dorothybaez - As someone who works for a non-profit doing what most people would call "good" work, and has previously worked in some roles similar to how you are defining "social work," I feel the need to at lest poke at this a little.
I agree that there is a difference between state social workers of the CPS variety and those that I have known (and/or been) who work to provide basic needs (food, shelter, access to education/health care, etc). But I question the implication that one is good and one is bad.
I won't rehash my previous comments (or other posts and answers that relate) in depth, but I think that the role of the social worker (as you are defining it more positively) is absolutely one which is recuperative to capitalism and society. It is helping meet basic needs of the downtrodden, but not addressing the causes in any real way. It is palliative.
That doesn't mean that anarchists shouldn't do those jobs. We all need to work*, and work means that we will be greasing the wheels of the machine. We each have to do math about what makes us feel comfortable and what bargains we can make between our desires and the world we live in. My objection is that pretending that social workers are just "helping others" without also being very aware of how our actions are part and parcel with those of cops, CPS, and the general functioning of capitalism is disingenuous, and will likely lead to us becoming nothing more than the anarchist equivalent of missionaries.
*edit - one can choose not to work also, but that is also a sort of calculus to those choices also, so long as the dominant society we are a part of (and not, much as we'd like, apart from) demands work, money, etc.