Social work. A profession where they train you to be a Swiss Army Knife, equipping you with skills and tools to be able to work across a broad range of fields, from mental health to homelessness to families to drug & alcohol to disability to unemployment to refugees to forensics to aged care to cultural diversity to whatever. We are fashioned into capable workers such that we can apply a multidimensional approach to whatever field we head into, to remain forever aware of the other areas of human life and diversity in order to provide the most beneficial services possible.
The two main criticisms of social work are that it [a] is undefinable, and [b] fosters dependence. While I agree with both these points, I also have strong opposing arguments opposing, and I'd rather talk about them
Firstly, social work is very broad and difficult to quantify. This makes it troublesome to promote, or sell. You ask an engineer what their profession is about and they'll have a quick answer for you. Ask a social worker and they'll fumble for a minute then talk about their own particular brand of work. As far as I can see, this is the simplest and most definitive answer:
"Social work is about helping to improve the lives of disadvantaged people, through direct practice with people and advocating for systemic policy change."
Still a bit of a mouthful, but you could shrink it further to "helping disadvantaged people" and you'd be pretty much on the money. If asked how you go about doing this, you could further add that it's through counselling, case work, community education, rallying community support, and informing policy change.
The primary model used is that person-in-environment model, which looks at the multitude aspects of a person's life including inner world (biology, psychology, spirituality), their family, their community, the services system around them, their culture, and the time period in which they've lived and currently live. Hope that clarifies.
Secondly, there is a common view that providing services to disadvantaged people will discourage them from forming their own coping skills as they can easily fall back on the service system to provide, therefore making them become a 'drain' on the economy. One of the most powerful features of social work is that it focuses on self-determination, and the best application of this is when people can foster their own resilience. If you take away the 'safety net' then many people will crumble, and this will create a ripple throughout generations of people who aren't able to learn how to cope because of their disadvantage.
Taking money away from the service system makes little sense, unless you are replacing it with something else. The sad truth is that so many people's lives are very fucked up. Limiting or removing their opportunity to access supports which can help them is the stupidest thing a government can do. For example, more and more research, reviews and analyses are informing government that money spent improving the healthcare system (including health education, counselling, specialist services) is a bucket load more money saved in other costs such as economic burden, acute healthcare, and counselling.
Whilst some people are dependent upon the system, it's important to put this into perspective: a great deal more people are not. Some people benefit from one or two short-term interactions with the public service system, and then go about their lives. For other people who require more intensive and longer-term support, think of the cost if they had fewer services. Acute healthcare costs would blow out of proportion; the prison system would be bursting at the seams; some suburbs would become veritable 'dumping grounds' for problematic groups, and then years later Australia would be faced with young people who have suffered significant intergenerational trauma and are perpetuating the cycle.
This already happens. The entire social services sector is unable to cope with the demands from the public. It is not possible to expect them to be able to meet these needs. Some people need significant support through case management and treatment, which further limits services' capacity to work with a greater number of people. Aiming for quantity over quality is not an option when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, and failing to act in an appropriate and timely manner often leads to more entrenched problems which are more costly to address later.
For many people accessing a social service is something they only do when they aren't able to cope with all their current supports (i.e. personal resilience, family, friends, work, etc.). That is why they needs are so complex; they've exhausted several other avenues. Disallow them from accessing a service and the drain to their current supports will be even greater. Rarely will there be an 'elegant' solution such as they resolve their issues enough to function better, or they die without affecting anyone in any way. You don't live with disadvantage without learning some survival skills, even if their long-term impacts are destructive on yourself or on other people.
So anyway, social work isn't just what "do-gooders" do in their spare time. It's an incredibly challenging and incredibly rewarding field, often at the same time. Every day I alternate between feeling powerless to affect change, and feeling wholly inspired because I see someone positively influence their life and take back control. Curiously, my aim is to make myself redundant in their life: I hope that every one of them is able to deal with their own problems effectively and without having to fall back on someone else. Should they need, though, they can always ask for help.
-J