Nadia Matta, LMSW

As Hurricane Harvey stormed into Texas, leaving immeasurable devastation in its path, many residents of Houston—a city with one of the largest immigrant populations in the country-- faced multiple threats.  In addition to losing their homes and livelihoods, many now confronted the threat that at any moment the remaining roots of their lives might be uprooted.  They could be deported. The White House had just announced that DACA, a program protecting young undocumented immigrants, was being rescinded.

DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, began as an executive order issued in 2012 by former President Obama. The program deferred for two years the deportation of immigrants who came to the U.S. undocumented before the age of sixteen and met certain conditions including having attained a mandated level of education and possessing a nearly spotless criminal record.  The deferral was renewable after two years if conditions continued to be met. 

Over the past five years, DACA has provided an estimated 800,000 immigrant youth temporary safeguards and increased opportunities. The program has had a significant positive impact on both young undocumented immigrants and society overall. DACA recipients are often called The Dreamers, named after the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a bipartisan bill designed to afford certain protections to unauthorized immigrants who grew up in America, and which Congress has failed to pass into law repeatedly over the past sixteen years. 

On September 5, 2017, the U.S. Attorney General announced that the current administration would be ending DACA. The hundreds of thousands of young people under the program were now threatened with possible deportation to countries they may have little connection with: many DACA recipients have spent their entire lives in America and only speak English; some were not aware they were undocumented until applying for college; others lost their status when a parent died, often without even knowing it.

The decision to end DACA is unjustified, short-sighted, and antithetical to American values. In fact, polls find that most Americans oppose ending the program. Those under DACA, most of whom came to America as infants and young children, should not be penalized for their parents’ decisions to bring them to the United States. Dreamers are often exemplary individuals who are students, parents, working as doctors and lawyers, proudly serving in the American military, pursuing otherwise unattainable dreams.  For many, DACA provided the first shot at The American Dream.  It allowed a life without constant worry of being arrested, of being deported and separated from family. Now, that safety net is gone.

For Houston’s many undocumented denizens, the hurricane that was about to make landfall was but one of the disasters heading their way; Houston’s metropolitan area has the third-largest unauthorized immigrant population in the country-- more than double the national average-- thus, they were immensely hit by both Hurricane Harvey and the DACA rescission.  Amidst catastrophic flooding and mass displacement, it seemed to be the end of world to some people who were in the eye of both storms; compounding this, these same individuals were ineligible to access certain assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and were hearing rumors that their status might be reported to the government if they utilized emergency shelters.

The President visited Texas, and later Florida, ostensibly to assess the suffering and damage sustained by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but a major focus of his trips was denigrating immigrants rather than aiding those devastated by the storms, belying previous promises to “deal with DACA with heart,” that “we love The Dreamers,” and that “they should rest easy” and not fear deportation.  From tempest-struck and immigrant-populous Florida, President Trump announced, "We're working on a very important deal.  We have to know the wall will not be obstructed.  We have to have a wall.”

Despite the vilification, and amidst the loss and destruction, many undocumented people worked with alacrity-- helping at shelters and in heavily flood areas-- to assist fellow residents of states that have sought to impose tightening restrictions on themselves and their loved ones. Activists for immigration reform cancelled scheduled rallies, urging protesters to instead volunteer with relief efforts. One young DACA recipient, Alonso Guillen, died while trying to rescue people affected by Hurricane Harvey; if not for his heroic and tragic death, he could now be facing deportation.  

After the declaration of DACA’s rescission, the President said on social media that he would rely on Congress for a solution, despite them only having six months to pass a bill that has repeatedly failed over sixteen years of futile attempts. There was no proposed legislation and little help offered; instead, effective immediately, the lives of roughly 800,000 people were forced into chaos and uncertainty with little cause for confidence in the actualization of a timely solution.

Effectually, the government’s unnatural disaster represented a deep betrayal of people's trust.  Upon DACA’s inception, many were understandably wary of exposing themselves by disclosing too much identifying information, out of concern it may later be used against them.  They were told:  register with the government, and you will not be deported.  Now, a recent memo from the White House states, “The Department of Homeland Security urges DACA recipients to use the time remaining on their work authorizations to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States.”      

Looking back, it is clear that before the broken promises, there was hate speech.  Even prior to the Presidential election being secured, the media quoted the campaign rhetoric: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best….They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”  This vitriol has caused many to live with amplified apprehension while being increasingly portrayed as undeserving and menacing. Though the Dreamers have been maligned as ruining the country and taking resources from “real Americans,” the opposite is actually true, financially and otherwise. The Dreamers have notably contributed to the growth of local, state, and federal economies.

Recently, a Senator from Canada explained in an interview that their country could gain from The White House’s move to end DACA, expounding that the program’s recipients are well-educated, fluently speak English, and essentially have clean criminal records; that they are exactly the group of immigrants Canada would benefit from.

A statement was also issued by the National Association of Social Workers condemning the termination of DACA, reasoning for which abounds in the NASW Code of Ethics, which espouses the paramountcy of protecting the wellbeing and livelihood of the most vulnerable citizens and communities.  Providing The Dreamers with the opportunities they have earned is not just an immigration issue, it is also about public health and mental health.  It is about humanity. And this issue impacts not only Social Workers but myriad groups of people across the country.  It pertains not solely to Social Work values, but to core American values.  As Mohandas Gandhi said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."      

Congress must act urgently to support the DREAM Act of 2017-- without strings attached.  Without using the lives of 800,000 young people as bargaining chips for the building of The Wall, which would essentially serve as a message of antagonism and cowardice.

Immigrants are the building blocks of this country, diversity is its heritage, and policies must be enacted to uphold the rights of every American—for the sake of individuals, families, the nation and its prosperity. In a country where all people besides Native Americans are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, it is nonsensical to purport that any group of people is more American and deserving of rights than any other.  
 
An attack on anyone is an attack on everyone. Amidst messages of xenophobia, masses of people are resisting calls for division and distrust, understanding that united we stand and divided we fall.  It’s time to stand with The Dreamers. 

Linda C. Reeser, LMSW, PhD. NASW-Michigan Chapter Ethics Committee

This article will cover definitions, ethical issues/dilemmas, warning signs of ethical violations, and strategies to prevent problematic dual relationships from occurring. Examples will be discussed to raise questions that need to be considered when a professional is deciding what to do. 

A dual relationship is when a professional has more than one relationship with a client/consumer. It may be a friendship, romance, marriage, employment, business, etc.  For example, the person may be your social work client and may be an auto service repair person who you go to, to fix your car. 

The NASW Code of Ethics 1.06 page 9 states:

“Social workers should not engage in dual or multiple relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client.  In instances when dual or multiply relationships are unavoidable, social workers should take steps to protect clients and are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. (Dual or multiple relationships occur when social workers relate to clients in more than one relationship, whether professional, social, or business.. Dual or multiple relationships can occur simultaneously or consecutively).” 

The key words are “risk of harm or exploitation”. Some dual relationships are not problematic at all, such as the professional and client both being members of the PTA or the same church. Dual relationships can be problematic even if the other relationship occurred before there was a professional one.  They can also be simultaneous or take place after the professional relationship has officially ended. The code clearly puts the responsibility on the social worker to set clear professional boundaries in the interest of the client’s well-being.  This is even the case if the client approaches the worker to have a secondary relationship or the client is seeming to consent to another relationship initiated by the worker. 
 
                                                                 Possibility of Harm
 
A key issue with dual relationships is that social workers’ power intrudes on other relationships they may have with their clients (Kagle & Giebelhausen, 1994). This becomes acute when the professional role is a clinical one, as the worker’s influence and client’s vulnerability carry over into other relationships.  This can seem innocuous, especially when it is a non-sexual dual relationship.  For example, when a social worker is deciding whether to have her car repaired at the client’s auto body shop. The worker must always ponder the question of whether there is a risk of harm or exploitation. The client may be harmed if the social worker has complaints about the service and/or the price.  Does the client feel compelled to lower the price?  Does the client feel emotionally injured because of the worker’s dissatisfaction?  What the social worker says in the customer role is so much more potent than any other customer because of their professional influence.  Social workers need to set limits on their behavior to protect their clients. 

Social workers in secondary relationships with clients are in position to subordinate the client’s needs to their own. If professionals do so, they violate the ethical standard 1.01 of promoting the well-being of clients and recognizing that “clients’ interests are primary”. This is why dual relationships are found in the NASW Code under the category of conflicts of interest.

Clients are not given true informed consent in dual relationships. They are not likely to be aware of the power differential in the worker/client relationship and do not see that professional power is unchecked by rules of professional conduct in dual relationships. Thus, there is potential for harm to occur. The client may feel flattered that the social worker is interested in them for other than professional reasons. What if for example, the social worker is interested in becoming friends with the client after the therapy is over? It may seem that both therapeutic relationships and friendships have commonalities such as trust, support, openness, loyalty (Schultz, 1991). However, there are major differences in that therapeutic relationships are socially sanctioned and controlled by professions and the state and friendships are reciprocal and voluntary. (Kagle & Giebelhausen, 1994). If a therapeutic relationship were to become reciprocal by the social work non-judiciously self-disclosing personal information to the client, the roles of worker and client would become blurred and permit exploitation of the client. 

There is also potential for harm in dual relationships because of the possibility of transference and  counter-transference. Whether or not one believes in the psychodynamic theoretical framework about the projection of unconscious needs and the recreation of significant relationships in a therapeutic relationship, one must be aware of the possibility of the social worker and client getting in touch with emotions and then acting out with each other significant events and relationships in their lives. 

Social workers in their sincere attempts to empower clients may work to equalize power between them and their clients. This may do harm. The harm would come from the denial of the unequal power between the professional and clients.  Clients have needs which motivate them to seek resources, expertise, support, etc. that social workers can provide.  Social workers need to acknowledge their power, to be aware of its potential impact on any relationship (s) that they may have or consider having  with clients or ex-clients. 
 
                              Warning Signs of Boundary Violations or Dual Relationships
 
It is important to realize that a boundary crossing is rarely a one-time event, but rather a series of incidents that occur over time. So, they are part of a process. Thus, it may be referred to as a “slippery slope” that may turn into an ethical violation.  Thus, it requires vigilance on the part of the social worker to notice and make corrections before harm is done. 

The following list provides some pitfalls to watch for: (Peterson, 1992)

1. This situation is unique and I am meeting the client’s needs.  For example, the social worker states ‘I do not normally accept gifts from clients, but I will make an exception for this client.’
2. Reversal of worker/client roles.  For example, the social worker is feeling depressed and looks forward to compliments from and conversation with her client.
3. The worker withholds critical knowledge or behavior from the client.  This is about the worker having an agenda in regard to the client that is not shared and is not about the professional work. 
4. The client feels caught in a double bind, that if they comply with what the worker asks them to do they may satisfy them in the short term by agreeing, but in the end may disappoint them.   If the client decides to not do it, they fear they will lose their worker.  For example, the client is an English literature professor and the social work is an aspiring author who has a manuscript she wants the client to review and provide feedback.  This is a conflict of interest for the social worker as it is taking advantage of the client for one’s own interests.  The client may feel coerced to do it and worry about the impact of providing honest criticism to their social worker
5.  The professional is indulging their privilege with the client for their own self-gratification, and not in the interest of the client.  The worker may decide to disclose their own history of drug addiction and how successful they have been in gaining control of their life, because it boosts the worker’s self- esteem. 

 
                                               Prevention of Boundary Violations
 
Some strategies for avoiding inappropriate boundary crossing will be listed below:

1.  Get in touch with one’s own issues and do not project them on your clients.  Seek therapy when needed. 
2. Work on being aware of and controlling counter-transference and do not play into the client’s transference.  Assist your clients to understand and deal with it.
3. Receive supervision and discuss boundary issues and dual relationships, as well as your concerns about misuse of power with clients. 
4. Realize demands and stress of being a social worker and receive support from family, friends and social networks. 
5. Guard against over commitment and limitless dedication to one’s clients.
6. Be cautious about disclosing your personal information with clients.  You should share the least amount of information to make your point and only disclose if it is in the interest of clients. 
7. Set boundaries early on with clients by discussing the potential for overlap and preferred ways of handling outside encounters.  Discuss your policies with clients in regard to gift giving, dual relationships, times when you are available, rules for emergency contacts, use of email, texting, and other forms of social media, so there is no confusion.   Be consistent in the implementation of the policies. 
8. Accept your greater power and use it judiciously to meet clients’ needs. 
9. Continually monitor your motivation and self-interest to see that your client’s interests are primary.

 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kagle, J.D. & Giebelhausen, P.N. (1994).  Dual relationships and professional boundaries.  Social Work, 39, 213 to 202. 
NASW Code of Ethics, NASW, Washington, D.C., 2008
Peterson, M.R. (1992). At personal risk.  New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 
Schultz, l. K. (1991).Women’s adult development: The importance of friendship.  Journal of Independent Social Work, 5 (2), 19-30.

Shelby Anderson-Holt, MSW Candidate. Member, Fair Labor Organizing (University of Michigan)

Master students at the University of Michigan School of Social Work (U-M SSW) have created a student group called Fair Labor Organizing. The students argue that the required field hours constitute labor; that uncompensated or poorly compensated yet required labor is exploitative; and that exploitation contradicts the NASW Code of Ethics’ call for social and economic justice. The group believes that the tolerance of unpaid internships in MSW and BSW programs contributes to low wages for social workers, hurts the cause of diversifying the field, and diminishes social workers’ potential to invest personally in the many causes that are important to them.
 
The campaign began this past summer, when many U-M MSW students were taking classes and working their field education hours during the summer semester of the school’s 16-month track. In July, students put out a petition that received over 550 signatures calling for the fair compensation of social workers for their field practicum hours. About half the signatures came from current students at the U-M SSW, and half poured in from the school’s alumni, social work students at other schools, and other social workers in the field as well as friends, peers, and family of social workers. This broad-based support illustrated the importance of this issue to a wide range of people.
 
The group has already seen some success in its advocacy efforts. Following the petition, the school’s administration held a town hall where students shared concerns about their financial insecurity as well as their related mental, emotional, and physical health issues. In response to students’ concerns, the school addressed a tuition policy that caused part-time students to pay more than full-time students for their degrees. Through collaboration with the University of Michigan Graduate Employee Organization (GEO), the University’s graduate student labor union, proper compensation was won in October for social work students co-facilitating classes at the U-M SSW. However, many other issues remain unaddressed, including the failure to recognize the ethical implications of requiring students to work for free.
 
Why hasn’t this problem been solved? One major concern is the financial logistics. Where will the money come from? Who will pay? Suggestions have included encouraging the school’s field office to ask organizations to compensate their interns if they have the funds.  If the organizations do not have this financial flexibility, the group calls for the U-M SSW to compensate students. Some suggestions for the school include working to adjust the rules around work-study and field placements so that students can receive work-study funding for their field hours; enrolling fewer students so the school’s available funding can go farther for each student; and fundraising specifically for the fair compensation of students for their labor.
 
This conversation may have started among masters students at the University of Michigan, but the Fair Labor Organizing group hopes that social workers everywhere will reflect on these issues and do what they can to advocate for social and economic justice across the field of social work and beyond. Rather than skirting the line between legality and exploitation, social workers should be raising the bar on labor issues and setting an example for all other industries.
 
If you are interested in getting involved, please email Fair Labor Organizing at fairlaborsocialwork@gmail.com, visit the group’s website at www.fairlaborsocialwork.weebly.com, or like the group’s page on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/fairlabororganization/.