Who to serve? The ethical dilemma of employment consultants in nonprofit disability employment network organisations

Australian Journal of Social Issues, Autumn, 2009 by Stephen Thornton, Greg Marston

Thirteen employment consultants were recruited to the study, being the total number of ECs employed in the organisation. The site was observed on a daily basis for five weeks, representing 140 hours of observation. This observation period was supplemented by semi-structured interviews conducted in week six of the study. As a group, approximately two-thirds of Ecs (2) have a background in the human services, having worked in a variety of areas including drug and alcohol education; tertiary teaching; supported accommodation; social work; and psychology. Most ECs have been with the organisation between one and three years.

While street-level theory acknowledges that there is often a disparity between the intentions of policy makers and the practices of policy implementers, we draw on ethical theory to analyse why different practices among the front-line workers may exist. ECs in this study, based on interpretations in the data collected, fall into three reporting regime sub-groups: (1) those whose practice is reportedly consistent with the DEWR guidelines on participation reporting and is rules-based; (2) those whose practice displays a greater use of discretion in interpreting the guidelines and is discretion-based; and (3) those whose practice regularly transgresses the official guidelines and is principally focused on the welfare of the client. In other words, their actions are virtue-based.

Sub-Group 1: Rules-based practice

In this trichotomy, the first group of ECs displays a clear commitment to the guidelines and responsibilities as outlined in the programme procedures and policy guidelines. This group typically justifies their actions in terms of duty to the organisation and its contractual requirements with DEWR. They believe clients make their own choices and, therefore, should be accountable for their actions. Although it was observed that this group maintained a sense of compassion, their commitment to the contractual requirements and the policy logic of welfare-to-work policies is first and foremost:

SCOTT: ... They're responsible; everyone's responsible for their choices. So this is part of my obligation ... we don't breach, Centrelink breach but we put in Participation Reports so is up to Centrelink what they do with it ... it's a way of tracking behaviours and patterns ... my conscience is clear ...

TED: ... they don't have to turn up to meetings; they don't have to take jobs. It is their decision what they want to do however if you don't this is what we have to do legally. We have to let Centrelink know. We have to put in Participation Reports. What happens then is then up to Centrelink.

LINDA: ... you're required to do it and that's what I'm paid for but on an ethical level I really don't have a huge issue because I think its been made clear that you're receiving this money in return for looking for work. If you're not doing that you're not going to get it so that it's made clear ...

These ECs rationalise their decisions in terms of 'obligation' and people being 'responsible for their choices'. Linda discusses that 'on an ethical level' she doesn't have a huge issue with reporting non-compliance, while Scott states his 'conscience is clear'. The discourse of individual responsibility, which lies at the heart of welfare-to-work policies, is reinforced in these utterances. As such, the use of participation reports to change individual behaviour is ethically justified because the client is seen as totally responsible for their actions. It is also interesting to note that any ethical tension is diffused in the above utterances because authority for determining whether to apply the 'breach' on the basis of the participation report can be deferred as being 'up to Centrelink'. In this respect, the front-line worker can legitimately claim that it is not their responsibility to determine whether someone should be financially penalised for non-compliance because this is considered to be the duty of government. In other words, the workers are simply 'doing their job'.