In a message dated 5/3/2005 8:41:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a case worker, I assume it was your duty to "take care" of the
clients, wasn't it?  I can imagine that there were limits to the amount
and type of intervention you could enact.  Can you elaborate?
        Let me give one further on-list response, and if no one else is interested, we can take the discussion off-list.
 
        The question about what a welfare worker's duty was is a great question and difficult to answer.  Some of my coworkers understood their duty as involving just policing their clients; others as helping them, but only minimally in order to maintain the status quo; each worker had a caseload of approximately sixty families. Still others thought of their job as regarding their clients are people in desperate need of total care.  This latter group tried often against an unsympathetic bureaucracy to nurture their clients and help them get off the dole.  Unsurprisingly, workers in this latter group burnt out quickly. 
 
        Just how much intervention was appropriate was determined by a procedure book of too many pages, the sympathies of one's immediate supervisor, and just how persistent an individual worker was inclined to be in orchestrating more comprehensive and sometimes unauthorized aid or virtually unauthorized aid.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to