Unit II

Models of Social work

STRUCTURE

Overview

Learning Objectives

1. 1. Models of Social Work

1.2. Social Welfare Model

1.3. Radical Model
1.4 Development model
Lets us sum up

Key words

Answers to Check Your Progress

Model Questions

In this unit an attempt is made to highlight the significance of the introduction into an
‘integrated’ or ‘unitary’ approach to social work. An attempt is made to clarify the
relationship between paradigms, theories and models. An integrated approach to social
work may represent a shift from a predominantly individualistic conceptual model of
practice to an interactionist one. These conceptual models are compared and critiques of
the integrated model are examined.

A welfare state is a concept of government where the state plays a key role in the
protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based
on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public
responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good
life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.
There are two main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:

 A model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its
citizens. This responsibility in theory ought to be comprehensive, because all
aspects of welfare are considered and universally applied to citizens as a "right".
 Welfare state can also mean the creation of a "social safety net" of minimum
standards of varying forms of welfare.

There is some confusion between a "welfare state" and a "welfare society," and debate
about how each term should be defined. In many countries, especially in the United
States, some degree of welfare is not actually provided by the state, but directly to
welfare recipients from a combination of independent volunteers, corporations (both non-
profit charitable corporations as well as for-profit corporations), and government
services. This phenomenon has been termed a "welfare society," and the term "welfare
system" has been used to describe the range of welfare state and welfare society mixes
that are found.[2] The welfare state involves a direct transfer of funds from the public
sector to welfare recipients, but indirectly, the private sector is often contributing those
funds via redistributionist taxation; the welfare state has been referred to as a type of
"mixed economy."

Modern welfare states developed through a gradual process beginning in the late 19th
century and continuing through the 20th. They differed from previous schemes of poverty
relief due to their relatively universal coverage. The development of social insurance in
Germany under Bismarck was particularly influential. Some schemes, like those in
Scandinavia, were based largely in the development of autonomous, mutualist provision
of benefits. Others were founded on state provision. The term was not, however, applied
to all states offering social protection. The sociologist T.H. Marshall identified the
welfare state as a distinctive combination of democracy, welfare and capitalism.
Examples of early welfare states in the modern world are Germany, all of the Nordic
Countries, the Netherlands, Uruguay and New Zealand and the United Kingdom in the
1930s..
Changed attitudes in reaction to the Great Depression were instrumental in the move to
the welfare state in many countries, a harbinger of new times where "cradle-to-grave"
services became a reality after the poverty of the Depression. During the Great
Depression, it was seen as an alternative "middle way" between communism and
capitalism.[8] In the period following the Second World War, many countries in Europe
moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive
coverage of the population.

The activities of present-day welfare states extend to the provision of both cash welfare
benefits (such as old-age pensions or unemployment benefits) and in-kind welfare
services (such as health or childcare services). Through these provisions, welfare states
can affect the distribution of wellbeing and personal autonomy among their citizens, as
well as influencing how their citizens consume and how they spend their time.[9][10]

After the discovery and inflow of the oil revenue, Saudi Arabia,[11][12] Brunei, Kuwait,
Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates all became welfare states for its'
respective citizens.

In the United Kingdom, the beginning of the modern welfare state was in 1911 when
David Lloyd George suggested everyone in work should pay national insurance
contribution for unemployment and health benefits from work.

In 1942, the Social Insurance and Allied Services was created by Sir William Beveridge
in order to aid those who were in need of help, or in poverty. Beveridge worked as a
volunteer for the poor, and set up national insurance. He stated that 'All people of
working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution. In return, benefits
would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed.' The basic
assumptions of the report were the National Health Service, which provided free health
care to the UK. The Universal Child Benefit was a scheme to give benefits to parents,
encouraging people to have children by enabling them to feed and support a family. This
was particularly beneficial after the second world war when the population of the United
Kingdom declined. Universal Child Benefit may have helped drive the Baby boom. The
impact of the report was huge and 600,000 copies were made.

Beveridge recommended to the government that they should find ways of tackling the
five giants, being Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. He argued to cure
these problems, the government should provide adequate income to people, adequate
health care, adequate education, adequate housing and adequate employment. Before
1939, health care had to be paid for, this was done through a vast network of friendly
societies, trade unions and other insurance companies which counted the vast majority of
the UK working population as members. These friendly societies provided insurance for
sickness, unemployment and invalidity, therefore providing people with an income when
they were unable to work. But because of the 1942 Beveridge Report, in 5 July 1948, the
National Insurance Act, National Assistance Act and National Health Service Act came
into force, thus this is the day that the modern UK welfare state was founded.

Welfare systems were developing intensively since the end of the World War II. At the
end of century due to their restructuration part of their responsibilities started to be
channeled through non-governmental organizations which became important providers of
social services.[13]

Two forms of the welfare state

There are two ways of organizing a welfare state:[14]

According to the first model the state is primarily concerned with directing the resources
to “the people most in need”. This requires a tight bureaucratic control over the people
concerned, with a maximum of interference in their lives to establish who are "in need"
and minimize cheating. The unintended result is that there is a sharp divide between the
receivers and the producers of social welfare, between "us" and "them", the producers
tending to dismiss the whole idea of social welfare because they will not receive anything
of it. This model is dominant in the US.
According to the second model the state distributes welfare with as little bureaucratic
interference as possible, to all people who fulfill easily established criteria (e.g. having
children, receiving medical treatment, etc). This requires high taxing, of which almost
everything is channeled back to the taxpayers with minimum expenses for bureaucratic
personnel. The intended – and also largely achieved – result is that there will be a broad
support for the system since most people will receive at least something. This model was
constructed by the Scandinavian ministers Karl Kristian Steincke and Gustav Möller in
the 30s and is dominant in Scandinavia.

SOCIAL WELFARE

Social Welfare or public charity, organized provision of educational, cultural, medical,

and financial assistance to the needy. Modern social welfare measures may include any of
the following: the care of destitute adults; the treatment of the mentally ill; the
rehabilitation of criminals; the care of destitute, neglected, and delinquent children; the
care and relief of the sick or handicapped; the care and relief of needy families; and
supervisory, educational, and constructive activity, especially for the young.

Early Forms of Assistance

Among the Greeks and Romans public assistance was given chiefly to those holding full
citizenship. It was early connected with religion, as among the Hebrews and, from them,
among the Christians and later the Muslims. The Christian Church was the main agency
of social welfare in the Middle Ages, supplemented by the guilds. Later, national and
local governmental agencies, as well as many private agencies, took over much of the
charitable activity of the church.

First of the extensive state efforts was the Elizabethan poor law of 1601, which attempted
to classify dependents and provide special treatment for each group on the local (parish)
level. During the Industrial Revolution, many entrepreneurs believed that social welfare
programs undertaken by the state violated the concepts of laissez faire and therefore
opposed such measures. Exceptions were such men as Robert Owen, who believed that
social welfare measures were essential but their implementation should be undertaken
cooperatively rather than as a function of the state.

Modern Welfare Programs

The first modern government-supported social welfare program for broad groups of
people, not just the poor, was undertaken by the German government in 1883. Legislation
in that year provided for health insurance for workers, while subsequent legislation
introduced compulsory accident insurance and retirement pensions. In the next 50 years,
spurred by socialist theory and the increasing power of organized labor, state-supported
social welfare programs grew rapidly, so that by the 1930s most of the world's industrial
nations had some type of social welfare program.

Not all governments have equally extensive social welfare systems. Great Britain and the
Scandinavian countries, often termed "welfare states," have wide-ranging social welfare
legislation. Britain's National Health Service, for example, was established (1948) to
provide free medical treatment to all. Private philanthropies and charitable organizations,
however, continue to operate in these countries in many areas of public welfare.
International relief bodies, such as the Red Cross, and agencies of the United Nations,
such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund
(UNICEF), provide social welfare services throughout the world, especially during times
of distress and in poverty-stricken areas.

In the United States the Social Security Act of 1935 provided for federally funded
financial assistance to the elderly, the blind, and dependent children. Subsequent
amendments broadened the act in terms of coverage provided and eligibility; included
was the provision for medical insurance to the aged (1965) under the Medicare program
and to low-income families (1965) under the Medicaid program.

In the United States public assistance has increasingly come under state and federal
control, although private philanthropy still plays a major role. By the early 1990s the
Clinton administration approved changes in many states' welfare systems, including work
requirements in exchange for benefits (so-called workfare) and time limits. In 1996 the
president signed a bill enacting the most sweeping changes in social welfare policy since
the New Deal. In general the bill, which sought to end long-term dependence on welfare
programs, represented a reversal of previous welfare policy, shifting some of the federal
government's role to the states and cutting many benefits. Among the bill's major
provisions were the requirement that about a quarter of the population then on welfare be
working or training for work by 1997 (a goal that was reached in most states) and that a
half do so by 2002; the granting of lump sums to states to run their own welfare and work
programs; an end to the federal guarantee of cash assistance for poor children; the
limitation of lifetime welfare benefits to five years (with hardship exemptions for some);
the requirement that the head of every welfare family work within two years of receiving
benefits or lose them; and the establishment of stricter eligibility standards for the
Supplemental Security Income program (which excluded many poor disabled children
from benefits).

In terms of reducing the welfare rolls, the bill initially proved successful; in 1999 there
were fewer welfare recipients then there had been in 30 years. Most states also reported a
surplus of federal welfare funds. Those funds, which by law remained fixed for five
years, provided an unforeseen benefit for the states, enabling some states to increase
social welfare spending. Additional changes passed in 2005 forced states to increase the
hours worked by recipients while tightening the regulations for those who are affected by
the work requirements, raising concerns in a number of states with education and
addiction-treatment programs for welfare recipients.

PART I
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL WORK, AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Social development is a multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral field of practice that seeks
to improve the social and material well-being of people everywhere (Estes, 1993b; Jones
& Pandey, 1981; Lowe, 1995; Meinert & Kohn, 1987; Midgley, 1995). Social
development is practiced across all geo-political borders and at all levels of social,
political, and economic organization (Estes, 1990; Hokenstad & Midgley, 1997; Midgley,
1997). In social work, social development also is practiced within the context of the
emerging field of international social work (Billups, 1990; Estes, 1992; Healy, 1992; Van
Soest, 1992), albeit much of development-oriented social work practice also occurs at the
local, state, and national levels (Cnaan, 1991; David, 1993; Elliott et al., 1990; Elliott &
Mayadas, 1996; Lee, 1988; Nayak & Siddiqui, 1989); Robinson, 1995; Twelvetrees,
1994).

According to the late Daniel Sanders, development practice in social work can be viewed
as a movement, a perspective, and a practice mode (Sanders, 1982). As the "means" of
"developmental social work," social development refers to the processes through which
people are helped to realize the fullness of the social, political, and economic potentials
that already exist within them. As the "goal" of develop-mental social work, social
development refers to the realization of new, but sustainable, systems of "inter-personal"
and "inter-national" relationships that are guided by a quest for peace, increased social
justice, and the satisfaction of basic human needs.

The Goals of Social Development

Wide agreement exists among development specialists concerning the goals of social
development prac-tice:
1. The realization of more balanced approaches to social and economic development
(Billups, 1990; Estes, 1993b, 1995; United Nations/ESCAP, 1992);
2. The assignment of the highest priority to the fullest possible human development
(UNDP, 1997);
3. The fullest possible participation of people everywhere in determining both the means
and out-comes of development (Mondros & Wilson, 1994; Simon, 1994);
4. The elimination of absolute poverty everywhere in the world (World Bank, 1990,
1997; UNDP, 1997);
5. the elimination of barriers to development which, in every society, have been used to
oppress historically disadvantaged population groups, but especially women, the
aged, the poor, children and youth, disabled persons, political and economic
refugees, the mentally ill as well as persons who have been disadvantaged on the
 basis of race, religion, ethnicity, social class, caste, and sex-ual orientation
(Campfens, 1990; Keough, 1997; Estes, 1997)
6. the realization of new social arrangements that accelerate the pace of development and
assure the satisfaction of basic needs of people everywhere (Benjamin &
Freedman, 1989; Brandt Commis-sion, 1980; United Nations, 1990); and,
7. the transformation of societies toward more humanistic values based on social justice,
the promo-tion of peace, and the attainment of the fullest possible human
development (Khinduka, 1987; Falk, 1992; Van Soest, 1992).
The Assumptions of Social Development Practice
Agreement also exists among development specialists concerning the "orienting values"
and practice as-sumptions of social development (Bargal, 1981; Estes, 1995; Gil, 1981;
Meinert & Kohn, 1987; Van Soest, 1992; Vershelden, 1993):
1. that social, political, and economic events occurring in other regions of the
world have direct, often immediate, sometimes lasting consequences on the
quality of life in all other regions of the world;
2. that the underlying dynamics of human degradation and social injustice found
in local communi-ties often emanate from social, political, and economic
forces that are international in character;
3. that international social forces both contribute to and sustain social
inequalities in particular lo-cales (e.g., the international dimensions of global
poverty and discrimination on the basis of race, class and caste);
4. that only under conditions of peaceful co-existence can local, national and
international social development and, in turn, human development be
accelerated;
5. that a restructuring of the national and international social orders is
particularly urgent in reduc-ing the profound, largely unnecessary, levels of
human misery, degradation, and inter-personal violence that persist in many
countries and regions of the world;
6. that social development specialists possesses a unique body of knowledge and
skills that can positively impact upon the national and international social
 situation, especially in helping to find sustainable solutions to recurrent local,
state, national and international social problems; and,
7. that acting individually and collectively, substantial numbers of social
development
specialists, including social workers, are continuing the national and international social
movements begun by their predecessors toward the establishment of a more peaceful and
socially just world order.

These assumptions are far-reaching and provide a framework for integrating the diverse
social change activities of the various disciplines and professions that contribute to social
development. These assumptions also bear directly on the purpose, goals, and structure of
professional programs of develop-ment education.

The Social Development Knowledge Base

Social development specialists draw substantially for their knowledge from sociology
(esp. stratification theory, the sociology of mass movements, processes of regional
development), political science (esp. power domains, political influence, and structures of
political parties), economics (esp. theories of eco-nomic production, distribution, and
consumption), education (esp. theories of adult learning), philosophy (esp. theories of
justice and social ethics) and, in some cases, from religion (e.g., the "liberation theology"
of Gustavo Gutierrez, et al., 1973). Developmental social workers also draw heavily from
group work, social planning, and community organization practice for much of their skill
base.
Levels of Social Development Practice

Chart 1 identifies the primary processes and major outcomes associated with eight
"levels" of social de-velopment practice: individual empowerment; group empowerment;
conflict resolution; institution-building; community-building; nation-building; region-
building; and world-building.1
1 For a partial listing of authors whose work is most closely associated with each level of
social development practice see Estes, 1995.
Chart 1.
LEVELS & DEFINITIONS OF SED PRACTICE IN SOCIAL WORK
Levels of SED Major Purposes, Outcomes, or Processes
Practice Associated With Levels of International Social Work Practice
Individual & Through "self help," "mutual aid," and "conscientization" strategies
Group individuals and groups learn how to perceive and act upon the
Empowerment contradictions that exist in the social, political, and economic
structures intrinsic to all societies.
Conflict Efforts directed at reducing: (1) grievances between persons or
Resolution groups; or, (2) asymmetric power relationships between members of
more powerful and less powerful groups.
Institution- Refers both to the process of "humanizing" existing social institutions
Building and that of establishing new institutions that respond more effectively
to new or emerg-ing social needs.
Community- Through increased participation and "social animation" of the
Building populace, the process through which community's realize the fullness
of their social, political, and economic potential; the process through
which communities respond more equitably to the social and material
needs of their populations.
Nation-Building The process of working toward the integration of a nation's social,
political, economic, and cultural institutions at all levels of political
organization.
Region-Building The process of working toward the integration of a geo-political
region's social, political, economic, and cultural institutions at all
levels of social organization.
World-Building The process of working toward the establishment of a new system of
interna-tional relationships guided by the quest for world peace,
 increased social jus-tice, the universal satisfaction of basic human
needs, and for the protection of the planet's fragile eco-system.

In addition to these eight levels of social development practice, developmental social

work prac-tice also includes:
1. The provision of personal social services to people in distress, e.g., war victims,
refugees, or-phaned children, etc. (Elliott & Mayadas, 1996; Estes, 1993a);
2. organizational efforts directed at helping poor and other powerless people
remove the sources of their oppression, e.g., corrupt landlords, unjust employers,
colonial administrators, racism, etc (Campfens, 1990; Cnaan, 1991; Friere, 1971;
Keough, 1997; Gutierrez, 1973);

3. the establishment of new social institutions, e.g., for credit unions, mutual aid
societies, commu-nity welfare centers, seed banks, social security schemes, etc.
(Estes, 1997; Omer, 1989; Robin-son, 1995; Umana & Brandon, 1992);
4. the reform of existing institutions so as to make them more responsive to the
needs of those forwhom the institutions were designed (Estes, 1995; Jones &
Pandey, 1981; Midgley, 1997);
5. Efforts that seek to accelerate the pace of social development in local
communities, states and provinces, nations, regions and, ultimately, the world
itself (Benjamin & Freedman, 1989; Rot-berg, 1993);
6. The promotion of internationally guaranteed human rights (UN/Center for
Human Rights, 1992);
7. Peace promotion (David, 1993; Khinduka, 1987; Sanders & Matsuoka, 1989;
Van Soest, 1992; Verschelden, 1993); and,
8. Protection of the planet's fragile eco-systems (WCED, 1987; WRI, 1997).
Hence, social development specialists can be found in every country and region of the
world and in all areas of professional practice. Within social work, development
specialists function as caseworkers and group workers, community organizers,
administrators, social planners, researchers, consultants, edu-cators, and members of
boards of directors. They also serve in the councils of governments and are members of
national parliaments. Developmental social workers also are employed by or serve as
con-sultants to the United Nations and other quasi-governmental bodies. And,
developmental social workers provide professional leadership to the tens of thousands of
non-governmental organizations that operate throughout the world (Burek, 1991).
Sectors of Social Development Practice
Social development is practiced across of broad range of sectors, i.e., public and private
institutions and organizations that seek to promote "the common good" through the
provision of highly specialized ser-vices and other activities (e.g., health, education,
transportation, communications, finance, etc.). Chart 2 identifies the major sectors in
which social development is practiced, albeit a larger number of sectors in which
development specialists work can be identified.
Chart 2.
MAJOR SECTORS OF SED ACTIVITY

Agriculture Energy Religion & Religious

Communications Environment Organizations
Consumer Security Food Rural Development
Criminal & Juvenile Justice Health Social Services
Culture Housing Sports
Defense Human Rights Technology
Economic Development Income Support Transportation
Education Leisure Time & Recreation Urban Development
Employment Population

MODELS OF EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN SOCIAL WORK

The vast majority of social development specialists function within one of four basic
models of practice: the Personal Social Services Model (PSSM); the Social Welfare
Model (SWM), the Social Development Model (SDM), and the New World Order Model
(NWOM). Each model of practice reflects a different ideological orientation with respect
to its formulation of the causes of national and international "mal-de-velopment." Each
model also prescribes a different set of solutions for advancing more balanced ap-
proaches to social and economic development and for helping historically disadvantaged
population groups and others achieve increased political equality.3 These models also
inform the specialized educa-tional goals, substantive content, and programmatic
structure of different programs of development edu-cation, including those that seek to
prepare social workers for leadership roles in social development.
The Personal Social Services Model
The Personal Social Services Model (PSSM) of social development practice seeks to
extend to people everywhere a range of basic social services that are needed to either
restore or enhance their capacity for social functioning. The model's primary goals are: 1)
to provide remedial and preventive services to indi-viduals, families, and groups whose
optimal social functioning is either temporarily impaired or inter-rupted; and 2) to extend
social protection to population groups that are threatened by exploitation or deg-radation.
The PSSM also seeks to ensure increased sensitivity and responsiveness on the part of
human service providers to the special service needs of culturally diverse population
groups.
The Social Welfare Model
The Social Welfare Model (SWM) of social development practice is rooted in
comparative social policy and comparative social research. The goals associated with the
SWM include: 1) self help; 2) mutual aid; 3) humanitarianism; and 4) the establishment
of effective, preferably universal, systems of formal social provision. The SWM also
views developmental social welfare practice as part of the worldwide movement that seek
to promote social security and social justice for people everywhere (Elliott et al., 1990;
Evers & Wintersberger, 1988; USDHHS, 1997).
The Social Development Model
The Social Development Model (SDM) has its origins in community organization and
community devel-opment practice and does, therefore, promote the fullest possible
participation of people in determining
3 Differences in practice orientation stem primarily from the varied social science
disciplines and intellectual traditions that inform the social work knowledge base (e.g.,
economics, political science, sociology, psychology, adult education, etc.). These
differences also reflect the multiple levels of intervention in which social workers are
involved, i.e., ranging from addressing the psycho-social needs of individuals and
families to cooperative activities with other development "stakeholders" in transnational
social movements.
8
both the means and goals of social development. In doing so, the model seeks to provide
a framework for understanding the underlying causes of human degradation,
powerlessness, and social inequality every-where in the world. The ultimate goal of the
SDM, however, is to guide collective action toward the elimination of all forms of
violence and social oppression.
The New World Order Model
The New World Order Model (NWOM) of social development practice is closely
associated with the writings of "visionary" economists, political scientists, legal scholars,
and environmentalists (Brandt Commission, 1981; Coates & Jarratt, 1989; Falk, 1992;
Henderson, 1992). Major components of the NWOM are reflected in the fundamental
social, political, and economic reforms in the existing interna-tional "order" that are being
sought by the United Nations (UN, 1990; UN/ESCAP, 1992b), the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP, 1997), the World Bank (World Bank, 1997) and other
leading international development assistance organizations. Elements of the NWOM also
have been described by social work theoreticians (Estes, 1995; Healy, 1992; Van Soest,
1992).
The NWOM asserts that the most serious problems confronting humanity are rooted in
the fun-damental inequalities that exist in the present world "order," i.e., in the system of
international social, political, and economic institutions that govern relationships between
nations and, within nations, be-tween groups of people. In promoting its social change
objectives, the NWOM calls for the creation of a "new world order" based on: 1)
recognition of and respect for the unity of life on earth; 2) the minimi-zation of violence;
3) the satisfaction of basic human needs; 4) the primacy of human dignity; 5) the re-
tention of diversity and pluralism; and 6) the need for universal participation in the
process of attaining worldwide social transformation.
The Models Contrasted
Chart 3 reports a formal analysis of the major features of the four models of social
development practice. The chart contrasts, for example, each model's: ideological
orientation; dominant values; social change goals; dominant change strategies; "targets"
of intervention; and pressures for change. The resulting analysis also suggests the broad
parameters within which formal programs of development education should be
structured.
Chart 3.
MODELS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
PERSONAL SOCIAL SOCIAL NEW
SOCIAL WELFARE DEVELOPMENT WORLD
SERVICES MODEL MODEL ORDER
MODEL MODEL
BASIC At various times in their Owing to the Dominant Existing
ASSUMP- lives people require limited in- national and social,
TIONS assistance in coping terdependent international political,
REGARDING nature of systems and eco-
contemporary frustrate the nomic
so-ciety, all efforts of "world
people dis- order
systems"
are con-

PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES MODEL SOCIAL WELFARE MODEL SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT MODEL NEW WORLD ORDER MODEL
THE with confront enfranchised trolled by a
HUMAN problems of predictable people (and minori-ty of rich
CONDITION daily living social "risks" countries) in their and pow-erful
(e.g., serious for which efforts to achi- countries that
illness, disa- formally eve parity with have a vested
bility, family organized "so-cial haves." inter-est in
dys-function, programs of Persistent social, maintaining the
income social political, and economic and
insecurity, protection are eco-nomic political
etc.). needed (e.g., inequalities in dependen-cy of
Others, loss of income, developing coun- poorer, less
owing to seri-ous illness, tries result from: powerful,
more serious old age, solitary 1) a legacy of countries.
prob-lems, survivor-ship, colon-ialism; 2) Persistent
are unable to etc.). "victim-ization" inequal-ities
function Other groups of by in-ternational between rich and
indepen- people--owing systems that poor nations
dently and to factors that better serve the contribute
require more are largely interests of rich directly to
intensive beyond their and powerful recurrent wars,
assistance control--are countries; 3) civil strife, and
over the disad-vantaged internal corrup- in-creasingly to
long-term. by strati- tion; and 4) more serious
The personal fication norms "acci-dents" of problems of
social that reward geography that global poverty
services seek some, but trap resource and social
to restore or penalize many. poor countries in injustice.
enhance the Social welfare conditions of per-
social is viewed as the petual
function-ing pri-mary deprivation.
of people to mechanism Within rich cou-
an optimal through which ntries, persistent
level of self- soci-eties inequalities
sufficiency. respond to the mirror patterns
legitimate that exist in the
needs of global system.
dependent
 popula-tion
groups.
SOCIAL The The The Transformation of
CHANGE protection of establishment redistribution of existing world
GOALS socially of effective and power and mate- order systems to
vulnerable cost-efficient rial resources to systems that
population sys-tems of his-torically reflect: active
groups from social pro- disadvan-taged participation of
exploitation vision that population all people and all
and human benefit the groups, but rele-vant sectors
deg-radation. largest possible especi-ally to the in the
The number of poor, landless transformation
provision of people. persons, women, pro-cess; the
a range of Access to a minorities, and alleviation of
services that basic standard others. human suffering
restore and, of social and everywhere; inc-
as possible, economic well-
enhance
10 PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES MODEL SOCIAL WELFARE MODEL SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT MODEL NEW WORLD ORDER MODEL
the capacity of being viewed as a basic Fuller participation of reased social
peo-ple to "right" of citi-zenship people at all lev-els of and
meet their so- or resi-dency. social organi-zation in the distributive
cial domi-nant political and justice; and
obligations. economic systems of their the attainment
countries. of world peace
and war
prevention.
CHANGE Individuals, The broader Groups, formal People at all
TARGETS fami-lies, and society with and informal levels of social
small groups special empha-sis organiza-tions, orga-nization
 on the social and communities, including
economic well- national sub- people's move-
being of regions and ments, nations,
individuals and nations. world
family groups. subregions and
regions, and
international
co-operative
moveme-nts.
SPECIAL Increased Social work and Through a sense The model
INTERNA- sensitivi-ty so-cial welfare of identification empha-sizes
TIONAL and are viewed as with oppressed the need for
EMPHASIS responsive- world-wide people new
ness to the social move- everywhere, international
special ments that seek local groups are systems based
service needs to promote peace, assisted in on: global
of culturally social justice, and undertaking sharing rather
diverse social security change efforts than squan-
population for people that benefit dering; global
groups. everywhere. themselves and coop-eration
others. rather than
competition;
and global
conservation
rather than ex-
ploitation.
BASIC The provision The extension of A broad range of Change
CHANGE of various basic social group- and activities are
STRATEGIES forms of guaran-tees and commu-nity- multifaceted
psycho-social protections to building met- and draw from
treat-ment people every- hods are the full
 and where, i.e., to employed: spectrum of
rehabilita- minimal conscientization governmental
tion. standards of (i.-e., social and non-
Limited living and as- animatio-n), self- governmental
financial sured access to at help, mutual aid, actors,
assistance least basic health, conflict resolu- practice
and other education, and tion, institution- methods, and
economic oth-er essential building, etc. or-
services to social services. ganizational
the poor skills.
based on
eligibility and
es-tablished
need.
PRIMARY Professionals Interdisciplinary Teams of trained People and
and govern-
PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES MODEL SOCIAL WELFARE MODEL
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL NEW WORLD ORDER MODEL

AGENTS non- teams of Professionals ments working

OF professionals human ser-vice & de- cooperatively in
SOCIAL employed by professionals velopment creating new
CHANGE public or private working in experts in social systems
human service various cooperation that reflect
organizati-ons. welfare-related with dramatically
sec-tors (e.g., governmental altered
housing, health enti-ties, international
care, edu- people's or- reali-ties.
cation, income ganizations, &
security, etc.). oth-er
collectivities.
PRESSURES Increasing Recognition of The social Recurrent crises
FOR numbers of new or "anima-tion" of stemming from:
SOCIAL "dysfunctional" emerging previously 1) the inability of
CHANGE or socially social needs oppressed existing world
depen-dent coupled with a peoples. sy-stems to cope
people. willingness to International with mounting
Deteriorating re-spond to pres-sures to pressures for
social conditions those needs. respond more change; or 2) the
that th-reaten the Social equitably to the occurrence of
life style or conflicts legitimate serious global
economic secu- arising from a needs and ca-tastrophes
rity of more growing rights of disen- such that
advan-taged "under class" franchised fundamental
population of people -who popula-tions. changes to
groups. are unable to existing world
participate systems can-not
 mean-ingfully be avoided.
in existing
social order.

Radical Social Work Approach: Social workers are not satisfied only with care of the
disabled and the deviants. In 1970, due to influence of Marxism, they advocate
oppression as the cause for many problems. They broadened their professional
responsibilities to include reform and development in order to bring about an equitable
social order.

Some radicals in the profession have gone beyond social reform and development. The
social workers aim is changing the system by bringing basic changes in the social
institutions and relationships instead of dealing with adjustment problems and seeing
individual as victims of an unjust social order. This is called radical social work and for
various reasons it has also failed to deal with the problems.

Progressive Social Work: Progressive social workers may identify themselves with
radicals, activistsetc., They are unhappy about the injustice in the society. The
progressive social wbrkers strive to alter the oppressive element in the society. They help
them heal their wounds and educate them to make proper choices so as to build their
future.

Feminist Social Work: Liberal feminism is the school of thought that emphasizes
equality of sexes and demands legal reforms and equal opportunities for suffrage,
education and employment to both men and women. Liberal feminists do not analyse the
roots of gender oppression in the society. Marxist feminists view women's oppression as
the outcome of capitalist mode of production. Where there is division between domestic
work and wage work, only b the latter is productive.

CONCLUSION
Events occurring in all regions of the world offer compelling evidence of the need for
new approaches to the education of human service workers (e.g., the dramatic rise in
global poverty in Asia and Latin Amer-ica; repeated famines in Sub-Sahara Africa; the
growing numbers of political and economic refugees in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean;
the AIDS pandemic; growing problems of homelessness combined with historically high
levels of un- and under-employment in Europe, Australia-New Zealand, and elsewhere),
etc.. Indeed, many of the most difficult "domestic" social problems confronting
contemporary human service workers are rooted in transnational forces that originate in
other regions of the world.

Human service workers require new models of practice if they are to contribute
effectively to-ward the resolution of social problems that are rooted in worldwide social,
political, and economic reali-ties. At a minimum, these new models of practice must
reflect an understanding of the transnational na-ture of the social problems that bring
clients, client groups, and other constituencies to the attention of human service workers.
They also must be grounded on empirical evidence and must offer positive guid-ance
concerning a range of social development solutions that can be applied to discrete social
needs.