Indirect Social Work

The “person-in-environment” approach to social work addresses the person first and the environment second. Even if written differently, such as “person: environment, the colon symbolizing the mutual transactions between the two” (Johnson, p. 330), person still precedes environment. What if the idea was written as “environment-person”? The debate in social work discourse is over the importance of direct and indirect social work and which should come first. For the purpose of this reflection, indirect social work will be considered the resources and social environment, and direct social work practice is the individual and personality (Johnson, p. 325).
The focus only on direct or indirect social work has switched throughout the last century. For instance, “indirect work was neglected during the 1930s, during the depression” (Johnson, p. 326), which was a time when the environment had a large effect on the person. The stock market crash, loss of money savings, the high unemployment rate and home mortgage

324). In this example, it would be connecting persons with food banks, social services, and job agencies. This concept was further explained by Mary Richmond who believed that “Knowledge about the client’s needs and personality must be complemented by knowledge about the client’s social and physical environment and the resources within it” (Johnson, p. 325). This might have been the client’s belief that only “poor people” received social welfare, even if there were not money earning opportunities for the family. Furthermore, Bertha Reynolds thought that “social workers should meet clients half-way and intervene together with clients, and, if necessary, on their behalf” (Johnson, p. 326). This would mean that each party be working together and using each of their resources in job