The Economics of Social Work

The idea for this post came to me about a week ago, but I’m only penning it now because it wasn’t until today that I could think of a way to express what I mean without sounding like a cold-hearted bitch. (I’m trying to say that I actually put some thought into my blogs.)

Often during our lectures, we are asked to turn to a colleague or the people beside us and have small mini-discussions on a prompt. These prompts vary from “Why is theory important to social work?” or “What are the challenges involved in becoming culturally competent?” During one such discussion on a prompt I no longer remember, it came up that my finance and business background shone through when it came to my perception on social work.

The gist of what we discussed was that I doubted I would be able to deal with an especially difficult, unresponsive case. Futility is perhaps too strong a word for it, but in essence, I would be hard-pressed to work with people I can’t help over people I can.

My reasoning is this: resource allocation. Resources, particularly time and personal energy, are limited. Given the choice between working a single, particuarly difficult case in 8 hours versus those same 8 hours being spread between 8 individual cases, I will choose the latter almost every single time.

That’s not to say I don’t like a challenge. In the former case I am picturing a combination of an involuntary client, an unjust social setting, unfair circumstances over which you have minimal control, and a lack of cooperation from relevant parties.  That adds up to something that is impossible to rectify without straining yourself over it.

I would prefer helping people who CAN be helped over cases that either cannot be helped or would exhaust my resources to do so. Here’s why.

Wins are rare. At least, this is what I am told by many professionals in the area as well as by articles in my course reader. Therefore, when an easy win comes along, you need to grab it and hold on to it because it’s those wins that give you that rewarding sense of accomplishment and self-actualization, and that keeps you going. It keeps you in the game. It is, in essence, a single bottle of Gatorade in a giant cooler fulled with urine.

Without a win, without the occasional bottle of Gatorade, you will burn out. You will end up of no use to anyone at best and destructive at worst, and the people you may have been able to help are now short one person they could’ve turned to.

I say it many times in this blog, but I am a realist. I’m not a pessimist, I just believe in what’s there in front of me. Social work requires self-awareness and self-reflection, and part of knowing yourself translates into knowing your limits.

Imagine this. You are wooden bridge over a giant ravine that, for some strange reason, is home to a packed-to-the-brim orphanage. You have the choice (offered by the easily-amused powers that be) of having a 1000-ton-anvil dropped on you, or 1000 tons in snowflakes dropped on you. Choosing the anvil means it will exert all of your effort to keep it from smashing through your floorboards and crushing the orphans below. Choosing the snowflakes means that some of those snowflakes might drift down past you, but most of the weight of the snowflakes will be distributed across your bridge (face) and they will fall as snowflakes do, hitting you a few at a time. Best of all, they will melt and vanish, the water they form running off either side of the bridge, missing the orphanage—safely nestled right underneath you—completely.

Ignoring the divinities that allowed an orphange to be built wholly underneath a wooden bridge that seems to be frequently assailed by thousand-ton anvils and blizzards, which would you choose?

I’m for the snowflakes every time, and not just because of an apparent obsession with snowflakes. The overall weight equates to that of an anvil, but it’s not hitting me all at once and the chance of me breaking is minimized. Moreover, the anvil is a do-or-die situation… I either shoulder all 1000 tons at once or watch the orphans get smushed. The snowflakes, on the other hand, are different; they fall slowly and melt constantly, so I can shoulder portions of the total 1000 tons as time goes on. So even if for whatever reason that last ton of snowfall breaks me, at least I saved the orphans from 999 tons of it prior to breaking.

Moreover, if I do manage to hold the anvil, anything else that might get pelted at the bridge has an increased chance of breaking me because unlike snow, that anvil’s not going to melt or go anywhere.

The point I’m making is that I can end up helping more people for longer if I took a win whenever it came over a much more complicated case. It’s not fair to those more complicated cases, which by nature need more time and effort to solve, and before you judge me too harshly I’m not saying we should ignore these cases all together. They are not “lost” causes, just… exceedingly difficult ones. Given the option, I would not choose them, that’s all. That doesn’t mean that if given such a case I would not put forth my very best efforts in resolving it.

Would I feel guilty choosing a more hopeful case over a less hopeful one? Yes, I would… and more than I can express in words. However, I do recognize I can’t save everybody. While that thought frustrates me to no end, such is the reality.