Top 5 Social Justice Issues Facing Social Workers Today
Social Work Today
Vol. 7 No. 2 P. 24

Celebrating Diversity 
By Lorraine Gutiérrez, PhD, LMSW

Our commitment to social justice and antioppressive work brought me into social work and keeps me here. Growing up in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the power of the people to transform society and work toward greater gender, racial, and ethnic equality was clear. During my undergraduate years, I learned that social workers active in the progressive movement were at the forefront of policies that reduced working hours, restricted child labor, and created public health clinics to improve conditions for low-income families. These models for how we can change our society shaped my involvement in organizations to end violence against women and work toward the empowerment of diverse groups.

My path as a social worker is not unique. Regardless of our setting, all social workers are engaged in work related to oppression and social injustice. We are more aware than most people of the challenges faced by children and families living in poverty, the inadequacy of our “safety net” of human services, the disproportionate incarceration of men of color, and the challenges experienced by those living with disabilities. We do this work while living and working in a society where groups have mobilized to restrict or eliminate existing rights such as public education for immigrants and the children of immigrants, domestic partnerships for gay men and lesbians, and access to reproductive healthcare for adolescent women. Surviving and thriving as a social worker requires that we have a true appreciation for human diversity and understand how social identities affect access to resources.

Throughout our history, social workers have been agents of both liberation and oppression. During the same era that we founded social settlements, we were involved in the incarceration of Native American children in boarding schools. While we were actively involved in crafting the Social Security Act, we participated in the deportation of Mexican American families who were “public charges.” While we participated in civil rights movements in the 1950s and 1960s, we referred many women of color to doctors who sterilized them against their knowledge. Our approach to diversity within our communities will influence whether we work toward social exclusion or inclusion. Will we work toward the rejection, tolerance, acceptance, or celebration of the different groups that make up our communities?

If we are to work toward social justice, we need to engage in the work involved in celebrating difference and diversity. I use the word celebrate based on its original meanings, which refers to honor, respect, or recognize. We must move beyond tolerating or accepting those who are different from ourselves to a position of cultural humility that requires us to question our own background and experiences to work in partnership with others. When working from this perspective, we, as social workers, must be engaged in ongoing self-assessment and awareness of how power differences affect our ability to be genuinely helpful. This process is an essential element of social justice work.

Celebrating diversity means working as an ally and advocating for marginalized and oppressed groups. We are allies to others when we can recognize and use the sources of our privilege to advance the rights of those who do not share our own identities or backgrounds. We need to ask ourselves how we can use the knowledge we have of unjust practices toward individuals and groups in society to work toward changes to improve their situation. Our knowledge and experience can be used to join with others and create new movements to reduce poverty, improve access to healthcare, support families, and eliminate discrimination on the basis of our social identities.

The United States is becoming an increasingly multiracial, multicultural, and multiethnic society. At the same time, conditions of economic inequality by gender and race have not improved. These trends in the substance and structure of society challenge our profession to evaluate how we address these demographic shifts. It is our responsibility as social workers to strategically use our position and privilege to work toward greater equality. There is no other ethical choice.

— Lorraine Gutiérrez, PhD, LMSW, is professor and director of the joint interdisciplinary doctoral program in social work and social science at the University of Michigan. She has more than 25 years of experience as a social worker and educator in multiethnic communities.

Child Welfare
By Judith M. Schagrin, LCSW-C

Social justice means all citizens are entitled to the same rights and services. I am deeply concerned that we continue to fail the children who are abused, neglected, and just plain unwanted. Foster children, who depend on society’s largesse for their very existence, go largely unseen. Because these are children, they don’t fund any political campaigns, lobby any elected representatives for an opportunity to be heard, or organize any marches to advocate for better services. They have no voice if we don’t speak for them.

It’s not that we haven’t tried to organize a functional child welfare system. Since the start of our modern-day foster care system in the mid-1880s, when Charles Loring Brace started the Orphan Train Movement to resettle orphaned children from New York City to states in the Midwest and beyond, there have been numerous efforts to get it right. We have strategically planned, privatized, transformed systems, thought outside the box, been accountable, computerized, wrapped around, and done more with less. But as a national priority, the nation’s child welfare system is nearly an afterthought. Without the occasional sensationalized child death, I suspect these families would fall off the radar altogether. Unfortunately, the story they have to tell often isn’t pretty, revealing a troubling underbelly of our society. Some prefer to keep these images far away, finding comfort in denial.

While we are a country of people who profess to love their children, there were 3 million reports of child maltreatment in 2004. Experts believe this represents only one third of actual incidents. More than 800,000 reports were found indicating a rate of 2.9 per 1,000 children. That’s not surprising, considering how staunchly we defend our right to physically discipline our children. As long as no injuries result, parents may hit their children with impunity.

Four children die from maltreatment every day, a number largely undercounted. Neglect, often associated with poverty, leads to slightly more child deaths each year than abuse. According to the 2005 census, 17.6% of children under the age of 18 live in poverty; the federal poverty level is $20,000 per year for a family of four. Of children in female-headed households, an appalling 42% exist under the poverty line.

Three years ago, news that Maryland could no longer afford our zoo’s elephants generated far more outrage than our child welfare hiring freeze. The freeze lasted three long years, leaving children’s needs overlooked and ignored. We are a wealthy country not just in money but in talent and brains. Surely we can muster the will to develop and support a top-notch child welfare system? What will it take for our children’s needs to grab the public’s attention with the same fervor as our zoo’s elephants?

As for solutions, let’s create the public will to do it better. Let’s reinstate the White House Children’s Conference—derailed by President Reagan in 1980—and bring together national experts from around the country. Lobby hard for loan forgiveness for social workers willing to specialize in child welfare. Enlarge the sphere of influence for social workers by running for a local, state, or federal office—or electing a colleague.

Our children have only a handful of years to be children, only a brief period to build the foundation for a productive and satisfying adulthood. It’s time we got it right—the children can’t wait.

— Judith M. Schagrin, LCSW-C, is the assistant director for Children’s Services at the Baltimore County Department of Social Services. She was named the 2004 Social Worker of the Year by the National Association of Social Workers.

Healthcare Reform
By Libby Gordon, MSW

I live in the healthiest state in the nation. This is according to America’s Health Rankings, issued yearly by UnitedHealth Group. I must admit, I felt pretty good about this, as I traveled to and from the gym, ate my yogurt and veggies, and took the stairs at work. This blissful denial lasted all of one day. The next day, while attending a health disparity task force meeting, I was brought back to reality: You can live in the healthiest state in the country and still be surrounded by desperate need. No statement drove this home so effectively as the African American public health worker who stood up and proclaimed, “My zip code is dying. Why, in a nation of so much, is my zip code dying?”

Why are 46.6 million people without health insurance (383,000 right here in my healthy state)? Why is employee-sponsored health insurance disappearing? Why are the numbers of uninsured African Americans, Hispanics, and immigrants so disproportionate to that of Caucasians? Why is the number of uninsured children—8.3 million—again on the rise, when it had been dropping steadily since 1998? And why aren’t more people as outraged as the public health worker who burst my bubble of denial?

Although these are questions without simple answers, social workers have a tradition of striving for solutions. To begin, we must understand who are most affected by the disparity in health insurance coverage. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (KCMU) reported that families with incomes 200% below the poverty level run the highest risk of being uninsured. Contrary to public perception, however, 81% of the uninsured are in families where at least one adult is working. Also at high risk of being uninsured are minorities and immigrants. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), African Americans (19.6% uninsured) and Hispanics (32.7%) are much more likely to lack insurance than Caucasians (11.3%). Meanwhile, 43.6% of noncitizen immigrants are without insurance. Lastly, 8.3 million children (11.2%) are presently uninsured, and their future looks grim. In Fiscal Year 2007, which began October 1, 2006, the children’s health insurance programs—which are block grants, not entitlement programs—face federal funding shortfalls in 17 states. This amounts to an estimated $800 million and equals the cost of covering 530,000 low-income children.

The recent escalation in the number of uninsured individuals is largely attributed to a continuing decline in employee-sponsored insurance (ESI). Even when employers do offer insurance, employees frequently cannot afford the skyrocketing premiums. A recent report from KCMU found that between 2001 and 2005, ESI premiums increased by no less than 9% per year. Meanwhile, employees’ earning grew by only 2.2% to 4%, making it difficult to keep pace with insurance payments.

The consequences for those who cannot afford or are not offered health insurance are life-altering. KCMU has found that they are less likely to receive preventive care, such as mammograms, and are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable conditions. These misguided attempts to contain costs by denying treatment of minor conditions often result in the development of problems that are both more expensive and more serious. Those without insurance are likely to have problems paying medical bills—nearly one quarter are contacted by collection agencies. Most importantly, the Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they lack health insurance. If the uninsured were to gain continuous health coverage, mortality rates could be reduced by 5% to 15%.

These inequalities are not inevitable. Solutions do exist and can be created with an eye to both effectiveness and cost containment. Policies can be implemented to locate and enroll individuals who are eligible for public programs, while eligibility for these programs can also be expanded to cast a wider net. ESI premiums can be lowered, and employers with a certain number of employees can be required to pay a set percentage of their payroll on health benefits. Affordable health insurance plans can also be made available to small employers. Children’s health insurance can become an entitlement program, providing coverage to any who are in need.

It was not hyperbole for the public health worker to say her zip code is dying. Chances are, some of those 18,000 people who died prematurely—the minorities, the poor, the children—were her neighbors. So long as some zip codes remain endangered, social workers have a mission: to see the whole picture, the one that rankings do not show, and to advocate for those in need. Perhaps, then someday the health rankings will be a cause for all zip codes to celebrate.

— Libby Gordon, MSW, has experience in various healthcare fields. She previously worked in a transitional care unit, and she is currently the patient services manager for the Minnesota Chapter of The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. She is also a hospital emergency department social worker.

Resources
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2006). The Number of Uninsured Americans is at an All-Time High. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from here. http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. (2006). Changes in Employees’ Health Insurance Coverage, 2001-2005. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from here.http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7570.cfm

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. (2006). The Uninsured and Their Access to Health Care. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from here.http://www.kff.org/uninsured/1420.cfm

Poverty and Economic Injustice
By Mimi Abramovitz, MSW, DSW

“True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”
— Martin Luther King, April 4, 1967, New York City1

The Bible says the poor will always be with us, but it does not say why. Since then, some observers have blamed the victim, choosing to punish the “undeserving” and offer a meager safety net to the “deserving” poor. In contrast, social workers believe poverty has many complex causes, including low wages, a lack of jobs, racism, sexism, and other forces beyond individual control. We favor helping rather than punishing people and changing rather than protecting a problematic status quo.

However, for the past 30 years, the fight against poverty and injustice has been an uphill battle. Indeed, major economic dislocations and victim-blaming public policies have taken their toll on the capacity of the three traditional sources of income—marriage, markets, and the state—to protect people from poverty even when they work hard and play by the rules.2 Instead of cushioning the blows of the sagging economy as they once did, today’s leaders confront wage stagnation and slow job growth with tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for the poor, and a war in Iraq. The results include mounting rates of poverty, hardship, and social problems—all of which fall into social work’s domain.

Mounting Poverty
In 2005, 12.6% of the population (or 37 million people) were poor—up from its all-time low of 11.3% in 2000 and higher than in 1979.3 Even the higher African American (24.9%) and Latino (21.8%) rates and the lower Caucasian (8.3%) rates rose above their all-time 2000 lows.4 Meanwhile, the American Dream—the promise that work pays—faded for the working and middle class. In 2004, 7.8 million people aged 16 or older spent at least 27 weeks either working or looking for a job but earned below–poverty-level wages in companies that provided few basic benefits such as healthcare or parental leave. More than 58% of these “working poor” women and men were on the job full-time and 90% worked at some time during the year—twice as many African Americans and Latinos as Caucasians.5 Thanks to tax cuts and corporate welfare, inequality also reached new highs. In 2005, the top 20% of households accounted for a record 50.4% of the national income, up from 49.8% in 2000 and 43.2% in 1970. In contrast, the bottom fifth’s share fell from 4.4% in 1970 to 3.6% in 2000 to 3.4% in 2005.6

Mounting Hardship
Poverty, in turn, takes its toll on people’s lives. In 2004, 40% of poor and 14% of nonpoor families faced food, health, or housing insecurity, considerably more families of color than Caucasian families.7 The situation has worsened over time. From 1987 to 2005, the number of people lacking food security rose from 31 to 35 million; those without health insured soared from 31 to 46.5 million while the number of households paying more that 30% of their income for rent jumped from 31% (1978) to 49% (2005).8-10 These losses were further compounded by a lack of social investment in low-income communities exposing people to: crumbling neighborhood infrastructures (e.g., abandoned housing, poor schools, lack of services, unemployment); interpersonal violence (e.g., battering, rape, child abuse); and community violence (e.g., gang fights, drive-by shootings, surveillance, police brutality, sexism, and racism).

Mounting Social Problems
Social workers know firsthand that people confronted with chronic deprivation and/or harsh living conditions often feel unsafe, insecure, and powerless. We also know that people cope with the desperate condition by harming themselves (e.g., self-medication, dropping out of school, unsafe sex, ineffective parenting, inability to hold a job, lack of self-care, and suicide) and/or others (e.g., crime, assault, battering, rape, homicide). Social workers have the know-how and the professional obligation to help people undo negative coping and promote positive coping—both self-advocacy (e.g., seeking needed social, health, and financial assistance) or social advocacy (e.g., community activism).

Given social work’s location between the client and society, we can either leave solving poverty to the economists or join the fight for economic justice. A growing consensus holds that exposure to economic hardship and adverse conditions often precedes the rise of individual and social problems rather than the other way around, as previously presumed.11 This conclusion translates into a mandate for prevention and social change. Some fear that making individual and social change a fundamental part of our work politicizes a previously objective and unpolitical profession. Yet, to argue for neutrality itself becomes a political stance—one that tolerates government neglect, compromises our profession’s ethics, and otherwise favors the status quo by letting it stand unchallenged. Since social work cannot avoid the political, it is far better to address these issues explicitly than to pretend they do not exist. The middle ground, if one ever existed, has fast receded. We must decide which side we are on. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”12

— Mimi Abramovitz, MSW, DSW, is professor of social policy at Hunter College School of Social Work and The Graduate Center, City University of New York. She is the author of Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy From Colonial Times to the Present and Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the United States and coauthor of The Dynamics of Social Welfare Policy and Taxes are a Woman’s Issue: Reframing the Debate. She is currently writing a book on the history of activism among poor and working class women in the United States since 1900.

References
1. King, M. L. ‘“Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence.” Speech delivered April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City. Retrieved from here.

2. Abramovitz, M. (2007). “Women and Poverty: The Role of Marriage, Markets and the State.” In: Broussard, A., & Joseph, A. (Eds.). Family Poverty in Diverse Contexts, NY: Haworth Press (forthcoming).

3. DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Lee, C. H. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-231, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, Table B-1. (Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2005.) Retrieved January 2, 2007, from here.

4. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). A Profile of the Working Poor, 2004. Report 994, p. 1. Retrieved from here.

5. DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Lee, C. H. U.S. Census Bureau, Reports, P60-231, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, Table A-3 (Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2005). Retrieved January 2, 2007, from here.

6. Sherman, A., & Shapiro, I. (2005). Hardship Indicators Point to a Difficult Holiday Season: National Policy Response is Off Kilter. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from here.

7. Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2006). Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Report No. (ERR-29). Table 1A (Prevalence of Food Security and Food Insecurity in U.S. Households, 1998-2005), p. 5. Retrieved January 1, 2007, from here.

8. DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Lee, C. H. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-231, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005. Table C-1 (Health Insurance Coverage by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1987 to 2005). Retrieved January 2, 2007, from here.

9. Wardrip, K. & Pelletiere, D. (2006). Recent Data Shows Continuation, Acceleration of Housing Affordability Crisis, Research Note #06-05, National Low Income Housing Coalition. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from here.

10. Albernaz, A. (2007) Study examines link between poverty, mental illness (June 2005 Issue). NePSY.com Retrieved from: http://www.masspsy.com/leading/0506_ne_cover_study.html; Heflin, C. & Iceland, J. Povery, Material Hardship and Mental Health. Retrieved from here.

Heflin, C. Poverty, Material Hardship And Mental Health; Albernaz, A. (2007). Study Examines Link Between Poverty, Mental Illness (June 2005 Issue) NePSY.com January 2007 volume 14, #11 l

11. VeganVanguard.com Support Quotations. Retrieved from here.

Affordable Housing
By Frederic G. Reamer, PhD

Recently, I attended a meeting at the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) headquarters in Washington, D.C. NASW’s offices are located a stone’s throw from the U.S. Capitol, one of the most architecturally impressive and symbolically important buildings in the world. During my walk, I was overwhelmed by the majesty of the scenery but sadly, and ironically, I was also overwhelmed by the number of (apparently) homeless people I passed during my walk from the Capitol to NASW, men and women sleeping in broad daylight on concrete slabs and park benches. The juxtaposition—the contrast between the stately halls of Congress and the stark evidence of America’s poverty and affordable housing crisis—was one of the most stunning I have ever encountered.

Understandably, social workers concerned about affordable housing have focused primarily on the nagging problem of homelessness, particularly among people struggling with mental illness, addictions, and persistent poverty. However, the troubling problem of homelessness is merely symptomatic of a broader crisis of affordable housing, one that has profound implications for social workers’ clients.

Housing costs are staggering in many American communities. The National Coalition for the Homeless reports that approximately 3.5 million people—1.35 million of them children—are likely to experience homelessness in a given year. According to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, nearly one in three American households currently spend more than 30% of income on housing, and more than one in eight spend upwards of 50%. Approximately 2.5 million households live in crowded or structurally inadequate housing units.

It is essential for social workers to understand the magnitude and nature of this country’s affordable housing crisis and its implications for practice. The principal causes of the contemporary affordable housing crisis are complex. The demand for affordable housing is affected by increases in poverty and growth in the number of U.S. households. In addition to ordinary population increases, growth in the number of people needing housing also results from declining marriage rates and an increase in the average age at which people first marry, which postpone the combining of households.

Coinciding with increasing demands for affordable housing are threats to the nation’s supply. Declining and expiring federal housing subsidies, disappearing tax incentives to invest in and build low-income housing, restrictive and exclusionary zoning practices, demolition and abandonment of older housing stock, and gentrification join to reduce the number of affordable housing units in many communities. Consistent with one of the most basic laws of economics, increasing demand combined with diminishing supply can lead to skyrocketing costs.

To be effective advocates for clients and informed participants in the public policy arena, social workers must have a firm grasp of possible solutions. Social workers should seek to preserve the existing stock of affordable housing by pushing for programs that rehabilitate low- and moderate-income housing and advocating for preservation of existing subsidies for low- and moderate-income housing.

Also, social workers should seek to expand the supply of affordable housing through tax incentives that underwrite subsidized mortgages for builders, progressive and enlightened zoning practices that promote the “fair share” development of affordable housing across communities, and creation of housing trust funds fed by a renewable stream of income (for example, via real estate transfer taxes, interest on real estate escrow accounts, interest from government loans, and developer fees).

Social workers have an enduring tradition of concern about individuals’ most basic needs, including housing. One of the profession’s principal trademarks is its simultaneous concern with individual well-being and related public policy issues. Certainly, social workers must be concerned about the basic housing and shelter needs of individual clients. At the same time, however, social workers must be engaged actively in the advocacy, public debate, and policy formation that are so essential to the provision of safe and affordable housing. To do otherwise would be to stray from social work’s time-honored mission.

"First things first - this game is fun. After the initial excitement of seeing children's social work as a computer game, I realised that this five minutes of what feels like recreation had actually made me think, I mean really think, about my social work practice - something that in an average day, I don't get to do that often.

“What was especially refreshing was being able to explore Rosie's situation, and all the possible ways you as the social worker can respond to the characters, without feeling judged, or like there's a 'right' answer. In fact, the great thing about this is that the more you go into it, the more questions you have. For me that was the best part, because it's often the things we don't know about a case that are the most important.

“Playing this game was the most thought-provoking five minutes I've spent in social work."

The Child Welfare Master Narrative – Is it for real?

The Child Welfare Master Narrative – Is it for real?

Fraidin (2010) has recently published a review that looks at confidentiality laws and the master narrative of child welfare. He argues that the master narrative of child welfare is about abusive parents who are meting out untold harm on children who must be protected. He states, “In short, the master narrative of child welfare depicts foster care as a haven for “child victims” savagely brutalized by “deviant” “monstrous” parents.” (pp2-3). He correctly points out that the vast majority of children in foster care in the USA (and likely the Western world) are there for neglect as opposed to abuse.

He suggests that policy ought not to be built around this master narrative as it is essentially incorrect – most children in child protection systems are not in need of protection from physically abusive parents or guardians. He is equally correct in pointing out that foster care is not always a better alternative and that there have been children harmed by foster parents.

Regrettably, Fraidin does not see that he too is engaging in a master narrative approach by focusing on foster care as generally unsafe and harmful. This is a story line that is often picked up by critics of child protection. This master narrative suggests that foster care system is largely one where children are harmed and that children will be better off with their biological parents. He cites research by Doyle (2007) which looked at a large cohort of children in foster care (excluding abused children) who, fared poorer in a number of important measures versus those left in biological homes. This research has been replicated elsewhere. The point is valid.

However, other researchers have shown that there are policies that can be adopted which better support educational attainment and subsequent employment and social well being. If adopted, these policies might well alter Doyle’s conclusions (see for example, Dworsky & Courtney, 2010). In other words, if we better support the transition to adulthood then more foster children are likely to be successful. We certainly see that children within families are in need of such support. So is the problem one of foster care per se or one of better managing the needs of the children in care?

Fraidin, in his article, cites cases where children would have likely have seen greater success if appropriate supports were in place or followed through.
He then wanders into another master narrative of the child protection critique which is that family preservation is the golden idol against which all child protection efforts should be judged. The question might better be posed – are we bringing the right kids into care? This requires us to assess whether we are using child protection for the purposes intended or, is society using child protection because it does not wish to address the real underlying issues. These include:

• The willingness to address widespread poverty which underlies so much of the neglect cases. If we are not willing as a society to alter the economic paradigms, then children end up in care because poverty creates the social landscape that leads to child protection interventions. It is quite true that children are neglected as parents struggle to get enough food on the table or a roof over the heads of children.

• Health care access is a major concern in many countries including the United States. Much improvement could be made in that area that would reduce the demands on child protection systems. Parents who can be healthier because they have the care needed will do a better job with caring for their children.

• Early intervention services reduce the need for child protection. They support parents as they enter the role. They help them adapt to the needs of their children and to relate with them in ways that allow the parent to be good enough (See for example the very powerful study by Allen, 2011).

Fraidin also raises the issues of how the media covers tragic stories where children die who are being or have been monitored by child protection. The public is obviously upset and major tragedies that receive widespread coverage can lead to increased apprehension rates. His criticism of this is valid. But he fails to see the real point which is that we are asking child protection to be too many things. The issues noted above need to be addressed (and funded) if we want to create a world where child protection can focus on the cases that really matter. Is society will to pay for these prevention services? So far, the answer is, not really.

What Fraidin does not address is how those tragedies can be useful in increasing the debates about:

• The willingness to fund effective intervention, poverty reduction and health care programs;

• The need to decide what child protection is there to do – which cases should they be focusing on?

• The need to consider how, as a society, we are defining neglect. Are we using definitions that are much too broad (thus capturing too many families)? And are we doing so because the other programs that should be working are not there or are underfunded?

• Are we willing to talk about tax payer dollars being made available at times when economies are struggling and increasing neglect caseloads?

On p, 12, Fraidin refers to the child protection master story also bringing in government malfunction when children die. But government is malfunctioning and children are suffering because of it. This is a management issue but it is even more an issue of how resources are being allocated to which problems.

I find that Fraidin’s global criticism of the master narrative creating belief systems that impact lawyers, judges and social workers to be biased against parents, refusing to consider their perspective or their wants and hopes. He offers no critical research to support this. If we rely on anecdotal stories then I can equally point to very caring lawyers, judges and social workers who seek to find ways to support families and sustain the family unit. Indeed, I see clinicians and researchers struggling very hard at finding ways to effectively intervene with the problems that clinically disrupt families. What judges, lawyers and social workers cannot do is change the societal commitments to funding these very interventions that can positively impact families caught up in neglect.

Can playing a computer game improve child protection practice? Dr Jane Reeves and Professor David Shemmings argue it can

Child protection involves working with uncertainty and managing risk - Professor Eileen Munro's final report on child protection in England makes this very clear.

This places heavy demands on child protection professionals to make sound, "right-first-time" judgements based on comprehensive assessments.

Yet often such decisions are being made in difficult situations that can involve threatening behaviour from parents, disguised compliance and a great deal of emotional stress.

As a result, effective child protection training is difficult to get right. Professionals learn in different ways but although different options are available for child protection training - such as case studies, lectures or role play - we have not to date seen the adoption of "simulation" or "virtual reality" technology.

It is our belief there is a need for such training tools. It has also been shown that among post-qualifying social workers there is a deficit in their micro-skills; the minute-by-minute communication that needs to be made when investigating allegations. They are not alone – the same problems are found among other child protection professionals. The main reason for such skill deficits are due to the high frequency of “hot cognitions”: complex decision-making needing clear thinking but saturated in powerful and confusing emotions.

What is different about virtual reality technology is the opportunity it gives for professionals involved in child protection to evaluate and re-evaluate child protection situations safely and try out other ways of behaving or reacting to a situation, without serious consequences, or anyone else seeing and commenting. They allow us to make decisions and then reflect on those decisions or the communication skills we have used in our practice.

The University of Kent has developed such a game called Virtually Safe as part of a suite of training tools following the death of Baby P and the recent Munro Report. The first prototype scenario developed by the Centre - called Rosie - allows students and professionals to visit and revisit a child assessment scenario which initially appears below child protection thresholds for intervention.

Rosie is the first of many scenarios which we hope to develop at the University over the coming years. The virtual world has indeed arrived for social care.

Try Rosie the serious game for yourself at www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/rosie.html. Let us know your feedback by completing the evaluation form at the end of the game or by emailing.

Professor David Shemmings is chair of social work at the University of Kent. Dr Jane Reeves is project manager for the Proposed Kent Centre for Child Protection

Parents rely on Ofsted's reports when looking for schools for their children.

Teachers complain of the stress of having an inspector at the back of their class and head teachers of the mountain of data they have to supply and the grillings they face from inspectors.

But until the outcry over the death of Baby P and the failure of Haringey Council to protect him, it was not well known that Ofsted is also charged with ensuring that councils' child protection and other children's services are up to scratch.

It took over that responsibility in April 2007.

Now, everyone seems to know that Haringey Council children's services were rated "good" last year, shortly after Baby P died.

But what do inspectors look at to reach such conclusions?

In the case of schools, head teachers are given very short notice of an inspection - typically two days - before inspectors descend.

Under the new "light touch" inspections, Ofsted officials are with schools for just two days, watching lessons and talking to staff and pupils. They will have assessed published data - such as exam or test results - in advance.

Desk-based

Inspectors report on how good lessons are and analyse a detailed "self-evaluation" made by the school, which outlines what it sees as its strengths and weaknesses.

The reliance on information provided by the body being inspected is common to the systems for schools and children's services, and calls have been made for more checks to be carried out.

But what is involved in an inspection of a council's wide-ranging children's services?

The details published on Wednesday - giving a rating of children's services across the country - relate to annual assessments which are purely desk-based.

No field work is carried out. Officials carrying out what is known as an Annual Performance Assessment look at documents and data to see if a council has made progress in the previous 12 months "towards improving outcomes for children and young people".

Teenage pregnancy

They look at "a wide range of published evidence" which indicates how good councils are at helping and safe-guarding children and young people.

This will involve data on schools, including attendance and anti-bullying policies, the attainment of children in care, young offending, the infant mortality rate, child protection, proportion of young people not in work or training and teenage pregnancy rates.

Inspectors meet the council's senior managers to discuss "issues that may have arisen during the analysis of information".

They rely on the local authorities to provide accurate information.

Local authorities are then graded for their children's services, in the same way as schools are - from inadequate at the bottom, to adequate, good and finally outstanding.

They are judged on the following criteria:

• Overall effectiveness of children's services
• Being healthy
• Staying safe
• Enjoying and achieving
• Making a positive contribution
• Achieving economic well-being
• Capacity to improve services for children

Ofsted faced criticism for this arm's length form of assessment and has announced it will be replaced with another next year which will have a "stronger focus on frontline practice", including annual unannounced inspection visits in every local authority.

MPs were critical of the inspection regime last week when Ofsted's head Christine Gilbert appeared before them at the commons' children, schools and families committee.

Committee chairman Barry Sheerman said there were "real concerns" about Ofsted's inspection practices. He called for an inspector to be placed in every local authority.

On top of the annual, desk-based assessment, all councils have faced one full, personal inspection of children's services in the past three years.

This is known as a Joint Area Review (Jar) and involves inspectors talking to front-line workers as well as children, parents, senior managers and elected council members.

Inspectors will stay with a council for a few weeks and their number - and their amount of field work - will depend on how well a council is understood to be performing. Ofsted says this approach is about being "proportionate to risk".

Inspectors also select at random case files relating to some of the most vulnerable children in an area to see how far services are working together in an area to help them.

At the end, they rate the children's services on a scale of one to four in the following areas:

• Safeguarding
• Looked after children
• Children with learning difficulties
• Service management
• Council's capacity to improve

Jungian Theory of Psychological Type Augments the Translating of Social Work Values into Social Work Practice Behaviors

Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, Volume 8, Number 1 (2011) Copyright 2010, White Hat Communications

This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the authors and advance notification of White Hat Communications

F. B. Pete Campbell, Jr., EdD, ACSW University of Mississippi

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to link psychological type theory and constructs with a key value of the social work profession, respecting the dignity and worth of the individual. In addition it will demonstrate how an understanding and application of Jungian psychological type theory helps augment and translate this core social work value into practice principles. After discussing definitions and the core social work value of respecting the innate dignity and worth of the individual in historical context, the author will explore several principles that are derived from this core value and examine them through the theoretical lens of psychological type.

Key Words: dignity and worth, Carl Jung, Psychological Type theory, MBTI, social work practice

1. Introduction

People are unpredictable but in somewhat predictable ways. They often demonstrate thematic ways of behaving in both acting and reacting in their environmental contexts, such as in their families, schools, or work. People can all be of

the same religion, the same race, the same generation, and have the same city of birth and even the same eye color. But they differ in striking and predictable ways with respect to the people they love, the way they love them, their emotional range, their sources of stress and typical coping

mechanisms, their way of resolving conflicts, their susceptibility to certain illnesses, their imagination, their self- esteem, their appetites, plus their career interests, work styles, and motivations, among other identifiable differences (Oldham & Morris, 1990, p. 12).

Understanding “typical,” predictable, “thematic ways” of client behavior through an understanding of Jungian type/temperament theory can help social workers translate the core social work value of respecting the dignity and worth of individuals within a caring and just democratic society, and the attitudes and principles that stem from them, into competent practice behaviors with their

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011 http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

clients through the constructive use of predictable differences. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to explore other specific practice issues with clients such as specific problems, needs, and other diversity issues besides the diversity of psychological type, including age and developmental stage, gender, race and ethnicity, culture, spirituality, and geography.

Carl Jung (1923) is given the primary credit by psychological type and temperament theorists for developing the theory of psychological types. He espoused a particular theory of human behavior and emphasized that “besides the many individual differences in human psychology there are also typical differences” (p. 3). It is upon his theory of “common, uncommon needs” that a number of other scholars have built and made elaborations with implications and applications in various contexts.

Jungian psychological type theory with practical applications derived from his theory are embraced by many, but significantly by Isabel Myers (1987), Mary McCaulley (1981), and Judith Provost (1992) and others using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a non- clinical personality test based upon his theory.

A number of social work scholars have referred to psychological type or temperament in their analysis of social work practice (Compton & Galloway, 1986; Keith-Lucas, 1994; McMahon, 1991; Scheafor & Horejsi, 2008). Others (Chess & Thomas, 1986; Jung, 1923; Keirsey & Bates, 1978; Kramer, 1993; McCaulley, 1981; Myers, 1987; Oldham & Morris, 1990; Provost, 1992) have written about psychological type and temperament in psychological and psycho-social interventions. However, no effort toward the integration of type and temperament theory with social work practice values has been attempted.

2. Definitions

According to Tieger and Barron-Tieger (1995) David Keirsey and Marlyn Bates became intrigued with the relationship between psychological type and temperament. Keirsey and Bates (1978) assert that personality type, temperament, psychological type and character are four different words meaning essentially the same thing. Others differ and differentiate the terms to some degree.

Peter Kramer (1993) indicates that one’s neural chemistry [biology] is “inevitably modified by development, environment, life events, and now by discrete medicine” (p.149). Therefore, nature and nurture are always in interaction. To not take both into account is to be bifurcated and less than scientific or professional and less than artistic and creative. Kramer says that the “usage of the terms ‘temperament’ (nature), ‘character’ (nurture), and ‘persona1ity’ (both) was employed by David Reisman in The Lonely Crowd... [in 1950] and before that in psychiatry by Eric Fromm (p. 340).”

McMahon (1990) defines endowment as “the natural gifts, talents, and abilities that a person has at birth” and includes in this definition “genetic traits and characteristics along with the innate mental, physical, and cognitive abilities of a person” (p. 64). Also, in contemporary psychiatric research, Oldham & Morris (1990) discuss the biological and genetic influence in temperament and personality style.

This author agrees with Keirsey and Bates, Kramer, Fromm, Oldham and Morris, and McMahon and uses the terms psychological type, temperament, endowment, personality type, and personality style interchangeably and refer to “the biological underpinnings of personality even if the biology has been shaped or altered by [environmental]

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011 http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

circumstance” (Kramer, 1993, p. 149). The term “character” I will differentiate and assume to mean “the combined moral or ethical structure of a person or group.” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1991, p. 259) The term character would then have a significant environmental, cultural and moral determinant.

3. Psychological Type Theory Summary

The best synopses of Jung’s theory of psychological type, as well as practical applications of the theory, came from Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs as they developed the now popular non-clinical personality test called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (M.B.T.I.). The forced choice preference indicator evaluates first, the preferred way that people focus their attention and the ways they are energized, either extraversion or introversion; second, the preferred way people like to take in information when they are paying attention, either sensing, using their five senses to observe the actual, or intuition, using a sixth creative sense to notice patterns, relationships and possibilities; third, the preferred way people like to make decisions, either thinking by using a logical, cause-effect, and objective approach, or feeling by taking a person-centered and value oriented approach; and fourth, the preferred life styles of people as they are oriented to their environments, either judging by living in a planned, organized way, or perception by living in a flexible and spontaneous way.

The problem-solving model includes gathering facts, considering possibilities, weighing the pros and cons and reflecting upon values and commitments. Problem solving and decision making is summarized succinctly by Isabel Myers in Introduction to Type. She says, “To improve your ability to solve problems and make decisions, you need to make full use of

your perception (sensing and intuition) and judgment (thinking and feeling) (p. 30).” Then one will have considered “realities, possibilities, consequences, and human values (p.30).”

Interventions are best planned after the competent exercise of sensing and intuition in the data collecting phase of social work practice and utilizing thinking

and feeling in the assessment and planning stage of practice.

4. Psychological Type Theory and Key Social Work Values and Principles

Psychological type theory helps translate the core social work values in practice. Respect for the dignity and worth of people in a just and caring, democratic society are two interrelated value premises of the American social work profession and are the basis upon which other key social work practice attitudes, principles, and practice behaviors emanate. They include the following:

• respect for the right of client self-determination, the need to individualize and “start where the client is” in mutual worker/client decision making

• respect for diversity and the need to demonstrate acceptance and a non- judgmental attitude toward clients

• adopt a strengths perspective and assume a non-labeling and non-stereotyping attitude toward clients

The graphic below depicts the values, attitudes, and core social work principles that flow from the core social work value, namely, respecting the innate dignity and worth of the individual:

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

4.1 Respect for the Innate Dignity and Worth of the Individual

The respect for the innate dignity and worth of the individual, as noted earlier, has been emphasized historically in social work. Type theory emphasizes the value of all psychological types and need for diverse people with different gifts to pursue happiness in a caring and just, democratic society. Each individual that plays out well their unique parts will then manifest their unique purposes in and contributions to society. One of the

main positive properties of the theory and practical applications of MBTI is that clients focus on their strengths and potential development that give them an appreciation of their own worth and dignity. Therefore, clients receive hope and gain motivation for the fulfillment of their rights to life (capacity growth and development), liberty (exercising self-determination), and the pursuit of happiness (creating or locating opportunities).

If the clients’ personality types and their implications are not recognized by clients or

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

social workers during the initial engagement with clients there may be unintended negative consequences. What are initially seen in the presenting problems of clients may be concerns related to undeveloped potential. The concerns may be caused by a poorness of fit within the environment. The concerns may be caused by clients being overwhelmed by persistent and sustaining traumatic events to which any human being would succumb. Social workers at the initial point of contact with clients are often seeing clients in their 1. weakest and most vulnerable states of being.

Motivation and hope for both the client and social worker can come in part from knowledge of a client’s psychological type potential or strengths as early as possible in the engagement, data collection and assessment 2. phases with clients.

4.2 Respect for the Right of Client Self Determination, the Need to Individualize and “Start Where the Client Is” in Mutual Worker/Client Decision-Making

Social work has long espoused the primacy of the concept of the right of client self determination. Typing ultimately is an assessment that is determined by the client, not the social worker. Education, information, and feedback communication with and from the social worker is appropriate and needed, but in the final analysis, the client decides and acts upon any new insights and ideas derived from interaction with the social worker based upon type theory. In order for clients to communicate and tell their own stories in their on way, there must be an appreciation of individual psychological type and temperamental ways of expression. The social work maxim of “starting where the client is” becomes better actualized by allowing and encouraging the client to relate to the social worker concerning their situation uniquely according to their own individual psycho-

3. Recognize and understand that extroverts tend to look outward (externalization) into their environments for problems and causes before reflection (internalization) and focusing upon the inward.

Conversely, if a client was primarily an introvert, the social worker could demonstrate

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

social communication style. Individualization is enhanced through a strengths perspective stance which combats the potential negative labeling of clients.

For example, if a client was primarily an extrovert, the social worker could possibly demonstrate respect for the client in the engagement phase and throughout the helping and problem-solving process by the following:

respect for the 1.

2. 3.

client by the following:

Allow for long pauses, especially when asking the client questions, as introverts tend to process information and formulate what they may want to say and discuss. Do not force introverts to share their thoughts and feelings before they are ready. Allow introverts to ask questions to gain a better understanding of their concerns and situation before attempting a change in their behavior.

Attempt to generate and allow for active interaction with the client because extroverts would often need to talk problems out and get verbal feedback from the social worker.

Take a more introverted stance with the client by being an interested active listener.

4.3 Respect for Diversity and the Need to Demonstrate Acceptance and a Non- Judgmental Attitude Toward Clients

The theory couches differentness and diversity as positives, focusing on strengths and uniqueness of individuals, and is very affirming of those gifts. The MBTI’s nonjudgmental quality is a desirable feature of the instrument and facilitates the sharing of results with the client as client and worker together seek type development possibilities. As strengths become a focus, psychological type development can be emphasized. Psychological type development provides confidence and self direction. A greater appreciation for the aspects of one’s life that come easily and those that are difficult also brings an appreciation and respect for individuals of different types whose strengths and struggles are different from one’s own.

For example, if a social worker were working with a male sensing client and female intuitive client as a couple who were trying to learn to understand and better communicate with one another in their mutual problem-solving efforts around issues such as finances, child rearing, and use of leisure time, the social worker could demonstrate respect for each client’s preference strengths by the following:

1. Asking the male sensing client to describe the current existing situation and relevant facts.

2. Use concrete examples with the sensing client to increase better understanding of communications.

3. Allow the sensing client to describe events with many circumstantial details without interruption.

Conversely, the social worker could demonstrate respect for the female intuitive

client in the above example by the following:

1. Recognize that the female intuitive will grasp generalities somewhat readily.

2. Use analogies with the intuitive client to increase better understanding of communications.

3. Recognize that the intuitive client would tend to understand and appreciate relationships between things, people, and concepts and have a holistic conscientiousness.

In working with this couple the social worker could focus on the relative strengths of each person’s preferences that were assets in their mutual problem-solving efforts with their various issues. The sensing and intuitive couple could learn from each other’s strengths and further their own preference development in areas that were not their preference.

4.4 Adopt a Strengths Perspective and Assume a Non-labeling and Non- stereotyping Attitude Toward Clients

Social work practitioners can well integrate psychological type knowledge in work with their clients by assuming and emphasizing a strengths perspective. Dennis Saleebey (1997) in his book addressing the strengths perspective in social work practice, says that this emphasis on strengths “has been part of social work lore...for decades, but...has rarely been extended and articulated in terms of philosophy, principle, and practice” ( p. 15). He stresses to the practitioner the importance of “moving away from a deficit approach to one emphasizing the resources and resourcefulness of clients ( p.15).” Although he said the strengths perspective is not a “model...paradigm...or a theory” at the time of his writing, I suggest that Jungian social work interventions can be theoretically

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

oriented on just such a strengths perspective and give “guidance to the student or worker about what the obligations and methods of such an orientation might be” (Saleebey, 1997, p.14). Thus, type theory helps in the search

for the health and well-being, strengths, and assets of a person (in their environment) that can be utilized in the problem-solving process, rather than staying focused on deficits and negative labeling with consequent possible pitfalls. Looking for health and well-being, “normalcy,” strengths, assets, potentials, development, maturation, etc. within mental illness has been and is a hallmark of the social work profession.

Jungian psychological type theory is congruent with the strengths perspective of social work practice as both embrace a largely positive and hopeful view of human potential. This strengths perspective mitigates, or at least mediates, a more negative view of human nature that is seen as basically flawed and combats possible negative outcomes when people are negatively labeled. Myers & McCaulley (1985) observe that what counselors appreciate most about the theory is that “it gives clients a sense of worth and dignity about their own qualities” (p. 63). They assert that when clients find out about their own type, it becomes a “releasing experience, not a restricting one” (p. 63). For instance, when we discuss the right of client self-determination and the need to focus as much, if not more, on an individual’s or a family’s strengths, as well as weaknesses or problems, we actualize this basic value premise.

Psychological type “order”, strengths, and assets assessments focus on “ease” rather than “disease” and “disorder” and on goodness of fit” with the client’s environment. “When external influences cause falsification of type [meaning consistently relating and behaving in ways that are very untrue and unnatural to

one’s true self or psychological type], emotional difficulties will follow” (Myers & McCaulley, p. 64). They continue by saying “this is particularly important in counseling, because a goal of treatment [or intervention] is to identify and strengthen the inherent preferences, not to continue to the falsification process” (p. 64).

For example, when planning and performing interventions with a client who has a judging preference, social workers could consider the following:

1. Recognize that judging clients may find it relatively easier to make modifications and adaptations in their own behavior rather than become innovative and creative.

2. Understand that judging clients may need assistance in “planning” to be flexible.

3. Appreciate that judging clients may need to start with decisions that have been made, or are likely to be made, before suggesting other alternative decisions that could be made.

Conversely, when interventions are planned and performed with clients with a perceptive preference, social workers could consider the following:

1. Recognize that perceptive clients would tend to prefer interventions that focus more on their being understood rather than being directed.

2. Understand that perceptive clients may need help in partializing and focusing on one task or a few tasks at a time rather than trying to start and complete too many tasks.

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

3. Appreciate that perceptive clients may need to make choices and do need deadlines for task completion.

A final example comes from the author’s direct social work practice experience with families and children. After gathering initial data regarding the parents’ or families’ concerns, this author would help guide family members (usually the parents if the initial concerns were for small children) to focus on psychological type strengths. For a child that had a thinking preference strength, an approach to discipline with that child that was direct, objective, clear and communicated logical consequences of the child’s behavior could be beneficial. For a child with a feeling preference strength, the discipline approach might be different. Pointing out the effect of choices on people, giving praise and encouragement and allowing the child to express his or her feelings openly could be beneficial. Naturally both of the suggested approaches could work with either child in a given situation, but the relative merits of individualized approaches with children with different preferences had positive outcomes in the author’s practice.

5. Summary and Conclusions

Social workers need to reference a number of diversity variables in their assessments and interventions. This practice will maximize the individualization of a client’s self- determination and actualize a core historical social work value – to respect the dignity and worth of individuals.

This article has focused on Jungian psychological type theory as a diversity variable. Jungian theory was briefly explained, and examples of how the theory can be implemented into social work practice were

provided.

The literature review revealed that a number of scholars from other fields and professions, as well as scholars from social work, have embraced psychological type theory as part of their analyses of social work practice. However, none have explained the theory as a way of actualizing the value of respecting the dignity and worth of individuals.

Psychological type information should be used in conjunction with other theoretical and assessment approaches. Type theory cannot tell someone certain things about themselves. It cannot indicate specific skills and level of competency in the skills in social role functioning at work, home and the community. Any theory, knowledge, information, technique, or skill can be misunderstood, mistimed, misused and misapplied. This phenomenon is no less likely with Jungian psychological type theory. Therefore, a degree of caution should be exercised by social workers when using and applying Jung’s theory in their work with clients.

Jungian theory is not a panacea for all the problems of people or for difficulties that social workers encounter with people, but it is certainly a powerful and useful tool that can be applied appropriately in a myriad of individualized ways consistent with historic social work values and principles. An advantage to using the “labels” suggested here is that they are more benign, emphasize strengths, and suggest interventions that give hope regarding development, growth, and fulfillment. Even in the most hopeless of situations there will be suggested the possibility of making “active and willing” choices (Keith-Lucas, 1994) at the most fundamental level - the level of the spirit and in one’s attitude toward health and growth - and taking the necessary steps to begin to maximize psychological type potential in spite

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

http://www.socialworker.com/jswve

of truly difficult, even harsh realities. Myers, I. B. (1987) Introduction to type: A description of the theory and applications of

References

Chess, S. & Thomas, A. (1986) Temperament in clinical practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Compton, B. R. & Galloway, B. (1994) Social work processes. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Jung, C. G. (1923) Psychological types. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1978) Please understand me: Character & temperament type. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.

Keith-Lucas A. (1994) Giving and taking help. Philadelphia, PA: North American Association of Christians in Social Work.

Kramer, P. D. (1993) Listening to prozac. New York,NY: Penguin.

McCaulley, M. H. (1981) Jung’s theory of psychological types and the myers-briggs type

indicator. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

McMahon, M. O. (1990) The general method of social work practice: A problem solving approach. Lebanon, IN: Prentice Hall.

the myers-briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (1985) Manual: A guide to the development and use of the myers briggs type indicator. Gainesville, FL: Center for the Applications of Psychological Type.

Oldham, J. M. & Morris, L. B. (1990) The personality self-portrait: Why you think, work, love, and act the way you do. New York,NY: Bantam Books.

Provost, J. (1992) Applications of the myers- briggs type indicator in counseling: A casebook. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Saleebey, D. (1997) The strengths perspective in social work. New York,NY: Longman.

Scheafor, B. W. & Horejsi, C. R. (2008) Techniques and guidelines for social work practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

The American heritage dictionary. (2nd ed.). (1991) Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Tieger, P. D. & Barron-Tieger, B. (1995) Do what you are: Discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type. Boston,MA: Little & Brown.

Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011 http://www.socialworker.com/jswve