Operation D: Creating a work relationship, an alliance – dialogue and meeting point (operations 11, relationship 1)

Social work is about relationships. And, social work is a relationship. A special relationship – a work relationship and alliance. Social work is about people coming together in order to perform meaningful changes in their lives. Hence, it is a working relationship, alliance of doing.

However, before the work starts, there needs to be an idea about what to do. This idea needs to reflect one’s inner and outer reality and needs to be reflexive to the events and contingencies of one’s Life-World. It also has to be utopian – bringing about something that there is not, but at the same time pragmatic enough to be workable. In deed, it has to be operative, conceived how it is to be done. It has to form an arch from the insight based on reflexion to doing thing, to work and change.

Dialogue

The most important tool in doing that, and probably in social work generally, is the dialogue. The dialogue does not mean the conversation of two people, the prefix “dia—“does not stand for “two” but for “through”. Dialogue literally means talking (and thinking) through (the matter). Enunciating what is to become.

In Freirean terms, the dialogue is a way to see through the material forces, it is a way of including people, being in cahoots with them in this gaze, seeing what there is going to be. Dialogue is a way of rendering the social arrangements into a material (reducing substance to matter) in order to transform them. Just like love was, for that man, a reason to dress better.

Dialogue means to establish a safe space where it is possible to say things, to name the world in order to change it (Freire, 1972).  It means establishing a “theoretical” (thinking) contexts”, in which concrete context of the lived world can be represented and decoded; and where new codes can be produced which can lead the action in the real context.

The necessary prerequisite for working together is to meet, establish the contact. Social work users are usually being referred to social work practitioners by other services or fellow users, who detect that there might be a social work issue, they often come on their own initiative “to sort something out” be it a simple social benefit or the complexity of life. Not seldom, however, it is also social work task to “seek” the user, as it is the case when it is due to perceived danger a statutory or a moral obligation.

In any case, they have to meet and this usually means, since the social work is not repairing or making “things” but dealing with human, personal and existential matters, that it is an encounter of the two human beings. This may not be important when the common task is a simple one, but is of virtual importance when dealing with rearranging the “whole life”. There a mere professional trust is not sufficient; the authentic human trust must be developed. Actors need to get to know each other, and this should be a two-way, mutual process (with more or less symmetry). A social worker also needs to learn about the person in the situation, acquire “user’s perspective”, realise the strengths of the person. A user needs to know the social worker not only in terms of what he or she has to offer, to get a sketchy idea of how the social work operates, what are the resources on disposal, but also how he or she experiences a kind of distress the user presents, what are his or her attitudes and values. Employing the strength perspective is important since it is about sharing the values. For common work, common value base is needed.

Meeting place

The meeting point should, in principle, be half-way between the two Life-Worlds. It may be handy of a social worker to meet in his or her office, but, however, might not be the user’s perspective. Although social work office should be in principle a safe space, a space where one can express his anxieties, worries, desires and … this may not be seen so by the user; he or she may experience it as an alien territory, somebody else’s turf, feel constrained by assumed or actual rules (e.g. no smoking) and by expectations how to behave.

Meeting in user’s home environment turns this perspective around, not only the user feels at home and is the host, and the power differential is slimmer, but also social worker meets and gets to know the user in the situation, not only his abstract persona but also its material and immaterial extensions.

Meeting on the neutral territory, often a public space (a café, park, town square) is also a good option, especially in the beginning. Not only it is free of burden of institutional expectations or domestic stipulation but it also enables an encounter that can be primae facie an exchange of equals.

Often institutional space other than social worker’s is used by necessity (a hospital, prison, old age home). In these cases a niche should be sought that would allow a personal encounter, a proxy for home, office or a public space – allowing privacy, equity and sovereignty.

Reference:

Freire, P. (1972), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books.

Contingencies of resettlements (Macedonia) - methods and reception

Little is known of methods used in the first resettlement action (Kriva Palanka). In the first wave of resettlements for Demir Kapija, the methods of assessment and training of the residents that would eventually leave were extensively used. The other part of work was to create day centres, recruit the fosterers and instruct them. In the second wave, the process was planned as by the book and there was more accent on getting the institution as whole involved, more assessment was done on the institution and its resources (staff, amenities). The future carers had a brief but intensive and up to date training. However, it seems something went wrong in the relationships and not everything went the way it was planned and created a schism between the institution, its staff and the external actors who were instrumental in the resettlement process. It looks like the crew responsible for the project got focus on the outcomes and did not let the process stop the resettlements.

Personal plans were used in that period, but not as a basic instrument of resettlement (as a resettlement plan), since the residents were moving collectively into group homes. They were used more to foster users’ perspective, to get the idea of likes and dislikes of the residents exiting the institution. Although the staff of new services has this knowledge, they do not use it as the main tool of the service delivery. We can assume that this is partly the case also because there is not a perspective of move from the group homes on.

That something was lost in terms of the methods during the process is also the impression received in Demir Kapija. Through the years, they have been exposed through various projects, to many methods and some have been developed on their own (cf.: teamwork in the annexe). However, the context of their work and the depressive attitude of resisting change has made staff less motivated to use those trainings and new methods of working. Nevertheless, the methods of ‘intensive interaction’ and personal planning introduced to Demir Kapija staff in recent months have been seen as important contribution to their work, tools of value in the future resettlements and were welcome. These two ways of working seem to be of great importance, since they provide tools of understanding and breaching the gap between the residents who are not able to express themselves in conventional manner and give the staff the vision of what they want, like and wish in their lives. Coupled with training in teamwork, organising new community services, risk taking and assessment methods and change management they would form a necessary pack that the staff of transforming institution should possess.

The reception of the community of the resettled residents was mainly good and welcoming. The interviews with various community members confirm this. They know that conditions in the institutions are bad, but often do not see the alternative since (as noted above) they believe that institutions are as a place where people are treated, cared for – “they have a doctor there (which in fact they have not) and can be given medicaments; they are better off in there than staying home”. Some more informed members of community have heard of the deinstitutionalisation or when they hear what it is about, they approve it and see its merit. A special educator in one of the day centres supports the process, but warns about the conditions that need to be fulfilled, i.e. that it is done completely and that all the residents have a chance for better life.

It looks like ex-residents were as a rule well received and that there was not much of the resistance against the new comers. The NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect was recorded, paradoxically, only in an attempt of the infants’ home to establish a group home for the children that out-grew the requirements of the institution (surpassed the age of three). The group home was planned to be in a ‘well-to-do’ suburban community and parents in the area petitioned against it – not wanting that their children would be in the same kindergarten with Gipsies. The discrimination and racism presented was, in this case, not against the disability but against Roma (children).

The protagonist of the second wave resettlement emphasise that it was more difficult for the users to be accepted by the neighbours and to access other services in Skopje rather than in Volkovo, which is a small community (settlement or village) close to Skopje, the people are friendlier and are accepting the users much easily. Here, the development of the users is much easier because after the day activities and according to personal wishes they go to the city for leisure and entertainment, visiting cultural and sports events etc. In Negotino, which is also a smaller local community, people are more tolerant and willing to provide help; the users have more opportunities to use local services and resources.  This opinion is partly true, but partly can be seen as a rationalisation of the fact that they had to move out of Skopje for economic reasons and we should be careful not to have over idyllic expectations regarding future resettlements. There are good and bad sides of different environments. While there is more of a community spirit and less anomia in smaller towns and communities, the city folks are more tolerant and there are more opportunities (e.g. for service support) in the cities.

The strong value and the norm of hospitality, generousness and compassion in Macedonian culture definitely helps the reception of people who return from the institutions. The part of the culture that is an obstacle to inclusion is the feeling of uneasiness and shame of such people to belong to one’s family. 

Claimer: This blog is intended as a part of Situation Analysis and Assessment/ Evaluation Report of Implementation of National Strategy on Deinstitutionalisation 2008–2018, which will be soon presented to the public within the EU framework project Technical assistance support for the deinstitutionalization process in social sector. For this blog, Vlado Krstovski is considered to be co-author.