The categorization and bureaucratic red tape puts limits on the range that the efforts of a program will reach. The government says these boundaries are necessary, but what about the people outside of a specific catchement area. Then yet another negative aspect that comes to mind is the fact that within many public agencies there is too many people in higher positions and not enough at ground level. The average social worker at ground level has so many supervisor to defer to and each supervisor has their own idea of which way is the best way to approach the problems at hand. Too many supervisors will add conflict and stress to a social workers job, which can negatively affect his/her clients because it definitely accelerate "burn-out". To further my point take a trip to your local "Welfare " office and pose as a potential client all the above listed negative aspects will be easily identifiable. .
Supposedly, one of the positive aspects of governmental influence and rules is that public institutions are free of bias and discrimination regardless of sex, race, creed, religion or sexual preference. Also agencies that are funded by the government are mandated by state law to do extensive checks on the qualifications on anyone within civil employ. Another "so-called positive" aspect of these public that the locations are numerous (yet under-staffed) and easily accessible. .
There are many advantages to public social work practice but the negative aspects outweigh them in my opinion. .
On the other side of the coin you have the private agencies. Agencies that are private have various negative and positive aspects. The positive aspects of private agencies include but are not limited to the fact that private agencies are free of government mandates (pending acceptance of governmental grants) and are able to target emerging needs at a faster pace than publicly funded organizations/agencies.