Fences and Ambulances

There's a well-known poem, written in 1913, which discusses a debate whether to build a fence around a dangerous ledge on a cliff, or ambulances to take care of the ledge's victims after they've fallen.  (Read the poem here)

Prior to her...uh, 'ascension to royalty', "The Baroness" was a social worker for three years after her graduation.  While presently focused on being five months pregnant, she still keeps up with some of the literature and articles related to social workers here in the U.S.

To say social workers are generally left-wing and lean towards 'ambulance-building' is perhaps an understatement.  Probably not really a surprise, when you consider that they spend the vast majority of their time working with people who have already fallen off the cliff and are lying wounded on the ground. 

One article we both read recently (sorry...no link available) argues mightily against work requirements for mothers on welfare.  How is it fair to require single mothers to work 35 hours or more a week--and be away from their children--to satisfy the public assistance requirements of recent welfare reform laws?  It lists many instances where children are the ones who suffer from reduced benefits and greater time away from mom.  Society should be more open in providing benefits to poor mothers without strings attached, since their 'job' of raising children is one of the most important in all of society.

While I don't disagree with the general principles discussed in the article, as with many 'left-wing' positions, it is very careful to frame the issue so that the only elements allowed in the discussion are those in which the fundamental arguments are the most solidly supported.

Last year, I profiled 'Dorothy'--a divorced mother of two who is currently on welfare.  A Hong Kong native, she came to America for the express purpose of taking advantage of America's better welfare benefits.  Now, Dorothy's poor situation (and that of her kids) isn't really her 'fault'--her husband unilaterally left her, and hasn't to this point provided any financial support to his kids.  Whether she is 'responsible' for, or could have avoided her situation is not the point, really--the crux of the matter is, she's here and on welfare specifically because being on welfare was the most attractive choice among the ones she had.  Now, what do you think would happen if welfare benefits increased and requirements for obtaining them decreased--would there be more or less people like Dorothy who specifically choose to stay on welfare instead of looking for other options?  The more attractive you make it, the more people are going to consciously seek after it ahead of other possibilities...

If marijuana was legalized for medicinal purposes, do you think the number of people with medical illnesses requiring marijuana would increase or decrease?

If abortion were outlawed except in cases of rape or incest, do you think the reported number of rapes would go up or down?

Under the 'give'em an inch and they'll take a mile' philosophy of human nature, there will always be those who try to use public services and programs for their own benefit.  And this has to be a consideration when formulating public policy.  How will it be used...and how can it be abused?

The social worker code of ethics states, in part, that one of the goals of social work is to "ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs".  In a situation where infinite resources are present, society can afford to cast its 'safety net' wider and deeper, taking care of any poor soul who happened to fall to the ground from the ledge of 'normalcy' above.  Unfortunately, without infinite resources someone's always going to be left out...  No matter how many ambulances you build, you won't be able to save everyone who falls off the cliff, especially if the number keeps going up.  Therefore it should be of paramount importance that the number of people who fall off the cliff be as small as possible.

If meeting the needs of those who desperately require help is the primary goal of social work (as it should be), then you can't afford to spend your finite resources on those who have alternate means of support...but choose not to pursue them.  The larger the second group is, the more likely it is some in the first group are not going to get what they need.  And the more wide-ranging and comprehensive you make welfare benefits, the more tag-alongs you're going to get...  Is it good when caring people spend much time, effort, and money to help one pregnant teenager get back on her feet...and then have two more walk in the door after she leaves?

How to make welfare 'unattractive' enough, so that only those who need it the most will receive it?  Well, you need to keep benefits at a minimum and maintain a certain 'stigma' so that psychologically no one would want to be on welfare in lieu of other options.

And, of course, that's exactly the opposite of what your average social worker is trying to accomplish...

Thus, the age old welfare problem remains: (1) Increase benefits and see the number of people 'needing' welfare suddenly increase.  With finite resources, someone truly needy is going to have their benefits vultured away by someone else.  Or (2), decrease benefits to keep people away from welfare...at the expense of those few who really need it.  Unfortunately, many of the truly needy lose either way...

Perhaps the current system is the best one, then...  With both the conservative and liberal mindsets constantly struggling against each other, we reach a impasse somewhere in the middle.  The welfare net doesn't stretch too far and break from trying to provide too many resources to too many people (the liberal extreme)...and you don't have to sacrifice and abandon those who need governmental assistance for the sake of trying to keep people independant and off welfare in the first place (the conservative extreme).

See, maybe the two party system does have its advantages!