Fluent Essays

COURSE: ETHICS Lesson 5 Discussion (In 200-250 Words) What reason are you attending this institution (degree, certificate or transfer) and what are your future career plans? How could the information that you learned in Chapter 3 about Professional Ethics apply to or in your future career? If you do not think Professional Ethics apply to your future career, then please pick another career and discuss how Professional Ethics apply to that career. The goal of this discussion is to gain a personal understanding of Professional Ethics.                                                 COURSE: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL WORLK Textbook:- Introduction to Social Work online textbook https://ferrisintroductiontosocialwork.pressbooks.com/front-matter/introduction Lesson 9 Discussion:(In 200-250 Words) After reviewing the chapter reading, please create a substantial discussion post considering the following in your post: · Create a brief client situation. · Then provide an example of how you would apply each of the seven steps of the Planned Change Process.  Lesson 10 Discussion(In 200-250 Words) After reviewing the readings, please create a substantial discussion post considering the following question(s) in your post. · Which type of Social Work (micro, macro, or mezzo) appeals to you most and why? · Please provide an example of how a Social Worker can provide assistance across all three of these types of Social Work.                                                   COURSE: SOCIAL WELFARE & POLICY Lesson 9 Discussion:(In 200-250 Words) Discussion Guidelines: Your initial post should be approximately one page (250 words). You must respond to two classmates in a thoughtful manner (it needs to be more than "good job" or "I agree"). A few sentences for a response is fine.  A continued hot topic during election years is the Affordable Care Act – Please provide your opinion on the ACA and if it should continue, be amended, or be abolished. Do you think it is working as planned? What would you change? S P R I N G E R B R I E F S I N E T H I C S Lisa Newton Ethical Decision Making: Introduction to Cases and Concepts in Ethics For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/10184 SpringerBriefs in Ethics http://www.springer.com/series/10184 Lisa Newton 1 3 Ethical Decision Making: Introduction to Cases and Concepts in Ethics Lisa Newton Shelburne, VT USA © The Author(s) 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) ISSN 2211-8101 ISSN 2211-811X (electronic) ISBN 978-3-319-00166-1 ISBN 978-3-319-00167-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2013934534 v 1 Cases and Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 The Impaired Driver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Definitions and Distinctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Definitions of the Terms of Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3.1 ADAPT: An Approach to Moral Decision-Making . . . . . . . . 7 1.3.2 ORDER: Confronting Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3.3 DEAL: Carrying on Without Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2 The Principles of Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.1 Beneficence: People are Embodied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.2 Justice: People are Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3 Respect for Personal Autonomy: People are Rational . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.4 The Human Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.5 The Basic Imperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.6 Some Cases to Illustrate the Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.6.1 End of Year Bonus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.6.2 Baby Samantha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.6.3 The Alcoholic in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3 Professional Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.1 What Constitutes a “Profession”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.2 Professional Ethics and Market Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.3 Professionals in Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4 Some Considerations from Moral Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.1 Evolutionary Psychology: What Darwin Tells Us About How We Think . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.2 Acquiring Morals: The Track of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.3 Failing to Acquire Morals: What Can Go Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.4 The Work of the Moral Psychologists: The Trolley Dilemma . . . . . . 57 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Contents http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1#Sec1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1#Sec2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1#Sec3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1#Sec4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1#Sec5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1#Sec6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#Sec7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#sec8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_2#sec9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_3#Sec1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_3#Sec2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_3#Sec3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4#Sec1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4#Sec1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4#Sec2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4#Sec3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4#Sec4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_4#Sec5 1 How do we make ethical decisions, decisions that will stand up to challenges? Consider the following case. 1.1 The Impaired Driver You have stayed about an hour longer than you intended to at a very pleasant party with your old college friends. While you were getting your law degree and starting prac- tice, your roommate Marty made it big on Wall Street. He hosted the party in his huge Riverside Drive apartment. All the old college ties were there—great memories, beer, booze, marijuana… hadn’t seen that in awhile. Good stuff, too. Realizing you’re late, you race to the parking garage, elevator to the third floor, hop in your SUV, and tear around the turn toward the exit. Smash! Car parked in just the wrong place. You hit it dead center. You back up, get out, note that there is extensive damage to the other car—both doors on the driver’s side badly dented—but none to yours. What should you do? You know damn well what to do. There’s clearly damage, lots of it, so you have to take out your cell phone, call the police, and wait there till they come. Watching you prop- ping yourself up against your SUV, they’ll insist on the inconvenience of a breathalyzer test. When they get the results of that, they’ll give you a chauffeured ride to the precinct station and insist further on a urine test. When they get the results of that, you may get to know the folks in the precinct very well before you see the sky again. You may very well—probably will—lose your license to operate a motor vehicle. The fines will be sub- stantial; you may lose your SUV. You may even go to jail. The damage to your reputation, and to your position in your law practice, will probably be irreparable; depending on the state, they may yank your license to practice law. That’s a lot to think about. Meanwhile, you are the only occupant of this parking garage at this hour. You could just drive back to Connecticut and not say anything to anyone. What to do, indeed. The standard ethicist’s injunction, “Do the right thing,” may entail a terrible cost, and it is the agent, not the ethicist, who has to absorb it. Let’s think about it. Chapter 1 Cases and Decisions L. Newton, Ethical Decision Making: Introduction to Cases and Concepts in Ethics, SpringerBriefs in Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00167-8_1, © The Author(s) 2013 2 1 Cases and Decisions How do we make decisions in these cases? This is as good a place as any to introduce some of the terminology we’ll be using more systematically in the parts that follow. 1. What course of action will cause the greatest good to the greatest number, minimizing pain to all parties and maximizing happiness? We call this kind of thinking consequentialist, or teleological (from the Greek word for “end” or “goal”), since it judges the moral quality of the action by its consequences or by the end it achieves. In classic Utilitarianism, as set forth by Bentham (1823) and Mill (1863) the only consequences that matter are happiness and unhappiness, pleasure and pain, for everyone affected by the act. Measuring pleasure and pain for all parties, including your family, the owner of the other car, even the world at large, it looks like your best course is to take off for Connecticut without doing anything at all. Drive slowly so you don’t get stopped. After all, the pain felt by the car owner upon finding his damaged car is nothing compared to the pain that you and your family would feel if you lost your ability to earn a living, let alone if you went to jail. Besides, his insurance will probably cover the whole bill. 2. Yes, but think of it this way. That law is there for a purpose. What you are sup- posed to do, as a citizen, right now, is call the police. That’s your duty. You’ve enjoyed all the benefits of citizenship, now it’s time to honor your part of the bargain. What if everyone who got into an accident just took off? Would the world be a better place? Could you approve of a law that said, when you find you’ve caused damage to life or limb or property, if it isn’t convenient to stay around, just take off? If you can’t, and you probably can’t, then you have no right to make an exception of yourself in this case. That rule is the sub- stance of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which he set forth in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785): Act so that you can simul- taneously will that the maxim of your action (the reasoning that led you to do it) should become universal law. In heading back to Connecticut without calling the police, you set yourself above the law and contribute to a lawless society. Kantian reasoning is called non-consequentialist, or deontological (from the Greek word for “duty”), since it looks not at the consequences of the action but at the law or duty that governs it. 3. Here’s another way to think about what you’re doing, or about to do. When you get home, suppose you find your father, or the rector of your church, or your older brother, or anyone you trust, love, and admire, sitting in the kitchen. Somehow he knows what happened in that garage, and he asks you to explain just what you did, confronted with that difficult situation, and your reason- ing to your decision. Why did you do what you did? Well, how would you explain it? How would you justify taking off like that, when you were clearly in the wrong? If that scenario doesn’t suggest an approach to the problem, put a reporter from The New York Times (or The Wall Street Journal, if you’re that type) sitting beside him in another kitchen chair. The reporter is going to describe the whole situation, including your reasons for acting as you did, in 3 the newspaper tomorrow, on the front page. What kind of person would you look like in that story? Is that the kind of person you want to be? There are certain traits that we value in ourselves and others, traits like honesty, integrity, and courage, that we call virtues. Morality is not just about consequences, nor is it just about laws and duties—often it’s about the sort of person you are, your very being, so we call the reasoning that draws on these considerations virtue- based or ontological, from the Greek word for “being.” Aristotle (4th century BC) based his Ethics upon ontological reasoning; we’ve never really lost track of it. These are agonizing decisions, and they govern life—the future life of the per- son who has to make them, and the way history will judge her or him. More com- plex decisions are addressed in the discipline of ethics, and the rest of this chapter will consider more complicated dilemmas; but we must not forget that the funda- mental moral quantities are honesty, integrity, and courage, those that the impaired driver must call upon right at the moment he finds himself alone in that garage with a smashed car in front of him. 1.2 Definitions and Distinctions One thing we know for sure about ethics, is that it concerns matters in conflict, dilemmas, matters that people get upset about and argue about. What matters might those be? Socrates (469–399 BC) took on this problem exactly, according to Plato. He and a friend, Euthyphro, have agreed that the gods often disagree with each other, and indeed, that there are regular wars in heaven. Now, Socrates won- ders, what might cause the gods to get into violent quarrels? and he suggests the following distinctions: Socrates: What sort of disagreement is it, my good friend, that causes enmity and anger? Let us look at it in this way. If you and I disagreed about the question, which of two num- bers was the greater, would this disagreement make us hostile and angry with each other? Shouldn’t we quickly settle a dispute of this kind by having recourse to arithmetic? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: And suppose we disagreed about the relative size of two objects, shouldn’t we quickly put an end to our quarrel by having recourse to measurement? Euthyphro: Quite so. Socrates: And I presume that we should settle a question of relative weight by having recourse to weighing? Euthyphro: Of course. Socrates: Then what would be the subject of dispute about which we should be unable to reach agreement, so that we became hostile to one another and lost our tempers? Very likely you can’t say offhand; but consider, as I suggest them, whether the required subjects are questions of right and wrong, honor and dishonor, good and bad. Isn’t it when we disagree about these, and can’t reach a satisfactory decision about them, that we become hostile to one another… you and I and all the rest of mankind? (Plato, Euthyphro, 7A–7E). 1.1 The Impaired Driver 4 1 Cases and Decisions We still use these distinctions, in just this form, but they’ve acquired new names. There turn out to be three kinds of sentences, distinguished (just as Socrates pointed out) by the way we verify them, i.e., the way we find out whether they are true. 1. Logical, or formal, statements are definitions or statements derivable from definitions, including the entirety of mathematical discourse (e.g., “2 + 2 = 4,” or “A square has four equal sides”). Such statements can be verified by a for- mal procedure (“recourse to arithmetic”) derived from the same definitions that control the rest of the terms of the field in question (i.e., the same axioms define “2,” “4,” and the procedure of “addition”; the four equal sides and right angles define the “square”). True formal statements are analytic: they are true logically, necessarily, or by the definitions of the terms. False statements in this category are self–contradictory. (If you say, “2 + 2 = 5,” or start talking about “round squares,” you contradict yourself, for you assert that which can- not possibly be so—you conjoin ideas that are incompatible). A logically true or logically valid statement can never be false, or disproved by any discovery of facts; it will never be the case that some particular pairs of 2 do not add up to 4, or some particular squares turn out to be circular—and if you think you’ve found such a case, you’re wrong! “2 + 2 = 4” is true, and squares are equi- lateral rectangles, as philosophers like to say, in all possible worlds. For this reason we say that these statements are “true a priori”: we can know them to be correct prior to any examination of the facts of the world, without having to count up lots of pairs of pairs, just to make sure that 2 + 2 really equals 4. 2. Factual, or empirical, statements are assertions about the world out there, the physical environment of our existence, including the entirety of scientific dis- course, from theoretical physics to sociology. Such statements are verifiable by controlled observation (“recourse to measurement,” “recourse to weighing”) of that world, by experiment or just by careful looking, listening, touching, smelling, or tasting. This is the world of our senses, the world of space, objects, time and causation. These empirical statements are called synthetic, for they “put together” in a new combination two ideas that do not initially include or entail each other. As a result they cannot be known a priori, but can be deter- mined only a posteriori, that is, after investigation of the world. When they are true, they are true only contingently, or dependently, as opposed to nec- essarily; their truth is contingent upon, or depends on, the situation in which they are uttered. (As I write this, the statement “it is raining out” is true, and has been all day. The weatherman tells me that tomorrow that statement will be false. The statement “2 + 2 = 4,” like the rectangularity of squares, does not flick in and out of truth like that). 3. Normative statements are assertions about what is right, what is good, or what should be done. We know these statements as value judgments, pre- scriptions and proscriptions, commands and exhortations to do or forbear. There is no easy way of assigning truth value to these statements. The cri- teria of “truth” that apply to formal and factual statements do not apply 5 to normative statements. This is why, when we disagree about them, we become “hostile,” and “lose our temper” at each other; there is no easy way to resolve the dispute. We can certainly say of such judgments (formally) that they conform or fail to conform with other moral judgments, or with more general and widely accepted moral principles. We can also say (empirically) that they receive or fail to receive our assent as a society, as compatible or incompat- ible with our basic intuitions of what is just or right (as determined by a poll or survey). We may also say that a judgment succeeds or fails as a policy rec- ommendation on some accepted pattern of moral reasoning, like adducing con- sequences of that judgment and estimating how human wants will be affected should it become law (see the section on Moral Reasoning, below). But the cer- tainties of math and science are forever beyond the grasp of any normative sys- tem, which is, possibly, as it should be. One limit on normative reasoning is important enough to get clear at the outset. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is”; you cannot derive any normative statement from any collection of facts, no matter how emotionally compelling, without a pre- viously accepted normative statement as premise. From the fact that a certain prod- uct line is unprofitable, it does not follow automatically that the company should abandon it; from the fact that the new medical technology can prolong the patient’s life for another 6 months, it does not follow automatically that the patient should elect to use it; from the fact, verifiable by poll, that the nation overwhelmingly does not want to pay any more taxes, or approves of abortion, it does not follow that taxes are wrong or abortion is right. Other things being equal, we may very easily accede to the “ought” premise—that a company should do whatever will improve the bottom line, that medical science ought to prolong human life, that in a democ- racy, what the people prefer is or ought to be, law. But cases test these rules all the time, and we want to be free to examine them when the situation seems not to fit the intent of the rule. At these times we must be very clear on what is factual— verifiable by survey, experiment, or observation—and what is normative. These distinctions, universally valid, are part of every introduction to philoso- phy. But why are they necessary to understand ethics? The most important reason to be familiar with these distinctions is that occasionally disputes that seem to be about values or moral principles are actually about facts or about the meanings of words. Such disputes are resolvable, at least in principle, and they should be dis- posed of before the discussion continues. For as Thomas Hobbes pointed out, words have no value in themselves. They are but tokens, and wise men do but reckon with them (for fools, they are money). There is no point in arguing about the meaning of a word. Simply define your terms to begin with, doing your best to place your definition within range of the normal discourse of the field, and carry on your discussion from there. Only one thing is essential: that you know when a dispute is about the meanings of words and when it is about something more important, and that you agree at the outset that whatever you decide to let the words mean, you will not let that agreement influence the final decision. 1.2 Definitions and Distinctions 6 1 Cases and Decisions How will we use the terms of moral discourse? Any text on ethical theory has to open with the observation that of all matters in ethics, the meanings of the terms has caused the most acrimony and dispute. Since the earliest of the Socratic Dialogues, we have argued about the meaning of key terms like “morals,” “eth- ics,” “virtue,” “piety,” “justice” and the others, all the others. Given the limited purposes of this text, I will simply stipulate at this point how I intend to use the key terms of ethics, observing only that my usage is not bizarre. More than that will no philosopher claim. 1.3 Definitions of the Terms of Ethics In what follows you may expect the following words to be used in general in these ways: Morals or Morality: the Rules and prima facie Duties that govern our behavior as per- sons to persons. All you really need to know you probably learned in kindergarten. The rules and duties are easy to know and to remember—but very hard to follow consistently. Examples: Don’t hurt people (As your kindergarten teacher would have put it, Don’t hit.) Be nice, create happiness (Help the teacher, be kind to the little kids). Be fair, practice justice (Share your toys, don’t take the biggest piece of cake). Respect the rights of others, honor their choices (Keep your hands to yourself!) She would probably have added others: Always tell the truth. Be clean and neat, Take care of your health. But essentially, the first four will do as a basis for morality. Values: States of affairs that are desired by and for people and that we want to increase; also called ends, or goals. Examples: Health (as opposed to sickness). Wealth (as opposed to poverty). Happiness in general. Freedom, Justice, Democracy, Rule of Law. Virtues: Conditions of people which are desirable both for the people themselves and for the good functioning of the society. Examples: Wisdom (vs. ignorance, irrationality). Courage (vs. weakness, unreliability). Self–control (vs. greed, violence, indulgence). Justice (vs. egoism, favoritism, deviousness). Ethics: Properly speaking, the academic study of morals, duties, values, and virtues, to find their theoretical links and relationships, and how they work together (or do not) in practice. Other understandings of the term ethics: 1. More generally, the whole field of morals, moral rules, duties, values and virtues— the whole study of our attempts to order human conduct toward the right and the good. 7 2. More specifically, a professional ethic is a particular code of rules and understand- ings worked out by the members of a profession to govern their own practice. (See Appendix on the Professions, below). Ethical Principles: Very general concepts that sum up a range of morals, values and vir- tues, from which moral imperatives can be derived. We test our actions against Rules, our rules against Principles. Sometimes Ethical Reasoning is helped by a decision procedure, or tem- plate, suggesting a pattern of steps to follow in order to solve puzzling prob- lems. Here are three that we have found useful. 1.3.1 ADAPT: An Approach to Moral Decision-Making People naturally want to do good and avoid evil. For the most part, we limit our attention to morality to the observance of certain interpersonal rules—of courtesy, helpfulness, and respect for privacy, for instance—that serve to make daily life more livable. But sometimes a condition comes to light that interrupts, imposes itself upon, daily life. Consider the following case: Hurricane Katrina has devastated New Orleans. Following the hurricane, which in itself did not do as much damage as some had feared, the levees that protect the city broke, and the city was immediately flooded. Many families, especially in Ward Nine and others of the poorer districts, were stranded by the flood and in terrible danger—from drowning, from disease (there was no potable water), from hunger, from lack of access to health care, and eventually, from roving gangs. Somehow, they had to be gotten out of there. Why hadn’t they left earlier? As the hurricane closed in on the city, the mayor had ordered a general (voluntary) evacuation, either to areas outside the city or as a last resort to the Superdome. Experienced residents sized up the relative dangers of hunkering (or sheltering) in place, risking severe winds, or of being evacuated by school bus to unpre- pared areas outside of town, to a mobbed Superdome, or to some distant city, while their property stood empty and unprotected. Many stayed. Then the flooding started, and the mayor had ordered a general evacuation. All the usual means of transportation were useless. Only boats could be used for evacuation, so the National Guard was put into boats to bring the people out. The entire nation was watching, angry that the residents had not been brought out earlier; there was a lot of pres- sure to get the job done. Then the difficulties began. Some residents willingly climbed into the boats with a small well-organized pack of personal goods. Others would not leave without their pets. Some of these were coerced into the boats and wept miserably the entire trip. Some had aged spouses or parents who were too sick to move. Some pointed out that the gangs would ravage their houses if they left, and refused to leave. What were the Guardsmen to do? Herd them in at gunpoint? Respect their free choice and leave them in the flood, perhaps to die? Eventually more facts came to light: the Superdome had turned into a living hell when it lost electricity and water; the places out of town were sometimes no more than camping places under bridges, in the broiling heat of summer; the distant cities were less than wel- coming to second and third waves of refugees. Meanwhile, as municipal, state and federal governments feuded over who bore the ultimate responsibility for the mess, Ward Nine was abandoned to its fate; it will probably never be completely rebuilt. 1.3 Definitions of the Terms of Ethics 8 1 Cases and Decisions The Katrina case, as we may call the situation, exhibits certain characteristics that plague the moral life of the nation. First: some condition is brought to light, some situation, or array of facts. This condition captures our attention, alerts us to something that stands out from the background noise of our lives as requiring our concern. Second: that condition is discussed, the information is disseminated through the commu- nity, a community dialogue is conducted where public opinion is actually formed. That “community,” incidentally, may be as small as a family or as large, as in this case, as the whole nation. Third, the … Social Welfare & Policy II CONTENTS Introduction Chapter 1: Social Worker Roles in Social Welfare and Policy Chapter 2: Depression and the New Deal Chapter 3: Civil Rights and the 1950s & 1960s Chapter 4: Social Welfare Policies 1970s-1990s Chapter 5: Social Welfare Policies 2000-Present Chapter 6: How is a Policy Made? (Structure and Design of Social Welfare Policies) Chapter 7: Overview of US Welfare Programs Chapter 8: Policy Practice Summary and Conclusion Reference Page Introduction Hello everyone and welcome to Social Welfare and Policy II. I wanted to provide a brief introduction to this course and information on this textbook. After taking Social Welfare and Policy I, you should be familiar with what social work is and the history of social welfare and policy up until the early 20th century. This course will expand on your current knowledge of social welfare and policy, as well as provide new information for you to learn. This course will review the following: A social workers specific role in social welfare and policy, continued history from the 1930s to present day, how a policy is made, generalist practice skills and advocacy in social work. This textbook has been provided to you to aide your learning, containing information retrieved from various creditable resources. Chapter 1 Social Worker Roles in Social Welfare and Policy What is the definition of a social problem? It is defined as any condition or behavior that has negative consequences for large numbers of people and that is generally recognized as a condition or behavior that needs to be addressed. (University of Minnesota, 2010). This definition can be viewed as both subjective and objective. Objective view: Any condition or behavior to be considered a social problem must have a negative consequence for a large number of people. These conditions/behaviors and consequences can be heavily debated. An example of this is climate change. While many scientists say that climate change is a serious issue, fewer than two-thirds of Americans in a 2011 poll reported believing that climate change is real and happening. Subjective view: The above example leads into the subjective view on social problems, as there must be a perception that a condition or behavior needs to be addressed for it to be considered a social problem. While the objective view involves empirical evidence of negative consequences of a social condition or behavior, the subjective component involves a perception that the condition or behavior is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed (University of Minnesota, 2010). The following has been retrieved from a book titled, ‘Policy Practice for Social Workers’, written by Linda K. Cummins, Katharine V. Byers, Laura Pedrick. The chapter is provided online by Pearson Higher Ed. Policy practice is defined as using social work skills to propose and change policies in order to achieve the goal of social and economic justice. When doing policy practice, social workers apply generalist social work perspectives and skills to make changes in laws, rules, budgets, and policies and in the bodies that create those policies, whether they be local, state, or federal agencies or other decision-making bodies, in the pursuit of the social work mission of social and economic justice. The goal of policy practice in social work is to ensure social and economic justice in the social environment so that all people, regardless of their socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, have opportunities to achieve success for themselves and their families. Social workers do not have to be in political office or hold positions of power in order to affect policy. Social workers and social work students have both the skills and perspectives (concepts, values, and beliefs) that are important in the policymaking process. These skills and perspectives are rooted in social work’s history and experience of working directly with people to address the challenges and needs they face in their daily lives (Cummins, 2011). The NASW Code of Ethics, which is intended as a guide to serve those practicing social work, has different parts that are specific to social justice and policy. The following excerpt is directly from the NASW Code of Ethics: Value: Social Justice Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice. Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers' social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people (National Association of Social Workers, 2017). Chapter 2 Depression and the New Deal (1930-1948) The onset of the Great Depression occurred after the infamous stock market crash of 1929. Although vulnerable populations were already experiencing poverty (such as children, elderly, minorities, female-headed families and people with disabilities), many middle and upper-income families first experienced poverty in America during the Great Depression. These individuals enjoyed a strong economy of the 1920s, only to experience total shock after the start of The Great Depression. Between 1929 and 1933, unemployment in the United States jumped from three percent to twenty-five percent. In some major cities, unemployment rose to almost eighty percent (8 out of 10 workers were unemployed!) (Marx, 2020). Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) was elected in 1932 with the anticipation that he would be either the worst or greatest president in American History, given the current state of the economy. Many Americans ideology of “poor people” changed – as many people who once looked down on poverty were now standing in line for relief themselves. The private, non-profit organizations that existed at this time were extremely overwhelmed and unable to meet the demand of requests for aide. The former American belief, expressed by President Franklin Pierce to Dorothea Fix, was that the federal government should not be involved in provided relief to the poor. However, due to the size of this national crisis, a national solution was very much needed (Marx, 2020). To address the dire need throughout the nation, FDR took immediate action by establishing several federal agencies and programs to create job opportunities and provide relief. One major program was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), which was created by the Federal Emergency Relief Act in 1932. This program’s primary responsibility was managing the effort to distribute federal relief funds to individual states (Marx, 2020) FDR’s New Deal led to many other policies new creation or adjustments made: Prohibition came to an end; The Homeowners Loan Act, Workers Progress Administration (WPA); National Labor Relations Act; The Social Security Act of 1935. Although many efforts were made on behalf on the New Deal with the FDR administration, World War II and the bombing of Pearl Harbor is what ultimately ended the Great Depression in America (History.com editors, 2020). Prior to The Great Depression and New Deal era, the overall profession of social worker shunned public relief, as many social workers were employed in private agencies. This era had a profound impact on the social work profession. Thousands of social workers were cast in new roles of public welfare. Many social workers took on new roles as administrative and supervisors in the new, public programs created. Henceforth, public welfare – specifically supervision, administration and policy work, would forever become an integral part of the social work profession (GISW, 2020). The Social Security act passed in the United States on August 14, 1935. This marked a new stage in the acceptance of the Federal Government of responsibility for the welfare of all of its citizens. This act created a national contribution for old-age retirement annuity for all workers in industry and commerce. Employers and their employees started their contributions in 1937. Benefits were payable to individuals in the beginning of 1940. By the time payments had begun, this system was expanded to provide survivor benefits and benefits for dependents of retired workers. In 1950, amendments were made to increase benefit amounts for elderly and survivors. This act also laid the basis for a nation-wide system of unemployment insurance. By 1937, all 50 states had adopted unemployment insurance laws and by 1939, all were paying unemployment benefits. The cost of these programs was (and currently are) financed by federal grants to the states. Along with the benefits already discussed, the Social Security Act also provided Federal grants to each state to support general public health programs. Some states and local government had existing public health programs in the beginning of the 1930s, however many areas of the country had only limited services and many were without any organized health protection. (Merriam, n.d.). Chapter 3 Social Welfare in the 1950s-1970. Dissatisfaction and criticism of social welfare began in the 1950s, revolving around the federal aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Critics believed that the program had made welfare a way of life for many people, rather than its intent on short-term assistance. The 1950s is the first decade that began social welfare reform. During the 1950s and 60s, social welfare reform began with states attempting to impose residency requirements on any individual applying for assistance, as well as removing illegitimate children from the welfare programs. Many states passed a rule referred to as “Man in the House”, which ultimately stopped individuals from receiving benefits when a man was present in the home. However, during the late 1960s, these laws were removed on the grounds that the equal protection clause of the fourteen amendment of the US Constitution, requiring the government to treat all persons in similar situations equally. After the election of President Lyndon B Johnson in the 1960s, the administration declared a “war on poverty”, with multiple programs provided to citizens in need: Head Start, the Job Corps, Food Stamps, Medicaid-funded education, job training, direct food assistance and direct medical assistance. During this era, although poverty declined, over four million new people signed up for the welfare programs. When President Richard M Nixon was elected in 1968, conservative backlash began to take place against liberal policies that were created. President Nixon was the first President since FDR to offer major national welfare legislation. He introduced the 1969 Family Assistance Plan: he proposed giving needy families with children $1,600 annually, and as a work incentive, they were allowed to keep any earned income up to $4,000. The plan also required that all welfare recipients (except mothers with children under the age of 3) would be required to work. This plan was rejected by both conservatives and liberals. People with a conservative frame of mind suggested that this plan would expand public assistance, while liberals believed that the support levels were too low, and the work requirement was punitive. This proposed policy did not make it out of congress and was taken out of consideration in 1972. The Nixon administration expanded many several social welfare programs during its time. Individual states were required to provide food stamps and Supplimental Security Income (SSI) consolidated aid for aged, blind and disabled individuals. The Earned Income Credit was also introduced as policy, providing the working poor with direct cash assistance in the form of tax credits. “Workfare” was initiated by advocated of social welfare reform in the 1970s, with the idea that individuals receiving welfare would work off payments through public service jobs. This later developed into the concept of using education and job training to help recipients gain independence from welfare programs. By the 1980s, workfare had emerged as the future of social welfare reform (Welfare, 2003). CHAPTER 4 Social Welfare 1980s-1990s President Ronald Reagan was elected to office in 1981. Being a harsh critic on social welfare programs, he helped secure deep cuts in AFDC spending, including the reduction of benefits to working recipients of public assistance. States were also provided with the option of requiring the majority of recipients to participate in workfare programs. During this era, social welfare programs once again were subjected to many critics. It became the belief of many that welfare hurt the poor by making them less well-off and discouraging them from working, creating welfare dependency. During the 1980s, forty states set up “welfare-to-work” programs that provided job education and trainings. The federal Family Support Act of 1988 (a bill to replace the existing AFDC program with a new Family Support Program which emphasizes work, child support and need-based family support supplements) adopted this specific approach, directing all states to phase in welfare-to-work programs by 1990. Each state was required to implement education, job training and job placement programs for all welfare recipients. This requirement was unsuccessful, as states lacked the necessary funding that was required to match federal funds provided. By 1993, only one in five eligible welfare recipients was enrolled in training or education program. In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was put into place. This reform created personal responsibility and work a central idea to receiving welfare. It also shifted welfare to state responsibility. State governments were provided fixed blocks of money known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), requiring individuals that received this assistance to work. This program was also limited: families were only able to be a part of the program for five years. The ultimate idea was by placing a maximum amount of money states received from the federal government for welfare, programs would shrink rather than grow over time. By the late 1990s, the United States had a strong economy, and the unemployment rate was down to four percent. This created confidence in social welfare reform and encouraged the continued use of it (Welfare, 2003). CHAPTER 5 2000-Present time The United States began to experience a slower economy in the early 2000s. The attacks on September 11, 2001, further slowed down economic growth in our country. States were experiencing cash deficits, with some deficits being extremely significant. While these issues were arising, the federally funded TANF program was due to expire in October of 2002. In May of 2002, the House passed the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4737). This bill would reauthorize TANF funding for an additional five years, as well as increase the minimum work requirement for recipients by five percent per year, so that states would have seventy percent of TANF families working full-time jobs by the year 2007. The bill also had other parts to it: it would continue to fund childcare through a block grant and would strengthen child support laws to increase money to mothers and children. It would also provide up to three-hundred million dollars each year for programs that encourage healthy and stable marriages (such as premarital education and counseling programs). Ultimately, this bill was not approved by the Senate. In September of 2002, Congress passed continuing resolutions to extend TANF through the end of March of 2003 (Welfare, 2003). The Affordable Care Act, or ‘Obamacare’, is a comprehensive health care reform law that was enacted in March of 2010. This law has three primary goals: (Healthcare.gov, n.d.). 1. Make affordable health insurance available to more people. This law provides consumers with subsidies (‘premium tax credits’) that lower costs for households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. 2. Expand the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income between 138% of the federal poverty law, known as Medicaid expansion. - Not all states have chosen to participate in Medicaid expansion. The states that are not participating include: (12 states in total) Wyoming, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Essentially, this means in order to qualify for Medicaid in one of these states, you must be determined as disabled or have minor children in your home with no income/extremely low income per month. 3. Support innovative medical delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally. Another major issue that the ACA addressed was pre-existing conditions. Prior to the ACA being put into law, insurance companies were able to deny a person coverage under the pretense of “pre-existing conditions”. Since the ACA has been put in place, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” – meaning, a health problem you were experiencing before the date that new health coverage starts (U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services, 2017). Chapter 6 How is a Policy made? The information from this section was taken directly from USHistory.org, Titled ‘Policy Making, Political Interactions”. After learning so much about policy, the question remains: How exactly is a policy created in the United States? There are many parts to policy creation and made different groups involved. “Public policy is a goal-oriented course of action that the government follows in dealing with a problem or issue in the country. Public policies are based on law, but many people other than legislators set them. Individuals, groups, and even government agencies that do not comply with policies can be penalized. This complicated process goes through a predictable series of steps”: 1. Recognizing the problem. At any given time, many conditions disturb or distress people, such as unsafe workplaces, natural disasters like tornadoes and earthquakes, crime, pollution, or the cost of medical care. But all disturbing conditions do not automatically become problems. People have to recognize that government can and should do something about them. For example, most citizens probably do not expect government to prevent hurricanes. However, they may expect government to help hurricane victims through quick relief actions. 2. Agenda setting. An agenda is a set of problems that government wants to solve. Usually there are so many of them that they must be prioritized, with some problems getting earlier and more attention than others. Agenda setting may respond to pressure from interest groups, political parties, the media, and other branches of government. Agendas usually are reshaped when a new President takes office or when the majority party in Congress changes after an election. A crisis such as war, depression, natural disasters, or a tragic accident, almost always re-prioritizes issues. 3. Formulating the policy. At this stage, usually several conflicting plans from various political interests take shape. Various players — the president and White House aides, agency officials, especially appointed task forces, interest groups, private research organizations, and legislators — may take part in formulating new policy. 4. Adopting the policy. Once various plans are presented, one policy is accepted by the decision-makers. In many cases, a policy is adopted when Congress passes a law. Policy adoption may also take place when the President signs an executive order or when the Supreme Court rules on an important case. Policy is often built in a series of small steps passed over time by different players, and eventually, a complex policy emerges. 5. Implementing the policy. Most public policies are carried out by administrative agencies in the executive branch, although sometimes the courts get involved in implementing decisions they make. Agencies use many techniques to see that policy is carried out. Sometimes they punish people and organizations who do not comply with policy. For example, a state can take a driver's license away from a bad driver. Or the government may offer incentives, like tax breaks for contributing to the presidential election campaign. They even appeal to people's better instincts, such as using the slogan, "Only you can prevent forest fires.” 6. Evaluating the policy. Policy makers often try to determine what a policy is actually accomplishing or whether or not it is being carried out efficiently. Often the evaluation process takes place over time with contributions from many of the interacting players. Most evaluations call for some degree of change and correction, and inevitably, at least some of the players will disagree. The whole process then begins again, starting with re-recognition of the problem. Decision-making, then, is a continuous process with numerous people participating. At any given time, government is at various stages of policy-making in a never-ending quest to provide solutions to countless societal problems.” (USHistory.org, 2008). CHAPTER 7 Overview of the US Welfare Programs There are six major welfare programs that exist in the United States today. They include: Temporary Assistance for those in Need (TANF), Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Programs, Supplemental Security Income and Housing Assistance (Amadeo, 2020). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (often referred to as SNAP or food stamps), provided eligible people with benefit cards, that can be used like debit cards, to buy food at grocery stores and farmer markets. In 2017, this program was utilized by 42.6 million people. The average individual received $126 per month. The total cost for this program during this time was over $70 billion. Of this total accrued cost, 93% was spent on food and 7% was spent on administrative costs. A recipient that does not have any children is required to work after three months of being on the program. However, the program waives the work requirement for those who live in areas with high unemployment rates (The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs, n.d.) Medicaid provides free or low-cost health benefits to adults, kids, pregnant women, seniors and people with disabilities. In 2017, this program paid for the health care of 75.1 million low-income adults and 30 million children. Medicaid will pay for costs that Medicare does not cover. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, it increased Medicaid coverage by a total of twenty-eight percent. This act also raised the qualification income level and allowed single adults to qualify for the program. (The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs, n.d.) Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a tax credit for families with at least one child and benefits those working with low to moderate income. In order to qualify for this credit, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return (one must still be filed even if you do not owe any taxes or are not required to file). EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may provide you with a refund. To provide an example: A family of four (married, filing jointly) must earn less than $51,492 a year to qualify. This credit resolved poverty issues for almost 9.4 million people and costs just one percent of the amount paid out to administer it. (The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs, n.d.) Housing assistance includes subsidized housing, housing vouchers and public housing programs to help low-income families, seniors and individuals with disabilities get into affordable private or government-owned rental housing. Individuals that qualify do not pay more than 30% of their income in rent. (The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs, n.d.) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or often referred to as “welfare”) provides a cash benefit for a limited time to qualified, low-income families that are working towards self-sufficiency. The TANF program may also provide non-cash benefits, such as childcare and job training. The Federal government provides grants to States to run the TANF program. In 2017, TANF provided income to 2.5 million individuals. Of the total number, 1.9 million were children. On average, a three-person family receives $447 per month. Unfortunately, despite this assistance, many families continue to remain under the poverty line. (The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs, n.d.) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides cash payments (to assist with food, clothing and shelter) to low-income seniors and low-income adults/children with qualifying disabilities. In 2017, approximately 8.2 million people received an average of %551 per month. Of this total number of people, 7.3 million are blind or disabled. (The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs, n.d.) Other assistance programs include: Food aid programs: WIC (The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, infants and children) provides food or vouchers, education and referrals to help feed pregnant women and children up to the age of six. In 2017, 7.3 million people received WIC each month and more than 75% were children or infants. The Child Nutrition Program provides free or low-cost meals and milk to children at schools and daycare centers, which served 30 million children in 2017. This program cost the federal government 12 billion dollars. (Amadeo, 2020). There are also monthly food packages and farmer market coupons available to senior citizens who are considered low-income status. Healthcare: Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – This program offers free or low-cost medical (hospital care, medical supplies, tests, preventative care and routine check-ups) and dental/vision care to uninsured children up to age nineteen whose family income is above the level of eligibility for Medicaid but below their state’s CHIP limit. Housing: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): this program assists low-income households pay heating and cooling bills and offers low-cost home improvements to reduce those costs. It is important to know that the programs listed above have requirements: all of the programs have income limits, most programs require you to be a U.S. citizen or eligible non-citizen and many of the programs have individual state requirements like family’s size and financial resources. CHAPTER 8 Policy Practice “Policy practice in social work rests, to a good extent, on the value of social justice” (Gal, et el., 2008) Social justice can be defined many ways and is clearly defined as a core value in the NASW Code of Ethics. Generally, social justice is a vision of a society in which all people have equal access to social rights; a society in which unacceptable inequalities in income, wealth and opportunities are reduced. As social workers, when we identify with this value, we will become more supportive of different types of interventions that seek to further this social goal, thus making a social worker more likely to adopt policy practice. Policy practice rests on the understanding that individuals’ problems and distress are rooted not only in person factors but also social ones. If environmental stressors are the key issue of distress (rather than within the individual), a social workers role is to assist in bringing change in those external factors that have a negative impact on the individual. Policy practice is a specific type of intervention that would be beneficial in reaching this goal. Policy practice aims to promote policies that would extend social rights to all, especially to individuals living in poverty and social exclusion, and to change policies that restrict social rights (such as social inequalities). (Gal, et el., 2008). You may be wondering what type of specific social worker job may relate directly to policy practice. Here are five examples (Social Work Degree Guide, n.d.).: 1. Community Social Worker: As a community social worker, you will be working directly with members within a community. This will include working with a diverse population in communities of different types and sizes. You will offer services to individuals to improve their situation, whatever it may be (poverty, lack of support, in-home services, etc.). You will have first-hand knowledge of the major issues within that community, allowing you to work with local governments, community organizations and businesses to solve problems within the area. This is a great way to affect policy on a small scale and you will be able to gain experience needed to move into state or nation policy-making roles. 2. Social Work Researcher: When working in this particular area, you will complete in-depth studies in a particular area of interest. Researchers are employed in government agencies, schools, non-profit organizations and policy think tanks. …