Human services organizations grew in size, scope, and function during the post–World War II era. Prior to that period, agencies were less able to meet the community's needs because funding was limited and largely comprised donations. When the government started earmarking funds for human services, human services organizations became more organized in their service delivery, and in turn more efficient and broader in scope in terms of types of individuals served. Their change in scope was both an advantage and a disadvantage as it was related to allocation of funds to operate. It was advantageous because the organizations were able to serve more people. It was disadvantageous because the variety of services offered resulted in agencies having to function under a global identity that did not adequately or specifically describe their services. For example, consider that a mental health practice that specializes in anxiety disorders had to also provide case management to receive funding. Even though its specialty is counseling, it might be perceived as an agency that can provide services to everyone for anything.In addition, these services subsequently influenced the types of funding agencies were qualified to receive. There has since been a movement to regulate the specific types of services provided by private, nonprofit, and public agencies. Each type of agency is eligible to receive funding if it abides by the government regulations in its delivery of services. As a result, the private agencies have been increasingly fighting for legitimacy with the nonprofit agencies that, at one point, appeared to have exclusive access to the same public funds. The benefits to consumers are that they have some ability to select their service providers. The private agency benefits from having the additional working capital they receive from various public resources.The regulation placed upon these agencies to standardize their practices has resulted in
Human services organizations grew in size, scope, and function during the post–World War II era. Prior to that period, agencies were less able to meet the community's needs because funding was limited and largely comprised donations. When the government started earmarking funds for human services, human services organizations became more organized in their service delivery, and in turn more efficient and broader in scope in terms of types of individuals served. Their change in scope was both an advantage and a disadvantage as it was related to allocation of funds to operate. It was advantageous because the organizations were able to serve more people. It was disadvantageous because the variety of services offered resulted in agencies having to function under a global identity that did not adequately or specifically describe their services. For example, consider that a mental health practice that specializes in anxiety disorders had to also provide case management to receive funding. Even though its specialty is counseling, it might be perceived as an agency that can provide services to everyone for anything.In addition, these services subsequently influenced the types of funding agencies were qualified to receive. There has since been a movement to regulate the specific types of services provided by private, nonprofit, and public agencies. Each type of agency is eligible to receive funding if it abides by the government regulations in its delivery of services. As a result, the private agencies have been increasingly fighting for legitimacy with the nonprofit agencies that, at one point, appeared to have exclusive access to the same public funds. The benefits to consumers are that they have some ability to select their service providers. The private agency benefits from having the additional working capital they receive from various public resources.The regulation placed upon these agencies to standardize their practices has resulted in