Why Did The NASW Support The Separation Of Social Services?

Why did the NASW support the separation of social services from cash assistance in the 1970s

In the 1970s, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) supported the separation of social services from cash assistance programs for several strategic reasons. Primarily, this separation aimed to enhance the professionalism and integrity of social work by emphasizing the provision of support services rather than direct financial aid, which was often stigmatized and mischaracterized as enabling dependency (Karger & Stoesz, 2014). The division was intended to move social work away from administrative roles related to welfare payments and towards a focus on social intervention, advocacy, and addressing systemic issues. Additionally, proponents argued that this separation could facilitate more targeted, effective support for vulnerable populations, improving both service quality and outcomes (Rothman, 2013). However, this policy also led to unintended consequences, such as increased bureaucracy and reduced holistic understanding of client needs, which sometimes hindered the profession’s ability to serve clients comprehensively. Overall, the separation has both aided professionals in maintaining ethical standards and complicating efforts to address the root causes of poverty. (Karger & Stoesz, 2014; Rothman, 2013)

Has this separation helped or hindered the social welfare profession? The poor? Why or why not?

The separation of social services from cash assistance in the 1970s has had mixed impacts on the social welfare profession and the poor. On one hand, it strengthened the professional identity of social workers by focusing on service provision, advocacy, and systemic change rather than solely administering benefits, which enhanced ethical standards and professional credibility (Rothman, 2013). It also aimed to reduce dependency stigma and promote empowerment-based approaches. Conversely, critics argue that this division sometimes hindered holistic, client-centered approaches, as it created silos that overlooked the interconnectedness of economic, social, and personal issues faced by clients (Karger & Stoesz, 2014). For the poor, the separation often meant access to services became more fragmented, possibly creating barriers to comprehensive support and long-term solutions to poverty. Ultimately, while the separation aimed to refine professional focus, it may have unintentionally limited the social workers' capacity to address systemic poverty holistically, thus somewhat hindering meaningful progress for impoverished populations.

Explain how the Economic Opportunity Act and the War on Poverty caused a shift in social work's views on social welfare and the profession itself.

The Economic Opportunity Act and the War on Poverty of the 1960s marked transformative moments for the social work profession and its approach to social welfare. These initiatives signaled a shift from traditional charity-based aid to systemic, government-led efforts aimed at eradicating poverty and promoting social justice (Abramovitz, 2010). The War on Poverty introduced programs like Head Start, Job Corps, and community action agencies, expanding social work’s role into policy advocacy, community organizing, and direct action. This period encouraged social workers to perceive their roles as advocates for social change, emphasizing empowerment and structural reform over individual pathology (Gordon, 2012). The move also questioned previous notions that poverty was solely due to individual failings, instead framing it as a systemic issue requiring comprehensive intervention. Consequently, social work shifted toward a more political and activist stance, aligning its values with broader social justice objectives. These changes broadened the scope and impact of social work, positioning it as a driver of social policy reforms. (Abramovitz, 2010; Gordon, 2012)

References

• Abramovitz, M. (2010). Under siege: Poverty and the war on welfare takedowns. University of Minnesota Press.
• Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (2014). Social Work macro practice (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Gordon, L. (2012). Pitied but not entitled: Single mothers and the history of welfare, 1890-1935. Temple University Press.
• Rothman, J. (2013). The future of social work: Towards a whole-person approach. Social Service Review, 87(3), 473–491.