| Course | SWG 632 Policy Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Ethical dilemma case study |
| Length | About 529 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Master of Social Work |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for SWG 632 Module 2
Beds or Rules? An Ethical Dilemma Over Sobriety Requirements at a Shelter
Student Name
Master of Social Work, Arizona State University
SWG 632: Policy Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Beds or Rules? An Ethical Dilemma Over Sobriety Requirements at a Shelter
Identifying the Dilemma
My macro placement is with a nonprofit in Phoenix (illustrative) that runs a 120-bed emergency shelter and a small permanent supportive housing program. A private foundation that provides about a quarter of the shelter's budget has asked the board to require that guests be sober to receive a bed, citing incidents involving intoxicated guests. As the intern supporting the agency's policy committee, I was asked to draft a memo on the proposal. The ethical dilemma is whether to support a policy that may improve safety and secure funding but would exclude people with active substance use, who are among the most vulnerable people the agency serves.
Description of the Issue
The shelter currently uses a low-barrier model: guests may enter if they are intoxicated, provided they are not violent, and staff use de-escalation and harm reduction. Over six months, staff logged 14 incidents involving intoxicated guests, three of which required police. Staff are divided. Some feel unsafe and support the rule; others believe it would push people with addictions back to the street during Phoenix summers, when heat is life-threatening. The foundation has not stated that funding depends on the change, but board members believe it does. People experiencing homelessness are not represented on the board, and guests have not been asked their views.
Analysis From All Sides
Several values conflict. The NASW Code of Ethics commits social workers to respect clients' self-determination and to pursue social justice for vulnerable people, and it also asks them to honor commitments to employing organizations (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Staff safety is a legitimate concern for the agency, and losing the foundation's funding could reduce beds for everyone. Personally, I value harm reduction and was surprised by how strongly I reacted when a board member called guests "noncompliant."
| Party | Primary value or interest |
|---|---|
| Shelter guests with substance use | Access to safety and shelter without preconditions |
| Frontline staff | Physical safety; ability to help guests |
| Board | Organizational survival and donor relations |
| Foundation | Accountability for its funds; reputation |
| Social work intern | Professional ethics, harm reduction, loyalty to the agency |
Influence on My Professional Development
The dilemma is teaching me that policy practice inside an agency requires both evidence and diplomacy. I have had to separate my personal frustration from my professional role and learn how decisions are actually made by a board.
Preliminary Literature Review
Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). In a randomized trial with 225 homeless adults with mental illness, participants offered immediate housing without treatment or sobriety requirements obtained housing earlier and stayed housed more stably than those whose housing was contingent on treatment and sobriety, with no difference in substance use or psychiatric symptoms (Tsemberis et al., 2004). This study suggests that preconditions do not improve the outcomes they are meant to protect.
Aubry, T., et al. (2020). This systematic review found that permanent supportive housing, including Housing First, improved housing stability for people experiencing homelessness with mental illness compared with usual services (Aubry et al., 2020). It extends the evidence beyond one program and supports the agency's existing permanent housing work.
References
Aubry, T., Bloch, G., Brcic, V., Saad, A., Magwood, O., Abdalla, T., Alkhateeb, Q., Xie, E., Mathew, C., Hannigan, T., Costello, C., Thavorn, K., Stergiopoulos, V., Tugwell, P., & Pottie, K. (2020). Effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions for homeless individuals in high-income countries: A systematic review. The Lancet Public Health, 5(6), e342-e360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30055-4
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 651-656. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.4.651
Reading the SWG 632 Module 2 assignment instructions
Assignment 1 in SWG 632 is a 50-point case study due in Module 2, the first step in a two-part assignment on ethical dilemmas from your field internship. Choose an ethical dilemma you have encountered in your macro practice placement: a case with ethical implications, or an ethical problem arising from your organization's operations or policies. Identify and define the dilemma; describe the issue fully, with all relevant facts and the central ethical dilemmas stated explicitly; analyze it from all sides, including the personal, professional and agency values in conflict and the parties involved; give a synopsis of how the dilemma is influencing your professional development; and provide a preliminary literature review with at least two annotated references.
Inside the SWG 632 Module 2 example
The sample states the dilemma as a choice between competing goods and explains the intern's role in it. The description section gives facts that matter, including incident numbers, staff views, funding pressure and the absence of guests' voices. The analysis draws on the NASW Code and summarizes each party's interests in a table. A short reflection names a personal reaction and what it is teaching. The literature review annotates two studies, each with a summary and a statement of relevance. The agency is illustrative, and identifying details are omitted to protect the placement. Margin notes point out what turns a disagreement into a true ethical dilemma.
Where the marks sit in the SWG 632 Module 2 rubric
The rubric awards points for identifying and defining the dilemma, a comprehensive description and analysis from multiple perspectives, a reflective synopsis of professional development and a preliminary literature review with at least two annotated references. Case studies lose points when the dilemma is really a disagreement about facts rather than values, when only one side is presented, when the reflection is generic or when annotations simply restate titles. Because the case carries into the Module 4 essay, a dilemma with clear competing values and good evidence on each side gives the essay more to work with. Annotations that link each study to the dilemma, rather than summarizing it in isolation, earn the most credit.
SWG 632 Module 2 help with common mistakes
Pick a dilemma where two legitimate values conflict, not one where the right answer is obvious. List every party affected and what each one cares about. Separate facts from opinions in your description. Name your own reaction honestly. Find at least two studies that bear on the dilemma, ideally from different sides. Write annotations that say what each study found and why it matters here. Protect your agency's and clients' identities. If the dilemma feels too sensitive, the desk can help you frame it. Keep notes for the Module 4 essay. Ask your field instructor whether the dilemma is appropriate to write about before you start. Keep a log of facts as they unfold.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More SWG 632 and Master of Social Work sample papers
- SWG 632 Module 4: Field Placement Ethical Dilemma Essay: Analyzing a Shelter Sobriety Proposal
- SWG 632 Module 8: Policy Analysis Paper: The Housing Choice Voucher Program Through Gilbert and Terrell
- SWG 632 Module 10: Brief Fact Sheet: Expanding Housing Vouchers for the Lowest-Income Renters
- SWG 573 Module 3: Advocacy Project Reflection: Asking a Legislator to Protect Home-Delivered Meals
- SWG 623 Module 2: Logic Model Assignment: A Family-Strengthening Program at a Phoenix Family Center
- SWG 571 Module 7: Assessment Paper: Late-Life Depression, Grief and Drinking in a Recently Widowed Man
SWG 632 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free SWG 632 Module 2 sample paper?
The full field placement ethical dilemma case study on a shelter sobriety rule is on this page.
What does the SWG 632 case study require?
A dilemma from your macro placement, a full description, an analysis of conflicting values, a reflection and two annotated references.
What makes an ethical dilemma?
A conflict between two or more legitimate values, so that any choice sacrifices something important.
What did the Pathways Housing First trial find?
Immediate housing without sobriety requirements led to earlier and more stable housing, with no difference in substance use.
How many points is the SWG 632 case study?
50 points.