Content uploaded by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shirley Gatenio Gabel on Mar 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
SpringerBriefs in Rights-Based Approaches
to Social Work
Series Editor
Shirley Gatenio Gabel, Fordham University, New York, USA
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/11694
S. Megan Berthold
Human Rights-Based
Approaches to Clinical
Social Work
2123
S. Megan Berthold
School of Social Work
University of Connecticut
West Hartford
Connecticut
USA
ISSN 2195-9749 ISSN 2195-9757 (electronic)
ISBN 978-3-319-08559-3 ISBN 978-3-319-08560-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08560-9
Springer Cham Heidelberg NewYork Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014952037
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions
for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to
prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,
neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or
omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
To the trafficked, the tortured, and sufferers
of intimate partner violence—my teachers,
my inspiration: with hope for a world where
human rights exist for all.
Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
For over a century social workers have worked to improve the lives and situations of
individuals, families, and communities. Social workers, often acting on behalf of the
state’s interests, typically intervened according to what they themselves perceived to
be deficits in the lives and behaviors of persons in need. This approach to working
with people patronizes, stigmatizes, and too often revictimizes those we seek to
assist. It is long past time to revitalize and reframe our approach to working with
those we seek to serve. The books in this series reframe deficit models used by social
work practitioners and instead propose a human rights perspective. Rights-based
social work shifts the focus from human needs to human rights and calls on social
workers and the populations they work with to actively participate in decision making
processes of the state so that the state can better serve the interests of the population.
The authors in the series share their strategies for empowering the populations and
individuals we, as social workers, engage with as clinicians, community workers,
researchers, and policy analysts.
The roots of social work in the United States can be traced to the pioneering efforts
of upper-class men and women who established church-based and secular charita-
ble organizations that sought to address the consequences of poverty, urbanization,
and immigration. These were issues that were ignored by the public sphere at the
time. Little in the way of training or methods was offered to those who volunteered
their resources, efforts, and time in these charitable organizations until later in the
nineteenth century when concepts derived from business and industry were applied
to distribution of relief efforts in what became known as “scientific charity.” This
scientific approach led to the use of investigation, registration, and supervision of
applicants for charity, and in 1877 the first American Charity Organization Society
(COS) was founded in Buffalo, NY. The popularity of the approach grew quickly
across the country. COS leaders wanted to reform charity by including an agent’s
investigation of the case’s “worthiness” before distributing aid because they believed
that unregulated and unsupervised relief led to more calls for relief.
Around the same time, an alternative response to the impact of industrialization
and immigration was introduced and tested by the settlement house movement. The
first US settlement, the Neighborhood Guild in New York City, was established in
1886 and less than 3 years later, Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr founded Hull
vii
viii Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
House in Chicago, which came to symbolize the settlement house movement in the
United States. Unlike the individually oriented COS, the settlement house movement
focused on the environmental causes of poverty, seeking economic and social reforms
for the poor, and providing largely immigrant and migrant populations with the skills
needed to stake their claims in American society.
The settlement house movement spread rapidly in the United States and by 1910,
there were more than 400 settlements (Trolander, 1987; Friedman & Friedman,
2006). Advocacy for rights and social justice became an important component of the
settlement activities and led to the creation of national organizations like the National
Consumers’ League, Urban League, Women’s Trade Union League, and the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The leaders of the
movement led major social movements of the period, including women’s suffrage,
peace, labor, civil rights, and temperance and were instrumental in establishing a
federal level Children’s Bureau in 1912, headed by Julia Lathrop from Hull House.
During this same period, the Charity Organization Societies set to standardize the
casework skills for their work with individuals. Their methods became a distinct area
of practice and were formalized as a social work training program in 1898 known as
the NewYork School of Philanthropy and eventually, the Columbia University School
of Social Work. In 1908, the Chicago Commons offered a full curriculum through
the Chicago School of Civics and Philanthropy (now the University of Chicago’s
School of Social Service Administration) based on the practices and principles of
the settlement movement. By 1919, there were 17 schools of social work.
Efforts already underway to secure and strengthen pragmatically derived case-
work knowledge into a standardized format were accelerated, following Abraham
Flexner’s provocative lecture in 1915, questioning whether social work was a pro-
fession because he believed it lacked specificity, technical skills, or specialized
knowledge (Morris, 2008). By the 1920s casework emerged as the dominant form
of professional social work in the United States and remained primarily focused on
aiding impoverished children and families but was rapidly expanding to work with
veterans and middle class individuals in child guidance clinics.
As social work branched out to other populations, it increasingly focused on
refining clinical treatment modalities and over time clinical work too often stood
apart from community work, advocacy, and social policy. Although social work
education standards today require all students to be exposed to clinical and casework,
community practice, advocacy, research and policy, most schools do not prioritize
the integrated practice of these areas in the advanced year of social work education
(Austin & Ezell, 2004; Knee & Folsom, 2012).
Despite the development of sophisticated methods for helping others, social work
practice overly relies on charity and needs based approaches. These approaches are
built on the deficit model of practice in which professionals or individuals with
greater means diagnose what is “needed” in a situation and the “treatment” or ser-
vices required to yield the desired outcome set by the profession or other persons
of advantage. Judgments of need are based on professional research, practice wis-
dom, and theory steeped in values (Ife, 2012). These values, research, theories,
and practices typically reflect the beliefs of the persons pronouncing judgment, not
Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel ix
necessarily the values and theories of the person who is being judged. This has the
effect of disempowering and diminishing control of one’s own life while privileging
professionals (Ife, 2012). In turn this risks reinforcing passiveness and perpetuating
the violation of rights among the marginalized populations we seek to empower and
at best maintains the status quo in society.
Needs-based approaches typically arise from charitable intentions. In social wel-
fare, charity-based efforts have led to the labeling of persons worthy and unworthy
of assistance, attributing personal behaviors as the cause of marginalization, poverty,
disease, and disenfranchisement, and restricted the types of aid available accordingly.
Judgments are cast by elites regarding who is deserving and who is not based on cri-
teria that serve to perpetuate existing social, economic, and political relationships
in charity based approaches. Needs-based approaches attempt to introduce greater
objectivity into the process of selecting who is helped and how by using evidence to
demonstrate need and introducing effective and efficient interventions to improve the
lot of the needy and society as a whole. Yet the solutions of needs-based efforts like
charity-based ones are laden with the values of professionals and the politically elite
and do not necessarily reflect the values and choices of the persons who are the object
of assistance. Needs-based approaches prioritize the achievement of professionally
established goals over the process of developing the goals, and, too often, the failure
of outcomes is attributed to personal attributes or behaviors of individuals or groups
who receive assistance. For example, the type of services a person diagnosed with
a mental disorder receives in a needs-based approach will be often decided by au-
thorities or experts according to their determination of what is best for the person
and is likely to assume that a person with a mental disorder is incapable of making
choices or at least not “good” choices. Programmatic success would then be eval-
uated according to adherence to the treatment plan prescribed by the persons with
authority in the situation that may omit consumers’ objections or own assessments
of well-being.
Unlike needs-based and charity-based approaches, a rights-based approach places
equal value on process and outcome. In rights-based work, goals are temporary mark-
ers that are adjusted as people perpetually reevaluate and understand rights in new
ways calling for new approaches to social issues. For example having nearly achieved
universal access to primary education, a reevaluation of the right to education might
lead to a new goal to raise the quality of education or promote universal enrollment in
secondary education among girls. Rights-based approaches are anchored in a norma-
tive framework that are based in a set of internationally agreed upon legal covenants
and conventions, which in and of themselves can provide a different and potentially
more powerful approach. A key aspect of this approach posits the right of all persons
to participate in societal decision making, especially those persons or groups who are
affected by the decisions. For example, Article 12 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (CRC) asserts that states “shall assure to the child who
is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely
in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in
accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” (UNCRC, 1989) Likewise, the
preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
x Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
holds states responsible for “redressing the profound social disadvantage of persons
with disabilities and (to) promote their participation in the civil, political, economic,
social and cultural spheres with equal opportunities.” (UNCRPD, 2006)
A rights-based approach requires consideration of the universally recognized prin-
ciples of human rights: the equality of each individual as a human being, the inherent
dignity of each person, and the rights to self-determination, peace, and security. Re-
spect for all human rights and dignity set the foundation for all civil, political, social,
and economic goals that seek to establish certain standards of well-being for all per-
sons. Rights-based efforts remove the charity dimension by recognizing people not
only as beneficiaries, but as active rights holders.
One of the areas of value added by the human rights approach is the emphasis it
places on the accountability of policymakers and other actors whose actions have
an impact on the rights of people. Unlike needs, rights imply duties, and duties
demand accountability (UN OHCHR, 2002). Whereas needs may be met or satis-
fied, rights are realized and as such must be respected, protected, facilitated, and
fulfilled. Human rights are indivisible and interdependent, and unlike needs that can
be ranked, all human rights are of equal importance. A central dynamic of a rights-
based approach is thus about identifying root causes of social issues and empowering
rights-holders to understand and if possible claim their rights while duty-bearers are
enabled to meet their obligations. Under international law, the state is the principal
duty-bearer with respect to the human rights of the people living within its jurisdic-
tion. However, the international community at large also has a responsibility to help
realize universal human rights. Thus, monitoring and accountability procedures ex-
tend beyond states to global actors—such as the donor community, intergovernmental
organizations, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and transna-
tional corporations—whose actions bear upon the enjoyment of human rights in any
country (UN OHCHR, 2002, paragraph 230).
Table 1summarizes the differences between charity-, needs-, and rights-based
approaches.
It can be argued that rights-based practice is not strikingly different from the way
many social workers practice. For example, the strengths perspective that has be-
come a popular approach in social work practice since the 1990s focuses on strengths,
abilities, and potential rather than problems, deficits, and pathologies (Chapin, 1995;
Early & GlenMaye, 2000; Saleebey, 1992b) and “interventions are directed to the
uniqueness, skills, interests, hopes, and desires of each consumer, rather than a
categorical litany of deficits” (Kisthardt, 1992, pp. 60–61). In the strengths-based
approach clients are usually seen as the experts on their own situation and profes-
sionals are understood as not necessarily having the “best vantage point from which
to appreciate client strengths” (Saleebey, 1992a, p. 7). The focus is on “collabora-
tion and partnership between social workers and clients” (Early & GlenMaye, 2000,
p. 120).
The strengths perspective has provided a way for many social workers to en-
gage themselves and the populations they work with in advocacy and empowerment
that builds upon capabilities and more active processes of social change. Indeed,
strengths-based and rights-based approaches build upon the strengths of individuals
Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel xi
Table 1 Comparison of charity, needs, and rights-based approaches to social issues
Charity-based Needs-based Rights-based
Goals Assistance to
deserving and
disadvantaged
individuals or
populations to relieve
immediate suffering
Fulfilling an identified
deficit in individuals
or community through
additional resources
for marginalized and
disadvantaged groups
Realization of human
rights that will lead to
the equitable
allocation of resources
and power
Motivation Religious or moral
imperative of rich or
endowed to help the
less fortunate who are
deserving of
assistance
To help those deemed
in need of help so as
to promote well-being
of societal members
Legal obligation to
entitlements
Accountability May be accountable to
private organization
Generally accountable
to those who
identified the need and
developed the
intervention
Governments and
global bodies such as
the donor community,
intergovernmental
organizations,
international NGOs,
and transnational
corporations
Process Philanthropic with
emphasis on donor
Expert identification
of need, its
dimensions, and
strategy for meeting
need within political
negotiation. Affected
population is the
object of interventions
Political with a focus
on participatory
process in which
individuals and groups
are empowered to
claim their rights
Power
relationships
Preserves status quo Largely maintain
existing structure,
change might be
incremental
Must change
Target
population of
efforts
Individuals and
populations worthy of
assistance
Disadvantaged
individuals or
populations
All members of
society with an
emphasis on
marginalized
populations
Emphasis On donor’s benevolent
actions
On meeting needs On the realization of
human rights
Interventions
respond to
Immediate
manifestation of
problems
Symptomatic deficits
and may address
structural causes
Fundamental
structural causes while
providing alleviation
from symptomatic
manifestations
xii Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
and communities and both involve a shift from a deficit approach to one that rein-
forces the potential of individuals and communities. Both approaches acknowledge
the unique sets of strengths and challenges of individuals and communities, and en-
gage them as partners in developing and implementing interventions to improve
well-being, giving consideration to the complexities of environments. However,
the strengths-based perspective falls short of empowering individuals to claim their
rights within a universal, normative framework that goes beyond social work to cut
across every professional discipline and applies to all human beings. Rights-based
approaches tie social work practice into a global strategy that asserts universal entitle-
ments and the accountability of governments and other actors who bear responsibility
for furthering the realization of human rights.
The link between social work and human rights normative standards is an im-
portant one as history has repeatedly demonstrated. In many ways social work has
been moving toward these standards (Healy, 2008) but has yet to fully embrace it.
Social work has been a contradictory and perplexing profession functioning both to
help and also to control the disadvantaged. At times social workers have engaged
in roles that have furthered oppression (Ife, 2012) and served as a “handmaiden” to
those who seek to preserve the status quo (Abramovitz, 1998, p. 512). Social benefits
can be used to integrate marginalized populations but also be used to privilege and
exclude, particularly, when a charity-based approach is utilized. When conditional,
benefits can also be used as a way to modify behaviors and as a means of collecting
information on private individual and family matters.
This contradictory and perplexing role of social work is shown albeit, in an ex-
treme case, by social work involvement in the social eugenics movement specifically
promulgated by National Socialists leaders in the 1930s and 1940s (Johnson &
Moorehead, 2011). Leading up to and during World War II, social workers were
used as instruments to implement Nazi policies in Europe. Though the history of
social work and social work education is different in each European country, in at
least Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, authorities used
social workers to exclude what the state considered at the time to be undesirable pop-
ulations from assistance, to reward those who demonstrated loyalty and pledged to
carry forth the ideology of the state, and to collect information on personal and family
affairs for the state (Hauss & Schulte, 2009). University-based and other forms of
social work training were closed down in Germany in 1933 when the National Social-
ists assumed control because welfare was regarded as superfluous and a “waste for
persons useless to the national community” (Volksgemeinschaft as quoted in Hauss,
2009, p. 9). “Inferiors” were denied support and social workers were reeducated in
Nazi ideology to train mothers on how to raise children who were loyal and useful to
the ambitions of the National Socialists (Kruse, 2009). Similarly in Hungary, where
social workers were referred to as “social sisters,” social workers were reeducated to
train mothers about the value of their contributions to the state (mainly their reproduc-
tive capacity and rearing of strong children for the state) and were instrumental in the
implementation of Hungary’s major welfare program that rewarded “worthy” clients
with the redistribution of assets from Jewish estates (Szikra, 2009). As Szikra notes,
“In the 1930s social policy and social work constituted a central part of social and
Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel xiii
economic policy-making that was fueled by nationalist and anti-Semitic ideology,
influenced by similar practices in Germany, Italy and Czechoslavakia” (p. 116). Fol-
lowing Nazi ideological inoculation based on eugenics and race hate, social workers
in Austria were charged with the responsibility of collecting incriminating informa-
tion regarding mental illness, venereal disease, prostitution, alcoholism, hereditary
diseases, and disabilities that would then be used to deny social benefits, prohibit
marriages and even select children for Austria’s euthanasia program (Melinz, 2009).
Using social workers to realize state ideology was also used usher in and to ad-
vance the Soviet agenda beginning in 1918 (Iarskaia-Smirnova & Romanov, 2009).
The provision of social services was distributed across multiple disciplines among the
helping professions, and the term social work was not used because of its association
to western social welfare (Iarskaia-Smirnova & Romanov, 2009). These profession-
als, often referred to as social agents (workers in nurseries and youth centers, activists
in women’s organizations and trade unions, nurses, educators, and domestic affairs
officials), were charged with the double-task of social care and control. Early on
social agents contributed to the establishment of standards designating worthy and
unworthy behavior and activities and practices such as censure and social exclusion
designed to alienate those who did not comply with state goals (Iarskaia-Smirnova
& Romanov, 2009).
The use of social workers to carry out goals seemingly in contradiction of so-
cial work’s ethics can be found in many examples in the United States as well
(Abramovitz, 1998). In his book, The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency
(1965), Anthony Platt demonstrates that despite well-intentioned efforts to protect
youth, the establishment of the juvenile justice system in the United States removed
youth from the adult justice systems and in doing so created a class of delinquents
who were judged without due process. Platt argues that “child savers should in no
sense be considered libertarians or humanists” (Platt, 1965, p. 176). The juvenile
justice system that these reformers—many of whom were social work pioneers—
created in the United States purposefully blurred the distinction between delinquent
and dependent young people. Labeling dependent children as delinquents, most of
whom had committed no crime, robbed them of their opportunity to due process. The
state and various religious organizations were given open reign to define delinquency
as they saw fit and children who were perceived to be out of order or young women
who were viewed as immoral, were committed to institutions or other forms of state
supervision with no means of redress.
More recently, Bumiller’s analysis of domestic violence in the United States
rouses our consciousness of the ways in which social workers engaged with persons
involved in domestic violence and/or rape may inadvertently squash rather than em-
power individuals and families (Bumiller, 2008). Bumiller uses sexual violence to
demonstrate how lawyers, medical professionals, and social workers may be con-
tributing to passivity of social service beneficiaries and in doing so, enlarge the
state’s ability to control the behaviors of its members (Bumiller, 2008). As Bumiller
explains, our public branding perpetrators of sexual violence as deserving of severe
punishment and isolation allows us then to deem them incapable of rehabilitation
and so we offer few opportunities for perpetrators to rejoin society as functioning
xiv Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
members. In contrast, we expend resources toward “treating” victims to turn them
into successful survivors and in the process of doing so instill their dependency on
the state. We do this by requiring victims who seek support and protection from
the state to comply with authorities, which in many cases are social workers, and
acquiesce to the invasion of state control into their lives. In return for protection and
assistance, needy women and children often relinquish control of their own lives and
are forced to become individuals who need constant oversight and regulation. “As
women have become the subjects of a more expansive welfare state, social service
agencies have viewed women and their needs in ways that have often discouraged
them from resisting regulations and from being active participants in their own deci-
sions” (Bumiller, 2008). Some social workers use professional authority to support
a deficit approach that allows social workers to scrutinize the parenting skills, ed-
ucation, housing, relationships, and psychological coping skills of those who have
experienced sexual violence, and then prescribe behaviors necessary to access to ben-
efits. Those who voice complaints and resist scrutiny may be denied benefits such as
disqualifying women from temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) benefits
who fail to comply with work requirements or cutting off assistance to women who
return to violent relationships. As key actors in this process, social workers have the
opportunity to legitimize women’s voice both within social welfare institutions and
within the confines of relationships rather than reinforcing dependency and in some
circumstances, revictimizing the individuals by making compliance a prerequisite
for assistance.
The commonality of these examples lies in the omission of a normative frame that
transcends national borders. The foundation of a rights-based approach is nested in
universal legal guarantees to protect individuals and groups against the actions and
omissions that interfere with fundamental freedoms, entitlements, and human dignity
as first presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International human
rights law is based on a series of international conventions, covenants, and treaties
ratified by states and other nonbinding instruments such as declarations, guidelines,
and principles. Taken together these inalienable, interdependent, interrelated and in-
divisible human rights are owned by people everywhere and responsibility to respect,
protect, and fulfill these rights is primarily the obligation of the state.
Bonding social work practice to these international legal instruments obligates
social workers to look beyond their own government’s responses to social issues, to
empower the populations they work with to have their voice heard, and to recast the
neglected sovereignty of marginalized individuals and communities. It moves social
workers away from being agents of the state to being change agents in keeping with
the founding vision of social work. It reunites the different methods of social work
practice by obligating all social workers to reflect on how public policies affect the
rights of individuals and communities and how individual actions affect the rights of
others (see Table 2).A rights-based approach compels social workers to look beyond
existing methods of helping that too often exist to justify state intervention without
addressing the root causes of the situation. It calls upon social workers who often
act as agents of the state to acknowledge and act on their responsibility as moral
Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel xv
Table 2 Rights-based approaches to social work practice at different levels of intervention
Individuals seeking assistance are not judged to be worthy or unworthy of assistance but rather are
viewed as rights holders. Social workers assist others in claiming their rights and helping others
understand how individual rights have been violated. Interventions offered are not patronizing
or stigmatizing, rather methods provide assistance based on the dignity of and respect for all
individuals.
Example of individual-centered change: Sexually trafficked persons are viewed as rights holders
whose rights were violated rather than as criminals, and are offered healing services and other
benefits to restore their wholeness.
Community/group/organizationefforts are redirected away from proving that they deserve or need a
resource toward learning about how they can claim their entitlements to resources. Social workers
facilitate human rights education among group members including knowledge of human rights
instruments, principles, and methods for accessing rights.
Example of group-centered change: Groups are offered opportunities to learn about their housing
rights, the change process in their community, and learn skills so that they can claim their right to
participation in community decision making.
Society redirects its social policies and goals to facilitate the realization of human rights including
addressing human needs. Macro practicing social workers affect the policy process and goals by
expanding means for all members of a society to have their voices heard in the decision making
process.
Example of society-centered change: Persons with disabilities are able to participate in the poli-
cymaking process through the use of technology that allows them to participate in meetings from
their homes.
duty bearers who have the obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of
rights-holders.
Rights-based approaches in social work have gained international acceptance in
the past two decades more so outside of the United States than within. Social workers
in the United States are relatively new to human rights practice, in part because
of longstanding resistance known as “American exceptionalism” which allows the
United States to initiate and even demand compliance of human rights abroad while
repeatedly rejecting the application of international standards for human rights in the
United States (Hertel & Libal, 2011). Most Americans are knowledgeable about civil
and political rights, yet far fewer are as familiar with economic, social, and cultural
rights. Relatively limited engagement in this area by social workers also stems from
the perception that human rights activism is best led and achieved by lawyers or
elite policy advocates. The books in this series are written to facilitate rights-based
approaches to social work practice both in the United States and around the world
and recognize that exposure to human rights multilateral treaties and applications
may vary depending on where the reader was educated or trained.
A rights-based approach brings a holistic perspective with regards to civil, po-
litical, social, economic, and cultural roles we hold as human beings and a more
holistic understanding of well-being that goes beyond the meeting of material needs.
Our understanding of human rights is always evolving and our methods, practices,
research, interventions, and processes should evolve as our understanding deepens.
The purpose of this series is to assist social work practitioners, educators, and students
xvi Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel
toward operationalizing a new approach to social work practice that is grounded in
human rights. It is hoped that the books will stimulate discussion and the introduction
of new methods of practice around maximizing the potential of individuals, commu-
nities, and societies. The books, like social work, reflect the wide-range of practice
methods, social issues, and populations while specifically addressing an essential
area of social work practice. By using current issues as examples of rights-based
approaches, the books facilitate the ability of social workers familiar with human
rights to apply rights-based approaches in their practice. Each book in the series
calls on social work practitioners in clinical, community, research, or policymaking
settings to be knowledgeable about the laws in their jurisdiction but to also look
beyond and hold state’s accountability to the international human rights laws and
framework.
Shirley Gatenio Gabel
Fordham University New York, NY
References
Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An arena of struggle. Social Work, 43(6),
512–526.
Austin, M. J., & Ezell, M. (2004). Educating future social work administrators. Administration in
Social Work, 28(1), 1–3.
Bumiller, K. (2008). In an abusive state: How neoliberalism appropriated the feminist movement
against sexual violence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Chapin, R. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective. Social Work, 40(4),
506–514.
Early, T., & GlenMaye, L. (2000). Valuing families: Social work practice with families from a
strengths perspective. Social Work, 45(2), 118–130.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, B. (2006). Settlement houses: Improving the welfare of America’s
immigrants. New York, NY: Rosen.
Hauss, G. & Schulte, D. (2009). Amid social contradictions: Toward a history of social work in
Europe. Opladen, Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Healy, L. M. (2008). Exploring the history of social work as a human rights profession. International
Social Work, 51(6), 735–746.
Hertel, S. Libal, K. (2011). Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism. Cambridge.
Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. & Romanov, P. (2009) Rhetoric and practice of modernisation: Soviet social
policy (1917-1930). In G. Hauss & D. Schulte (Eds.), Amid social contradictions: Towards a
history of social work in Europe. MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Ife, J. (2012). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, S., & Moorhead, B. (2011). Social eugenics practices with children in Hitler’s Nazi
Germany and the role of social work: Lessons for current practice. Journal of Social Work
Values and Ethics, 8(1), 1–10.
Kisthardt, W. (1992). A strengths model of case management: The principles and functions of
a helping partnership with persons with persistent mental illness. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The
strengths perspective in social work practice. NewYork, NY: Longman.
Foreword by Shirley Gatenio Gabel xvii
Knee, R. T., & Folsom, J. (2012). Bridging the crevasse between direct practice social work and
management by increasing the transferability of core skills. Administration in Social Work, 36,
390–408.
Kruse, E. (2009). Toward a history of social work training Germany—Discourses and struggle
for power at the turning points. In G. Hauss & D. Schulte (Eds.), Amid social contradictions:
Towards a history of social work in Europe. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
Melinz, G. (2009). In the interest of children: Modes of intervention in family privacy in Austria
(1914–1945). In G. Hauss & D. Schulte (Eds.), Amid social contradictions: Towards a history
of social work in Europe. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
Morris, P. M. (2008). Reinterpreting Abraham Flexner’s speech, “Is social work a profession?” Its
meaning and influence on the Field’s early professional development. Social Service Review,
82(1), 29–60.
Platt, A. M. (1965). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Saleebey, D. (1992b). Introduction: Beginnings of a strengths approach to practice. In D. Saleebey
(Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice. NewYork, NY: Longman.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (1992d). The strengths perspective in social work practice. New York, NY:
Longman.
Szikra, D. (2009). Social policy and anti-semitic exclusion before and during WW II in Hungary: The
case of productive social policy. In G. Hauss & D. Schulte (Eds.), Amid social contradictions:
Towards a history of social work in Europe. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Trolander, J. A. (1987). Professionalism and social change: From the settlement house movement
to neighborhood centers, 1886 to the present. NewYork, NY: Columbia University Press.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2002). Draft
Guidelines for a Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies 2002: paragraph 23.
United Nations. (1989, November 20). Convention on the rights of the child. New York: United
Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf.
United Nations. (2006, December 13). Convention on the rights of persons with disabili-
ties. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/
disabilitiesconvention.pdf.
Acknowledgements
To my editor, Shirley Gatenio Gabel, who encouraged me to write this book and has
been a huge support throughout. Her insightful guidance and critical feedback have
been invaluable.
I am indebted to Kathryn Libal for her expert consultation and substantive
feedback on an early draft of this manuscript.
I also would like to thank Jennifer Hadley and her staff at Springer US for their
expertise and assistance in ushering the manuscript to press.
Above all I want to thank my family who believed in me and supported me
through long hours over many months: most especially to my husband Craig, my
granddaughter Tallulah, my son Satyam, and my parents Fred and Laura. I could not
have written this manuscript without you.
xix
Contents
1 Introduction: Rights-Based versus Conventional Needs-Based
Approaches to Clinical Practice .................................. 1
2 Rights-Based Approach to Working with Torture Survivors ......... 31
3 Rights-Based Clinical Practice with Survivors
of Human Trafficking ........................................... 63
4 Intimate Partner Violence and a Rights-Based
Approach to Healing............................................ 85
5 The Use and Care of Self when Engaging in Rights-Based
Clinical Practice ............................................... 115
xxi
