 76Max Bruck, "Behavior Modification," Social WOrk 13 (April 1968), 45. 300 collaboration in a problem-solving process, developing an Opera- tional treatment contract concerned with those problems for which the voluntary client explicitly requests help (though the contract is not necessarily limited to his initially stated complaints), and meaningful client self-determination. The behavior therapist does not belittle the importance of the client's complaints by viewing them as mere symptoms Of a hypothetical underlying disorder. Bruck also expressed concern that the worker: . . tends to select in advance the specific changes in behavior he wishes to make, to impose on the client the details of the treatment procedure he selected and to be indifferent to the client's random intrOSpective comments as the history of his unde- sirable behavior. The behaviorest defines his success according to whether he has effected the alteration in behavior that he tried to achieve.78 Again, Murrow and Gochras respond to this charge on the basis of the contractual relationship which exists between client and worker. Self-determination is a critical feature of this relationship. With choice comes responsibility and Obligations on both sides of the clientdworker contract. Each has surrendered a part of himself in the choice to continue on together in the therapeutic relationship. If the client participates voluntarily with full knowledge of the procedures to be followed, their rationale, and their poten- tial for ending his long-continued difficulty by undergoing temporary pain, such methods seem quite as ethical as the use of surgery to relieve an otherwise incurable body disorder. Typically, the deviant behavior has severely handicapped the individual, has prevented further learning, and has sometimes made the difference between institutionalization and living in the community. If a carefully controlled aversive technique can eliminate severely disruptive, handicapping behavior when other procedures have proved ineffectual, it seems unethical not to use the aversive technique.79 7Murrow and Gochras, "Misconceptions," 302. 78Bruck, "Behavior Modification," 45. 79Murrow and Gochras, "Misconceptions," 302-303. 301 Bandura, in speaking on this same issue, reflected that all behavior is controlled and that the issue is not one of imposing controls where none were in existenCe before but rather: The process of behavior change . . . involves substituting new controlling conditions for those that have regulated a person's behavior. The basic moral question is not whether a man's behav- ior will be conBrOlled, but rather by whom, by what means and for what ends.8 A person is considered free insofar as he can partly influence future events by managing his own behavior. . . . The self- control process begins by informing individuals of the types of behaviors they will have to practice to produce desired outcomes, or ways in which they can institute stimuli to increase the occur- ence of requisite performances, and of how they can arrange self— reinforcing consequences to sustain them. Behavioral change pro— cedures that involve role enactment also depend upon the self- determination Of outcomes through clients' regulation of their own behavior and the environmental contingencies that reciprocally influence it. Contrary to common belief, behavioral approaches not only can support a humanistic morality, but because of their relative effectiveness in establishing self—determination these methods hold much greater promise than traditional procedures for enhancement of behavioral freedom and fulfillment of human capabilities.81 Accepting Bandura's vieWpoint as being biased, for our pur— poses it is clear that he sees self-determination as a vital part of the philosOphical rationale of the behaviorist. As to the utility of the method itself, Thomas Observed that it is too soon to see how well the behavioral techniques are being received and used by practi— tioners.82 Bruck also pointed out that behavioral, cognitive, and psychodynamic theory "may be various orientations or foci which are 80Albert Bandura, Principles pf Behavior Modification (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), 85. 811bid., 88. 82 Thomas, "The Behavioral Approach," 1235. 302 interlocked in the person." Man is "a sufficiently complicated being (that) no one theory of personality and treatment is adequately com— prehensive."8 The Changing Role of the Worker We close this discussion dealing with the individual client and his situation with some comments which pertain to the role of the worker. First, in the literature of this decade there is continued recognition of the need for the worker to respect and facilitate the client's use of his right to self-determination. As Scherz pointed out: The caseworker's task is to help people learn how to go about dealing with stresses; the client is responsible for doing the work and for applying what he has learned. A few peOple need to have things done for them, but the majority Of those who come to an agency can use a treatment process toward an objective, that stimulates and mobilizes them to achieve growth develOpment through their own efforts.8 Second, the worker is seen as an active agent in a contract relationship with the client, a contract which has mutual rights and responsibilities upon both parties. For the worker, his responsibili— ties include helping the client tO identify the goals for the treat— ment relationship and to share his professional experience with the client rather than to impose his opinion upon the client, a choice likely to be rejected anyway. Caseworkers have resistance to telling a client what he should do. 83Bruck, "Behavior Modification," 55. 4Frances Scherz, "An Appraisal of Treatment Objectives in Casework Practice," Social Work Practice, 1962 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 173. 303 It should be remembered, however, that they cannot impose their views even if they wanted to; in the end the client has to agree. But the client should know clearly what he is asked to agree to. Such agreement is more realistic than theseeming non-directive— ness of treatment with an undeclared goal, and certainly more effective than true non-directive treatment which has no goals.85 The important element in our technique is that client and worker arrived Openly at an agreement to work together toward an under- standing Of the client's problem. The time—limited contract dispels the client's fear of becoming helpless. Since the clients who tend to drop out-are particularly fearful of losing control. They are more likely to respond positively to an offer that provides for future negotiations. It is essential to outline the agreement in clear, eXplicit terms. Caseworkers know there is often a wide gap between their statement about the purpose of the help they offer and the client's understanding of the statement they have made. Third, implicit in the contract is the participation of the client as a self—determining individual, from the beginning Of the assessment process to the end of the period of treatment. The right to terminate is as much a part of the contract as self-determination is, and is Open to both parties. This emphasis on contract has a rationale in practice theories which stems from.both ethical and practical considerations. From an ethical point Of view, the idea Of contract has roots in social work's commitments to the self-determination of the client so that the client is not manipulated toward ends he does not seek through means he does not accept. Empirical evidence, on the other hand, has related the existence of the contract both to the likelihood that the goals sought will be reached and to the like- lihood that the individual will remain for service.87 This period gives the client an opportunity to assess both the 85Otto Pollack and Donald Brieland. "Family D138n°31san Social Casework XLII (July 1961), 324. 86Ralph Garcea and Olive Irwin, "A Family Agency Deals With the Problems of DrOpouts," Social Casework XLII (February 1962), 74. 87Charles Garvin, "Complementarity of Role Expectations in Groups: The Member—Worker Contract," Social WOrk-Practice, 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 128. 304 ability of the agency to help him and his own ability to use the agency. At the end of this period he and the caseworker evaluate the results. The client can then decide whether he wishes to con— tinue in treatment or to withdraw his request for service. The worker also reserves the right to terminate service at the end of this trial period.88 Fourth, the responsibility of the worker includes an educa— tional role wherein the worker seeks to extend the client's fund of information so that the client can make decisions which are more knowledgeable. What the person consciously wants and what he consciously wishes to do about it are, of course, important. In many cases, however, he cannot know the full import of his wants and needs until he is helped to understand both the explicit and the implicit meaning of his problem; that is, until he is helped to define the problem in such a way that he kgows what it is and what measures must be undertaken to meet it.8 Or as seen in the matter Of family planning, Naomi Gray noted: Our motivation should be a positive one, based on the credo that it is the human right of each individual, whether rich or poor, to decide these matters. The practice of birth control is the result of a voluntary decision of the individual, but no one can make the decision freely unless he or she has both knowledge and genuine access to birth control instruction and services.9 Fifth, the worker's role also carries within it a degree of authority which varies in accordance with the agency setting, the type Of client population being served and/or the needs of the client. The use Of the worker's authority is related to the diagnostic assessment and to the treatment goals as well. By definition, the correctional worker's reSponsibilities include 88Garcea and Irwin, "A Family Agency," 71. 89Scherz, "An Appraisal," 159. 90Naomi Gray, "Family Planning and Social Welfare's Respon- sibility," Social Casework 49 (October 1968), 493. 305 a legal reSponsibility to carry out a control plan. In a sense, since practice may be concerned with people who deviate from social norms, social work may be viewed as an instrument of social control on the basis of the function it performs.‘ But the stress on the control element in correctional social work distorts it and gives it the appearance of a caricature of social work practice. If the correctional social worker's role is that of "the controller," the offender's role becomes that of the "controlled." The control responsibilities exist, regardless of whether the worker is exercising surveillance and doing routine checking, is attempting to use the control elements constructively to enable an Offender to COpe more effectively with his impulsivity, or is trying to create a therapeutic, accepting community for the offender to enter. The duties of "controller" place him in the active role and the offender, therefore, in the compliant, recipient role.91 All social roles, including that of the Offender, carry with them rights and privileges as well as duties and responsibilities. In correctional services rights and privileges are seldom recognized and the emphasis remains on rules and responsibilities. If the model of the offender is to be altered, more thought must be given to rights and privileges. Within the structure, Opportunities must be Opened to permit and encourage the making of decisions and serious choices between alterggtives, and examination of the consequences of such choices. The client with a character disorder, however, brings to the case- work process a personality structure which requires binding in- stead of liberation, the creation of a measure of guilt and anxiety rather than emotional release from such conditions, restriction Of behavior in place of maladaptive Spontaneity. To the caseworker who considers these treatment goals it must look therefore as if he were about to take from the client something, which he, the worker, has achieved at the price of great effort and emotional investment. People who have become liberated find themselves in a position in which they are to set up limitations for the client and in which they have to help the client toward an internalization of limitations.93 91Irving weisman, "Offender Status, Role Behavior, and Treat- ment Considerations," Social Casework 48 (July 1967), 423. 92Irving weisman, "Methodological Approaches to Social WOrk Practice," Trends ip Social WOrk Practice and Knowledgg, NASW 10th Anniversary Symposium, National Association of Social Workers (New York: N.A.S.W., 1966), 129. 93Otto Pollack, "Treatment of Character Disorders: A Dilemma," Social Casework XLIV (May 1963), 271. 306 Sixth, the worker at times needs to be more aggressive in reaching out to the client who otherwise might not avail himself of the service. This "aggressiveness"does not have to be damaging to the client but can be a positive, constructive tool, depending a great deal upon how the social worker approaches the situation. It has been aptly stated that reaching out is neither a physical act nor a technique. It is rather a frame of mind, a psychological readiness, a determination of the social worker to find a way to help the client whether the means if physical, psychological, social, or some combination. What does reaching out involve for the caseworker and the group worker? It means that they must discover creative ways of making the help they offer tangible, concrete, and meaningful to clients. As workers demonstrate their concern in tangible ways, rather than in words alone, they will have less need to promise help. Obviously, however, there are families for whom the traditional interview is a valuable therapeutic technique. NO matter what the worker's technique, he must select it on the basis of sound diagnostic understanding of why it is apprOpriate, not on the basis of whim alone. The tech- nique of reaching out, then, should take its place as one Of a range of professional techniques that may improve the effective— ness of social work practice. Finally, the social worker presents himself as a model in which is found that blend of knowledge and skills and professional values which is called integrity. How he fulfills his role and his reaponsibilities reflects both upon himself and the profession he represents. As Boehm observed: The social worker reveals his caliber as a professional person in the way he performs his professional functions. To put it differently, his skill is the measure of his professional worth. His skill is guided in part by the knowledge about the problems which he has drawn from a variety of sources, notably the wisdom accumulated through practice and appropriate theory borrowed from 94Carol H. Meyer, "Individualizing the Multi-Problem Family," Social Casework XLIV (May 1963), 271. 307 the sciences. In addition, his skill also reflects the values Of his profession. These values provide direction for his knowledge, they guide him in the manner of his professional relationships, and they assist him in helping recipients of social services to decide on goals apprOpriate to their needs.95 95Werner W. Boehm, "Social Work: Science and Art," Social Service Review XXXV (June 1961), 146. CHAPTER VII SELF-DETERMINATION IN APPLICATION: 1961—1970 CONT'D. Self—Determination and Intervention §£_the Societal Level The turbulent events of the decade of the sixties, including the civil rights movement, the reassessment of urban problems, the unresolved plight of those in poverty, brought about a redirection of social work concern from one which focused primarily upon the individual to one in which there was a new consideration of the need for intervention at the societal level. Speakers and writers called for a return to the historical social orientation of the profession, for the recruitment of new leadership who would be concerned with broader social issues, social planning and social action. Taber and Vattano characterized social work professionals as being divided into three camps, those who retained the individualistic, "clinical" orien- tation of social work; those who maintained the need for a "social" orientation with the use of political and social action as accepted techniques; and those who urged a two-pronged, dual focus for the profession.1 The "clinical" orientation was seen to retain the focus upon 1Merlin A. Taber and Anthony J. Vattano, "Clinical and Social Orientations in Social Work: An Empirical Study," Social Service Review 44 (March 1970), 36. 308 309 the treatment of the individual and to improve his social functioning, while the "social" orientation was viewed as a response to the need" for "directed social change." All too frequently, these two orienta— tions were cast as opposite poles of a single continuum. A survey of the literature reflects that there was a need for both approaches, with neither being sacrificed at the expense of the other. For example, Eveline Burns suggested that the profession needed to recognize the existence of both types of social workers. It should be recognized that there are two types of pro- fessional workers who are differentiated by their professional Objectives. The first, the social caseworker, is concerned with bringing about change in the individual and is essentially clini- cally and therapeutically oriented. The second, the social welfare specialist, is concerned with change in social institutions and is nonclinical.3 Alfred Kahn in Trends ip_Social Work Practice and Knowledge raised the question of whether social work could made a basic contri- bution by retaining its "clinical-therapeutic-rehabilitative core" or whether it shouldn't reconstruct itself into "a primary discipline of a social planning state."4 Feldman and Specht viewed these alternatives within the con— text Of the frame of reference Of C. Wright M1118‘Wh0 contrasted "per- sonal troubles" with public issues." Their prOposal was to divide the foci Of social work into "micro-problems" and "macro-problems."5 21bid., 37. 3Eveline Burns cited in Taber and Vattano, "Orientations," 36. 4Alfred J. Kahn in Trends ip_Social Work Practice and Knowledge: NASW 10th Anniversapy_§ymposium (New York: NASW, 1966), 29. 5Ronald A. Feldman and Harry Specht, "The World of Social Group Work," Social Work Practice, 1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 79. 310 Alan Wade suggested a dichotomy of the traditional behavioral models; one which is the "model for psychopathology" and the restruc- turing of the human personality as prOposed by Freud. The other model was the "social systems model" develOped by Durkheim, with its attention focusing upon socially determined forces and their effect upon man. He went on to suggest that what was needed was really a synthesis which would draw upon both dimensions. Wade also felt that there was a need for professionals who would participate in the social change process as part of their commitment to the basic philOSOphical beliefs of the profession.6 . . . the spread of political democracy and the increased participation of people in the political decision-making process offer a major, if not the only available, means by which the indi- vidual may gain some measure of control over his destiny. What is needed for social work, then, is a close and purposeful identi- fication with the political process, and a reidentification with the commitment which alone differentiated us from the other helping professions; systematic concern for the lines of effective connec- tion between the inner and the outer life of man.7 Scott Briar elaborated on this changing focus and saw it as a welcome development for the profession. His thesis was that the clinical approach, while it had been beneficial to many of those who were served by the profession, it served too few and frequently too late. There can be no doubt that many of the problems of concern to the profession will not yield to direct service alone but require in— tervention at other systemic levels in the social order. It is fair to criticize casework -- or, for that matter, group work, community organization, and social reform —— for 6Alan D. Wade, "The Social Worker in the Political Process," The Social Welfare Forum: 1966 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 56-57. 7Ibid., 57. 311 failing to accomplish what it claimed it could do; in other words, for not being effective. If caseworkers have claimed to be able to help persons with Certain kinds of problems and the evidence shows that they have not done so, then caseworkers better return to the drawing board and look for other ways to accomplish their aims. It also is fair to criticize caseworkers if they lose sight of the problem, the need, the person, and the task in a preoccupa- tion with techniques, ideologies, and theoretical concepts. In other words, if it is true, as some have argued, that caseworkers, rather than devising methods tailored to the client's needs and expectations, have expected clients to adapt to the caseworker's methods, then caseworkers should pause to remind themselves that their first commitment is to the client. And finally, it is fair to criticize casework if it cuts itself off from persons who need its services. That is, if it is true, as it appears to be, that persons who could benefit from the services of caseworkers are systematically deprived of them, then we must alter the methods of delivering and Offering casework services so that they are avail- able to such persons. Several writers expressed similar concerns and called for the use of "social treatment" as a new model for the profession. Garvin and Glasser were hopeful that "social treatment" would be a means of bringing together a number of intervention techniques. In doing so "the helping process would then fit the client rather than the client fit the method."9 From their perspective, social treatment would focus upon the problems and needs of theindividual and upon the prob- lems and needs of the community as well. This placed the primary em— phasis on goal "determination and the need for a mutually agreed upon contract for attainment of phase goals. It also called for ongoing evaluation while seeking to attain the goals.10 8 Scott Briar, "The Current Crisis in Social Casework," Social Work Practice, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 20- 21. 9Charles Garvin and Paul Glasser, "The Bases of Social Treat- ment," Social WOrk Practice, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 154. lolbid., 158. 312 Siporin viewed "social treatment" as an approach where "the therapeutic Objectives of perSonality growth and change" remain central and are seen to be "inextricably bound up" by social struc- tures, social change and community institutions." He noted, this marked a return to the traditional perspective of social work.11 Boehm in turn, identified the need for two types of social workers, one who would be skilled in helping individuals and families and in working with small groups while the other would be skilled "in the strategies of social change."12 Carol Meyer provided a somewhat different perspective as she noted that there have been five models for practice in the history of social work all of which have been of value to social work. The first method portrayed the client as an "object" of social work with the client acting upon his own situation while the social worker waited for him to do his own changing. The second model she saw reflected an educational approach: . . . where caseworkers provided for clients all of the then- conceived-of opportunities for change or modification of behavior and situation. Whether the technical emphasis was upon relation- ship, support, advice, relief, or other services, change was to come about through the strengthening of the client by casework actions, so that he would be more capable of dealing with his life. The singular limitation in this mode was that it remained a voluntary process, so that the client himself had to be highly motivated to invest himself in the process of change, even when the caseworker made therapeutic Opportunitigs available to him. The focus was, essentially, on the person.1 11Max Siporin, "Social Treatment: A.New—Old Helping Method," Social Work 15 (July 1970), 16. 12werner W. Boehm, "Toward New Models of Social WOrk Practice," Social Work Practice, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 3. 13Carol H. Meyer, "Casework Below the Poverty Line," Social Work Practice, 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 234. 313 The third model suggested by Meyer was the medical or clinical model, with social workers being preoccupied with cure and personality changes, with changing pathology and maladjusted behavior, while the fourth model, of more recent experience, was the political model. . . . where the client has been pressed into service on his own behalf and has been expected to change his own condition through social action, lobbying, striking, or exerting pressure upon power groups. This mode has avoided recognition of individual needs and pathology in its emphasis upon social change to be effected by, as well as for, the client groups. The fifth model which she felt was the model currently being called for was the "public health model." This one recognized that the client's problems needed to be viewed not only in very personal, individualized terms but also in the broader framework Of "societal and epidemiological forces that contribute to his (the client's) lifestyle as well as to his problems."15 These five models needed to be viewed as part of the Open system of social work methods, a system which is responsive to the changing demands of American society and the needs of its peOple. As these models demonstrated different variations upon the theme of social concern and of the role of the worker, there were also new demands which called for a change in the role of government. No longer could a "hands—off" policy be endured not just for the sake of the needy - but rather for the welfare of us all. To Meyer, poverty, and all of its ramifications could no longer be tolerated without serious detrimental effects to the whole fabric of our society. 1'181d., 234-235. 151bid., 235. 314 As a nation we are recognizing that a laissez-faire, unregulated society must inevitably create poverty. Moreover, the popular swell of the civil rights movement has promoted the idea that the poor must be included in the fabric of society, and that peOple do not adjust well to poverty even if they are kept happy. It has become apparent everywhere that unless poverty is eradicated, its results will continue to enter the mainstream of our economic life, and discrimination, unemployment, bad housing, delinquency, and family breakdown will affect all citizens in every social and economic group.16 These writers repeatedly called for a professional commitment to seek changes or intervention, at the societal level. Changes, as defined by Boehm, involved movement towards "the attainment of the goals of social work, . . . restoration, provision and prevention."17 For Boehm, change so conceived was to be a prerequisite to man's attainment of self-fulfillment, self—realization, and self- determination. Since man and society are interdependent change then needed to be directed towards both so that man might be able to achieve his potential. Boehm wrote in The Curriculum Study: Each person requires for the harmonious develOpment of his powers socially provided and socially safeguarded Opportunities for satisfying his basic needs in the physical, psychological, economic, cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual realms. As society becomes more complex and interdependent, in- creasingly specialized social organization is required to facil- itate the individual's efforts at self-realization. Although con— flicts between individuals and society can never be entirely ab- sent, a social organization whould be such as to reduce them to a minimum. A conception of the individual and society as inter- dependent leads to the view that just as it is the responsibility of society to provide apprOpriate social resources, it is the right of the individual to promote changes in social resources which do not serve his need-meeting efforts. Concomitantly, it is the individual's Obligation to satisfy his individual needs as much as possible in ways that contribute to the enrichment of society. 16Ibid., 235—236. 17Boehm, "Toward New Models," 4. 315 To permit both self—realization and contribution to society by the individual, social organization must make available socially sanctioned and socially provided devices for needs satisfaction as wide in range, variety, and quality as the general welfare allows.1 Acceptance of Boehm's point of view was not universal. Alan Wade in recognition of this fact commented that the call to societal intervention was not unanimously received or welcomed by many in the profession or the general public for that matter. He recalled the two "divergent" definitions of social work presented by the Commission on Social WOrk Practice of the National Association of Social Workers. The first definition saw interventive action in terms of the goal of social adjustment, "not adjustment at any price, but certainly adjust- ment as defined and limited by the structure of an agency." 1. Social work practice is the use of a relationship skill in a process of interventive action, concerned with fur— thering a constructive relationship between man and his society, informed by values and knowledge defined by the profession, and directed to some specific social agency purpose, as one mani- festation of a larger purpose of individual and social welfare.19 Wade's criticism of this definition was that it sought to maintain and preserve "the social status quo," which would not really bring about any basic changes in society or relieve any problems. " . . . then a profession primarily guided either explicitly or im- plicitly by this definition will not be meeting the many needs that arise in a rapidly changing society."20 l8Werner W. Boehm, "Objectives of the Social Work Curriculum of the Future," The Curriculum Study Vol. 1 (New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959), 43. 19 Wade, "Social WOrker in Political Process," 58. 20Ibid. 316 The second definition of social work was one which sought to bring about consciously directed change and was guided by personal commitment to the profession's philoSOphical ideals and values and not simply limited to the function and purpose of the agency. 2. Social work practice is the conscious application of behavioral science knowledge toward the goal Of effecting planned change in individuals, groups, and social systems. Action directed toward such change is guided by the values, methods, and techniqu§i acknowledged by, and identified with, the social work profession. While he concluded that there could neither be a "right" nor "wrong" to either Of the suggested models, Wade's own hope was that there would be professional efforts directed towards the political system by professionals, efforts which would seek to use the legisla- tive powers of government to insure positive and effective societal change for the welfare of all.22 The challenges of the sixties cut deep into the very essence of social work philosophy. Could a profession be committed to respect— ing the basic worth and the innate dignity of the individual, whose claim to validity was based upon the assistance it gave to the indi- vidual in helping him to realize his potential capabilities and to utilize the resources and Opportunities for his self—fulfillment? The answers to this question are found in the wealth of material written during this period which focused upon social planning, and social ac- tion and the subsequent changes in the role of the professional social worker. As we shall Observe, one central concept in these discussions focuses upon the principle of client self—determination. In this decade it becomes expressed as the right of client participation in lebid. 221bid., 60. 317 program development, in policy determination, in the distribution of funds, and in the establishment of priorities at various levels. Self-determination thus assumed a new vitality and new meaning as it moved through the decade of the sixties. Self-Determination and Social Policy Planning Social policy within the social work frame of reference was defined as "the principles and procedures guiding any measure or course of action dealing with individual and aggregate relationships in soci- ety. It is conceived as intervention in and regulation of an Otherwise random social system. . . . it represents a settled course of action . . . governing social relationships and the distribution of resources within a society."23 Social planning, in turn, viewed as the process through which "the formulation of policies to reduce social problems and the execu— tion of action that achieve the desired results came about."24 Perlman and Gurin pointed out that this decade saw the major emphasis being directed to building a 'practice theory apprOpriate to the functions of the planner." These efforts included the study of organizational and interorganizational systems with the goal of increasing their effectiveness in resolving social problems. This 23Alvin L. Schorr and Edward C. Baumheier, "Social Policy" in the Encyclopedia pf Social Work 16th ed. (New York: N.A.S.W., 1971), 1361-1362. 24Robert Perlman, "Social Planning and Community Organization: Approaches," in Encyclppedia pf Social Work 16th ed. (New York: N.A.S.W., 1971), 1338. (The interest in Social Planning and Social Policy is reflected in the fact that while appearing as tOpics for the first time in the Encyclopedia pf Social Work, the material extends over a hundred pages, s.v. 1324-1433.) 318 brought social change into focus as the goal, with social planning . 2 as the means of achieving that goal. 5 Planning then was viewed in a variety of ways. Perlman and Gurin identified as a basic set of functions in the "problem solving" process of planning the following: 1. Intelligence gathering, information analysis, problem definition. 2. Structure building, including development of relationships, channels of communication and organization among the participants. 3. Policy formulation, including the selection of goals, alter- native goals and strategy develOpment translated into a plan of action. 26 4. Plan implementation. Boehm suggested five areas of concern which might be the focus of social planning. They included: social need identification; social resources coordination; social resource delivery; resource utilization.27 These five areas of study would serve to identify the nature Of the social change being sought. With these needs so defined, the planning process would then move on to a consideration of "the strategies whereby these changes are to be brought about." The third phase of the planning process would be implementation of the plan and the final phase would include an evaluation and a possible reformula- tion of the plan or a refinement of the goals as a consequence of the activity up to that point.28 5Robert Perlman and Arnold Gurin, "Community Organization Practice," Social Work Practice, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 60-61. 2622;299 69-70. 27Boehm, "Toward a New Model," 8. 281bid., 14—15. 319 Seen as an essential component of the planning process, es- pecially in relationship to the determination of priorities, was the concept of citizen participation. What all constituted citizen parti- cipation.was seen to take on many forms in this period. Some saw it as a very limited form Of participation such as token representation, while others viewed it as constituting full involvement of the peOple in social planning.29 Some cautioned against "overestimating the potentialities of the poor" or urged proceeding cautiously because: "They (the poor) aren't ready."30 To others, however, citizen participation in the social planning was viewed as one of the "basic social goals of modern man." Cleveland in his analysis included it as one of the four basic goals of a society. These goals included a sense of welfare, a sense of justice, a sense of achievement and a sense of participation.31 This "sense of participation" was described as "the very meaning of a 32 democratic way of life." The authority for this "sense of participation" was seen to 29A. David Bouterse, "Community Organization Under Governmental Auspices," The Social Welfare Forum: 1962 (New York: Columbia Univer— sity Press, 1962), 109. 30Richard M. Titmuss, "Social Policy and Economic Progress," The Social Welfare Forum: 1966 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 38; Sanford Jolender, "The Challenge to Social welfare in America," The Social Welfare Forum, 1963 (New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1963), 21. 31Harlan Cleveland, "International Implications of Social Goals," The Social welfare Forum: 1962 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 57. 321bid., 59. 320 extend from the words of the "Preamble" to the United States Consti— tution which begins: "We, the People."331 This assumed new meaning as the previously disenfranchised peOple, including the poor and the minorities, laid claim to their rights and responsibilities as citizens of this country. One Of the basic rights they demanded was their right of self-determination — to their freedom of choice for the future, for their own future, that of their children's and their children's children. . . . the overriding fact was the reality of the new in— volvement of these peOple. The voices of others reflected the rising self-confidence of recipients, coupled with a determina- tion, in the absence of adequate spokesmen, to speak for them- selves. It speaks well for our community and its future that all of these people, newcomers to welfare, in a sense, now recognize and accept these matters as their own and assert their responsi- bility and determination to share in tomorrow's solution. "We, the PeOple" are a large and expanding company, and the time has come when we shall act with increasing vigor and effectiveness. And all of this is good.34 Their challenge to establish their right to self-determination, Hugh Jones submitted, was a recognition of their growing awareness that they were peOple of dignity and worth and would no longer remain subjected to a system that dehumanized them. At the 1961 Social Welfare Forum, Leonard Duhl Observed that "one basic aspect of the American Character is our ability to partici- pate in voluntary, cOOperative endeavors . . . (for) . . . to involve peOple in planning requires a basic respect for their values and beliefs . . ." If the right to participate was not facilitated, he 33Hugh R. Jones, "Social Policy" We, the PeOple, Must Act," The Social welfare Forum: 1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 21. 34Ibid. 321 cautioned, the "people" would find new mechanisms, new ways to deal with problems that can be both good and evil.35 By the end of the ' decade, one found the voices of the people rising up everywhere, demanding their right to be heard including at the National Conference on Social welfare in 1968-1970. This union of voices was the end product of a decade which experienced marches and protests, legal victories and legal statements, and was born out of hOpe and frustra- tion. Part of their campaign was an application of federal legisla- tion which required "maximum feasible participation" in the planning and develOpment of service under the Model Cities and O.E.O. legisla— tion. Other policy directives of many agencies of the federal govern— ment were found to be seeking to broaden this base.36 Schottland described this movement towards increased citizen participation as "the very lifeblood of our democracy."37 To increase the effectiveness of this movement, Father Coughlin called upon social workers to assess anew their constructive use of authority, especially as it related to dealing with community power. If institutional change was necessary and social work was to make a positive contribution, then it could not afford to back away from 35Leonard J. Duhl, "Are we mentally Prepared for the Elimina- tion of Poverty?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1961 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 111-112. 36Charles I. Schottland, "Federal Planning for Health and Wel— fare," The Social Welfare Forum: 1963 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 102-103. 'He noted the policies and procedures of such agencies as the Public Housing Administration, the Department of Labor, the Veterans Administration, the Bureau Of Indian Affairs and the Social Security Administration moving in this direction. 37Ibid., 119. 322 attempting to influence or even challenging the power structure: If strong social work.leader8hip is not there with ideas, directives and authority to make its contribution, the community will find leadership elsewhere. Our whole society has attained such a level of institu- tional and bureaucratic develOpment as to demand a reconsideration of the new perspective in which the individual finds himself. For the individual in modern society attains and maintains his "impor- tance in and through institutional life. Social institutions, of which community planning is one, have new meaning even for the highly personalized aspects of the individual, such as rights, and freedom, and self-determination. Individual freedom is greatly dependent upon and draws its practical meaning from institutional strength and institutional freedom.3 Helen Harris Perlman in her comments upon the changes in the profession noted that there was a redefinition of "citizen-participa— tion" from a concept which used "titizen' in Platonic terms as one of H the elite or one held 'fit' to govern, to the use of citizen partici— pation in speaking about "those who are assumed to be the beneficiaries "39 This she of service, now viewed as potential 'indigenous leaders.' saw as significant change Of direction in that the principle of self— determination was no longer going to be a nice but hollow philosoph- ical concept, but there was to be a real power base from.which the right to self—determination could be claimed. As Tom Hayden concluded: . . . self-determination cannot be "granted." It always is wrested from those who Oppose it. PeOple first win self-determination, then their former Oppressors "grant" it.. . . The battle for self- determination is long or short, peaceful or bloody, according to 38Bernard Coughlin, "Community Planning: A Challenge to Social Work," Social Work 6 (October 1961), 40. 39Helen Harris Perlman, "Social WOrk Method: A Review of the Past Decade," Social Work 10 (October 1965), 173. 323 the degree of vested interest and determination of the'Oppressorsf'O Citizen participation in social planning as viewed in this, the decade of the sixties, was indeed part of this "wresting of self— determination." Self—determination thus became the means as well as part of the goal of attaining personal freedom. As a corollary to increased participation by clients in the social policy planning process, there was a marked increase in other worker-client activities which were seen as various aspects of social action. Daniel Thursz in the Encyclgpedia‘g£_SOcial Work defined social action as that which "encompasses individual or group activity designated to influence a change in social policy. . . . In its broadest aspects social action represents part of the birthright of each human being: his responsibility and privilege to attempt to mold the environment in terms of his values."41 Thursz went on to point out that social action contained two dimensions, one significant for the client, the other a focus for the worker. For the client, it meant direct participation and activity in those matters which affected their daily living. For the social worker, it was the setting forth of a method of intervention "used by social workers employed by agendes whose function is to bring about social change." For the worker, then, social action becomes a series of interventive actions and strategies "directed rationally towards preconceived goals."42 we shall return OTom.Hayden, "Colonialism and Liberation as American Problems," in Politics and The Ghetto. ed. by Ronald L. Warren (New York: Ather— ton Press, 1969), 186. 41Daniel Thrusz, "Social Action," Enpyclopedia‘gf_Social Work (New York: N.A.S.W., 1971 ), 1189. 42181d., 1191. 324 to the role of the worker in the last section of this chapter, but now, it is apprOpriate to examine the various social action endeavors of the client pOpulation during this period. There arose a number of programs in urban and rural communi— ties alike under the umbrella of the community action programs, created as part of the structures of the war on Poverty. Gurin and Ecklein identified three main purposes of these programs, all of which are significant expressions of the philOSOphical rationale of the prin- ciple of client self-determination. These three purposes were: 1. to Obtain participation of clients, both actual and potential, in services designed to overcome their disabilities; 2. to gain the participation of the disadvantaged and functionally disenfranchised groups in the body politic; 3. to use community participation as therapy through which indi- viduals and groups could gain confidence, self—esteem, and a sense of power which would make it possible for them to obtain and utilize Opportunities available through the institutions of society from which they were now alienated. This joining together of self-determination and political power was an effort directed at reaching, teaching and strengthening the ties which bound these masses of the disadvantaged together. This was part of the reaction to the real and perceived denial of access of participation to the various "local" boards created under the "maximum feasible participation" clause of the Antipoverty Legislation of 1964.44 MOgulof in his review of federal policies and practices with regards to citizen participation identified four basic assumptions 43Arnold Gurin and Joan Levin Ecklein, "Community Organizations: for Political Power or Service Delivery?" Social WOrk Practice, 1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 3. 44Ibid., 7. 325 related to the purposes of citizen participation in federal programs: 1. to decrease alienation; 2. to engage the 'sick' individual in a process that will lead to his own healing; 3. to create a neighborhood power force able to influence the distribution Of resources; 4. to develop a constituency for a particular program, with the hope thaZSthe constituency will agree to the intended program efforts. Elsewhere, Mogulof noted that citizen participation followed three patterns where it was implicated at the local level; one where the citizens were advisors to the policy group; another where they were part of a citizen coalition along with public officials and the third where they assumed control of the policy group."6 The effort to develOp a new political base of power of, by and for the peOple was seen as one prime, viable alternative, short of revolution. Unless the disadvantaged were able to join their forces and take collective political action to resolve their problems, nothing was likely to change. As Brager and Specht stressed, "the problems of the poor require political action, and political action requires power."47 Once again, social workers were forced to face the need to become involved in the political realities of this society including the use of authority, dealing with power structures and with conflict. "sMelvin B. MOgulof, "Citizen Participation," (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute ), January 1970, 93. 46Ibid., 17. 47George Brager and Harry Specht, "Mobilizing the Poor for Social Action," The Social Welfare Forum: 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 199. 326 As James Coleman lamented: Social work profesSionals tend to prefer cOOperation, no matter how spurious, to conflict, no matter how necessary. If however, these situations are avoided in an attempt to avoid conflict, the consequence must inevitably be the failure Of a community development effort.48 Yet, as Stern pointed out, there is a very real need for this kind of conflict confrontation especially since agencies over the years have evolved bureaucracies which fail to serve the needs Of the peOple for whose benefit and assistance they were created. The very features of bureaucracy that can give it the capacity to produce services economically and efficiently, that maintain stability, that provide role security for employees and objective criteria in the treatment of the consumers of its services, can develOp a system related primarily to the interests of its staff, particularly its experts, rather than to the interests of its clientele.4 Therefore, to successfully confront such a system requires the use of political power and to bring about change, i.e., "to reform," according to Rossi, "implies influencing those who are empowered to make authoritative decisions and to obtain widespread public acceptance "50 of reform measures. The social action efforts found in this period took on many forms. In some instances, it assumed the form of community development programs as were develOped elsewhere in the international community under the auspices of the United Nations, that is, by "mobilizing 48James S. Coleman, Community Conflict (Glencoe, 111.: Press Press, 1957), 3. 49Herman D. Stein, "Administrative Leadership in Complex Service Organizations," Social Work Practice, 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 43. 50Peter H. Rossi, "Power and Politics: A Road to Social Reform," Social Service Review 35 (December 1961), 360. 327 local resources and local responsibility to find solutions to urgent local problems."51 These community develOpment programs, both here and abroad were seen to embody and preserve the basic values of our democratic society, including the respect of the individual as a person of innate dignity and worth and his need and right to be self-determining. Translated in terms of community develOpment these values became expressed as: . . . emphasis on the whole community (all the peOple and all aspects of community life), an interest in helping peOple to develop qualities of self-awareness, participation, and involvement in community affairs, self-direction, and cOOperation. The use of consensus where it can be achieved; self—help; programs based on felt needs, so far as feasible; and thgzemphasis on the integra- tion of specialities of the community. The community develOpment approach then, as applied in prac- tice in this country sought to resolve the people themselves in resolving their urban problems. As Clinard emphasized: It assumes that peOple who live under difficult physical and social conditions do not necessarily accept the situation as natural or inevitable and they can and will participate in changing their neighborhoods regardless of their education, racial or ethnic background, or economic status.53 Again, this was an eXpression of the basic belief in the need and right of individuals to develop and utilize their potentialities, 51Heikkl Waris, "Social Policy in the Development of Nations," The Social welfare Forum: 1961 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 231. 52Arthur Dunham, "Community Development -— Whether Bound?" Social Work Practice, 1968 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 61. 53Marshall B. Clinard, "Perspectives on Urban Community Develop— ment and Community Organization," The Social welfare Forum: 1962 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 67-68. 328 to feel that they can and should is critical to their self-image, their self-worth and their collective social well-being. Community develOpment and social action appeared to usher social work into a new era. New enterprises appeared,some under local auspices, others under the sponsorship of national voluntary agencies or funded by federal monies. Repeatedly, the emphasis was upon "free- dom of choice," "self-help" and "self-determination." For example, the National Federation of Settlement Houses established the Missis- sippi Project. Its objective was: . . . to give technical consultation to autonomous neighborhood organizations in a selected number of counties. This leadership team will give information about resources and on-the-spot leader- ship training to groups of adults who are trying, to "build better neighborhoods." Workers will help local groups to determine their own purposes, no matter whether these include a community center, a self-help cOOperative or credit union, an informal adult educa- tion program, or an improved public service. The National Federation is extending this help, with a grant of all voluntary neighborhood centers. In the 93 cities where member agencies of the National Federation are located, they work with neighbors to improve housing and physical sur- rounding, to improve public services, to encourage self-help projects, and to sponsor informal group and individual services.54 Under the sponsorship Of NFS, one such countywide community develOpment program which was organized in 1967 was the Rankin County Assembly. The intention oifthis group was to pull together the people and the various agencies active in the community, including the NAACP, the Freedom Democratic Party, the Rankin County Movement for Progress and the Head Start Leaders.55 54Margaret E. Berry,"NFS, Launches Mississippi Project," Round Table (December, 1966), 1-4. 55Alfred A. Rhodes, Jr., "Case Presentations in Community Development: Rural Mississippi," The Social welfare Forum: 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 153. 329 The Assembly once organized, set about to: . . . aid Negro residents to pull together in one organ- ization of organizations; aid local community leaders to become more knowledgeable of their rights and entitlements within the federal, state, county, and locally funded programs, and conduct self-help activities to achieve significant changes in the serv— ice-rendering agencies, such as the employment ggfice, welfare, Social Security, health department, and others. In Baltimore, Maryland the Community Action Program was devel- oped to harness the unrealized potential of the poor and combine it with the resources of the CAP program to help them to build a better life for themselves. As one reads the words of the director, the belief in the rights and the need to self-determination is clearly visible as a guiding principle of Operation. We are a self-help agency. That is, we believe the poor have untapped resources of strength and power which, given the Opportunity and the incentive, can be used creatively in the reordering of their own lives and the rebuilding of their com- munity and family life. Given the chance, the poor can fight their way out of poverty. We who are engaged in the anti-poverty effort will not tell people what to do. we will not impose a set of rules and regulations on the peOple; we will not say, "This condition obtains; therefore you must do this." Through our neighborhood organizations we are seeking to build on the sense of pride that is already there and let peOple gropingly and haltingly chart their own courses; let them plan their own course of action. We organize people to do things for themselves and if, in doing these things for themselves, they begin to recognize the power of organization, there is no doubt we have emerging a new political group. And this political group is at least a poten- tially dangerous group to the status quo. This, however, is what we are required to do in terms of organizing the poor. This organizing the poor. This organizing function relates to that rather ambiguous phrase in the Economic Opportunity Act which 56Ibid. 57Parren J. Mitchell, "Community Action Approach," Social Progress LVII (September - October 1966), 13. 330 calls for the "maximum, feasible participation of the poor.58 Sometimes the new programs or agencies which were established were highly innovative. ASPIRA and Project ENABLE represent two such efforts. ASPIRA.was a project which was designed to develop new leadership in the Puerto Rican community of New Yrok. It was based upon the belief that it was necessary for minorities to develop its own leadership and resources. ASPIRA was conceived as a means of in- creasing the Opportunity for self—realization and self-determination. Its purposes were stated as: . . . the training of leadership in disadvantaged or minority groups must include the motivation and guidance of those members of the groups who possess the ability and talents to enter pro- fessional, technical, and artistic fields. This is necessary in order to create a pool of persons who can function on a par with the rest of the pOpulation, give leadership to their group, and place it on an equal basis with the organizations and leadership of the majority groups.59 Project ENABLE programs were among the federally sponsored efforts found in various sections of the country. It provided a team of both community or non-professional staff members along with profes- sionals whose purpose was to establish lines of communication between the peOple and the agencies of the community. It was both a reaching out to the peOple who were potential users of the services and sharing information about the services, how to go about securing them and how to seek other services for unmet needs.60 The stated purposes were to demonstrate to the people their own potential for independent action, to become more self-determining 59Antonia Pantoja, "TheSocial Worker in Intergroup Relations," Community Qgganization, 1961 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960, 129. 6OEllen Mauser, Juvel Dean Jones and Selma B. Ortof, "An Over- view of Project Enable," Social Casework 48 (December 1967), 613. 331 themselves and to help Others become so too.61 As both clients and staff noted in the evaluation of Project ENABLE, the results were of tremendous significance in the present life situations of the people and for their future as well. Project ENABLE produced concrete results: new and better services for thousands of families; the develOpment of new man- power resources; increased use by the poor Of available services; and changes in attitudes and behavior. Over-all, it had an impact on every basic community institution bouching the lives of the poor: housing, schools, medical services, recreation programs and facilities, public welfare, police, neighborhood appearance, traffic control, consumer education, and family planning. But the most vital results are immeasurable because they must be described in terms of new hOpe, new self-image, understanding, communication, and prevention of human distress, on which monetary value cannot be placed.62 The poor people responded to the method and approach of ENABLE teams showing, as had been anticipated that poverty does not imply stupidity or the lack of ability to contribute to the planning and development of programs that affect their lives. We discovered that talents, intelligence, and personalities are as varied among persons living on poverty incomes as among the rest of the population. Another program which received widespread attention was the Mobilization for Youth project in New York City. It was an experi— mental action program.which focused on juvenile delinquency prevention and control on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. It received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, the President's Commis- sion on Juvenile Delinquency, the Ford Foundation and from the City of New York as well. It offered "broad-scale services in the fields of employment, education, casework, group work and community 611bid., 614. 621bid., 615. 63Mildred ROberts and Josie Johnson, "More Than Meetings," Social Casework 48 (December 1967), 619. 332 organization."64 Under the leadership of MFY outreach efforts were initiated to stimulate the participation of lower—income families in attempts to resolve community problems. Such participation was seen as a means of increasing the self-worth and the sense of identi- fication of the peOple. As Brager concluded too Often in the past, the poor, expecially, have been excluded and as a result they have not had more than lip service acknowledgement of their right and need to participation.65 Since the MFY project saw as part of its role, intervention in the social system both as partner with and as advocate for their client pOpulation, they encountered tremendous resistance and Obstacles. As Brager and Specht noted, the resistance was difficult to overcome. There appears to be a greater propensity for giving lip service to the desired ends than for making wholehearted efforts to achieve them. Thus, the President of the New York City Council, who is head of the city's antipoverty operations, publicly chamr pions the right of low-income groups to "fight City Hall," while his lieutenants privately search for ways of preventing such activities without appearing to do so. In seeking to bring about institutional change, the MFY sought to provide a dual attack on the problems of their area. "This approach is predicated on the belief that individual problems in social func- tioning are to varying degrees both cause and effect. . . . This ap- proach does not lose sight of the individual or group, since the social system is composed of various statuses, roles and classes. . . . It recognized that efforts to deal with one problem frequently generates 64George Brager, "Organizing the Unaffiliated in a Low—Income Area," Social WOrk 8 (April 1963), 34. 651bid., 4o. 66Brager and Specht, "Mobilizing the Poor," 197—198. 333 other with debilitating results."67 Some of their revolutionary approaches which MFY develOped and for which they were as equally praised as well as attacked included the establishment of legal services for the poor. Through the teaching of the clients of their rights and through the provision of available legal services, the poor became much more assertive of their rights. At times the use of the courts caused embarrassment and consternation when the object of the suit happened to be another public sponsored social agency. Never flawless, this was seen as a valid technique in the social action method. As Solender expressed it: Social action . . . may be related to legal redress through the courts on matters germane to their interests. The right of individuals or groups to seek legal relief when they are aggrieved is a cornerstone of democracy. Agencies can encourage persons or groups to test their claims in the courts in order to adjudicate their grievances and to establish precedents which can be shared generally. Agencies can aid with advice and even finances in bringing suits and, where appropriate, can participate in an amicus curiae role. The use of the courts to seek the preservation and guarantee of one's legal rights is but another extension and expression of the right to self-determination. NO longer were the poor going to remain content to be powerless. As Dr. Vivan Henderson said in the keynote address before the Nineteenth Annual Adirondack Workshop: We have the equality of opportunity in the eyes of the law and in terms of public policy. But the difficulty is that we don't have the equality of access to that Opportunity. . . . Something 67Frances P. Purcell and Harry Specht, "The House on Sixth Street," Social Work 10 (October 1965), 76. 68Sanford Solender, "Social Issues and Religiously Sponsored Social Welfare Agencies," The Social Welfare Forum: 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 249—250. 334 is happening here that doesn't allow us to really generate, cer- tain degree of expediency, the kinds of access to Opportunities that one would like to have.59 Self-determination through social action also was expressed in two other forms during this period of our study. The one direction it took was in the form of the demand of the poor for control of the var- ious agencies and institutions in their community. Community control over the public school system in the ghetto, with the right to hire and fire staff and to be involved in curriculum and policy decisions; for control over the development and planning for housing; parks and recreational facilities in their neighborhood, such demands received banner headlines across the country. As Eugene S. Callander noted in his comments upon the dilemma facing many communities: Whites cannot understand how the democratic concept of citizen participation got turned into demands for community con- trol. And yet the white man who sends his children to private schools controls the educational destiny of his child. And the whites who sit on education policy boards for the parents in the suburban communities controls the destiny and education of their children. And the whites who purchase Blue Cross policies and can hire their personal physicians are in control of the health of their youngsters. . . . The white middle class is in control of his housing destiny. The black ghetto is not.70 Certainly among the most dramatic attempted demands for "com— munity control" occurred at the National Conferences on Social Welfare in 1968, 1969 and 1970 when various organizations formed a coalition to challenge the philosophy of NCSW and the credibility of both lead— ership and membership. This coalition brought together members of the 69Vivian Henderson, "Ghetto Power - Tool for Urban Change?" Proceedings Nineteenth Annual Adirondack WOrkshop (New York: The National Assembly For Social Power and Development, 1968), 8-9. 70Eugene S. Callender, "Business Responsibility and Individual Opportunity," Ghetto Power - Tool for Change_(New York: The National Assembly, 1968), 37-38. 335 National welfare Rights Organization, the National Federation of Student Workers, the National Association of Black Social Worders, the United Native Americans, the Association of Puerto Rican Social Workers, and La Raza. Their well spoken collective complaint was laid before the Conference by Mrs. Johnnie Tellman, Chairman of NWRO. "The heat is on," she warned. "Black folks and poor white folks are not fighting any more. You can't make one believe that he's better than the other. Dr. Cohen made some very good points but he's been making them for a long time. He's had many articles and books published, and yet the system stays the same. . . . we want change and we will get it because we are not divided -- we are together.71 These statements were echoed in the words of J. Julian Rivera, President of The Association of Puerto Rican Social WOrkers: To politicians he said, "We will not support anything short of a genuine commitment to the solution of our problems and the fulfillment of our needs." To policy-makers in the social welfare field he said, "We want participation on the policy-making boards, as well as in the administration and implementation of services to our peOple. We want community control of services. If we are not successful," he added, "we will find a way to create our own institutions." To schools of social work as well as other institutions of higher learning, he expressed "solidarity with their struggle of concerns," and to the peOple in Puerto Rico he expressed "solidarity in their fight for national liberation." To the black community Mr. Rivera said, "We support their struggle--and we are ready to fight for theliberation of all peOples. Particular cultural differences and needs might direct our interest at different times, but ultimately we advocate the development of a unified front of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and American Indians." In conclusion, Mr. Rivera encouraged the participants at the Forum "to unite in our struggle." He asked that they "not plan for us to show us your sympathy, but genuinely listen to what we have to72ay" in the hopes that "we can find solutions together." 71Mrs. Johnnie Tellman cited by T. George Selcott in "Social Welfare Priorities: A Minority View," The Social Welfare Forum: 1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 141. 72J.'Julian Riveria cited by Selcott, Ibid., 142. 336 The remaining form of self-determination through social action is found in the rise of Black unity groups. In some instances it reflected a coming together of Blacks out of mutual concern and for the purpose of presenting a collective voice. In other instances it led to the use of Black power and renewed interest in the development of Black nationalism with demands for control over the very economy of the ghetto. As Dubey, John Turner and Miranda Observed: The term "black unity" refers to a degree of consensus among Blacks on issues, problems, and solutions facing the black community in America. The term "self-determination" refers to a willingness of black peOple to take action or actions to eradi- cate the problem of poverty and racism in American society. In response to the question of what the implications of black unity and black self-determination held for social welfare, the authors recounted the words of Mayor Hatcher as he spoke at the National Conference in 1969. The real hope for America lies, not in black power alone, but in all forms of power--black power, student power, poor people's power--coming together to form peOple's power. I see hOpe in the rising tide of student militancy, if that militancy in time is carried from the campuses into the communities of the entire nation. I see hope in the demands of Spanish-speaking Americans for their share of power. I see hOpe in the growing radicalism of the young who demand youth power and are no longer content to accept a dehumanized status quo. I see hOpe that millions of uncommitted Americans are ztanding up to be counted. I see hope only in "peOple's power."7 To this they added that social welfare as its response to the demands of black unity and black self-determination would have to change its strategy from remediation and rehabilitation to one which 73Sumati N. Dubey, John B. Turner and Magdalena A. Miranda, "Black Unity and Self Determination," The Social Welfare Forum: 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 119. 74Ibid., 126. 337 becomes involved in broad intervention in improving human living conditions. This will include involvement in seeking change in educa- tion, housing, health, justice, community participation and income maintenance.75 Black power during this period was seen as a demand for the Black identity and self-determination: Its expression ranges from fantasies of a revolutionary take—over to power from the whites, possibly worldawide; or the creation of a separate state; to sober, entirely possible though difficult, possibilities of black governments within the larger society and black participation in the government of the larger society. The Hon. Basil A. Paterson, member of New York State Senate defined Black Power as the claim to the right to self-determination by Blacks: . . . The mOst essential facet of the Black mood today, (is) namely, the assertion of Black manhood and the desire to speak and act for himself, to define the terms of his own exist— ence and not to have it determined for him, to control his come munity and not have it manipulated by outsiders.77 He went on to quote W. H. Ferry who stated: ". . . what Blacktown most wants, Whitetown cannot confer. Blacktown wants inde- pendence and the authority to run its own affairs. It wants to re- cover its manhood, its self-love and to develop its ability to con- duct a self-reliant community."78 75181d., 126-129. 76Norton E. Long, "Politics and Ghetto Perpetuation," in Politics and the Ghetto, ed. Roland L. Warren (New York: Atherton Press, 1969), 39. 77Hon. Basil A. Paterson, "Ghetto Power: Political Aspectsf' in Ghetto Power, 44. 78Ibid., 45. 338 Peterson, in summing up the Black demands, concluded that the Black movement to become a self-respecting, self-valuing and self- determining peOple was within the tradition of American democracy. Unvless this was recognized and change was sought, America could not survive. The welling up within the Black man of black dignity, selfdworth and the desire for self determination surely is in the tradition of American independence, as is the demand to be a citizen, not a serf, and to be responsible for one's own actions and institutions. . . . The resistance . . . to meeting the demand of Blacks for equality and democracy in America is essen- tially an unwillingness to share their power with Blacks. But the message is pgear: America is changing. It must change if it is to survive. Thus far we have looked at social planning and social action as methods which were developed and utilized during this decade by social work. Both social planning and social action were seen as further extensions of the principle of client self-determination when applied as an interventive method at the community or society levels. Throughout the discussion, which showed the principle to continue to assume different dimensions, the role of the social worker was noted as changing. Therefore, it is essential that we take note of the changes and their significance in relationship to the principle of self-determination. The Social Worker's Changing Roles The rapid fire events of this decade, the spiraling problems of urban centers, the ever-increasing complexity needs of the peOple being served, all these, together with the attention being given to 79Ibid., 50-51. 339 the need for intervention in the social system via social planning and social action, called for social workers to take on new or modified roles. As Simons stated the challenge at the National Conference on Social Welfare, 1964: We (social workers) must become multipurpose in that we must think and act in terms of social policy and social action as well as social treatment. We must attack the basic problems of community attitudes. Every practitioner, every agency, needs to learn how to bring the facts of individual suffering, of community deterioration to the attention of Opinion-makers and the general public. To get a hearing we may have to resort to dramatic, un— orthodox methods. In any case, it will take courage. But the time is ripe, the climate prOpitious.80 Social workers were called upon to be creative and innovative in the efforts to effect positive societal change. If ever social work was to prove its value to society, it needed to develop techniques, strategies, mechanisms which would ultimately provide Opportunities for achievement and self-fulfillment for society as well as for the individual. As Meyer emphasized, the individualizing method needed to be seen as one of a network of interventive methods and techniques which the professional might draw upon in the performance of his service.81 As Whitney Young, Jr. described the challenge: We are in a war and a war calls for a whole array of tactics and strategies, from direct confrOntation to conciliation and, under reasonable circumstances, compromise. There is an overriding need to guard against an overly cautious approach. Too often, because of our intimate acquaintance with the nuances of the status quo, we set objectives which are only marginally meaningful. We must be far more aggressive. 80Savilla M. Simons, "Social Change Implications for Policy and Practice re Deterioration of the Inner City: A First Step Toward Defining a Small Area Approach," National Conference on Social Welfare, Los Angeles, 1964 (unpublished paper). 81Meyer, "Casework Below Poverty Line," 237. 82Whitney M. Young, Jr., "Planning Politics and Change," in Politics and The Ghetto, ed. Roland L. Warren, 206. 340 During this decade, although the role of the social worker was portrayed in anumber of diverse ways. The purpose of his role remained consistently focused upon the providing of Opportunities which would increase the self-respect, self confidence and self-worth of the peOple-in-need. Central to this was the reaffirmation of the basic tenets of social work, recognition of the innate dignity and worth of the individual, acceptance and respect for his need and right to exercise his freedom of choice. That this be communicated through the various methods and techniques was of paramount concern. To be a public servant, meant just that, one, who gives professional service "but who remains a servant." As deJongh put it: His (the social worker's) contribution, however, can only be a technical one: a contribution of methods to study the com- munity and the interrelationships between various needs and actions; a contribution also of resources and to decide upon aims and policy. But those decisions, the decisions on priorities and aims and policies, should remain the decisions of the community itself, of the citizens. In these matters of social policy just as in politics, it should not be a small group of professional techni- cians which frames the life of the community, but the community welfare field as a whole, will basically be a public servant, a public servant who has a professional service to offer but who remains a servant.83 Charles Levy expressed similar thoughts as he described the professional responsibility of the social work as: "helping to es— tablish the value premises and the preferences for action that relate to the client's (clients') need. . . . The social worker's practice with the client, then is based upon the identification of the client's difficulty, the determination of preferred approaches to dealing with it, and the generation of sufficient skill and connection on the 83J.F. DeJongh, "The Function of Social Work," Community Organization, 1961 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 16. 341 client's part to apply these approaches until the discomfort or deprivation is reduced or eliminated."84 Elsewhere the social worker's role was described as the "pro- fessional obligation" of the social worker to fight through to the finish for "client's rights and needs" and of "embracing the vital principle of involving the client in the action, of helping the client to help himself in this area (social action) as well as in that of individual and family functioning."85 During this decade, the role of the social worker began to expand as both theorists and practioners became more insightful and experienced in social action and the development of social policy. Some attempted to broaden the role only in the most general terms. For example Dan Morris talked about the worker's role needing to be a combination of "advocate, 'backbone builder,' direct leader, teacher, lawyer and only occasionally that of social worker enabler."86 This very generalized approach was also assumed by Sue Spencer and Georgia McLarnan in their description of the community service worker's role. In short, community service workers can help these families by reaching out to them and by giving to them; by offering encour- agement, appreciation, and recognition of their achievements, even though small; by helping them gain a sense of their'own worth; by helping all family members develOp a greater appreciation of each 8"Charles S. Levy, "The Social Worker as Agent of Policy Change," Social Casework 51 (February 1970), 102-103. 85Robert Sunley, "Family Advocacy: From Case to Cause," Social Casework 51 (June 1970), 348. 86Dan Morris, "Efforts to Involve the Poor in Social Action," Social Work Practice, 1966 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 164. 342 other and more facility in sharing their concerns and interests.87 Elsewhere, the role of the social worker was identified with 88 awesome array of lables: "system change agent, troubleshooter," "social parent, group leader, community caretaker, social re- " "coordinator, expe- former, contact man, service specialist, ' and "guide-teacher."89 Kahn extended diter," "mediator," "innovator,' the role of the social worker to include that of an "advocate," "helper," "facilitator," "facilitator," "enabler" and "expert- consultant."90 Collins added the aspect of the social worker as "catalyst,"91 Briar, the notion of "social broker,"92 and Cloward, Rein, Riessman and Zweig, to name but a few, incorporated the concept of the social worker as "ombudsman."93 The role which precipitated the greatest amount of discussion in the literature was that of advocate. Professional concern about advocacy became so great that the National Association of Social 87Sue w. Spencer and Georgianna McLarnan, "Fostering Spiritual Values in Family Living," Social Casework XLIV (December 1963), 578. 88Siporin, "Social Treatment," 22-23. 89Max Siporin, "Private Practice of Social Work," Social Work 6 (April 1961), 53-57. 90Kahn, Trends ip_Social WOrk Practice, 37. 91LeRoy Collins, "Civil Rights - Unfinished Business," The Social Welfare Forum: 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 47-49. 92Scott Briar, "Current Crisis," 26. 93Richard A. Cloward, "An Ombudsman For Whom?" Social WOrk 12 (April 1967), 117; Martin Rein and Frank Riessman, "A Strategy for Antipoverty Community Action Programs," Social Work 11 (April 1966), 7-8; Franklin M. Zweig, "The Social Worker as Legislative ombudsman," Social Work 14 (January 1969), 26-27. 343 Workers established The Ad Hoc Committee of Advocacy in 1968. Prob- lems which they identified included difficulty with the definition of advocacy itself, its usefulness to the worker, problems related to authority and the legal model from which advocacy derived, the profes- sional responsibilities of the worker to client and community and the dilemma of choice and value conflict. The Ad Hoc Committee in their report to the profession stated that advocacy was defined in several ways: 1. one who pleads the cause of another, as in the legal advocate; 2. one who argues for, defends, maintains or recommends a cause or a prOposal as in the political advocate.94 The Ad Hoc Committee noted that in the professional literature that advocacy has been identified in both ways. Scott Briar's defini- tion of advocacy they saw as "the orientation of the lawyer-advocate: p The caseworker was to be his client's supporter, his adviser, his champion, and, if need be, his representative in his dealings with the court, the police, the social agency not only as a therapist or as a social broker, but also as an active advocate of the client's cause in relation to the various social organizations.95 In the definition of Brager, the Committee felt was the description of the advocate-reformer, that is one who: . . . identifies with the plight of the disadvantaged. He sees the tough-minded and partisan representation of their interests and this supersedes his feeling to Others. This role inevitably 96 requires that the practitioner function as a political tactician. The Ad Hoc Committee concluded that both definitions have 94The Ad Hoc Committee on Advocacy, "The Social Worker as Advocate: Champion of Social Victims," Social Work 14 (April 1969), 16-17 a 95Scott Briar, "Current Crisis," 28. 96George A. Brager, "Advocacy and Political Behavior," M Work 13 (April 1968), 6. 344 many points wherein they overlap and that there are and will continue to be situations where the worker will have to perform his role in both connotations of the definition.97 Mary McCormick in a later evaluation of advocacy suggested consideration of a third form of the advocate role, that of social advocacy which focuses upon: . . . the whole person within the whole situation and finds its orientation in substantive knowledge about the complexities of human nature and the pressures, external and internal, to which human beings are subjected. . . . Social advocacy as an instru- ment of social work is identifiable by the objective considera- tion that it gives to means and to ends, to the ways in which its goals are approached, as well as the goals themselves. Despite the variations of definition, what is seen as a uni- fying aspect is "the vital principle of involving the client in the action, of helping the client to help himself in this area as well.99 McKinney stressed that active involvement in advocacy should always include through discussion and through participation those most affected.100 However, as have been true throughout the two decades of this study, one also finds serious doubts being raised questioning whether self determination can be in harmony with true advocacy. As Kurzman and Solomon view "the advocacy dilemma," client self-determina- tion is difficult ot implement because ". . . the advocate generally determines the best course of action to achieve the client's end. Ad- vocate generally determines the best course of action to achieve the 97Ad Hoc Committee on Advocacy, "Social Worker as Advocate,"17. 98Mary J. McCormick, "Social Advocacy: A New Dimension in Social Work," Social Casework 51 (January 1970), 10. 99Sunley, "Family Advocacy," 348. 100Geraldine E. McKinney, "AdOpting Family Therapy to Multi- deficit Families," Social Casework 51 (June 1970), 332. 345 client's end. Advocate—determination rather than client-determination tends to establish a client dependency upon the practitioner which is counter to the tradition and goals of social work."101 They also challenged the existence of client self-determination because of the constraints upon the advocate which include the goals and politics of the agency, the lack of legal education and training which are necessary since advocacy often times brings the advocate into the courtrooms.102 Briar raised another thorny question as he attempted to discern whether the worker could represent both the client and the agency who is his employer.103 Still another related question was raised by the Ad Hoc Committee regarding: "the possibility that in promoting his clients' interest the social worker may be in- juring othasaggrieved persons with an equally just claim."104 In response to the first question pertaining to the role of the worker in directing the advocacy plan, one can reply as Briar did, that if the social worker actively seeks to fulfill the professional obligation with regards to client self-determination, that is by seeking out the client's choice and direction to serve as the guide for the course of actions, then this becomes a moot question. It should be emphasized that performance of the advocacy function to the point where the client has the experience of making his wishes felt and having them acted on can enhance, sometimes dramatically, his sense of confidence, competence, and 101Paul A. Kurzman and Jefferey R. Solomon, "Beyond Advocacy: A New Model for Community Organization," Social Work Practice, 1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 67. 102Ibid., 66-68. 103 104The Ad Hoc Committee on Advocacy, "Social Worker as Advocate," 19. Briar, "Current Crisis," 29. 346 mastery and reduce the feelings of apathy and impotence many of our clients experience in their dealings with the organizations that affect their lives.105 Another response to the same question would be on the basis that this relationship between worker and client, Operating as a mutual partnership, finds that the worker is responsible for use of his pro- fessiOnal knowledge and skills on behalf of the goals and wishes of Tea his client. That the worker would assume responsibility for the direction of the advocacy action would be anticipated and consistent 7—v with the use of the authority related to the worker: knowledge and 'to hurt . . skill. Again, as noted by the Ad Hoc Committee: Through this role he is implicated in thelives of certain groups of people; thus his actions affect their lives directly for good or ill. Similarly, his work role gives him authority and in- fluence over the lives of his clients; thus he has special ethical Obligations regarding them. Finally, there are expected behaviors inherent in the work role on the basis of which it is possible to judge professional performance.106 The matter of client loyalty and agency loyalty is not as easily replied to for the worker in actuality is not a free agent. He has responsibilities to both client and agency. The Ad Hoc Committee assumed the position that in the instance of a worker in the performame of the advocate role, who gets into difficulty with his agency because of his attempt to fulfill his professional obligation to the client, that in such instances, "NASW has §p_obligation.tg the worker that takes priority over its obligation tp_the agency. In effect, the 105Briar, "Current Crisis," 30. 106The Ad Hoc Committee on Advocacy, "Social Worker as Advocauef 18. 347 worker is acting in behalf of the professional community."107 Schwartz cautioned that the resolution to this dilemma is not so easily resolved and the worker may well feel he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. "To whom, then, is the worker's primary responsibility: the agency or the client? If the former, the issue is simply met. If the latter--as in the case of the advocate—-the agency may well become a target for change." If, indeed, the worker feels that it must be the one or the other, he can do no less than choose the client and be prepared to cast his lot with the enemies of those who pay his salary. But this, of course, is the ultimate dualism, the polarization of the peOple and their own institutions.108 Brager also pointed out that this poses a serious value con- flict and dilemma of choice for the worker, one with some dangers and risks, regardless of the choice which is made. He (the social worker) must then walk the tightrope between conflicting demands. If client identification is uppermost to him, he will present the case to his agency in a way most likely to garner support for a client-oriented course of action. This may require that he minimize the risk to his agency while underscoring the importance of his client's interests. He may even argue the case with more passion than he feels, if he believes that his emotional tone will positively affect his gaining administrative support. He will, in short, engage in political behavior.109 One option open to the social worker is to become a radical Operating within the system to bring about the needed change in the agency. As Rein identified the radical role: (It) can challenge the standards Of society by showing that they are irrelevant or have hurtful consequences, that valid and relevant standards are not implemented, or that the standards men live by are faulty. . . . One form that it (radical social work) takes is when the worker acts as an insurgent within the 107Ibid., 21. 108William Schwartz, "Private Troubles and Public Issues: One Social Work Job or Two?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1969 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 31. 109Brager, "Advocacy," 7. 348 bureaucracy in which he is employed, seeking to change its policies and purposes in line with the value assumptions he cherishes. . . . Workers can act as rebels within a bureaucracy, humanizing its es— tablished procedures and policies.110 As Mary McCormick concluded, "Risk . . . is taken in one form or another whenever a professional man or woman believes that human welfare is threatened and that his involvement will somehow alleviate or remove that threat. Commitment like this is serious, demanding and Often frustrating."111 Another role which was conceptualized during this period and which is related to the advocate role is the role of the ombudsman. The concept of an ombudsman originated in Sweden and was adopted in Finland, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand. He performs an intercessory role between the people and the government. This role parallels Briar's'social broker," also aspects of the "enabler" and "facili— tator" roles suggested by deJongh and Kahn and dimensions of the "expediter, mediator" and "co-ordinator" roles presented by Siporin.112 The Ombudsman is defined as one who: "receives complaints from citizens who feel that they have been mistreated by government; . . . is an 'insider' with full access to confidential files; . is chiefly concerned with those situations in which the bureaucracy exceeds its authority and fails to follow approved procedure, i.e. 110Martin Rein, "Social Work in Search of a Radical Profes- sion," Social Work 15 (April 1970), 22—23. 111McCormick,'Social Advocacy," 10. 112Max Siporin, "Private Practice," 54. 349 "113 the problem of administrative abuse. Zweig conceived of two types of ombudsmen. The Administrative ombudsman is one who: . . . attempts to establish meaningful relationships between the organizations . . . and the individual consumer . . . (with) the power to establish channels of communication& . . . to arbitrate disputes and to make judgements of equity.11 In contrast, the Legislative ombudsman was visualized as being involved in policy evaluation and develOpment, with the Opportunity "to bring about change in organizational, community and national policy in wholesale ways by building a bridge between the client, his elected representative and poor or absent policy. . . . He also seeks to engage the individual client in the change itself, thereby adding to the potential care of policy makers."115 Cloward voiced objection to the ombudsman, not so much on philosOphical grounds but on more pragmatic issues such as the limited authority of the ombudsman, or that ombudsmanship "is not a substitute for basic reform and that only basic reform.will achieve justice for the poor" or because of the concern it "promises the poor a good deal more than it can deliver."116 Whether the social worker acts as ombudsman, enabler, facil— itator or expediter, his intended goal is to meet the needs of his clients by "negotiating effectively with the organizations in which the satisfaction of their (the clients') needs may depend."117 113 . H " Rein and Riessman, A Strategy, 7-8. 114Zweig, "Social Worker as Ombudsman," 26. 11512;Q,. 27. 116Cloward, "Ombudsman for Whom?" 118. 117 Briar, "Current Crisis," 27. 350 The justification for this function resides in the fact that there are many persons who need services but do not know that these services are available; many others know that the services are available but do not know where to obtain them; others who know where to obtain services do not know how to get them or else face Obstacles in seeking and obtaining them; and still others who do not know how to gain the maximum benefits available to them. The social worker, whether he serves as "trouble-shooter," I! II "social reformer, expediter," "innovator," he is consistently reminded that he Operates within a "liberalistic, democratic, and humanitarian social philos0phy and a strong sense of social Obligation."119 Within the limits of his position, the worker also is obligated to help clients make maximum use of the resources chosen or provided as aids in the solution of problems.120 There is a characteristic social work attempt to help clients help themselves and to stimulate volition and self—motiva- for change. . . . Within the principle of client self-determina- tion, social workers are learning to use the strength of their authority in order to help clients achieve the fragile integration and balance of conformity and creativity, autonomy and freedom. This balance, however difficult to attain in our society, remains a realistic objective for our helping efforts. Other components identified as crucial to the professionals role within the framework of social action and planning include: 1. his need for knowledge and skills in individual and group helping procedures; 2. his readiness to assume an activist type of helping role, that is he must be direct, self-assertive and influential in inter- vention in social systems; 3. his need to make a more conscious, direct and 'therapeutic' use of authority, so as to alter power structures, communica— tion patterns and community resources; 4. his use of authority needs to be consistent with democratic ethics and forms - allowing freedom of choice and choice for 118Ibid., 26. 119Siporin, "Private Practice," 54. 1201bid., 56 12libid., 59. 351 for the client — within the collaborative contract and rela- tionship between client and worker;122 5. his obligation to inform every client "that he has God—given and inalienable rights guaranteed to him under the Constitu- tion, that society has no right to ignore him, and that he does not live "in the best of all possible worlds."123 6. his responsibility to move out of a position of visibility influence and of some residual power into a position of skill and sensitivity in persuading for leadership development and training among those whom he serves.1 The role of the social worker has assumed a "new look" during this decade of the sixties. There is now a wider range of interven- tive methods and techniques at the social worker's disposal. His efforts in intervention extend from those which involve the individual client, his family or group to those which are focused upon the social systems and institutions which influence his range of behavioral Op- tions. The basic role requirements for the social worker have not changed. They include his acceptance of the client, where he is as he is; respecting him as a unique individual in whom there is inherent dignity and worth; and who possess the capacity and right to be self— determining. By beginning with an understanding of the client's needs and problems and his wished goals, the basis for a mutually agreed upon plan or contract is achieved, and the process Of treatment or intervention is begun. 122Siporin, "Social Treatment," 21—23. 123LeRoy Collins, "Civil Rights - Unfinished Business," The Social Welfare Forum: 1965 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 47. 124Kurzman and Solomon, "Beyond Advocacy," 71. CHAPTER VIII THE DILEMMA OF VALUES Values Defined Any examination of values implies a great deal of personal judgement. Values are feelings so strong that we accept them as a total way or universal standard of behovior. Someone has said that "Unless you feel so strongly about something, that you want everyone else to change to that belief, it is not a value." As one considers values, one needs to keep in mind, that they Often are intensely per- sonal; they affect the way one looks at things; for this reason then, people do not all see a situation in a similar light. In any attempt to grasp the dilemma of values, it is soon evident that the term values has many meanings. For example, McMurry defines value as: "A quality or fact of being excellent, useful, or desireable, worth in a thing,‘ while Sue Spencer used the concept to mean: "Those aspects of life to which peOple aSpire, which they like or enjoy." (Once again the emphasis is on setting the tone of a standard by which people gauge their behavior). Williams views values as: "Modes of organizing conduct both meaningfully, and effectively pleasure principles that guide human action," and Florence Kluckholm emphasizes value orientations as being "deeply rooted, mainly uncon- scious and are also so pervasive that they markedly affect the patterns 352 353 of behavior in all areas of activity."1 Bartlett in her book, Building the Common Base pf Social Work Practice, discusses the characteristics of values as being different from the characteristics of knowledge. The contrast she felt was im- portant to any discussion of values: Value refers to what is good and desirable, to what is preferred. These are qualititative judgements; they are not empirically demonstrable. They are highly invested with emotion and represent a purpose or goal towards which action will be taken. In contrast, knowledge refers to verifiable experience; to what is confirmed or confirmable. Therefore, when one refers to values, one is meaning ethical concepts and principles.2 The definition which I have chosen represents an effort to provide a synthesis of these definitions. Here the values are defined as the ethical concepts or principles to which peOple ascribe or share, which they see as representative of what is good, excellent, useful or desireable; values are principles in themselves. These four levels of distinction are part of the confusion which comes about in a dis- cussion of values. This is related to the fact that peOple are talking about different things when they refer to values; therefore, what is good may not be useful, or what is useful may not be desireable. One further point needs to be stressed and that is values becoming values in the social sense of being shared. They do serve to 1Robert McMurry, "Conflict in Human Values," in Social Work Administration: A Resource Book, ed. Harry A. Schwartz (New York: (C.S.W.E., 1970), 264; Sue w. Spencer and Georgia McLarnan, "Fostering Spiritual Values in Family Living," Social Casework XLIV (December 1963). 575. 2Harriet M. Bartlett, Building_the Common Base pf_Social Work Practice (New York: N.A.S.W., 1970), 63. 354 bind peOple together through the sharing process; they also reflect varying degrees of intensity of commitment. Since values are so highly personal, one finds that the em— phasis will differ from person to person and from culture to culture. McMurry pointed out that the influence of values upon a person's thinking, acting, and behavior tends to be seriously underestimated.3 [71* Also, because values become so personal, disagreement is inevitable. However most disagreement is mild enough that peOple do not take to the barricades, but when value conflicts become severe enough, major problems can and do develop. .:e In considering the need to study values, one important reason for doing so is because of their intense influence upon the life of the individual. This occurs in a number of ways: 1. Values principally determine what one regards as right, good, worthy, beautiful, etc. Values also provide standards and norms by which the one guides his day—to-day behavior. Values chiefly determine one's attitudes towards the causes and issues (political, social, economic, etc.) with which one comes into contact daily. Values exert a powerful influence on the kinds and types of persons with whom one can be personally compatible and the kinds of social activities in which one can engage. Values largely determine which ideas, principles, and concepts he can accept, assimilate and transmit without distortion. 3McMurry, "Conflict in Human Values," 264. 355 6. Values provide the individual with an almost unlimited number and variety of moral principles which can be employed to rationalize and justify any action one has taken or is contemplating in to taking.4 Values then tend to create internal and external conflicts, to slow down internal consistency, and at times, to deny reality. The values may represent either an individual's assessment or society's assessment or both. More often values tend to be interpreted as society's perception of preference and worth in areas which are consid- ered essential to that society, and that value conflict produces un- certainty, disorganization and at times, violence. For a profession, values represent what the profession stands for, what it considers to be highly essential for the common good of the society and the profession. It also identifies what is the recom- mended behavior of its practitioners; the behavior which is deemed 'most likely to result in the achievement of the profession's ideals.5 The dilemma of values is due to the fact that we all have not just one set of values with which to contend, but rather, we have a number of systems or sets of interlocking values. Values also tend to be stated in vague terms or as forms of symbolic representation. In addition, values do change over time. This change may be due to: cul— tural transmission; intercultural contact; technical develOpment; economic development; the urbanization process; and the list could 4Ibid., 265-266. 5Muriel W. Pumphrey, The Teaching gf_Values and Ethics in Social Work Education (New York: C.S.W.E., 1959), 8. 356 go on. Consequently some values become reaffirmed, Others revised, and some even are rejected. A few become issues of protest because of the sentimental attachments of the people or because of their ethnocentrism. 0n the other hand, some appear to receive greater emphasis because they are reflecting change or are emphasizing the current concerns of the society. Again, the process is neither sys— tematic nor planned, but rather appears to be on-going, often hap— hazard, and reflective of the many conflicting pressures and pulls upon society, upon the profession, upon the client or person being served, and upon the social worker as well. The need then is for on-going reevaluation. Value Pluralism i3 Society Martin Rein in his book, Social Policy: Issues p£_Choice and Change, discusses the problem or dilemma of values. In speaking to the issue of values in social work, I feel his comments provide an overview of the question of values in the profession of social work at large. Throughout the social work literature, one finds references to social work as a value-laden profession. Hence it might seem an easy task to summarize the values that compose its belief system and then to explore the relevance of this creed to today's urban problems. But the literature deals with values only globally; the discourse is confined to a high level of abstraction. . . . What is more, social work literature contains the implicit assumption that there is a consensus on professional values and one must join this consensus as a precondition for professional practice. All values are presented as though they were mutually reinforcing. The possibility of conflict in values is never suggested although, in actualigy, opposite sets of values are often embraced simultaneously. 6Martin Rein, Issues gf_Choice and Change_(New York: Random House, 1970), 283. 357 In attempting to set forth the values of American society and the profession of social work, a number of conflicts appear which need to be considered.7 The first conflict to arise deals with the matter of prime focus. Initially some choice must be made between develOping programs which deal with the individual's concerns or with the problems Of social institutions, or they must be seen as some '11 attempt at compromise between the two. The conflict of values here 1 can be illustrated as Opposite points upon a continuum. Individual Institutional Concerns Problems .;e It becomes apparent that choices must be made as to which side or at what point in between the two, one chooses to focus upon. Re— stated, one might distinguish between an orientation which focuses upon individual concerns in contrast to one focused upon the common good, however, thecommon good may be defined or interpreted. Implicit in the concern with common good is the question as to who determines what the common good is, and to which group it should be extended. Individual Common Concerns Good Another assessment involves exploration Of individual concerns as contrasted with group priorities, which in turn may be carried one step further, that of contrasting group concerns with societal priorities. 7The following draws upon the points raised by Bartlett, Rein, Pumphrey, Keith-Lucas and McCormick. 358 Individual Group Concerns Priorities Group Societal Concerns Priorities If a choice is made and the focus is upon the individual and his concerns, then another set of contrasting values, philosophies or ways of approaching man must be taken into account. Is the individ- ual to be viewed in terms of rugged individualism as against human- itarian considerations? Or is he to be evaluated in terms of Social Darwinism as contrasted with the Protestant Ethic attitude towards man? What about the humanistic ethic as juxtaposed to authoritarian ethics? The conflict of these values can be pictured as follows: Attitudes Towards the Individual Humanitarianism Rugged Individualism Social Protestant Darwinism Ethic Humanistic Authoritarian Ethics Ethics One needs to look closely at this last set of contrasting value orientations. The humanistic ethic is based on the principle that only man himself can determine the criteria for virtue or for sin. He is his own authority. Good is what is good for man; Bad is what is detrimental for man. The sole criteria of ethical value is man's welfare. Fromm has described the humanistic ethic as anthrOpo— centric - that is man is not the center of the universe, but rather 359 that his value judgements like all other judgements (and perceptions) are rooted in the peculiarities of his existence and are meaningful only with reference to it. Man indeed is the measure of all things; there is nothing bigger or more dignified than human existence. In contrast, the authoritarian ethic is based upon the prin- ciple of an authority setting forth what is good for man and laying down the laws and norms of conduct. Man's capacity to know what is good or bad is always limited. Therefore the norm giver is always an authority who transcends the individual. What is good or bad is not answered in terms of the interests of man but in the interests of the authority. Therefore there is the potential for the authority to be exploitive, for in this orientation, obedience is the main virtue; disobedience or rebellion is the unforgiveable sin.8 Returning to setting forth the contrasting values one must also focus upon providing the individual his Opportunities as con- trasted with providing Opportunities at large for all peOple; or a consideration of the individual's develOpment having precedence over society's needs; or the individual's happiness in relationship to society's growth and prosperity. Individual Good Society's Well-being The Individual's Opportunities Opportunities-at-large The Individual's develOpment Society's needs 8Shanker Yelaja, Authority and Social Work: Concept and Use (Toronto: University to Toronto Press, 1971), 12-15; Rein, Issues gt Choice and Change, Chapter 8. 360 The individual's happiness Society's Growth-PrOSperity One should not leave this discussion without consideration of the individual and the contrast between a society which places em- phasis upon self-reliance or a society which is committed to an em— phasis upon social-reliance. Self-reliance Social-reliance This leads one to the question of the discrepance between the ideal of an open-class society and the reality of an existing, closed- class or semi—closed class society. Open-class Closed—class Society Society Another area of contrasting values which needs to be discussed pertains to the role of government. What the leadership role of government is seen to be will, in turn, affect the nature and type of the planning which follows. And so the contrasting orientations of governmental responsibility can thus be illustrated: On the one end of the continuum, the role of government is seen as laissez-faire while at the other end one finds a position of strict governmental control and supervision. Laissez-faire Strict governmental control Expressed in another way, total social welfare programing can be seen as being conducted by private or voluntary agencies as Opposed to total, governmental, social welfare planning. 361 Total Total Private-agency Governmental welfare programing Welfare programing A third dimension is related to the basis for the selection of people for programs and services. One way is to establish requirements of eligibility, i.e., only for the 'worthy' in contrast with the availability of programs for all, i.e., universality of programs. Selected people Universality for programs of programs A fourth consideration relates to the question of freedom of choice for the individual as contrasted with a totalitarian approach with no choice of Options. Individual No choice or freedom of choice totalitarian approach Finally, the value conflicts in terms of programs which focus upon society or social institutions must also be considered. A wide range of Options are available and can be expressed in terms of primary forces. Focus on macrocosm level Microcosm level Focus upon social reform Individualized social services Focus seeking to improve Changing social social relationships relationships 9Donald S. Howard, Social welfare: Values, Means and Ends (New York: Random House, 1969), 208-214. 362 Focus on social costs Private costs i.e. total urban renewal i.e. costs of an costs as against no urban individual dislocated renewal costs by urban renewal, economic, social, psychological, etc. Choices become implicit and programs take shape when the problems of society are viewed and contrasted at the microcosm level as against the macrocosm level; or programs which focus upon the need for individualized social services as against programs which are oriented toward social reform on the broad level; or programs which evaluate private costs, such as the costs (economic, social, psycho- logical) to an individual dislocated by urban renewal in juxtaposi- tion to social costs to a community. These might conclude to an area in the process of urban renewal as against the costs brought to bear by virtue of no urban renewal programs. Value Pluralism i2 the Professional It seems apprOpriate as we enter into this discussion to cite a quotation from Elizabeth Salomon's article: "Humanistic Values in Social Casework." Scientific knowledge is always an abstraction from the Lebenswelt --complex-life world--what Hyman has referred to . . . as "the tangled bank of life," with its perplexitiesi ambiguities and, ultimately its unpredictability and mystery. It appears that she is describing the process of evolution of scientific knowledge from theory into fact, from idealism into imple- ‘mentation. As one enters into the role of the professional he does 10Elizabeth Salomon, "Humanistic Values in Social Casework," Social Casework 48 (January 1967), 28. 363 so recognizing that the profession maintains a professional stance, a value system which it considers essential to the common good of society. These professional values are added to those sets of values which he has learned early in life. Values then become or are a by—product of exposure to social work activity, the social work way of life. As Muriel Pumphrey stated in the 1959 Curriculum Study: A part of the understanding of peOple, which is an essen- tial in all of social work, is to be aware that every human being Operates in relation to some philosophy of life. The fact that individuals and groups cherish their own value positions is part of the reality within which the social worker must perform.1 While she was referring to the client's value system, one must recognize that part of the reality" for the social worker is that he too Operates within a philOSOphy of life, which also needs to be understood and accounted for. The illustration (Figure 2) is an attempt to identify some of the sets of value systems which a professional may simultaneously hold. Those which are considered included sets Of economic values, educational values, religious values, philosOphical and/or spiritual values, political values, cultural and sub—cultural values, profes- sional values and personal or idiosyncratic values. All of these sets are not nice, neat, little compartments but rather are viewed as being interlocking and in interaction with one another. At times they may overlap one another and so may be mutually reinforcing; on other occasions they may be disharmonious with one another. These value sets are dynamic in that they interact with external conditions or sources of influence and are affected by changes 11Pumphrey, "The Teaching of Values," 81. 364 Economic Educational Values Values Personal - Religious Idiosyncratic Values Values Professional Spiritual — Values Philosophical Values Cultural Political Values Values Figure 2: Plurality of Values of the Professional. The above illustrates some of the value systems which Operate simultaneously within the professional. These divisions are only a portion of the many value systems to which individuals are responsive in their daily behavior. 365 in time, place, situation and personality. As these value sets are adapting, expanding or modifying influences upon the behavior of the professional, they may also reflect variable (flexible) intensities of commitment rather than being of fixed intensity. Included in this conception of various value sets is one set which is seldom recognized in the literature but which seems to play a most important role, this is the personal set or idiosyncratic set of values which an individual holds, simply because he is a unique being, the product of similar but equally dissimilar experiences. This in- cludes those special values we each hold, and yet, the reason for which we cannot fully explain. Still we need to acknowledge their presence and their influence. It seems helpful to adapt what Spencer and McLarnan said about values and the family and apply it to values and the social worker. Restated then, they would urge social workers to keep in mind: 1. that all social workers operate on the basis of some philos- Ophy, conscious or unconscious-~about the nature of man, his worth, his rights and his responsibilities for himself and other peOple. By these attitudes and actions, social workers affirm and convey their philosophy. 2. that social workers are repeatedly called upon to make choices according to some criteria of understanding or belief. These choices are based on values that must among other things, satisfy the worker's social reference groups and the private or inner beliefs carried by the worker from his own earlier learning. 3. Ackerman has suggested that social workers apply the theory 366 of homeostasis to the area of family living. I suggest that we also apply it to the life of the social worker, wherein there is established a dynamic equilibrium or state of balance between the individual and his surrounding group. Change in the life of the social worker is brought about by environ- mental factors, internal shifts in roles, or as a result of interactions between worker, client, agency, community, and world. Such change produces stress and disequilibrium and the need to resume a state of internal balance can bring about a modification of the values of commitments of the social worker.12 The State p£_Va1ues i2 Social Work Social work as a profession has been struggling with the matter of values since its inception. The early writings of Mary Richmond indicate that even before the turn of the century, she was attempting to grasp the complexities of value assessment, especially in terms of what to teach her 'friendly visitors' who went into the homes of the peOple. The Milford Conference in 1929 struggled with the term norm and concluded that norms were used in many different senses. They might be used to convey a standard that had been formulated or the deliberate product of human thought. In the first sense, the norms represented that knowledge which had been borrowed from the sciences, 2Spencer and McLarnan, "Fostering Spiritual Values," 578. 367 notably biology. In the second sense, the norms reflected the mores of the time which have evolved or have been adapted by social work for its specific needs.13 The Milford Conference stressed however, that instead of assuming a rigid, fixed attitude towards professional norms, that the norms should serve to guide the principles Of the profession and "must always be flexibel and subject to the differences of defini- tion."14 The participants concluded that:"Thus far the philOSOphy of social case work has been comparitively little discussed and hardly at all defined. . . . we suggest again that discussion and formula— tion of the philosophy of social case work is a primary Obligation upon the members of the profession."15 In the spirit of The Milford Conference, the profession per- iodically has attempted to crystallize its thinking in the matter of values and their relationship to the profession. The formulation of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social WOrkers, the values identified in The Curriculum Study and in the NASW Regional Conference of 1967 give evidence of this on-going reassessment. Through such efforts, repeated attention has been brought to bear upon the fact that all social work values are not the same; that all 3American Association of Social Workers, Social Casework: Generic and Specific (The Milford Conference) (New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1929), 18. 14Ibid. 15Ibid., 28. 16 Refer to Appendices A, B and C. 368 professionals do not share the same value systems; that values are translated into specific positions by the different social groups; and that the translation of values into decisions, administration and action is a dynamic process. As Perlman and Gurin stated in their book Community Organization and Social Planning: Value positions are not static. They emerge, develOp and are modified in the cause of social interaction, including that between the practitioner and the peOple he serves. . . . . It is part of the practitioner's role to examine value issues continu— ously as the action proceeds.17 Similarly, Dr. Boehm pointed out in a study at Berkeley by the Ad Hoc Committee on Values and Ethics: "Social work values are not necessarily or always identical at every point with those pre- dominating in society or it may be added, in other professions. At any given time, certain values held by social work may represent a departure (whether radical or mild) from more generally accepted ones. When this occurs, interpretation becomes imperative."18 In evaluating the three value statements of social work as found in Appendices A, B, and C one must recognize the fact that social work is attempting to clarify, establish, and implement its philosophical bases. Within these value statements of the profession, it is evidence that the profession and the professional as well Operates within a philosophical frame of reference; one that rests principally upon the concept of respect for the dignity and worth of 17Robert Perlman and Arnold Gurin, Community Organization and Social Planning (New York: Wiley Press, 1972), 84. 18Werner Boehm cited by Mary J. McCormick, "The Role of Values in Social Functioning," Social Casework XLIII (February 1961), 71. 369 of the individual. This is a recurrent theme throughout each of the value statements and has been called the supreme value and ultimate value in social work.19 Accepting this as theibundation or principle value of the profession, the other values are seen to be instrumental values which serve to reaffirm the dignity and worth of the individual. One of the major instrumental values as a review of the three value statements indicates is the concept of client self—determination; that is "that man has the natural capacity and that the consequences of this, that man has the right to make choices and decisions in the selection Of appropriate means that lead to self-fulfillment." Biestek pointed out that "of all the Operating principles of social work, the principle of client self—determination has been accorded the highest value."20 Helen Harris Perlman refered to client self-determination as "one of the grand illusions basic to human develOpment and human dig- nity and human freedom."21 She went on to expand her conception of self-determination: Self-determination, then is the expression of our innate drive to experience the self as cause, as master of oneself, its practical everyday exercise builds into man's maturation process because it requires the recognition of the actual, the considera- tion of the possible, and, in light of these sometime sorry pros- pects, the adaptation involved in decision and choice. Self 1gFelix P. Biestek, "Problems in Identifying Social WOrk Values," in Values ip Social Work: A Re-examination, NASW Monograph (New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1967), 23. 20Felix P. Biestek, "Basic Values in Social Work," in Values ip_Social Work, 21. 21Helen Harris Perlman, "Self-Determination: Reality or Illusion?" in Values ip Social WOrk, 51. 370 determination is based on a realistic view of freedom. Freedom, in essence, is the inner capacity and outer Opportunity to make reasoned choices among possible, socially acceptable alternatives.22 On the degree of priority accorded to self determination, there has not been universal acceptance. In his article, "Self Deter- mination: King or Citizen in the Realm of Values," Saul Bernstein is highly critical and questioning of the emphasis accorded self-determin- ation and even suggests that taken in isolation, self-determination can be a distorted and even dangerous value.23 However, even he is led to conclude: While self-determination is not supreme, it is supremely important. Only through the rich utilization of this concept can we fully honor the humandworth value.24 The Need for Re-evaluation p£_Self-Determination Saul Bernstein wrote: Self determination, by its nature generates conflict. In this fact, social workers should welcome the Opportunity to look afresh at human affairs and relationships, to question the status quo, and to move ahead. Without conflict there is rigidity. With conflict there is the Opportunity for change; the present state of Opportunity for the full and thoughtful exercise of self-deter- mination by millions of peOple certainly calls for change.25 This is the theme of this study, an assessment of how the profession of social work has attempted to re-examine, to redefine, 23Saul Bernstein, "Self-Determination: King or Citizen in the Realm of Values?" Social Work (January, 1960), 5. 24181d., 8. 25Saul Bernstein, "Conflict, Self-Determination, and Social Work," in Values ip_Social WOrk, 83. 371 to reinterpret the principle of determination. In the period from 1950 to 1970, the profession of social work responded to the ongoing crises in American society; it interpreted the principle to changes in legislation; it has readjusted the principle in the light of new techniques and methods which have been incorporated as adOpted by the profession. This is an ongoing reassessment of what self-determina- tion is, what it means and how it can be demonstrated. As we have moved over the years, self-determination has been referred to as the concept of self realization of Mary Richmond's era, the concept of client freedom, freedom of choice, self-help and self actualization. Currently it is finding expression in the con- cepts Of client participation, community control and "doing your own thing."26 As a profession, we have a responsibility to our clients, our profession and to ourselves which requires that we examine ourselves and our philosophy. As Helen Perlman said: Despite the fact that the concept of self—determination is old in the value system of professional social work; that it has been completely and convincingly argued in our literature, it recurrently calls for re-examination. It seems to hold within it, some conflicts and paradoxes that demand that we lift it out now and again from the matrix of our value system and look at it afresh in the light of changing emphases and directions. we are at such a time now. In a similar spirit, Alan Keith-Lucas in his article: "Self- Determination and the Changing Role of the Social WOrker," Spoke to 26Mary J. McCormick, " A Legacy of Values," Social Casework XLIII (October 1961), 406. 27 Helen Perlman, "Self-Determination: Reality or Illusion," 51. 372 the need to reassess the concept of self-determination. As he stated it: Something is happening to the social work profession in this matter of self-determination, in its basic view of man, and in the role it seeks to play in the body politic. we ought to stOp and think sometimes where we are and where we may be going.28 Conclusion Werner Boehm said at the beginning of the decade of the six- ties: "Social work, then is in the process of change. Change has peculiar characteristics; it not only causes enthusiasm and fires the imagination; it also engenders resistance and causes pain."29 The purpose of this dissertation has been to examine the principle of client self-determination which is one of the basic philosophical tenets Of social work. We have through the literature, been able to trace the evolution of the principle from its very beginnings in modern-day social work, examining how the profession sought first to clarify the meaning of the principle and to set forth its unique characteristics. Reviewing the earlier work of Biestek and other writings in the period of 1920 to 1950, we saw the establishment of a clear, con- cise definition Of the principle and were able to observe the difficul- ties which arose as one attempted to Operationalize a basic philosoph- ical conviction, the problems of value conflicts and problems relating to establishment of value priorities. Related, if not critical to the 28 Work, 97. 29Werner W. Boehm, "Social WOrk: Science and Art," Social Service Review XXXV (June 1961), 144. Alan Keith-Lucas, "Self—Determination" in Values ip_Social ,Jf 373 concept of client freedom as expressed in the principle of client self-determination are matters of the nature of freedom, the resolu- tion of freedom and the use of authority, and the rights of the peOple called clients. The thesis of this paper has been that the principle of client self-determination needs to be viewed as a dynamic, evolving concept. It cannot be seen in fixed, rigid terms which then become utilized and applied in mechanistic ways. We have looked at the principle of client self-determination within the framework of the external and internal events which affected the practice of social work. In the decade of the fifties, the principle of client self-determination was described as one of the basic means for translating the democratic philosophy, the concepts of freedom, democracy and independence, to the level of the individual. It was also viewed as contributing to the well being of the society in which the client lived. In this decade, the principle of client self-determination was repeatedly evaluated in terms of the client's need and right to be self-determining. Related to this, the role of the social worker was expanded with the major effort on his part to be the creatOr of Opportunities in which the client could exercise his freedom of choice to the maximum of his level of capacity. The principle was also viewed as a right and as such the limitations of all rights were held to affect this right as well. Limitations which arose from the lack of personal strengths and re- sources, agency limitations, the lack of community services to meet the client's needs, all these were seen as influencing and limiting 374 the client's range of choice. In addition, it was also important to recognize that all rights are limited by the fact that one lives in a society, that some rights are surrendered for the common good of us all. One also needs to recognize the use of authority as a regulator of the behavior of men. As we examined the problems which arose as the professionals attempted to put into practice the principle of client self-determina— tion, we found that there was the consistent expectation that the social worker would not take over the decision-making responsibility for the client unless there was no other alternative. Instead, the worker was repeatedly urged to seek to create Opportunities for the client to make the maximum use of his potentials. We found that as there were introduced to the professional practice of social work, new theories and methods for working with people, that a key part of the acceptance process was for the theory or method to demonstrate how it reaffirmed the principle of client self-determination. As the decade of the fifties drew to a close, one conclusion which was noted was that the principle of client self- determination was an instrumental force in meeting the basic needs of man, including his need for social acceptance, his need for affirma- tion of his dignity and worth and his right to be self-determining. It was also concluded that by virtue of an individual's seeking help from another, in no way reduces his rights. The decade of the sixties had a profound impact upon the philosophy and mode of social work practice. Increased attention and concern focused upon the need for intervention at the societal level as well as at the individual level. While retaining its‘basic 375 commitments to the individual, the profession moved rapidly into the areas of social policy planning and social action. The principle of client self-determination was seen as a viable component in the planning process, from the assessment Of community needs, to the es- tablishment of community priorities and goals, to the selection of the means to achieve those goals. This decade was one of activity for both the client and the worker. The roles and responsibilities of both were greatly expanded as the affirmation of rights became a major social and legal tool. Clients were assisted in seeking redress through the courts to establish their claim to their rights. In addition, federal legislation required the participation of the peOple being served as a condition to provision of funds from several federal agencies. In what some viewed as its most extreme form, the principle of client self-determination was associated with the concept of community control. Related issues of civil disobedience as a means of protesting the violation of civil rights became one of the tech- niques to be develOped during this decade. As a result of the turbulence of the period, a new emphasis was placed upon the mutual partnership between client and social worker, between citizen and state. In addition, the evaluation proc- ess was emphasized as a crucial factor in the contract between worker and client, client and government. Patricia Sacks noted in 1953 that: Experiences fashion theories; theories fashion experiences; ex- periences contradict, correct and establish new theories. The interaction is spiraling and leaves no room for the frequently implied dichotomy between theory and practice. In a profession, theory and practice must constitute one package - and a package frequently inspected too. Theory is a dynamic, useful tool to meet the requirements of an inquiring practice by illuminating 376 truths in experience. It aims in however a modest way, to bring order out of chaos - not the defensive order of tidiness for its own sake, but the order that derives £60m perceiving the accurate relationship of Object to each other. It has been the intention of this dissertation, to note the process of change and the impact of such change upon the professional practice of social work, seen through the dimension of one of its primary values, the principle of client self—determination. Ideals and practical realities have both been studied. Myths and hard-nosed facts have been explored. The principle has been recognized to have many meanings and it needs to be reinterpreted and understood within the context Of the times. It cannot be viewed in isolation of theory from practice, but must be seen as part of the interaction and adapta- tion of one to the other. That there will be lags and an unevenness of knowledge should be anticipated and accepted as part of the professional growth process. Many questions still require answers and new questions shall continue to arise on the professional horizon. As Mary J. McCormick expressed from her vantage point: The dimensions of social work are difficult to identify. They appear to shift and change, not only with changing times but with every refinement of the knowledge, understanding, and skill that characterize professional performance. Length, depth, and breadth take on new and different meanings whenever, for example, goal and purpose are reexamined or redefined; they bring new and different challenges whenever basic values are probed or established respon- sibilities are questioned. . . . In this continuum of cause and 30Patricia Sacks, "The Contribution of Mary Richmond to Current Casework Practice," The Social welfare Forum: 1953 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 303. 31Mary J. McCormick, "Social Advocacy: A New Dimension in Social Work," Social Casework 51 (January 1970), 3. 377 and effect, with its judgement on what should be as well as what .ifis the new and the old assume complementary roles and together offer a rationale for what is to follow. Change per se is then placed in its true perspective as a normal, anticipated factor in the realization of social progress and individual well-being.31 As the profession seeks to meet the needs of the peOple, it needs to reaffirm its faith in its cause, "to reaffirm its humanistic values and to work positively for conditions of life that will promote man's humanity to man."32 The historical commitment to the principle of client self-determination is one of the means by which the future can be attained and assured. Social workers become leaders in democ- racy and democratic in leadership. If in the process of change, the principle takes on new meaning, it should be welcomed for therein is the hOpe of the future. If the past has set the stage for the future, the principle will mean many things to many men, but it will still mean the basic right of freedom of choice. As the words of the old Zen proverb states: To a man who knows nothing, mountains are mountains, waters are waters and trees are trees. But when he has studied and knows a little, mountains are no longer mountains, waters no longer waters, and trees no longer trees. But when he has thoroughly understood, mountains are once again mountains, waters are waters and trees are trees.33 31Mary J. McCormick, "Social Advocacy" A New Dimension in Social Work," Social Casework 51 (January 1970), 3. 32Charlotte Towle, "Social Work: Cause and Function," Social Casework XLII (October 1961), 397. 33Bryan Holme and Thomas Foreman, Poet's Camera (New York: Studio Publications, Inc., 1946), X. 3U "V w‘ ”'V‘ ‘7 APPENDIX APPENDIX A CODE OF ETHICS1 As a member of the National Association of Social Workers I commit myself to conduct my professional relationships in accord with the code and subscribe to the following statements: I regard as my primary obligation the welfare of the individual or group served, which includes action for improving social conditions. I will not discriminate because of race, color, religion, age, sex, or national ancestry, and in my job capacity will work to prevent and eliminate such discrimination in rendering service, in work assign- ments, and in employment practices. I give precedence to my professional responsibility over my personal interests. I hold myself responsible for the quality and extent of the service I perform. I respect the privacy of the peOple I serve. I use in a responsible manner information gained in professional relationships. I treat with respect the findings, views, and actions of colleagues and use apprOpriate channels to express judgment on these matters. I practice social work within the recognized knowledge and competence of the profession. I recognize my professional reaponsibility to add my ideas and findings to the body of social work knowledge and practice. I accept responsibility to help protect the community against unethical practice by any individuals or organizations engaged in social welfare activities. 1AdOpted by the Delegate Assembly of the National Association of Social Workers, October 13, 1960, and amended April 11, 1967. 378 379 I stand ready to give appropriate professional service in public emergencies. I distinguish clearly, in public, between my statements and actions as an individual and as a representative of an organization. I support the principle that professional practice requires profession education. I accept responsibility for working toward the creation and maintenance of conditions within agencies that enable social workers to conduct themselves in keeping with this code. I contribute my knowledge , skills, and support to programs of human welfare. 10. APPENDIX B BASIC VALUES IN SOCIAL WORK1 In the hierarchy of social work values, the dignity and worth of the human being is the supreme value. All other values are logical deductions and consequences of this one. It holds a unique position at the pinnacle of values. Man is endowed by nature with potentialities and powers in the physiological, intellectual, emotional, social, esthetic, and spiritual areas. Man has an innate thrust and an obligation toward the realization of his potentials. Man has the right to the appropriate means for the realization of this potential. Each person requires for the harmonious development of his powers socially provided and safeguarded Opportunities for satisfying his basic needs in the physical, psychological, economic, esthetic, and Spiritual realms. Man's social functioning can be enhanced by professional services. Man's social functioning is important in his striving toward self-fulfillment. Man has a capacity for choice and, because of his Obligation of self-realization, he has the right to self-determination. Each person is an individual, and he has a right and a need to be so considered. Each person has the obligation, as a member of society, to seek ways of self-fulfillment that contribute to the common good. 1National Association of Social Workers, Values ip_Social Work: A Re-Examination (New York, N.A.S.W., 1967), 23-25. Further discussion of these values is found on pages 11-35 and 98-107. 380 381 11. Society has the Obligation to facilitate the self-fulfillment of the individual. 12. Society has the right to enrichment through the contribution of its individual members. 13. The family is the basic unit of society and has a unique impor— tance in human society. 14. A larger or higher organization in society does not perform the functions that lesser or subordinate bodies or individuals are capable of accomplishing. APPENDIX C BASIC VALUES IN SOCIAL WORK1 Potentialities of man Man is endowed by nature with potentialities and powers (capacities, faculties) in the physiological, intellectual, emotional, social, esthetic, and spiritual areas. Man's Obligations Man has an innate thrust and an obligation toward the realization of his potentials. Rights of man Man has the right to the appropriate means for the realization of his potentials. Basic human needs Each person requires for the harmonious develOpment of his powers socially provided and socially safeguarded Opportunities for satis— fying his basic needs in the physical, psychological, economic, cultural, aesthetic, and Spiritual realms. Social Functioning Man's social functioning is important in his striving toward self-fulfillment. Obligations of society Society has the obligation to facilitate the self-fulfillment of the individual. Rights of society Society has . . . the right to enrichment through the contributions of its individual members. Man's Obligation to society Each person has the obligation, as a member Of society, to seek ways of Self-fulfillment that contribute to the common good. 1Felix P. Biestek, S. J., "Basic Values in Social Work," Values i2 Social Work: .A Re—Examination, An NASW’monograph (New York: NASW, 1967), ll-35. 382 383 Self-determination Man has a capacity for choice, and because of his obligation for self-realization, he has the right to self—determination. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER I Biestek, Felix P. The Principle p£_Client Self-Determination‘ip_ Social Case Work. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1951. Bruno, Frank J. Trends ip_Social Work: 1874-1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Lowry, Fern. Readings in Social Case Work: 1920—1938. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939. Perlman, Helen Harris. Helping: Charlotte Towle pp_Social Work and Social Casework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Report of the Milford Conference. Social Case Work: Generic and Specific. New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1929. 384 CHAPTER II Aldridge, Gordon J., ed. Social Issues and Psychiatric Social Work Practice. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1959. Alexander, Sadis T. "The Layman Examines Social Welfare in a Democracy," The Social Welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Anderson, Joseph P. "The Response of Social Work to the Present Challenge." The Social Welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Barrabee, Paul. "How Cultural Factors Affect Family Life." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Bartlett, Harriet M. "Toward Clarification and Improvement of Social WOrk Practice." Social Work III (April 1958): 3-9. . "Ways of Analyzing Social Work Practice." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Bernstein, Saul. "Self—Determination: King or Citizen in the Realm of Values?" Social WOrk V (January 1960): 3-8. Biestek, Felix P., S.J. The Casework Relationship. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1957. . "Religion and Social Casework." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. . "The Principle of Client Self—Determination." Social Casework XXXII (November 1951): 369—375. Bisno, Herbert. The Philosophy p§_Social Work. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1952. Boehm, Werner w. "Clarifying Terminology of Social Casework." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. . "The Nature of Social Work." Social Work III (April 1958): 10-18 0 385 386 . The Social Casework Method ip_Social Work Education. The Social Work Curriculum Study, Vol. X. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959. Bowers, Swithun, O.M.I. "Social Work and Human Problems." ‘Social Casework XXXVI (May 1954): 187—192. . "Social Work as a Helping and Healing Profession.‘ Social WOrk 2 (January 1957): 57—62. Bowles, Chester. "Our Small World." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Bruno, Frank J. Trends ip Social Work: 1874-1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Bunche, Ralph J. "Social welfare - A World Concept." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Burns, Eveline M. "The Role of Government in Social Welfare: I." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. "Social Work is Our Commitment." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Cohen, Nathan E. "The Place of the Sectarian Agency in Services to Groups." The Social welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Coyle, Grace Longwell. "The Bridge Between Social Work and the Social Sciences." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Friedlander, Walter A. ed. Concepts and Methods p£_Social Work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. Gjenvick, Benjamin A. "The Worker's Position with Respect to Client Self—Determination and Christian Responsibility." Casework Papers, 1959. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959. Glasser, Melvin A. "Social Work in 1954, Potentialities and Pitfalls." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Granger, Lester B. "Social Work's Response to Democracy's Challenge." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Greenwood, Ernest. "Attributes of a Profession." Social Work 2 (July 1958): 45-55. 387 Hamilton, Gordon. "The Role of Social Casework in Social Policy." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1952. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1952. . Theory and Practice p£_Social Casework. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Hickey, Margaret. "Presidential Address." The Social welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Howard, Donald S. "The Common Core of Social Work in Different Countries." The Social welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. . "Civil Liberties and Social Responsibilities in Social Work, II." The Social Welfare Forum: 1953. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Johnson, Arlien. "Educating the Professional Social Worker for Ethical Practice." Social Service Review XXIX (June 1955): 125-136. Kadushin, Alfred. "Prestige of Social Work - Facts and Factors." Social Work 3 (April 1957): 37-43. Kahn, Alfred J., ed. Issues ip_American Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Kasius, Cora, ed. New Directions ip_Social Work. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954. Keith-Lucas, Alan. Decisions About People in Need: A Study pf Ad: ministrative Responsiveness ip_Public Assistance. Chapel Hill, NO. Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1957. Kluckholn, Florence Rockwood. "Dominant and Variant Cultural Value Orientations." The Social Welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Landy, David. "Problems of the Person Seeking Help in Our Culture." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Lerner, Max. "What Kind of American Civilization?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Lowry, Louis. "Social Work and Social Statesmanship." Social Work V (April 1960): 97-104. MacRae, Robert H. "New Knowledge - Consequences for People." The Social Welfare Forum: 1959. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Q"! 388 McNickle, D'Arcy. "The Indian in American Society." The Social welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Malin, Patrick Murphy. "Civil Liberties and Social Responsibilities in Social Work: I." The Social Welfare Forum: 1953. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Mencher, Samuel. "The Concept of Authority and Social Casework." Casework Papers, 1960. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1960 Miles, Arthur P. American Social Work Theoryyt New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1954. Mitchell, George S. "Segregation." The Social Welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Padula, Helen and Munro, Mariam. "Thoughts on the Nature of the Social Work Profession." Social Work 4 (October 1959): 98-104. Perlman, Helen Harris, ed. Helping: Charlotte Towle pp_Social Work and Social Casework. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1969. . "The Caseworker's Use of Collateral Information." The Social Welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951 . "Social Components of Casework Practice." The Social Welfare Forum: 1953. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Potter, Brooks. "A Layman Surveys the Welfare Horizon." The Social welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Pumphrey, Muriel W. The Teachipg_of Values and Ethics in Social Work Education. The Social Work Curriculum Study, Vol. III. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959. Reid, Ira DeA. "Strengthening the Foundations of Democracy." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. . "Social Change, Social Policy and Social Wor ." The Social Welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Rockefeller, Nelson A. "The Role of Government in Social Welfare: III? The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. 389 Sherif, Muzafer. "Social ReSponSibility and the Group." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Smith, T. V. "A Political Primer for Social Workers." The Social Welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Stoddard, George D. "Social Welfare and the Emergence of the Individ— ual." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Stroup, Herbert. "Social Work's New Era." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Studt, Elliot. "An Outline for Study of Social Authority Factors in Casework." Social Casework XXXVI (June 1954): 231-238. . "The Contribution of Correctional Practice to Social Work Theory and Education." Social Casework XXXVII (June 1956): . "Worker-Client Authority Relationships in Social WOrk." Social Work 4 (January 1959): 18-28. Taylor, Telford. "Conformity and Freedom." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Towle, Charlotte. The Learner ip_Education for the Professions: 'As Seen ip Education for Social Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954. . "Implications of Contemporary Human and Social Values for Selections of Social Work Students." Social Service Review XXXIII (September 1959): 260-273. Tyler, Ralph w. "Implications of Research in the Behavioral Sciences for Group Life and Group Services." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Whitehouse, Frederick A. "Professional Teamwork." The Social Welfare welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Wilensky, Harold L. "The Impact of Industrialization on Family Life." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Wille, Jane, "Goals and Values in Education: Their Implication for Social Work Education." Social Work 5 (July 1960): 97-103. 390 Young, Whitney. "Intergroup Relations and Social Work Practice." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Youngdahl, Benjamin E. "What We Believe." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. . "Current Social Frontiers." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. CHAPTER III Social Casework Babcock, Charlotte. "The Contribution of the Family Agency." Social Service Review XXXII (September 1958): 223-233. Beck, Bertram M. "Can Social Work Prevent Social Problems?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Berkowitz, Sidney. "Some Specific Techniques of Psycho—Social Diag- nosis and Treatment in Family Casework." Casework Papers, 1955. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955. Burt, Charles J. "The Family-Centered Progect of St. Paul." Social Work 1 (October 1956): 41—47. Chambers, Katherine. "The Intake Process in Homemaker Service." Social Casework XXXVI (May 1955): 214—220. Eisenberg, Leon. "The Family in the Mid-Twentieth Century." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Ecklund, Dorothy. "Short Contact Services in an Information and Referral Center." Social Casework XXXII (December 1951): Fantl, Berta. "Integrating Psychological, Social and Cultural Factors in Assertive Casework." Social Work 3 (October 1958): 30—37. Finestone, Samuel. "Issues Involved in DevelOping Diagnostic Classifications for Casework." Casework Papers, 1960. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1960. Grunwald, Hanna. "Group Counseling With the Multiproblem Family." The Use pf Group Techniques ip_the Familyagency. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959. Haas, Walter. "Reaching Out - A Dynamic Concept in Casework." Social Work 4 (July 1959): 41—45. Henry, Charlotte S. "Initiating Service with the Non—Voluntary Client" Casework Papers, 1958. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1958. 391 392 Hollis, Florence. "Social Casework: The Psycho—Social Approach." Encylopedia pf Social Work, 16th ed. Vol II. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1971: 1217—1225. Joseph, Henry. "A Psychiatrist Considers Casework Functions." Social Work 1 (April 1956): 90—95. Kadushin, Alfred. "Opposition to Referral for Psychiatric Treatment." Social Work 2 (April 1957): 78—84. Kasius, Cora, ed. ALComparison p£_Diagnostic and Functional Casework Concepts. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1950. Kaufman, Irving. "Understanding the Dynamics of Parents with Character Disorders." Casework Papers, 1960. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1960. Kiesler, Frank and Anderson, Delwin. "Helping Towards Help: The Intake Interview." Social Casework XXXV (February 1954): 72-76. Leach, Jean M. "Casework Techniques in the Treatment of Character Disorders." Casework Papers, 1956. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1960. Lowry, Fern. "The Casework in Short Contact Services." Social Work 2 (January 1957): 52-56. Marcus, Grace F. "The Advance of Social Casework." The Social Welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Margolis, Vera S. "Ego-Centered Treatment of an Adolescent Girl." Casework Papers, 1956. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1956. Michaels, Ruth. "Giving Help to Resistive Parents." Social Work 1 (October 1956): 78—83. Overton, Alice. "Taking Help From Our Clients." Social Work 5 (April 1960): 42-50. Perlman, Helen Harris. "Social Casework: The Problem-Solving Approadn? Encyclopedia pf_Social Work, 16 ed. Vol. II. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1971: 1206-1217. . "The Client's Treatability." Social Work 1 (October 1956): 32-40 a Phillips, Dorix Campbell. "Of Plums and Thistles: The Search for Diagnosis." Social Work 5 (January 1960): 84—90. 393 Pollack, Otto; Young, Hazel M; and Leach, Helen. "Differential Diag- nosis and Treatment of Character Distrubances." Social Case- work XLI (December 1960): 512-517. Ripple, Lilian. "Factors Associated with Continuance in Casework Service." Social Work 2 (January 1957): 87-94. Scherz, Frances H. "Treatment of Acting—Out Character Disorders in a Marital Problem." Casework Papers, 1956. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1956. . "Intake: Concept and Process." Social Casework XXXIII (June 1956): 233-236. . "Strengthening the Parental Role of Adults with Character Disorders." Casework Papers, 1960. New York: Family Service Association of America, I960. Selby, Lola G. "Typologies for Caseworkers: Some Considerations and Problems." Social Service Review XXXII (December 1958): 341— 349. Sieder, Violet. "Solving Health and Welfare Problems Through Neigh- borhood Participation." The Social Welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Smalley, Ruth. "Social Casework: The Functional Approach." Ency- clOpedia pf Social Work, 16th ed. Vol. II. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1971: 1195-1206. Smith, Edmund A. "Age and Sex Influence Role of Social Worker." Social Work 4 (April 1959): 112-113. Stamm, Isabel. "Ego Psychology in the Emerging Theoretical Base of Casework." in Issues ip American Social Work, ed. by Alfred . Kahn. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959: 80-109. Taylor, Robert K. "Identification and Ego-directive Casework," Social Work 5 (January 1960): 39-45. Townsend, Gladys E. "Short-Term Casework with the Client Under Stress." Social Casework XXXIV (November 1953): 392-398. Wiltse, Kermit. "The HOpeless Family." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. "Ali'll Is.» 1 ..., I la . .. a n . .Aali 394 Social Group Work Alston, Estelle. "Group Work with Hard-to-Reach Teenagers." The Social Welfare Forum: 1951. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Austin, David. "Goals for Young WOrkers." Social Work 2 (October 1957): 43-50. Brager, George. "Group Autonomy and Agency Intake Practice." Group Work and Community Organization, 1953—1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Cloward, Richard A. "Agency Structure as a Variable in Service to Groups." Gropp Work and Community Organization 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Cohen, Nathan E. "Implications for Social Work Practice." The Social Welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. . "Services to Groups and Individuals in Groups." The Social welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Coyle, Grace L. "Group Work in Psychiatric Settings: Its Roots and Branches" Social Work 4 (January 1959): 74-81. Eisen, Arnold. "Group Work and Newly Arrived Patients in a Mental Hospital." Social Work With Groups,_l958. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1958. Fisher, Raymond. "Social Group Work in Group Service Agencies." Social Work With Groups, 1959. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1959. Frank, Lawrence K. "Changes Through the Group Experience." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Hurwitz. Jacob. "Systemizing Social Group Work Practice." Social Work 1 (July 1956): 63-69. Kaiser, Clara A. "Social Group Work Practice and Social ReSponsibiliiy." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. . "The Advance of Social Group Work." The Social Welfare Fomnn: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. 395 . "Characteristics of Social Work." The Social Welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. . "The Social Group Work Process." Social Work 3 (April 1958): 68-75. Kilinski, Mildred; Hallowitz, Emanuel; and King, Charles H. "Inte- grating Group Therapy in the Family Agency Program." in The Use gf_Groap_Techniques ip_the Family Agency. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959: 17-30. Klein,AJan. "Individual Change Through Group Experience." The Social Welfare Forum: 1959. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Knowles, Malcolm S. "The Group Process in Adult Education." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. KonOpka, Gisela. "Similarities and Difference Between Group Work and Group Therapy." Selected Papers ip_Group Work and Community thanization, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publica- tions Institute, Inc., 1951: 51-59. . "The Generic and the Specific of Group Work Practice in a Psychiatric Setting." Social Work 1 (January 1956): 71-80. . "Group Work Techniques in Joint Interviewing." The Social Welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. . "A Brief Note on the Differential Use of Group Discussion." Social Service Review XXXII (September 1958): 287-289. . "Social Group Work: A Social Work Method." Social Work 2 (October 1960): 53-61. Leichter, Elsa. "SCOpe and Versatility of Group Counseling in Family Casework." in‘Ihehgse_pf.GroupTechniques ip_the Family Agency. New York: Family Service Assocation of America, 1959, 5-16. Lerman, Paul. "Group Work with Youths in Conflict." Social Work 3 (October 1958): 71—77. Northen, Helen. "Interrelated Functions of the Social Group Worker." Social WOrk 2 (April 1957): 63-69. Phillips, Helen U. "Social Values and Social Group Work." Group Work Papers, 1957. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1958. 396 Schwartz, Betty. Knowledge and Skills Used in Social Group Work Practice." Social Work With Groups, 1959. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1959. Schwartz, William. "Group Work and the Social Scene." In Issues ip. American Social Work. ed. by Alfred J. Kahn. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959, 110-137. Sherif, Mazafer. "Social Responsibility and the Group." The Social welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. , Sherman, Sanford N. "Goals and Techniques of Casework-Oriented Group Treatment." Casework Papers, 1955. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955. . "Utilization of Casework Method and Skill in Group Coun- seling." Casework Papers, 1960. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1960. Shiffman, Bernard M. "Effecting Change Through Social Group Work." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Simon, Paul. "Social Group Work in Camping." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Wilson, Gertrude. "Measurement and Evaluation of Social Group Work Practice." The Social WelfareForum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. . "Social Group Work Theory and Practice." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. , and Ryland, Gladys. "Social Classes: Implication for Social Group Work." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Woodruff, Robert R. "Group Work in a Children's Hospital." Social Work 2 (July 1957): 56-61. Community,0rganization Alexander, Chauncey H., and McCann, Charles. "The Concept of Repre- sentativeness in Community Organization." Social Work 1 (January 1956): 48-52. Barry, Mildred C. "Current Concepts in Community Organization." Group Work and Community Organization, 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. 397 Beck, Bertram.M. "Shaping America's Social Welfare Policy." in Issues ip American Social Work, ed. by Alfred Kahn. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959: 191-210. Bryant, Drayton S. "The Next Twenty Years in Public Housing." Social Work 4 (April 1959): 46-54. Carter, Genevieve. "Practice Theory in Community Organization." Social Work 3 (April 1958): 49-57. Cohen, Nathan E. "Reversing the Process of Social Disorganization." in Issues ip_American Social Work. ed. by Alfred J. Kahn. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959: 138-158. Conzemius, Rosemary. "Building a Sense of Community in Rural Areas." Grapp Work and Community Organization, 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Dunham, Arthur. "Community Development." The Social Work Year Book, 1960. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1960: 179-186. Dyer, Donald B. "The Role and Responsibility of Public Agencies in Building a Total Community Recreation Program." Selected Papers ip_Group Work and Community thanization, 1952. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1952: 25-27. Gustafson, Howard F. "Emerging Concepts in Community Welfare Plan- ning." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. "Community Welfare Councils." The Social Work Year Book, 1960. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1960: 191-198. Hamilton, Gordon. "The Role of Social Casework in Social Policy." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1952. Raleigh, NO. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1952: 66-83. Hendry, Charles. "Teamwork in Rural Communities." The Social Welfare Forum: 1953. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953: 266-278. Hill, John G. "Social Action." The Social Work Year Book, 1951. New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1951: 455-460. Kingsley, J. Donald. "The Citizen's Responsibility for Social Action." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. 398 Kramer, Ralph M. "Dynamics of Teamwork in the Agency, Community and Neighborhood." Social Work 1 (July 1956): 56-63. Lynde, Edward D. "Two-Pronged Approach to Community Planning." Selected Papers ip_Group Work and Community thanization, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1952: 104-107. . "The Role of the Community Organization Practitioner." Selected Papers ip_Group Work and Community nganization, 1952. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1952: 118-128. MacRae, Robert H. "Services to Agencies and Communities." The Social Welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957: 21-26. . "Community Welfare Councils." The Social Work Year Book, 1957. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1957: 185-191. McNeil, C. F. "Community Organization for Social Welfare." The Social Work Year Book, 1951. New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1951: 122-128. . "Community Organization for Social welfare." The Social Work Year Book, 1954. New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1954: 121-128. Manser, Gordon. "A Critical Look at Community Planning." Social Work 5 (April 1960): 35-41. Mayo, Leonard W. "Community Planning for Health and Welfare." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Murphy, Campbell G. "Community Organization for Social Welfare." The Social Work Year Book, 1957. New York: National Associa- tion of Social Workers, 1957: 179-185. . "Community Organization for Social welfare." The Social Work Year Book, 1960. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1960: 186-191. Neal, L. Robert. "The Interrelatedness of Community-Wide District Planning of Health and Welfare Services." Selected Papers ip Group Work and Community thenization, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolinz Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1952: 108-111. Ortof, Murray B. "Public Housing: New Neighbors in Old Communities." Social Work 4 (April 1959): 55-63. 399 Putman, Emilie B. "Organizing the Community Here and Abroad." Social Work 3 (April 1958): 105-108. Ray, Florence. "Planning Decentralized Programs." The Social Welfare Forum: 1955. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Seeman, Isadore. "Social Welfare and Urban Renewal." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Shaw, Thelma. "Community Planning and National Agency Services." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Sieder, Violet M. "What is Community Organization Practice?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. . "The New Look in Community Planning." Social Work 5 (April 1960): 105-108. Solender, Sanford. "Social Action." The Social Work Year Book, 1957. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1957: White, R. Clyde. "The New and the Old in Community Development." Social Work 3 (July 1958): 49-56. Wickenden, Elizabeth. "Social Action." The Social Work Year Book, 1960. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1960: 529-535. Administration and Supervision Aufricht, Emmy. "Control and Freedom in the Caseworker's Growth," Administration, Supervision and Consultation. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955: 46-50. Feldman, Yonata. "Some Particular Emphases in Supervision." Social Work 1 (January 1956): 62-66. Hanford Jeanette. "Integration of the Teaching and Administrative Aspects of Supervision." Administration, Supervision, and Consultation. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955: 51-58. Henry, Charlotte 8. "Criteria for Determining Readiness of Staff to Function Without Supervision." Administration, Supervision and Consultation. New York: Family Service Association of America 1955: 34-45. 400 Kruse, Arthur H. "The Psychodynamics of Administration." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Leyendecker, Gertrude. "A Critique of Current Trends in Supervision." Casework Papers, 1959. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959. Osborn, Phyllis R. "Meeting the Needs of PeOple: An Administrative Responsibility." Social Work 3 (July 1958): 70-75. Pleydell, Albert. "The Role of the Management Consultant in the Social Work Field." Administration, Supervision and Consultation. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955: 92-97. Reynolds, Rosemary. "Meeting the Needs Of the First-Year Worker." Casework Papers, 1957. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1957. Siegel, Doris. "Consultation: Some Guiding Principles." Administra- tion, Supervision and Consultation. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955: 98—114. Wolfe, Corrine H. "Basic Components in Supervision." The Social welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. CHAPTER IV Self-Determination and Working With the Aged Cohen, Ruth G. "Casework with Older Persons." Social Work 2 (January 1957): 30-35. Freeman, David. "Rehabilitiation of the Mentally Ill Aging." Social Work 4 (October 1959): 65-71. Goodman, Anne. "Medical Social WOrk with the Aged in a Public Institution." Social Casework XXXVI (November 1955): 417-422. Landau, Gertrude. "The Day Center for the Aged - A Multifunctional Service." Group Work and Community Organization, 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Larson, Neota. "OASI and the Social Services." Social Work 3 Oanuary 1958): 12-17. Lokshin, Helen. "Casework Counseling with the Older Client." Social Casework XXXVI (June 1955): 257-263. Posner, William. "Adapting and Sharpening Social Work Knowledge and Skills in Serving the Aging." Social Work 2 (October 1957): 37-42 a Preston, William, "Homemaker Service for Older Persons." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1951. Raleigh, NO. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951: 42—48. Rosen, Theodore and Kostick, Abraham. "Separation and Adjustment Problem in a Home for the Aged." Social Work 2 (January 1957): 36-41. Sibulkan, Lillian. "Special Skills in Working with Older PeOple." Social Casework XL (April 1959): 208-212. Self-Determination and Working With Children Alt, Herschel. "Psychiatric Social Worker's Role in Residential Treatment." Social Casework XXXII (November 1951): 363-367. Beck, Bertram M. "The Adolescent's Challenge to Casework." Social Work 3 (April 1958): 89-95. 401 402 Britton, Clara. "Casework Techniques in Child Care Services." Social Casework XXXVI (March 1955): 3-13. Hurwitz, Sidney N. "The Child Who Belongs to Himself." Social Work 5 (January 1960): 46-55. Hutchinson, Dorothy. "Basic Principles in Child Welfare." Selected Papers ip Casework, 1952. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1952: 121-128. Josselyn, Irene. "Social Pressures on Adolescence." Social Casework XXXIII (April 1952): 185-190. Lane, Lionel. "Aggressive Approach in Preventive Casework in Children's Problems." Social Casework XXXIII (February 1952): 64-67. Lourie, Norman V. "The Children's Institution: One Step in Casework Treatment." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. McCabe, Alice R. "Casework With Children in a Family Agency." Casework Papers, 1956. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1956. Marks, Malcolm. "Group Psychotherapy for Emotionally Distrubed Children." Group Work and Community Organization, 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Mitchell, Grace W. "Casework with the School Child." Social Work 2 (July 1957): 77-83. Smalley, Ruth E. "The School Social Worker Helps the Troubled Child." Social Work 1 (January 1956): 103-108. Townsend, Gladys E. "The Intake Process in Casework with Runaways." Casework Papers, 1955. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955. Young, Arthur. "Counseling with Emotionally Disturbed Adolescents." Social Work 3 (January 1958): 35-42. Young, Carol. "Social Group WOrk with Children in a General Hospital." Group Work Papers, 1957. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1957. Self-Determination and the Mentally Handicapped Ambosino, Salvatore. "A Project of Group Education with Parents of Retarded Children." Casework Papers, 1960. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1960. 403 Dodsworth, Don J. "A Social Group Work Activity Program in a Children's Institution." Social Work With Groups,_l958. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1958. Grove, Francis. "Social Group Work Service for the Mentally Retarded." Group Work Papers, 1957. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1957. Gustin, Albert. "State Hospital Reception Program for Patients and Relations." Social Casework XXXVI (June 1955): 269-272. Hechler, Jacob. "Social Controls in Institutional Treatment." Social Work 1 (April 1956): 61-67. Kelman, Howard R. "Parent Guidance in Clinic for Mentally Retarded Children." Social Casework XXXIV (December 1953): 441-447. . "Meeting the Needs of the Mentally Retarded Child." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. . "Social Work and Mental Retardation: Challenge or Failure?" Social Work 3 (July 1958): 37-42. Mandelbaum, Arthur and Wheeler, May Ella. "The Meaning of a Defec- tive Child to Parents." Social Casework LXI (July 1960): 360-367. Mednick, Miriam F. "Casework Service to the Mentally Retarded Child and Adult." Casework Papers, 1957. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1957. Morris, Thais and Stevenson, Ian. "Psychiatry and Social Work in the Vocational Rehabilitation of Psychiatric Patients." The_ Social Welfare Forum: 1953. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Rockmore, Myron John. "Casework Today in a Psychiatric Setting." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951: 80-89. Schapps, Myra R. "Reaching Out to the Mentally Retarded." Casework Papers, 1959. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959. Shea, Margaret. "Establishing Initial Relationships with Schizophrenic Patients." Social Casework XXXIV (March 1953): 119-123. Slear, M. Genevieve. "Psychiatric Patients: Clinically Improved But Socially Disabled." Social Work 4 (March 1953): 64-71. Stephens, Elsie. "Defensive Reactions of Mentally Retarded Adults." Social Casework XXXIV (March 1953): 19-27. 404 Weisman, Irving, "Impact of Setting Upon Social Workers and Patients." Social Work 2 (July 1957): 70-76. Self-Determination and the Offender Brenner, Ruth F. "Cultural Implications for a Child Guidance Clinic in a Court Setting." Social Work 2 (July 1957): 26-31. Cochrane, Hortense 8. "Discussion of Casework Services Today in Institutions for Delinquents." Selected Papers ip Casework, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951: 110-114. Coldren, J. Donald. "The Delinquent - His Education." Selected Papers ip Casework, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951: 118-128. Goldsmith, Avel. "Challenges of Delinquency to Casework Treatment." Social Work 4 (April 1959): 14-19. Harmon, Maurice A. "The Importance Of Staff Teamwork in a Training School." Selected Papers ip_Group Work and Community_Otgan- ization, 1952. Raleigh, NO. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1953: 109-117. Hill, Benjamin J. "Security Need Not Be Punishment." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1952. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1953: 110-120. Jones, John H. "Group Work with Delinquent Adolescent Boys." Social Work with Groups, 1959. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1959. Keith-Lucas, Alan. "Discussion of Casework Services Today in Institutions for Delinquents." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 115-117. Martin, John M. "Social-Cultural Differences: Barriers in Casework with Delinquents." Social Work 2 (July 1957): 22—25. Meeker, Ben S. "The Curriculum Study: Implications for the Field of Corrections." Social Casework XLI (January 1960): 24-29. Nagel, William G. "Custody and Treatment - Twin Aims of the Prison Social Worker." Casework Papers, 1957. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1957. Ohlin, Lloyd E. and Lawrence, William C. "Social Interaction Among Clients as a Treatment Problem." Social Work 4 (April 1959): 3-13 0 405 Peck, Harris R. "New Approaches to the Treatment of the Delinquent Adolescent." Casework Papers, 1955. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1955. Piren, Herman and Pappenfort, Donnell M. "Strain Between Administrator and Worker: A View from the Field of Corrections." Social Work 5 (October 1960): 37-45. Polsky, Howard w. "Changing Delinquent Subculture: A Social Psycho- logical Approach." Social Work 4 (October 1959): 3-15. Studt, Elliot. "Learning Casework in a Juvenile Probation Setting." Social Casework XXXII (October 1951): 343-348. . "An Outline for the Study of Social Authority Factors in Casework." Social Casework XXXV (June 1954): 231-238. . "The Contribution of Correctional Practice to Social Work Theory and Education." Social Casework XXXVII (June 1956): 263-269. Vinter, Robert and Janowitz, Morris. "Effective Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents: A Research Statement." Social Service Review XXXII (June 1959): 118-130. Younghusband, Eileen L. "The Dilemma of the Juvenile Court." Social Service Review XXXII (March 1959): 1-20. Self-Determination and the Public Assistance Client Bierman, Pearl. "Medical Assistance Programs." Social Service Review XXXVIII (June 1954): 195. ' Brown, J. Douglas. "The American PhilOSOphy of Social Insurance." Social Service Review XXXVII (March 1956): 1-8. Clavert, Mary B. "Current Emphasis in Casework in Public Agencies in Rural Areas." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1951. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951: 63-69. Cohen, Wilbur J. "Factors Influencing the Content of Federal Public Welfare Legislation." The Social Welfare Forum: 1954. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Dunn, Laula. "Potentialities for State and Local Public Welfare." The Social welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Ernst, Theodore. "Residence Laws: Recurrent Crisis." Social Work 5 (April 1960): 16-22. 406 Folsum, Marion B. "Our Challenge in Social welfare." The Social Welfare Forum: 1956. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Foster, Helen B. "Family Centered Services Through Aid to Dependent Children." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Galloway, Margaret. "The Essential Service in Public Assistance." The Social Welfare Forum: 1957. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1957. Grafstrom, Jeanette R. "Casework in Public Assistance - Myth, Frill or Goal." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1952. Raleigh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1953, 52-65. Hoey, Jane H. "Public Welfare - Burden or Opportunity." Social Service Review XXVII (December 1953): 375-378. Itzin, Neva L. "Right to Life Subsistence, and the Social Services." Social Work 3 (October 1958): 3-11. Kahn, J.P. "Attitudes Toward Public Assistance Clients." Social Casework XXXIV (December 1953): 359-364. Minton, Eunice. "Services for Children in Public Assistance." Casework Papers, 1957. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1957: 73—81. . "Effect of Setting on Casework Practices in Public Assist- ance." Social Casework XXXVII (February 1956): 61-68. Osborn, Phyllis. "Establishing Confidence in Our Social Welfare Programs." The Social Welfare Forum: 1952. New York: Columbia University Press, 195]. . "Aid to Dependent Children - Realities and Possibilities." Social Service Review XXVIII (June 1954): 153-172. Potter, Crystal M. "Constructive ASpects Of Public Assistance for Children." Selected Papers ip_Casework, 1951. Raliegh, No. Carolina: Health Publications Institute, Inc., 1951: 55-62. Richman, Leon H. "Differential Planning in Child welfare." Casework Papers, 1958. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1958. Roney, Jay L. "Taking Stock in Public Assistance." The Social Welfare Forum: 1958. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Schorr, Alvin. "Problems in the ADC Program." Social Work 5 (April 1960): 3-15. 407 Schottland, Charles I. "The Nature of Services in Public Assistance." Casework Pa ers, 1959. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959. Wiltse, Kermit T. "Social Casework Services in the ADC Program." Social Service Review XXVIII (June 1954): 173-185. . "New Approaches to the Administration of ADC Programs." Casework Papers, 1959: New York: Family Service Association of America, 1959. "Aid to Dependent Children: The Nation's Basic Family and Child welfare Program." The Social Welfare Forum: 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. CHAPTER V Self-Determination: Philosophical Reconsiderations Blum, Arthur. "Values and Aspirations as a Focus for Treatment." Social Work Practice, 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Coughlin, Bernard J., S. J. "Value Orientation in Social Welfare." The Social welfare Forum: 1967. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Council on Social Work Education. Ap_Intercultural Exploration: Universals and Differences iu_Social Work Values, Functions and Practice. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1967 O Fithatrick, Joseph P., S.I. "Values, Ethics, and Family Life." Helping the Family in Urban Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Gordon, William E. "Knowledge and Value: Their Distinction and Relationship in Clarifying Social Work Practice." Social Work 10 (July 1965): 32-46. Gunsalas, Catherine M. "The Impact of Social Revolutions on Values." The Social Welfare Forum: 1969. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1969} Gyarfas, Mary. "Social Science, Technology, and Social Work." Social Service Review 43 (September 1969): 259-273. Hellenbrand, Shirley C. "Client Value Orientations: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment." Social Casework XLVII (April 1961): International Council on Social Welfare. Social Welfare and Human Rights. New York: Columbia University Press,Il969. Kaplan, Abbott. "Value Dilemma Facing Communities in Social Change." The Social Welfare Forum: 1964. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Katz, Alfred H. "Application of Self-Help Concepts in Current Social welfare." Social Work 10 (July 1963): 68-74. 408 409 Keith-Lucas, Alan. "A Critique of the Principle of Client Self- Determination." Social_Work 8 (July 1963): 66-71. Kendall, Katherine A. (ed). Social Work Values in an Age of Dis- content. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1970. Krill, Donald F. "Existential Psychotherapy and the Problem of Anomie." Social Work 14 (April 1969): 33-49. Meyer, Donald F. "Casework in a Changing Society." Social Work Practice, 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Miller, Henry. "Value Dilemmas in Social Casework." Social Work 13 (January 1968): 27-33. National Association of Social Workers. Values in Social Work: A Re-Examination. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1967. Pumphrey, Muriel W. "Transmitting Values and Ethics Through Social Work Practice." Social Work 6 (July 1961): 68-75. Schmidt, Julianna T. "The Use of Purpose in Casework Practice." Social Work 14 (January 1969): 77-84. Soyer, David. "The Right to Fail." Social Work 8 (July 1963): 72-78. Spencer, Sue W. and McLarnan, Georgianna. "Fostering Spiritual Values in Family Living." Social Casework XLIV (December 1963): 575-581. Stretch, John J. "Existentialism: A PrOposed PhilOSOphical Orienta- tion for Social Work." Social Work 12 (October 1967): 97-102. Tillich, Paul. "The Philosophy of Social Work." Social Service Review XXXVI (March 1962): 13-16. Travis, George and Neely, Del M. "Grappling with the Concept of Self- Determination." Social Casework XLVIII (October 1967): 503- 508. Self-Determination: Civil and Social Rights Berry, Margaret. "Civil Rights and Social Welfare." The Social Wel- fare Forum: 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. . "Obstacles to Achieving Social Democracy in the United States." Social Service Review XXVI (June 1962): 135-138. Burns, Eveline M. "What's Wrong with Public Housing?" Social Service Review XXXVI (June 1962): 111-122. 410 Cohen, Nathan B. "Social Conscience and Social Work." The Social Welfare Forum: 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Cohn, Rubin G. "Right to Privacy: Conflict and Dilemma." Illinois State University Journal 30 (April 1968): 23-32. DePemberton, John, Jr. "Is there a Moral Right to Violate the Law?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. George, James.. Gault and the Juvenile Court Revolution. Ann Arbor: Institute of Continuing Legal Education, 1968. Gil, David G. "Mbthers' Wages - An Altermative Attack on Poverty," Social Work Practice, 1969. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Ginsberg, Leon H. "Social Problems in Rural America." Social WOrk Practice, 1969. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Handler, Joel F. "Justice for the Welfare Recipient: Fair Hearings in AFDC - The Wisconsin EXperience." Social Service Review 43 (March 1969): 12-17. Isaac, Sol Morton. "Law and Social Welfare." The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. Jordon, Barbara. "Income Security Policies - The Heineman Commission PrOposal." The Social Welfare Forum: 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Kennedy, Rev. Robert P. "Moral and Ethical Issues in Income Mainte- nance - A Catholic Viewpoint." The Social Welfare Forum: 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. ‘ LaCoor, Jane K. "Technology and Human Values." The Social Welfare Forum: 1967. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. McCarthy, Eugene J. "The Anatomy of Poverty." The Social Welfare Forum: 1961. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961 Mencher, Samuel. "Newburgh: The Recurrent Crisis of Public Assist- ance." Social Work 7 (January 1962): 3-11. Minter, Ellouise Mitchell. "The Fair Hearing: A Core Strength." Social Service Review XXXVIII (March 1964): 1-11. Obenhaus, Victor. "Moral and Ethical Issues in Income Maintenance: A Protestant VieWpoint." The Social Welfare FOrum: 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Rauch, Julia B. "Federal Family Planning Programs: Choice or Coercion?" Social Work 15 (October 1967): 68—75. 411 Rosen, Alex. "A Social WOrk Practitioner to Meet New Challenges." The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. Setleis, Lloyd. "Civil Rights and the Rehabilitation of AFDC Clients." Social Work 9 (April 1964): 3-9. Shlakman, Vera. "Unmarried Parenthood: An Approach to Social Policy." Social Casework XLVII (October 1966): 494-501. Simons, Savilla Millis. "Services to Uprooted and Unsettled Families." The Social Welfare Forum: 1962. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Taylor, Hasseltine Byrd. "The Nature of the Right to Public Assist- ance." Social Service Review XXXVI (September 1962): 265-268. Theobald, Robert. "The Guaranteed Income: A New Economic and Human Right." The Social welfare Forum: 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Tollen, William B. "Financing Medical Care of the Aged." Social Work 6 (April 1961): 3-11. Warren, Roland Lu,ed. Politics and the Ghettos. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Wickenden, Elizabeth. "Social Change Through Federal Legislation." The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Winston, Ellen. "The Contribution of Social Welfare in Economic Gro ." The Social Welfare Forum: 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Young, Whitney M. Jr. "Social Welfare's Responsibility in Urban Affairs." The Social Welfare Forum: 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. "Reason and Responsibility in the Elimination of Bigotry and Poverty." The Social Welfare Forum: 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. CHAPTER VI Self-Determination Applied tp_Individual Situations: The Aged Lampe, Helen. "Diagnostic Considerations in Casework with Aged Clients." Social Casework XLIII (May-June 1961): 240-244. Lazarus, Esther. "The Influence of Social Structure on Casework Practice with the Aging." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 227-234. Lehmann, Virginia. "Guardianship and Protective Services for Older PeOple." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 252-257. Milloy, Margaret. "Casework with the Older Person and the Family." Social Casework XLV (October 1964): 450-456. Posner, William. "Basic Issues in Casework with Older PeOple." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 234-239. Rosen, Theodore. "The Significance of the Family to the Resident's Adjustment in a Home for the Aged." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 239-245. Sharkey, Harold B. "Sustaining the Aged in the Community." Social Work 7 (January 1962): 18-22. Turner, Helen. "Use of the Relationship Casework Treatment of Aged Clients." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 245-252. Vasey, Wayne. "The Aging Population: A Challenge to Social Work." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 221-227. Wasser, Edna. "Responsibility, Self-Determination, and Authority in Casework Protection of Older Persons." Social Casework XLII (May-June 1961): 258-265. 412 413 Parents and Children Creager, Ray, M.D. "Diagnosis and Treatment of Brain-Damaged Children? Social Work Practice, 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Finkelstein, Harry. "Containment of Acting-out Adolescents in an Open Institution." Social Casework XLII (March 1961): 134-138. Hallowitz, David and Cutter, Albert V., M.C. "The Family Unit Approach in Therapy: Uses, Process and Dynamics." Casework Papers, 1961. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1961 Litherland, Thomas B. and Smith, Imogene w. "The Dilemma of Self- Identity of Parents of Psychotic Children." Social Work Practice, 1962. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Noar, Gertrude. ". . . To Every Man His Chance." Children and Today's World. New York: Association for Childhood Education, International, 1967. Pumphrey, Muriel W.; Goodman, Mortimer; and Flax, Norman. "Inte- grating Individuals with Impaired Adaptive Behavior in a Group Work Agency." Social Work Practice, 1962. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Satir, Virginia M. "SchiZOphrenia and Family Therapy." Social Work Practice, 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Varley, Barbara K. "The Use of Role Theory in the Treatment of Disturbed Adolescents." Social Casework 69 (June 1968): 362-366. Work With Groups Crow, Maxine. "Preventive Intervention Through Parent Group Educa- tion." Social Casework 48 (March 1967): 161-165. Frey, Louise A. "Support and the Group: A Generic Treatment Form." Social Work 7 (October 1962): 35-42. Morgan, Patricia M. "A Project on Resocialization of Patients in a Mental Hospital: Use of Group Work Techniques." Social Casework XLII (February 1961): 60-64. Shapiro, Joan. "Group Work with Urban Rejects in a Slum Hotel." Social Work Practice, 1967. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. 414 Shoemaker, Louise P. "Group Work in Public Welfare." Social Work Practice, 1967. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. TrOpp, Emanuel. "The Group: In Life and In Social Work." Social Casework 46 (May 1968): 267-274. Vinik, Abe. "Role of the Group Service Agency." Social Work 9 (July 1964): 98-105. Weisman, Celia B. "Social Structure As Determinant of the Group Worker's Role." Social Work 8 (July 1963): 87-94. Within Other Client Situations Chaskel, Ruth. "Assertive Casework in a Short-term Situation." Casework Papers, 1961. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1961. Horn, Frances. "Emerging Role of a Social Worker with HOSpitalized Alcoholics." Social Casework XLII (March 1961): 117-123. Mayo, Claire and Tive, Susanne B. "Turning Negatives into Positives in Treatment." Social Casework 48 (February 1967): 95-97. The Role Theory Model Glasser, Paul H. "Social Role, Personality and Group Work Practice." Social Work Practice, 1962. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Leader, Arthur. "The Role of Intervention in Family Group Treatment." Social Casework XLV (June 1964): 327-331. Perlman, Helen Harris. "Identity Problems, Role, and Casework Treat- ment." Social Work Practice, 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. . "The Role Concept and Social Casework: Some Explorations. I. The "Social" in Social Casework." Social Service Review XXV (December 1961): 370-381. . "The Role Concept and Social Casework: Some Explorations. II. What Is Social Diagnosis?" Social Service Review XXVI (March 1962): 17-31. Schwartz, William. "The Social Worker in the Group." The Social Welfare Forum: 1961. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 415 Siporin, Max. "Social Treatment: A New-Old Helping Method." Social Work 15 (July 1970): 13-25. Strean, Herbert S. "Role Theory, Role Models, and Casework: Review of the Literature and Practice Applications." SOcial Work 12 (April 1967): 77-88. Weisman, Irving. "Offender Status, Role Behavior and Treatment Con- siderations." Social Casework 48 (July 1967): 422-425. The Behavioral Model Aronowitz, Eugene and Weinberg, Devise. "The Utilization of Reinforce- ment Theory in Social Group Work Practice." Social Service Review 40 (December 1966): 390-398. Bandura, Alfred. Principles p§_Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Bruck, Max. "Behavior Modification Theory and Practice: A Critical Review." Social Work 13 (April 1968): 43-55. Morrow, William R. and Gochros, Harvey L. "Misconceptions Regarding Behavior Modification." Social Service Review 44 (September 1970): 298-307. Rose, Sheldon D. "A Behavioral Approach to the Group Treatment of Parents." Social Work 14 (July 1969): 21-29. Thomas, Edwin J. "Selected Sociobehavioral Techniques and Principles: An Approach to Interpersonal Helping." Social Work 13 (January 1968): 12-26. . "Social Casework and Social Group Work: The Behavior Modification Approach." in Encyclopedia pt Social Work, 16th ed., Vol. II. New York: National Association of Social Work, 1971. The Changing Role of the Worker Colt, Ann. "Casework Treatment with a Borderline Client." Social Casework 48 (October 1967): 482-488. Garcea, Ralph A. and Irwin, Olive. "A Family Agency Deals with the Problem of Dropouts." Social Casework XLIII (February 1962): 71-75. Gottleib, werner and Stanley Joe H. "Mutual Goals and Goal Setting in Casework," Social Casework 48 (October 1967): 471-481. Gray, Naomi Thomas. "Family Planning and Social Work Responsibility." Social Casework 49 (October 1968): 487-493. 416 Meyer, Carol H. "Individualizing the Multi-Problem Family," Social Casework XLIV (May 1963): 267-272. Pollak, Otto. "Treatment of Character Disorders: A Dilemma in Casework Culture." Social Service Review XXXV (June 1961): 127-134. Scherz, Frances H. "An Appraisal of Treatment Objectives in Casework Practice." Social Work Practice, 1962. 'New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. CHAPTER VII Self-Determination and Intervention at_the Societal Level Boehm, Werner W. "Toward New Models of Social Work Practice," "a Social Work Practice, 1967. New York: Columbia University “ Press, 1967. Briar, Scott. "The Current Crisis in Social Casework," Social Work Practice, 1967. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Feldman, Ronald A. and Specht, Harry. "The World of Social Group Work." Social Work Practice, 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. ml: ‘0 Garvin, Charles and Glasser, Paul. "The Bases of Social Treatment." Social Work Practice, 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Meyer, Carol H. "Casework Below the Poverty Line." Social Work Practice, 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. Siporin, Max. "Social Treatment: A.New-Old Helping Method." Social Work 15 (July 1970): 13-25. Wade, Alan D. "The Social Worker in the Political Process." The Social Welfare Forum: 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Self-Determination and Social Policy Planning Binstock, Robert H. "The Ghetto, the New Left and Some Dangerous Fallacies." Politics and the Ghetto: 191-196. Edited by Roland L. Warren. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Cleveland, Harlan. "International Implications of Social Goals." The Social Welfare Forum: 1962. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Coughlin, Bernard. "Community Planning: A Challenge to Social Work." Social Work 6 (October 1961): 37-42. Dutton, W. C. Jr. "Physical and Social Planning." ’Community Organ- ization, 1961. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 417 418 Hayden, Tom. "Colonialism and Liberation as American Problems." Politics and the Ghetto, 170-190. Edited by Roland L. Warren. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Jones, Hugh R. "Social Policy: We, the PeOple, Must Act." The Social Welfare Forum: 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Perlman, Helen Harris. "Social Work Method: A Review of the Past Decade." Social Work 10 (October 1965): 166-178. Perlman, Robert and Gurin, Arnold. "Perspectives on Community Organ— "”1 ization Practice." Social Work Practice, 1967. New York: 1* Columbia University Press, 1967. Rothman, Jack. "Three Models of Community Organization Practice." Social Work Practice, 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Schottland, Charles I. "Federal Planning for Health and welfare." The Social welfare Forum: 1963. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1963. . "Administrative Decisions and Fund Allocation in Social Welfare" in Economic Progress and Social Welfare, 65-91. Edited by Leonard H. Goodman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Specht, Harry. "Social Policy Formulation: The Role of the Social Worker." Social Work Practice, 1967. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Titmuss, Richer M. "Social Policy and Economic Progress." The Social Welfare Forum: 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Vasey, Wayne. "Social Welfare's Role in Combating Poverty." The Social Welfare Forum: 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Weissman, Harold H. "A Conservative Strategy for Social Planning in the Seventies." Social Work Practice, 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Self-Determination and Social Action Brager, George and Specht, Harry. "Mobilizing the Poor for Social Action." The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. 419 . "Organizing the Unaffiliated in a Low-Income Area." Social Work 8 (April 1963): 34-40. Clinard, Marshall B. "Perspectives on Urban Community DevelOpment and Community Organization." The Social Welfare FOrum: 1962. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Dubey, Sumatin; Turner, John.Bu;and Miranda, Magdalena. "Black Unity and Self-Determination: Social welfare Implications." ‘Tpe Social welfare Forum: 1969. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Dunham, Arthur. "Community DevelOpment--Whether Bound?" Social Work Practice, 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Gurin, Arnold and Ecklein, Joan Levin. "Community Organization: For Political Power as Service Delivery." Social Work Practice, 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Hunter, David R. "Social Action to Influence Institutional Change." Social Casework 51 (April 1970): 225-231. Khinduka, S. K. "Community Development: Potentials and Limitations." Social Work Practice, 1969. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Long, Norton E. "Politics and Ghetto Perpetuation" in Politics and the Ghetto, 31-43. Edited by Roland w. Warren. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. MacRae, Robert M. "Social Work and Social Action." Social Service Review XL (March 1966): 1-14. Manser, Ellen: Jones, Jewel Dean; and Ortof, Selma B. "An Overview of Project ENABLE." Social Casework 48 (December 1967): 612-618. Mitchell, Parren J. "Community Action Approach." Social Progress LVII (September-October 1966): 11-16. Mogulof, Melvin B. "Federal Support for Citizen Participation in Social Action." The Social welfare Forum: 1969. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. . Citizen Participation: a Review and Commentary_pp_Federal Policies and Practices. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, (January 1970). . Citizen Participation: The Local Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, (March 1970). Morris, Robert and Rein Martin. "Emerging Patterns in Community Planning." Social Work Practice, 1963. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. 9n? 420 Purcell, Francis P. and Specht, Harry. "The House on Sixth Street." Social Work 10 (October 1965): 69-76. Roberts, Mildred and Johnson, Josie. "More Than Meetings." Social Casework 48 (December 1967): 618-625. ROSS, Peter H. "Power and Politics: A Road to Social Reform" Social Service Review XXXV (December 1961): 359-369. Silcott, George T. "Social Welfare Priorities-A Minority View." The Social Welfare Forum: 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Solender, Sanford. "Social Issues and Religiously Sponsored Social Welfare Agencies." The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. The National Assembly. Ghetto Power - Tool for Urban Change: Nine- teenth Annual Adirondack Workshop Proceeding_. New York: The National Assembly for Social Policy and DevelOpment, 1968. The Social Worker's Changing Roles Bamberger, E. Clinton, Jr. "Legal Services to the Poor: Prospect and Problems." Social Progress LVII (September-October 1966): 17-23 a Cloward, Richard A. "An Ombudsman for Whom?" Social Work 12 (April 1967): 117-118. Collins, LeRoy. "Civil Rights--Unfinished Business." The Social Welfare Forum: 1965. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. de Johgh, J. F. "The Function of Social Work." Community Otganiza- tion, 1961. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Kaplan, Marshall. "Advocacy and Urban Planning." The Social Welfare Forum: 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Kurzman, Paul A. and Solomon, Jeffrey R. "Beyond Advocacy: A New Model for Community Organization." Social Work Practice, 1970. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Levy, Charles S. "The Social Worker as Agent of Policy Change." Social Casework 51 (February 1970): 102-108. McCormick, Mary J. "Social Advocacy: A New Dimension in Social Work." Social Casework 51 (January 1970): 3-11. 421 McKinney, Geraldine E. "Adopting Family Therapy to Multideficit Families." Social Casework 51 (June 1970): 327-333. Morris, Dan. "Efforts to Involve the Poor in Social Action." Social Work Practice, 1966. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Morris, Dan and Rothwax, Harold. "Partnership Between Social Work and Law: An Essential for Effective Community Organization." The Social welfare Forum: 1968. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Rein, Marin. "Social Work in Search of a Radical Profession." Social Work 15 (April 1970): 13-28. Rein, Martin and Kiessman, Frank. "A Strategy for Antipoverty Community Action Programs." Social Work 11 (April 1966): 3-12. Schwartz, William. "Private Troubles and Public Issues: One Social Work Job or Two?" The Social Welfare Forum: 1969. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Siporin, Max. "Private Practice of Social Work: Functional Roles and Social Control." Social Work 6 (April 1961): 52-60. Sunley, Robert. "Family Advocacy: From Case to Cause." Social Casework 51 (June 1970): 347-357. The Ad Hoc Committee on Advocacy. "The Social Worker as Advocate: Champion of Social Victims." Social Work 14 (April 1969): 23’32 e Wineman, David and James, Adrienne. "The Advocacy Challenge to Schools of Social Work." Social Work 14 (April 1969): 32-42. Young, Whitney M., Jr. "Planning, Politics and Social Change" in Politics and the Ghetto, 197-209. Edited by Roland L. Warren, New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Zweig, Franklin M. "The Social Worker as Legislative Ombudsman." Social Work 14. (January 1969): 25-33. CHAPTER VI I I American Association of Social Workers. Social CasewOrk: Generic and Specific. (The Milford Conference). New York: American Association of Social Workers, 1929. Bartlett, Harriet M. Building the Common Base p£_Social WOrk Prac- tice. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1970. Bernstein, Saul. "Self Determination: King or Citizen in the Realm of Values?" Social Work 5 (January 1960): 3-8. Editorial. "The Question of Relative Values." Social Casework XLI (November 1960): 481 Hellenbrand, Shirley C. "Client Value Orientations: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment." Social Casework XLII (April 1961): Howard, Donald 8. Social Welfare: Values, Means, and Ends. New York: Random House, 1969. Keith-Lucas, Alan. "Ethics in Social Work." Enqylppedia.p£_Social Work, 16th ed. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1971. Leiby, James. "Social Welfare: History of Basic Ideas.: in Encyclo- pedia pf Social Work, 16th ed. New York: National Associa- tion of Social Workers, 1971 McCormick, Mary J. "The Role of Values in Social Functioning." Social Casework XLIII (February 1961): 70-78. . "A Legacy of Values." Social Casework XLIII (October 1961): 404-409. McMurry, Robert N. "Conflict in Human Values." in Social Work Admin- istration: A Resource Book: 264-278. Edited by Harry A. Schwartz. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1970. Miller, Henry. "Value Dilemmas in Social Casework." Social Work 13, (January 1968): 27-33. Miller, Stephen J. "Professions: Human Service." Encyclopedia pf Social Work (16th ed.), New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1971. Mosteller, Susanne. "Value Orientations of Caseworkers and Clients." Smith College Studies XXXIV (October 1963): l-29. 422 423 National Association of Social Workers. Building Social Work Know- ledge. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1964. National Association of Social Workers. "Profession of Social WOrk: Code of Ethics." Encyclopedia pf_Social Work. 16th ed. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1971 National Association of Social Workers. Values ip_Social Work: :é Re-examination. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1967. Perlman, Robert and Arnold Gurin. Community Otganization and Social Planning. New York: Wiley Press, 1972. Peters, Mary Overhol. The Caseworker, Person with Values. Chicago: American Public Welfare Association, NO date given. Pumphrey, Muriel W. The Teaching pf_ValueS and Ethics ip_Social Work Education. New York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959. Rein, Martin. Social Polity: Issues p£_Choice and Change. New York: Random House, 1970. Salomon, Elizabeth. "Humanistic Values in Social Casework." Social Casework. 48 (January 1967): 26-32. Seeley, John R. "Social Values, The Mental Health Movement and Mental Health." The Annals 286 (March 1953): 15-24. Spencer, Sue W. and Georgiana McLarnan, "Fostering Spiritual Values in Family Living." Social Casework XLIV (December 1963): 575- 581. Turner, Francis J. "A Comparison Of Procedures in the Treatment of Clients with Two Different Value Orientations." Social Casework XLV (May 1964): 273-277. Weismann, Irving and Jacob Chwast. "Control and Values in Social Work Treatment." Social Casework XLI (November 1960): 451—456. Yelaja, Shankar. Authority and Social Work: Concept and Use. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. GGGGG ”'Ifiumm11111171134344" 31 MW 89