How did harold lasswell defined politics

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND

ADVOCACY PRACTICE

·'Social workers have a professi'onal responsibi'lity to make ... choices and to participate in the broader societal debate to resolve issues of social change." Demetrius Iatridis, Social Policy

Mara Liasson, reporter for National Public Radio, started a presen- ration to a National Association of Social Workers Political Action Insti- rute by defining her subject. The word politics, she said, "comes from polis, a Greek word meaning community, and tics, meaning small, blood- sucking insects. Politics is thus a domain of life controlled by a group of people leeching off the rest of us." Unfortunately for the field of social work and the United States at large, this facetious definition is widely accepted.

The belief that politics and thus advocacy is a dirty arena, popu- lated by the worst kinds of people, and something that no decent per- son would want to be associated with, is all too common in social w ork. There is, however, another view of politics. A political scientist, Harold Lasswell, wrote that politics is the process by which it is decided "who gets what, when and how" (1936). Politics, in this view, is simply a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes.

A similar, though simplified, version of this definition is politics (or policy making) is "deciding how stuff gets spread around." The only question, then, is whether social workers (or any other group of indi- viduals with common interests) want to help make these decisions or not. If you are not the decision maker yourself, then advocacy is the process by which you help make the decisions on these matters. For- mer Texas state senator and current mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, Mike Moncrief is fond of saying that social workers and politicians have a common goal: to help people. Barbara Mikulski, United States senator

25

SOC IAL JUSTICE AND ADVOCACY PRACTICE

from Maryland,says,"Politics is simply social work with power"(Reisch, 1995, p. 1). If social workers want ro assist clients, it is imperative that enough of them are active and capable advocates in the policy-making arena to ensure that things happen:

We are now making fundamental political decisions about our society:

choices which literally involve matters of life and death, health and ill-

ness, opportunity and oppression, hope and despair, for millions of peo-

ple. These choices are integral to the core concerns of social work as a

profession and to our integrity as caring human beings.They have a major

impact on the lives of our clients and the day-to-day work we do in our

agencies and communities.They require us to make political action a cen-

tral, ongoing component of our work, to abandon the false image of pro-

fessionalism which separates professional responsibilities from the harsh

realities of poverty, power, and politics. (Reisch, 1995, p. 1)

Social workers must be involved in advocacy practice if clients' sit- uations are to improve. If social workers do not act as advocates, their policy ideas and, even more importantly, their values will not be well represented in policy-making circles. When social workers engage in advocacy practice, they bring with them specialized knowledge about the human condition and a belief that service provision to clients must consider individuals within their environment. Social workers also want to focus on client strengths, rather than pathology. When social workers share their knowledge and beliefs, decision makers are exposed to a fresh and important point of view.

Decision makers are encountered in many different places-not just in the legislative branch of the government or in the top strata of other organizations. Decision makers can be found everywhere in organ- izations because even low-level workers have to interpret ambiguous regulations, rules, and customs in their p lace of employment (Lipsky, 1980). Organizational culture may make some choices the "obvious" one, even if it runs counter to client interests. These decisions are just as appropriate for advocacy practice as is passing a law.

Because values are such an important component of social work- ers' advocacy practice, it is important to identify the source of these values. The next section looks at the National Association of Social Workers' professional code of ethics to explore the connection

26

ADVOCACY lN THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP SOCIAL WORKERS ' CODE OF ETHICS

between professional responsibility (as defined in the Code) and advo- cacy practice. (Other codes of ethics are provided in Discussion Ques- tions and Exercises (No. 2) for you to examine.)

ADVOCACY IN IBE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS' CODE OF ETHICS

According to social worker and member of the Detroit city coun- cil, Maryanne Mahaffey, "What the social worker brings [to the advo- cacy process] is a value system that, if implemented, along with the [proper) skills, makes the difference" (Haynes & Mickelson, 2010, p. 40). One of the best places to look at the values used to justify advo- c acy practice is in the Code of Ethics of the primary professional organization of social workers in the United States, the National Asso- ciation of Social Workers.

There are several parts of the Code of Ethlcs Oast revised in 1999) w hich indicate that being involved in advocacy is one part of a pro- fessional social worker's job description.This idea is stated most clearly

in Section 6 .01:

Social workers shouJld promote the general welfare of society, from local

to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and

their environment. Social workers should advocate for living conditions

conducive to the fuIBllment of b asic human needs and should promote

social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are

compatible with the realization of social justice. (National Association

of Social Workers [NASW], 1999)

The Code further explains this responsibility in Section 6.04:

(a) Social workers should engage in social and political action that

seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources,

employment , services, and opportunities they require to meet their

basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be

aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should

advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social

conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social

justice.

27

SOCIAL JU STICE AND .ADVOCACY PRACTICE

(b) Social workers should act to expand choice and opportunity for all

persons, with sped al regard for vulnerable, dlsadvantaged, oppressed,

and exploited people and groups. (NASW, 1999)

The Code addresses involving the public in politics in Section 6.02: "Social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions" (NASW, 1999). Thus, social workers not only have an obligation to participate actively in advocacy themselves, but also to empower others to do so as well. Social work administrators have a specific duty along these lines, too, according to the 1999 Code of Ethics; Section 3.07(a) declares, "Social work administrators should advocate within and outside their agencies for adequate resources to meet clients' needs."

Despite the specificity and clarity of the 1999 Code of Ethics, a frequent concern in the literature is that social workers do not have the skills necessary to be policy advocates and co encourage others to shape social policy (Wolk, 1981). Many blame this situation on social work education programs' lack of student training in these skills (Ezell, 1993; Haynes & Mickelson, 2010; Mary, Ellano, & Newell, 1993). Recent years have seen a small increase in the number of courses on political social work, including a specialization in the topic at the University of Houston and a formal legislative internship program at the L"niversity of Texas at Arlington, which includes a course on politics and social work and an internship in a state legislator's district office (Hoefer, 1999). Still, few field placements are available in political settings (Wolk, Pray, Weismiller, & Dempsey, 1996).

Despite the lack of formal advocacy skills training for social work students, it is important for you to continue to seek knowledge about advocacy and learn its place in the profession. The next section exam- ines what social workers are trying to accomplish with their efforts.

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN 1HE NASW CODE OF ETHICS

The 1999 NASW Code of Ethics sets forth six core values of the profession: service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence.A com- plete description of these values is beyond the scope of this book, but

28

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE NASW CODE OF ETHICS

it is important to take a closer look at the value of social justice because it is the value that most encourages advocacy practice.

In the section titled Ethical Principles, the Code of Ethics states that " social workers challenge social injustice" (NASW, 1999). The Code immediately e laborates on what this principle means by declaring:

Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of

vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social work-

ers' social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty,

u nemployment, discrimination, and other fo rms of social inj usticc.These

activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppres- sion and cult ural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure

access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of oppor-

tunity, and meaningful participation in decision malting for all people.

(NASW, Ethical Principles)

The NASW Code explicitly mentions some of the main, concre te issues for social workers wanting to work for greater social justice. The concept of social justice is difficult to define definitively, h owever, as it means different things to different people. Making matters difficult for social workers who want to follow the Code of Ethics's call to work for social justice is that the Code d oes not define the term. Other ref- erences are available, however, and step in to help us understand the term more fully.

The Social Work Dictionary, for example, defines social justice as "an ideal condition in which all members of a society h ave the same basic rights, protections, opportunities, obligations, and social bene- fits" (Barker, 2003, pp. 404-405). Finn and Jacobson (2008), in The Encyclopedia of Social Work, provide a wide range of perspectives on social justice. They provide a capsule review of utilitarian, libertarian, egalitarian, rac ial contract, human rights, processual, and capabilities perspectives. Van Soest (1995) discusses three views of social justice. Legal justice, the first view, is concerned with w hat a person owes society. Commutative justice, the second view, is concerned with what people owe each other. Distributive justice, the third view, is concerned w ith what society owes its members and is the type of social justice m ost often discussed in a social work context.

29

SOCIAL J USTICE AND ADVOCACY PRACTICE

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

One of the most important elements of the struggle over social welfare policy is the difference in interpretation of the term distribu- tive justice. Distributive justice "concerns the justified distribution of benefits and burdens in society .... The distribution of benefits and bur- dens is a cooperative social process structured by various moral, legal, ideological, and cultural principles" (Iatridis, 1994, p. 62).Thus, politics, "the process of distributing stuff," is the way that distributive justice either is or is not made a reality; therefore, the debates of political philosophers deserve considerable attention from social workers (Reamer, 1993).

Although many variations of belief exist, there are two major con- temporary viewpoints about distributive justice in the United States. On the one hand are people who believe that distributive justice means that resources should be spread relatively evenly across the entire citi- zenry as a matter of right. This view has been called the "egalitarian view"(Van Soest, 1995, p.1811) and the "fairness model"(Iatridis, 1994, p. 67). On the other hand are those who believe that an unequal distri- bution of resources is better because it reflects differences in ability and effort. This belief has been called the "libertarian view" (Van Soest, p. 1811) and the "market model" (Iatridis, p. 64).

Although the literature on this topic is extensive, two modern philosophers' writings exemplify these different viewpoints. John Rawls and Robert Nozick each penned very influential works on the subject of distributive justice in the early 1970s. Their different inter- pretations of the concept have provided a great deal of material for debate since that time.

John Rawls's Views on Distributive Justice

Rawls (1971) asks his readers to imagine that they are going to develop the rules for a society knowing that people will be randomly "assigned" different places in society once the "game of life" begins. Par- ticipants in this thought experiment must agree ahead of time to live within the rules they develop, but they do not know what position in society they are going to be given, what Rawls calls "the veil of igno- rance." A person may be assigned a position among the wealthy elite,

30

DISTRIBUTIVE }USTIC I!

with many resources and privileges, or the participant may be among those with very little material resources. However, for this type of inequality to exist, the rules agreed to have to allow for the inequality. Given this veil of ignorance about one's future assigned position in society, Rawls argues that people will want to create the fairest set of rules possible, if only to protect themselves from being placed into a very difficult situation.According to Rawls, this set of "the fairest pos- sible rules" would be based on two main principles.The first principle is chat"each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of lib- erty for all" (Rawls, p. 302). This ensures that all are treated equally within the context of the rules, which are addressed in the second principle. This principle states that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under considerations of fair equality of opportunity" (Rawls, p. 302).

The second principle is an especially important point. Inequality is not seen as an evil in and of itself, but rather as a condition that can be harnessed for the good of all. An example may help illustrate the idea. The rules set forth under the veil of ignorance might allow some positions in society to be more appealing than others, such as those w ith higher pay, better working conditions, and so on. In the case of physicians, for example, we want very capable practitioners because they make life-and-death decisions that require considerable levels of skill and many years of difficult training. Because there are a limited number of people with the required aptitude and because the training process is arduous, members of society may wish to encourage those few people with the requisite aptitude to become doctors. Further· more, people who become physicians could earn more than others w ithout breaking the second princip le if they are required to use some of their time to assist the least advantaged in society. Point b , above, ensures, moreover, that the position of physician is open to everyone w ith the appropriate aptitude and is not limited by reasons of race, gender, social class, or other non-merit considerations.

Rawls's approach to distributive justice has considerable appeal to many social workers. Those who have tried to figure out how to apply his principles quicl

31

SOC IAL J t;STICE ANO ADVOCACY PRAC TICE

matter which set of rules is agreed to under the veil of ignorance, even when using Rawls's two principles, it is difficult to determine whether that structure is "to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged" and, therefore, "just." It is also seemingly impossible to keep the children of the advantaged from maintaining their early lead in health, schooling, and connections without drastic interventions.

Robert Nozick's Views on Distributive Justice

A \'ery different interpretation of distributive justice is set forth by Robert :Nozick (1974) in Anarchy, State and Utopia.Nozick argues that Rawls, and others, who focus on "end-states" or "patterns" of a distribu- tive process are wrong. In order to maintain a "fair" distribution of resources, a central distribution mechanism would have to exist, and it does not. In otber words, the end-state, or the point at which people have been assigned their positions and given the rules, is theoretically a rather equal distribution of economic goods. However, the distribu- tion is constantly made less equal because people put forth unequal effort and have unequal skills and under Rawls's system are paid accord- ing to effort and skill.The only way to prevent inequality is to have gov- ernment redistribute wealth constantly.

In a free society, diverse persons control differe nt resources, and new

holdings arise out of the voluntary exchanges and actions of persons.

There is no more a distributing or distribution of shares than there is a

distributing of mates in a society in which persons choose whom they

shall marry. The total result is the product of many individual decisions

which the different individuals involved are entitled to make (Nozic k,

pp. 149-150).

The proposed solution is a procedural approach to distributive justice in which "a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings he possesses under the distribution" (Nozick, 1974, p. 151) . To simplify this theory, "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen" (Nozick, p. 160).

An example illustrates bis approach clearly.An "end-state" theorist might object to a distribution of income that left many people with lit- tle and a few (including sports stars) with much. But suppose that "the

32

DI STRTBUTIV£ J USTI C E

many" choose to buy tickets to football games where the stars play. The football team makes a large profit and pays the players quite well. )l'ozick argues that this voluntary transfer of holdings (income) from the many to the few is completely just and that any move to redis- tribute it through governmental action (coercion) is unjust. He makes chis last point very strongly when he states, "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor" (p. 169).

Under Nozick's approach, the main principle to ensure social jus- tice, the n , is to set up a way for fair, voluntary exchanges to take place. This market should be as unfettered as possible. Once the rules are set and followed , any end result, no matter how unequal, is socially just. Government's major duty is to ensure that fair rules are followed, because that enforcement leads to a just outcome. The idea is similar co political freedom. As long as the rules of one-person, one-vote are followed in an election and everyone has a chance to vote, the result of such a free election is just and fair. It is not just, however, to deter- mine who should win an election ahead of time in order to have a -fair" distribution of elected positions, meaning that they are given to different types of people. Similarly, it is not just to determine if the out- come of an economic distribution is fair by looking at the amount of inequality that ensues.As long as fair rules are followed in the market- p lace, the distribution of money that results is just.

Comparing Rawls's and Nozick's Views

The practical implications of these two interpretations of the ce rm distributive justice vary greatly. Nozick's formulation would elim- inate many, if not all, government efforts at redistribution and would return the country to a system where charity giving was the only sup- port for people who could not earn their own living. This harsh state of affairs would mean that social work values would be under great duress. Inequality would certainly be increased. It is a very individual- istic approach to how society should operate, although it is consistent w ith many of the basic tenets of American values.

Rawls's viewpoint requires many calculations to be made that may be beyond most persons' abilities, but the general thrnst of his approach is congruent with social work values. The approach focuses on the least advantaged members of society and seeks to improve their

33

SOCIAL J USTICE AND ADVOCACY PRACTI CE

condition. Despite the practical difficulties of determining the exact level of "justness" that is involved in any one situation , it is clear that the NASW Code of Ethics is also written with an eye on the needs of the least advantaged members of society. This viewpoint, too, has a place among American values but is clearly not the dominant value. Nonetheless, the Rawlsian view is the dominant value amongst social workers:

[the view] supports the normative aspects of social policy practice and

the ethical commitments of social work. It emphasizes humanness and

the enhancement of being human. It also promotes welfare-state pro-

grams that redistribute goods and services in favor of the poor, the dis-

advantaged, and populations at risk (latridis, 1994, p. 69).

WHAT ARE SOCIAL WORKERS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITII ADVOCACY?

It is all well and good to be an advocate: indeed, some might argue that a democratic society needs people to be active simply because engagement in the process is good. Social work, however, takes a n or- mative view of what the desired outcomes of the advocacy process should be. Many purposes for social work advocacy are listed in the NASW Code of Ethics. Meeting client needs, both material and emo- tional, should be up permost in the minds of social worker advocates. And their goal should be to "confront discrimination, oppression an d institutional inequalities" (Barker, 2003, p. 405). These are lofty goals, and one may wonder if social workers actually believe in these values.

Research by Abbott (1988) indicates that social workers consis- tently rank higher than other professional groups in their belief in four important social work values: respect for basic rights, sense of social responsibility, commitment to individual freedom , and support for self- determination. Th is is true even for beginning graduate students, as compared to students in other professional programs (Abbott, p. 44). Social work students, at both the BSW and MSW levels," report high lev- els of social work idealism" in response to the following statements: (1) "Access to opportunities and resources should be open to all" and (2) "Social workers have an obligation to advocate for change in their

34

EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL ISSUES IN ADVOCACY PRACTICE

communities" (Csikai & Rozensky, 1997, p. 537). The mean scores on these statements indicate that social work students "agree" to "strongly agree" with these ideas.

There was a shift in social workers' attitudes toward poverty and social action between 1968 and 1984 (Reeser & Epstein, 1987). Sur- prisingly, respondents in 1984 were more likely both to believe that poverty was due to structural factors and to be less committed to activist goals than were social workers in 1968. This shift in attitude may have two causes: (1) casework and psychotherapy becoming the primary social work methods and (2) a sense of futility about social change due to the insensitivity of the Reagan administration toward social work concerns.

Jn summary, it appears that social workers may, in fact, belleve in social work values, at least more so than people in other professional groups. This finding underscores the importance of social workers engaging in advocacy practice because their beliefs and values are unique. Interestingly, however, Csikai and Rozensky (1997) also found that the social work students surveyed bad comparatively little agree- ment with statements such as "Advocacy is the main thrust of social work" and "Social workers' responsibilities should include active in- volvement in lobbying for political change." Both of these statements had a mean score placing them between "uncertain" and "agree" on the scale used. Perhaps most disturbing for those who see a strong need for advocacy practice because of the impact of policy decisions on social work practice, students in this study indicate considerable agree- ment with the statement "Political issues have no bearing on direct social work practice with individuals" (Csikai & Rozensky, p. 533). Thus, although social workers and social work students agree with the values of social work, members of these groups may be unwilling or unable to use advocacy practice in making social work values become part of social policy in their nation, state, county, city, or agency.

EXAMPLES OF ETIDCAL ISSUES IN ADVOCACY PRACTICE

Up to now, this chapter has focused on the ethical responsibility social workers have to address societal and client problems through advocacy and the need to focus on social justice in their practice. Still,

35

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ADVOCACY PRACTICE

the question remains, How do these principks operate in the "real world"? ls everything fair in love, war, and advocacy practice, or should social workers be held to some other standard of behavior?

SaulAlinsky (1971, p. 25), in his classic essay "Of Means and Ends," argues forcefully that people who extensively debate the morality of means and ends "wind up on their ends without any means." Organ- izers must use what is available to enable them to accomplish their goals: "He who sacrifices the mass good for personal salvation has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation' ; he doesn't care enough for people to be 'corrupted' for them" (Alinsky, p. 25). It is appropriate to be concerned with ethics only when there is a choice of means. Thus, if the ends are just and the means are limited to one tactic, that tactic, no matter what it is, is fair. It is only the powerful who call the effec- tive tactics of the dispossessed "unfair" (Alinsky).

The NASW Code of Ethics may be used to supportAlinsky's view in part, but the overall message is clear that social workers should be held accountable to a higher standard. Maryanne Mahaffey maintains this point vigorously:

There are people who tell me that the ends justify the means.This is anti-

thetical to social work values . . .. For social workers the ends and the

means must be consistent.Another way to put it: If the method you use

to arrive at your ends are [sic] dirty, then the end result will be dirty. (Haynes and Mickelson, 2010, p. 52)

Although social workers are called upon to engage in advocacy practice, the Code is often silent on the subject of how to do so ethi- cally. In addition, there appear to be some contradictions inherent in the Code. The very first sentence of the detailed ethical standards states plainly, "Social workers' p rimary responsibility is to promote the welfare of clients. In general, clients' interests are primary" (NASW, 1999, Sec. 1.01). This is immediately followed, however, by the state- ment, "However, social workers' responsibility to the larger society or specific legal obligations may on limited occasions supersede the loy- alty owed clients .. . " (NASW, Sec. 1.01). Reporting child abuse is given as a specific example of when loyalty to the client is overcome by legal obligations.

36

EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL ISSU ES IN ADVOCACY PRACTICE

The fifth ethical principle described in the Code is integrity. Social workers must be "continualJy aware of the profession's mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards" and to "practice in a manner consistent with them." More specifically, "Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated." Honesty is certainly an important element in being effective in advocacy efforts, but is honesty always the best policy? Is it permissible to lie if it better accomplishes social work's primary mission to "enhance human well- being and help meet basic human needs, with particular attention to the needs of vulnerable, oppressed and poor people" (NASW 1999, Preamble)?

There are no firm answers to these questions. At best we can do whatJansson (1994,p. 59) suggests to do when ethical principles conflict:

When issues reflect important values and consequences, they should not

be resolved impulsively. We should feel mgged in different directions, as

if each alternative is serious and cannot be lightly dismissed. Were we to

hurriedly resolve such issues, we might later decide that we had com-

promised important values and overlooked important consequences.

In the end, "reasonable differences of opinion exist among social workers" (NASW, 1999, Sec. 3.lO[b]). Not every social worker will come up with the same solution to a problem. Still, "Social workers should carefully examine relevant issues and their possible impact on clients before deciding on a course of action" (NASW, Sec. 3.lO[b]).

The following are some examples of sin1ations for which there are no clear answers, and reasonable social workers may indeed disagree on how to proceed.

You are chair of a statewide social work political action commit· tee. A major newspaper writes a disturbing story on Maria Rodriguez, a candidate your committee has already endorsed for state senator in the primary race, which she won. The report says that she has falsified her academic credentials. Ms. Rodriguez first denies, then admits, the deception. The committee did not

37

SO CIA!. J USTI CE AN D ADVOCACY PRACTICE

endorse this candidate based on her academic record, but rather for the twenty years of good work she has completed on behalf of low-income Mexican Americans in south Texas. Some of the members of your political action committee want to continue as if nothing has happened- "Her strong voice is needed in the state senate to protect against conservatives of both parties! " Others want to renounce the earlier endorsement and ask her to remove herself from the race altogether-" She lied to us! " A third group thinks it best to express disappointment in her, but sup- port her p rivately-"She let us down, but she is still the better of the two available candidates."

You are asked by your state NASW chapter to help organize a "get out the vote" drive in your city because you have done similar work with the League ofWomen Voters, a nonpartisan group.You are willing to do this, as you believe that "social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public" (NASW, 1999, Sec- tion 6.02). The main organizers are clear, however, that the vote they want to get out consists of only registered Democrats, as Dem- ocratic voters are much more likely to vote for Democratic candi- dates than are members of other parties or nonaffiliated voters. When you object, the organizer explains that Laura Smith, the Democratic candidate, is pro-choice while the Republican candi- date in the race is antiabortion. Ms. Smith has also been endorsed by the NASW "The Christian Coalition and Moral Majority are mobilizing their forces to get out only Republican voters," says the organizer. "Why shouldn't we do the same for our side?" Although you understand this logic, you are still not convinced that this is entirely ethical for NASW, which is officially a nonpartisan group.

You are a longtime member of NASW and consider yourself a political conservative. You believe that NASW is too liberal and especially disagree with its pro-welfare position. You are con- vinced that, despite changes to end "old-style " welfare, the welfare system created a generation of people who believe that they are entitled to public support. Even with the threat of being cut off from government assistance, some able-bodied recipients and their children have little hope of becoming self-sufficient because

38

CONCLCSTON

the aid they receive from charities and government eliminates incentives for gainful employment. Although you don't mind having a different opinion about policy compared to most social workers, you have noticed (starting in graduate school) a ten- dency for conservative social workers to be frozen out of social circles. This is a problem for you because you want to keep on other social workers' good side because your practice relies on their referrals. Should you remain in the organization and try to change its policies to be more in line with your values, should you remain a member of NASW to keep the good insurance benefits available to members but otherwise quietly work against its pro- posals, or should you give up your membership because of your philosophical differences with the organization?

A client of yours in a nonprofit agency could make good use of a special fund set aside for buying back-to-school clothes.When you mention this to your supervisor, she agrees but cautions you to provide only half the allowed amount of funds in order to keep money available for other clients.You believe that special circum- stances make it vital to assist your client with more than half the amount possible. Yet you know that there are limited funds for this purpose.You are also aware that your six-month probationary period still has two months to go. Social work jobs as good as this one are hard to come by in your small community. What should you do?

In order to address situations such as the one above in a systematic ":\ay, first choose which ethical principles are in conflict. Refer specifi- cally to the NASW Code of Ethics and other ethical codes that may .ipply, such as those that cover licensed social workers in your state.Ask which principle, in this situation, is more important. Gather opinions .:"rom other social workers you trust. In the end, you may need to prior- .tize one principle over another in order to resolve the conflict.

CONCLUSION

Using advocacy to promote social justice is every social worker's :esponsibility. The NASW Code of Ethics makes this responsibility

39

SOCJAL JUSTICE ANO ADVOCACY PRACTICE

clear. Every social worker must then understand what is meant by the different views of social justice and be able and willing to support the definition most in line with social work values.

Social workers have important information about client needs and a distinctive view of social justice. Social workers tend to believe that people at the bottom of economic and social ladders should be helped to climb more quickly than people who are already higher on the ladder.

The rest of this book covers the most effective ways to advocate for these values to be adopted by decision makers and thus translated into laws and regulations. Each chapter covers one of the steps in advo- cacy practice. The final chapter summarizes and brings together the lessons from the book.

Suggested Further Reading

Iatridis, D. (1994). Social policy: Institutional context of social develop- ment and human services. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

This pithy book has an excellent discussion of the role of national value systems and how they affect social policy. Advocates working within an u nder- standing of the values of their institutional context will be more effective than those without such an understanding.

Lasswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who get what, when, and how. New York: Free Press.

Although this is an older book, it still enlightens any discussion of poli- tics. Lasswell, a psychologist who studied political communication and propa- ganda techniques, begins the book stating that, "The study of politics is the study of influence and the influential" (p. 3). The remainder of the book justi- fies this position.The second chapter, about the use of political symbols, is still astonishingly illuminating and easy to apply to current political concerns.

Discussion Questions and Exercises

1. Do you generally agree more with Rawls or Nozick? Are there specific issues on which you agree more with one viewpoint than the other?

2. Look up codes of ethics from other social work groups, such as the Clinical Social Work Association Chttp:ljwww.clinicalsocial workassociation.org/content/ethics-code), American Board of Examiners in Clinical Social Work Qmp:ljwww.abec~-:org/ about-code-ethics.html), the National Association of Black Social

40

CONCLUSI ON

Workers Chttp://www.nabsw.org/mserver /CodeofEthics.aspx), or the International Federation of Social Workers/International Association of Schools of Social Work (http://www.ifsw.org/ 58000032.html). How do they compare with the NASW's Code regarding advocacy? Do you prefer some aspect of one of the others to the NASW Code?

3. Can you think of codes of ethics from other professions that you might wish to follow, such as the American Psychological Association, the American Society for Public Administration, or the American Bar Association?

41

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40