Advocacy by Social Workers in the Public Defender’s Office

Jose Ashford; Mary Wirtz Macht; Melissa Mylym

doi:10.1093/sw/32.3.199

Advocacy by Social Workers in the Public Defender’s Office

Jose Ashford, Mary Wirtz Macht, Melissa Mylym

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Lack of consensus in the literature of advocacy is demonstrated in the dichotomy between the “best interest” and “pure advocacy” approaches. This lack of consensus has resulted in differential interpretations of how practitioners should implement the advocacy role in legal settings and has created ethical problems for practitioners that the NASW Code of Ethics cannot resolve.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	199-204
Number of pages	6
Journal	Social Work (United States)
Volume	32
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/32.3.199
State	Published - 1987
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Sociology and Political Science

Access to Document

10.1093/sw/32.3.199

Cite this

@article{cafb1903d8184507a7e76a327462f4db,

title = "Advocacy by Social Workers in the Public Defender{\textquoteright}s Office",

abstract = "Lack of consensus in the literature of advocacy is demonstrated in the dichotomy between the “best interest” and “pure advocacy” approaches. This lack of consensus has resulted in differential interpretations of how practitioners should implement the advocacy role in legal settings and has created ethical problems for practitioners that the NASW Code of Ethics cannot resolve.",

author = "Jose Ashford and Macht, {Mary Wirtz} and Melissa Mylym",

year = "1987",

doi = "10.1093/sw/32.3.199",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "32",

pages = "199--204",

journal = "Social Work (United States)",

issn = "0037-8046",

publisher = "National Association of Social Workers",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advocacy by Social Workers in the Public Defender’s Office

AU - Ashford, Jose

AU - Macht, Mary Wirtz

AU - Mylym, Melissa

PY - 1987

Y1 - 1987

N2 - Lack of consensus in the literature of advocacy is demonstrated in the dichotomy between the “best interest” and “pure advocacy” approaches. This lack of consensus has resulted in differential interpretations of how practitioners should implement the advocacy role in legal settings and has created ethical problems for practitioners that the NASW Code of Ethics cannot resolve.

AB - Lack of consensus in the literature of advocacy is demonstrated in the dichotomy between the “best interest” and “pure advocacy” approaches. This lack of consensus has resulted in differential interpretations of how practitioners should implement the advocacy role in legal settings and has created ethical problems for practitioners that the NASW Code of Ethics cannot resolve.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928462298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928462298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/sw/32.3.199

DO - 10.1093/sw/32.3.199

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928462298

SN - 0037-8046

VL - 32

SP - 199

EP - 204

JO - Social Work (United States)

JF - Social Work (United States)

IS - 3

ER -

Advocacy by Social Workers in the Public Defender’s Office

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this