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.
