SWG 632 Module 4 Field Placement Ethical Dilemma Essay: Analyzing a Shelter Sobriety Proposal Example

Safety Without Exclusion: Resolving a Sobriety Requirement Dilemma at a Shelter

Student Name

Master of Social Work, Arizona State University

SWG 632: Policy Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Safety Without Exclusion: Resolving a Sobriety Requirement Dilemma at a Shelter

Introduction

In my macro placement at an illustrative Phoenix homeless services nonprofit, the board is considering whether to require sobriety for shelter beds after a major foundation raised concerns about incidents with intoxicated guests. My Module 2 case study described the facts and stakeholders. This essay analyzes the dilemma using professional codes, examines its wider implications, compares possible resolutions and reflects on what it has taught me.

Analysis Under the NASW and IFSW Codes

The NASW Code of Ethics frames the dilemma in several standards (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Its social justice value calls on social workers to work for change alongside, and for, people who are vulnerable or oppressed, and its standard on self-determination asks social workers to respect clients' right to make their own choices unless those choices pose a serious, foreseeable and imminent risk. A sobriety requirement conditions access to shelter on a choice about substance use. At the same time, the Code asks social workers to honor commitments to employers and to work to improve agency policies, which places the intern inside the organization's decision rather than outside it. The Code also addresses safety in the workplace indirectly through its commitment to colleagues.

The IFSW Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles emphasizes the inherent dignity of all people, the right to participation and the challenge to unjust policies and practices (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018). Applied here, it highlights that guests have not been consulted and that excluding people with addictions may reinforce discrimination against a stigmatized group.

Using an ethical decision-making screen that ranks the protection of life above other principles (Dolgoff et al., 2012), the analysis tilts toward access. In a Phoenix summer, exclusion from shelter can threaten life, and the protection of life outranks the agency's interest in donor relations. But staff safety also involves protection from harm, so a resolution must address it directly rather than dismiss it.

Implications

Research. The agency could study its own incident data before and after any change, examining whether incidents cluster at certain times, staffing levels or guests. Broader research might test which low-barrier safety practices reduce incidents without excluding guests.

Community and policy practice. The case suggests that social workers should involve people with lived experience in agency policy, for example through a guest advisory group, and should bring evidence to board discussions. Housing First research shows that removing preconditions can improve housing outcomes without worsening substance use (Tsemberis et al., 2004).

Social policy. Federal homelessness policy has favored Housing First approaches, and funders' preferences can pull agencies in other directions. The dilemma illustrates how private funding can shape public services, and it points to the value of stable public funding for low-barrier shelter.

Organizations and leadership. The board's assumption about funder expectations was never tested. Leadership includes asking funders directly, explaining evidence and building policies that protect staff while keeping the mission intact.

Resolving the Dilemma

I recommend the third option. The agency would keep low-barrier entry while adding a staffed de-escalation area, overnight pairing of staff, training in trauma-informed de-escalation and a clear policy for removing guests who are violent rather than intoxicated. The executive director and board chair would meet the foundation to share incident data and the Housing First evidence, and a guest advisory group would review the changes. If the foundation still withdraws, the board would face a clearer choice with better information, and other funders could be approached with the agency's evidence-based approach.

How the Dilemma Has Shaped My Thinking

Before this placement, I saw policy as something made by legislatures. I now see that agency rules are policies too, and that they can include or exclude people as powerfully as laws. I also learned that my first reaction, frustration with a board member's language, was less useful than gathering data and listening to staff fears. My commitment to harm reduction is stronger, but I hold it now with more respect for the people who must keep a shelter safe at 3 a.m.

Conclusion

The dilemma pits access against safety and funding. Professional codes, a ranked decision screen and the evidence on Housing First all point toward preserving access, while the duty to protect staff requires real investment in safety. A resolution that does both is harder, but it is the one consistent with social work values.

References

Dolgoff, R., Harrington, D., & Loewenberg, F. M. (2012). Ethical decisions for social work practice (9th ed.). Brooks/Cole.

International Federation of Social Workers. (2018). Global social work statement of ethical principles. https://www.ifsw.org/global-social-work-statement-of-ethical-principles/

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