DISCUSSION 1: Theories of Life-Span Development
Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman (2016) stated, “We need theories to guide our thinking and our work so that we may undertake research-informed practice” (p. 127-128). At the same time, the authors asserted, “No theory will be perfectly applicable. Perhaps you will decide that only one or two concepts make any sense to you in terms of working with clients” (p. 128). Though you may be able to apply only a few concepts in a particular theory to your work with clients, as a social worker, you should be applying evidence-based research to your work. Empirically-based developmental theories may guide you as you assess clients and their presenting problems. You may also apply developmental theories to your treatment decisions.
For this Assignment, you discuss theories of life-span development by evaluating a theory that seems especially relevant to you and your role as a social worker. Select a theory of life-span development to address in this Discussion. This may be a theory described in the resources of this course, or you may select a theory based on personal research. Locate at least one scholarly resource (not included in the course resources) that addresses the theory you selected.
· Post a Discussion in which you analyze the theory of life-span development that you selected.
· Summarize the theory; then, identify the strengths and weaknesses of this theory, especially as it relates to social work practice.
· Explain one way you might apply the theory to your social work practice.
Be sure to support your posts with specific references to the resources. If you are using additional articles, be sure to provide full APA-formatted citations for your references.
Dybicz, P. (2012). The hero(ine) on a journey: A postmodern conceptual framework for social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 267–283.
Villadsen, K. (2008). ‘Polyphonic’ welfare: Luhmann’s systems theory applied to modern social work. International Journal of Social Welfare,17(1), 65–73.
Zastrow, C. H., & Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2016). Understanding human behavior and the social environment (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Discussion 2: Discussion: Drug Policies and Ethics
The NASW Code of Ethics provides social workers with guidelines and standards for interacting with clients, colleagues, communities, and society, as a whole. These standards govern interactions and professional behavior of social work practitioners. The NASW has also developed specific standards, which are published in the NASW Standards for Social Work Practice With Clients With Substance Use Disorders. These standards emphasize the importance of the competence of social workers. The standards indicate that social workers should be knowledgeable of evidence-based interventions for substance disorders. The confidentiality standard becomes essential as social workers must be informed and comply with federal, state, and local laws about substance use, as well as third-party payee regulations.
For this Discussion, review this week’s resources, including the case Working with Clients with Dual Diagnosis: The Case of Joe,and consider how social policies affect Joe’s circumstances as described in the case study. Then, think about any gaps in service you found in Joe’s case. Finally, reflect on how you might address these gaps or make changes to the policies that affect Joe.
· Post an explanation of how drug policies affect Joe’s circumstances, as described in the case study.
· Then, explain any gaps in service you found in Joe’s case as a result of the drug policies described in the case study.
· Finally, describe a strategy you might use to address these gaps or make changes to the policies that affect Joe.
Support your post with specific references to the resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. M. (Eds.). (2014). Social work case studies: Foundation year. Baltimore: MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].
“Working with Clients with Dual Diagnosis: The Case of Joe” (pp. 77–78)
Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (2015). The policy-based profession: An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Humphreys, K., & McLellan, A. T. (2011). A policy-oriented review of strategies for improving the outcomes of services for substance use disorder patients. Addiction, 106(12), 2058–2066.
Working With Clients With Dual Diagnosis: The Case of Joe
Joe is a 34-year-old, Caucasian male who came to the County Division of Social Services to apply for General Assistance (GA) benefits. The GA program provides cash assistance, Medicaid coverage, and housing for homeless single adults. Joe is in need of Medicaid benefits in order to remain active in his treatment program. Joe is receiving treatment at the Mentally Ill Chemical Abuser (MICA) partial hospitalization program at the local community mental health center for clients who are dually diagnosed. Joe has a dependence on marijuana, although he has stopped using it for approximately six months, and has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder. He is being prescribed medication.
Joe reports that he is unable to work due to mental illness, and without an income or health insurance, he is unable to obtain his medication. Joe reports that while he was enrolled as a student at the state university, he would sell marijuana to other college students. Eventually, he was arrested and convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and served 3 years in prison. Joe has had no further arrests; however, he has not been able to secure permanent housing or employment since his release.
Joe reports that this event has ruined his life. His lack of employment results from an inability to pass most background checks. If he discloses that he was arrested, Joe reports that he is never called for interviews. But when he once failed to disclose the information to the prospective employer, Joe was terminated for lying on his application. Joe believes that he has little hope for future employment.
Joe has few natural supports in his life. He reports that following the incarceration, his family distanced itself from him and his girlfriend at the time broke up with him. He reports that his only supports are his local Narcotics Anonymous (NA) sponsor and his mental health counselor. Joe reports that his housing situation has been unstable and sporadic for the past 10 years.
Joe’s mental health counselor from the MICA program has contacted me to advocate for Joe’s approval for benefits. I explained that under the current state regulations, Joe is ineligible for benefits due to his CDS distribution conviction. The only program options that I can offer him are food stamps and access to a homeless shelter outside of the county. The counselor explained that relocation would cause a disruption to Joe’s mental health treatment and would cause him to lose contact with his local NA sponsor.
In response to the counselor’s concerns, I suggested that Joe contact the local faith-based organization for assistance. Although they do not house single males, they have an extensive network of volunteers, mentors, and donors who may financially support people in need. I referred Joe to a program that offers bonding to people seeking employment who have been previously incarcerated. Finally, I suggested that the counselor research Joe’s ability to remain in treatment at the hospital despite his lack of Medicaid coverage. The counselor agreed to assist Joe with these suggestions.