Wednesday, 21 November 2012
On drugs?
'Service user': Doesn't it sound like a person addicted to a drug? I'm a user of services. It does imply that the person is dependent on services which might be true. But that harks back to the medical model of dependency. Are the terms 'client' or 'customer' better? They have commodified connotations and may imply that the professional has all the answers or the product to be sold. What do the actual people who access service support want to be called? Is it service user?
My placement is working with homeless people. So these theories might be useful and anyway one of my lecturers today was talking about some theories as if we already knew all about them. Another testament to how much reading we should be doing. The theories underpin the intervention that you might suggest so knowing them is crucial to practice as interventions should be based on evidence. So thank you Malcolm Payne.
Crisis Theory
Payne discusses it alongside task-centred models for a comparison of brief methods of intervention. Crisis theory is dealing with the immediate problem and could be criticised for being too short-sighted. It assumes that we live in a state of equilibrium most of the time and crises upset the coping mechanisms we have. Crisis either leads to developing these coping mechanisms as a result of the crisis experience which ensures a return to equilibrium or crisis leads to a deterioration into chaos as these mechanisms fail.
Crisis theory is informed by psychodynamic ego psychology (Freud?). Crisis points can be situational or maturational and occur in the context of the individuals circumstances. They are turning points in individuals lives and active crisis is a result of a building up process.
Crisis interventions concentrate on the safety of the individual and then begins building on their strengths to establish their coping mechanisms again. This assumes an accurate assessment of their cognitive and behavioural responses to the crisis.
Wider perspective:
The use of steady state instead of equilibrium. This is because people can face new situations/events and remain in a steady state whereas equilibrium implies that people cannot manage. A crisis is a process not a sudden disastrous event as it is commonly mistaken for. How do individuals react to a precipitating hazardous event? Individual has to manage the event and also their own reaction to that event using coping mechanisms. If they fail then the individual moves to a state of active crisis. This affects the individuals behaviour and obviously they experience strong intolerable emotions also.
The crisis may be public or private or both. E.g. a loved one died in a public fire, victim of rape deciding to prosecute.
Crisis intervention:
Treatment:
Assessment: involving listening and acting. Intervention: achieving contact, lethality measure, establishing rapport, identifying problem, dealing with emotions, explore alternatives, develop action plan, establish followup. From Contact to Coping. But this intervention process must come from the individual and them exploring their emotions etc. So it will not work if imposed. What are there reactions to the crisis? Affective/behavioural, cognitive/emotive, moral or spiritual?
Critique:
Crisis theory deals with immediate problems and does not provide long-term solutions (except in the development of coping mechanisms for future crises). This has pros and cons. It is effective in determining immediate danger for the individual in active crisis and can help them come down a stage and explore the process of crisis. It therefore if helpful because crises do need immediate attention. Yet the lack of emphasis on long-term approaches mean that for those constantly affected by crises because of poverty or social exclusion it may in reality compound the wider social failings. Crisis theory offers a theoretical underpinning for services providing help in disasters and is a model that describes the process that leads to crisis and peoples emotive and behavioural responses.
Crisis Theory
Payne discusses it alongside task-centred models for a comparison of brief methods of intervention. Crisis theory is dealing with the immediate problem and could be criticised for being too short-sighted. It assumes that we live in a state of equilibrium most of the time and crises upset the coping mechanisms we have. Crisis either leads to developing these coping mechanisms as a result of the crisis experience which ensures a return to equilibrium or crisis leads to a deterioration into chaos as these mechanisms fail.
Crisis theory is informed by psychodynamic ego psychology (Freud?). Crisis points can be situational or maturational and occur in the context of the individuals circumstances. They are turning points in individuals lives and active crisis is a result of a building up process.
Crisis interventions concentrate on the safety of the individual and then begins building on their strengths to establish their coping mechanisms again. This assumes an accurate assessment of their cognitive and behavioural responses to the crisis.
Wider perspective:
- Caplan- Preventative psychiatry. Basis in mental health.
- Chinese philosophy of gravitating towards fulfilment, balance and harmony.
- Roberts- Modern crisis intervention for all professions especially within disaster services.
The use of steady state instead of equilibrium. This is because people can face new situations/events and remain in a steady state whereas equilibrium implies that people cannot manage. A crisis is a process not a sudden disastrous event as it is commonly mistaken for. How do individuals react to a precipitating hazardous event? Individual has to manage the event and also their own reaction to that event using coping mechanisms. If they fail then the individual moves to a state of active crisis. This affects the individuals behaviour and obviously they experience strong intolerable emotions also.
The crisis may be public or private or both. E.g. a loved one died in a public fire, victim of rape deciding to prosecute.
Crisis intervention:
- Developing new coping mechanisms
- Work through emotions and experience of crisis
- Mobilising resources for support
- Reduce continuing unpleasant effects/emotions
- Integrating events into individuals private life.
- Equilibrium model: People in crisis need to return to equilibrium so they can deal with issues in their lives. Caplan.
- Cognitive model: Thinking in faulty ways abouts events that surround the crisis and feelings. Roberts.
- Psychosocial transition model: Crises arise as people move through life stages. Erikson.
Treatment:
Assessment: involving listening and acting. Intervention: achieving contact, lethality measure, establishing rapport, identifying problem, dealing with emotions, explore alternatives, develop action plan, establish followup. From Contact to Coping. But this intervention process must come from the individual and them exploring their emotions etc. So it will not work if imposed. What are there reactions to the crisis? Affective/behavioural, cognitive/emotive, moral or spiritual?
Critique:
Crisis theory deals with immediate problems and does not provide long-term solutions (except in the development of coping mechanisms for future crises). This has pros and cons. It is effective in determining immediate danger for the individual in active crisis and can help them come down a stage and explore the process of crisis. It therefore if helpful because crises do need immediate attention. Yet the lack of emphasis on long-term approaches mean that for those constantly affected by crises because of poverty or social exclusion it may in reality compound the wider social failings. Crisis theory offers a theoretical underpinning for services providing help in disasters and is a model that describes the process that leads to crisis and peoples emotive and behavioural responses.
I went to a social work conference this Saturday which was very interesting. The Social Work Action Network (SWAN) was running it; radical and critical social work an alternative approach. I had never heard of SWAN before and to be honest thought it would just be an academic exercise that would help me with my studies, I need all the help I can get.
I'll try to convey an overview. It was regional so all of the statistics were from Middlesborough. In an context of severe cuts affecting the poorest of our society especially in the North East, is there any alternative? Do we have to keep on cutting? Social workers have high workloads and job insecurity because of the cuts. As many social workers and youth workers see this happening to the people who need the services most and to their own profession, they face massive challenges to the values of their profession. Isn't it time to speak up since this is only the first wave of cuts. To speak up for the service users. Also the cuts are not uniform, the biggest ones are where the services are most needed. (I did not know this). They said something about an ideological attack on social work also which I think boiled down to people using the liberatory language of social work yet not doing anything. Hence SWAN's emphasis on Action.
SWAN is prepared to stand up to the government by
There is an underlying resistance to managerialism. I think that's true because of the Munro report and also from shadowing a statutory social worker for the day.
So what is the new radical social work?
There is a hidden history of radical social work. Eg. 1970s, settlement movement etc. This is different to mainstream tradition.
One of the things that struck me about the conference was solidarity. There was a movement passed that sent a message of solidarity and support to a youth worker in Gaza who was trained in Durham. Just to show that she isn't alone. There was an emphasis on collectivism; one individual will not make much of an impact but when organised together there is much more encouragement, a collective voice for change and many ideas. Also movements like SWAN are not isolated; there are many similar organisations across the globe who are reacting against austerity but more importantly on behalf of the most vulnerable in society. For some countries it may look like anti-austerity (Greece, Spain, Britain etc) but for others it may be standing up for service users, advocacy, encouraging self-advocacy movements etc.
There is a deep radical strand of social work running throughout British history and which is characterised by turning the 'norm' upside down. People who have questioned and kept on questioning until change came about and they were listened to. Unfortunately with this bravery came vast unpopularity in some cases. 'Norms' don't like to be challenged and will put up a fight. The one thing I think Social Workers must remember is why they came into the profession. Was it for a career or because they are passionate about social justice? And whether you believe social work to be political or not the aim is to support the most vulnerable, those whose services are being stripped away. So what can I do as a social work student and in the future as a practitioner? Watch SWANs space! I think social work is political and must be but that isn't to say people who don't believe that can't make a difference. The difficulty is the practice.
At the conference there were a lot of academics and a lot of students. Very few practitioners on the front line and I met none from the statutory sector. There was also an uneasiness about going into practice trying to protest both from students and the academics who teach because of the fear of loosing jobs. But knowing that you are not the only one and using ethics and the threat to social work's value base as tools is powerful and encouraging. But is there effective support from SWAN, does there need to be?
I'll try to convey an overview. It was regional so all of the statistics were from Middlesborough. In an context of severe cuts affecting the poorest of our society especially in the North East, is there any alternative? Do we have to keep on cutting? Social workers have high workloads and job insecurity because of the cuts. As many social workers and youth workers see this happening to the people who need the services most and to their own profession, they face massive challenges to the values of their profession. Isn't it time to speak up since this is only the first wave of cuts. To speak up for the service users. Also the cuts are not uniform, the biggest ones are where the services are most needed. (I did not know this). They said something about an ideological attack on social work also which I think boiled down to people using the liberatory language of social work yet not doing anything. Hence SWAN's emphasis on Action.
SWAN is prepared to stand up to the government by
- Resisting neo-liberal ideas
- Resisting in theory and practice
- Partnership
- Modelling resistance
There is an underlying resistance to managerialism. I think that's true because of the Munro report and also from shadowing a statutory social worker for the day.
So what is the new radical social work?
There is a hidden history of radical social work. Eg. 1970s, settlement movement etc. This is different to mainstream tradition.
- Opposition to the injustice of society, played out in action not compliance
- Against commodification.
- Global thing- see movements from all over the world happening at the same time.
- Dissatisfaction- I didn't come into social work for this!
- Social work reduced to bureaucracy.
- Challenging the depth of the austerity cuts.
- Losing the values of Social Work and affiliated occupations.
One of the things that struck me about the conference was solidarity. There was a movement passed that sent a message of solidarity and support to a youth worker in Gaza who was trained in Durham. Just to show that she isn't alone. There was an emphasis on collectivism; one individual will not make much of an impact but when organised together there is much more encouragement, a collective voice for change and many ideas. Also movements like SWAN are not isolated; there are many similar organisations across the globe who are reacting against austerity but more importantly on behalf of the most vulnerable in society. For some countries it may look like anti-austerity (Greece, Spain, Britain etc) but for others it may be standing up for service users, advocacy, encouraging self-advocacy movements etc.
There is a deep radical strand of social work running throughout British history and which is characterised by turning the 'norm' upside down. People who have questioned and kept on questioning until change came about and they were listened to. Unfortunately with this bravery came vast unpopularity in some cases. 'Norms' don't like to be challenged and will put up a fight. The one thing I think Social Workers must remember is why they came into the profession. Was it for a career or because they are passionate about social justice? And whether you believe social work to be political or not the aim is to support the most vulnerable, those whose services are being stripped away. So what can I do as a social work student and in the future as a practitioner? Watch SWANs space! I think social work is political and must be but that isn't to say people who don't believe that can't make a difference. The difficulty is the practice.
At the conference there were a lot of academics and a lot of students. Very few practitioners on the front line and I met none from the statutory sector. There was also an uneasiness about going into practice trying to protest both from students and the academics who teach because of the fear of loosing jobs. But knowing that you are not the only one and using ethics and the threat to social work's value base as tools is powerful and encouraging. But is there effective support from SWAN, does there need to be?
Monday, 19 November 2012
Evolution of the Welfare State:
The history of social work is important to know so the context of social factors can be evaluated and we can learn from history. Yet the history of social work is difficult to assess because it emerged within a very particular context. Eighteenth century saw liberalism coming to the fore and it is now re-emerging in social work. How is it ? What can we learn from history?
Social work was seen as a non-political approach yet some individuals and social workers struggled to make the voice of the disadvantaged heard. Sylvia Pankhurst is excluded from social work history but she worked with the poorest of society and struggled to make the voice of women heard. Women could get support and be politicised. Is this social work history? Yes the two strands of social work are still around today. The view that social work is charity and apolitical and the view that political action is integral to social work (alongside social action which politicians are concerned with also).
Poverty created:
With the industrial revolution came the breakdown of rural communities and the medieval feudal society. There was migration into the urban centres and factories providing work. So for the first time a new class was created, those who owned nothing but could work. Rural societies had poor people but most owned something and could grow to eat all be it meagre, most also had extensive family support networks. Yet those who worked in the factories only had their ability to work. They are the working poor. So when unemployment hit they were plunged into poverty.
The new system created great wealth but also extensive poverty. Classical liberalism made the distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The working poor came under the latter because the inference was that thy were too lazy to work. The problem lay with the individual not the system and there was no collective responsibility. Child labour was prevalent and life expectancy of the working poor plummeted.
There was tension between the classes; a fear of crime, drunkenness, disease on the part of the upper class made them take note.
Conditions of the working class:
There was resignation, defeat and helplessness. The working poor were bowed. This coupled with religious views on the afterlife meant that they did not complain.
There was an emphasis on phrenology. The belief that criminals looked different, you could tell by the measurements of the head etc whether someone was likely to become a criminal. The same with the poor. There was thought to be measurement for everything e.g. the way a genius looked. This was a convenient theory and was the origins of racism. Hitler used eugenics (a progression of this) to persecute. Before then though it was an accepted theory. It also consolidated class differences.
Blame lies with the individual therefore, not the system. Phrenology was used to justify colonialism and involved classifying people.
Poor Law 1834:
The history of social work is important to know so the context of social factors can be evaluated and we can learn from history. Yet the history of social work is difficult to assess because it emerged within a very particular context. Eighteenth century saw liberalism coming to the fore and it is now re-emerging in social work. How is it ? What can we learn from history?
Social work was seen as a non-political approach yet some individuals and social workers struggled to make the voice of the disadvantaged heard. Sylvia Pankhurst is excluded from social work history but she worked with the poorest of society and struggled to make the voice of women heard. Women could get support and be politicised. Is this social work history? Yes the two strands of social work are still around today. The view that social work is charity and apolitical and the view that political action is integral to social work (alongside social action which politicians are concerned with also).
Poverty created:
With the industrial revolution came the breakdown of rural communities and the medieval feudal society. There was migration into the urban centres and factories providing work. So for the first time a new class was created, those who owned nothing but could work. Rural societies had poor people but most owned something and could grow to eat all be it meagre, most also had extensive family support networks. Yet those who worked in the factories only had their ability to work. They are the working poor. So when unemployment hit they were plunged into poverty.
The new system created great wealth but also extensive poverty. Classical liberalism made the distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The working poor came under the latter because the inference was that thy were too lazy to work. The problem lay with the individual not the system and there was no collective responsibility. Child labour was prevalent and life expectancy of the working poor plummeted.
There was tension between the classes; a fear of crime, drunkenness, disease on the part of the upper class made them take note.
Conditions of the working class:
There was resignation, defeat and helplessness. The working poor were bowed. This coupled with religious views on the afterlife meant that they did not complain.
There was an emphasis on phrenology. The belief that criminals looked different, you could tell by the measurements of the head etc whether someone was likely to become a criminal. The same with the poor. There was thought to be measurement for everything e.g. the way a genius looked. This was a convenient theory and was the origins of racism. Hitler used eugenics (a progression of this) to persecute. Before then though it was an accepted theory. It also consolidated class differences.
Blame lies with the individual therefore, not the system. Phrenology was used to justify colonialism and involved classifying people.
Poor Law 1834:
- Care for the poor emerged and led to the care and control debate that still haunts social work today.
- Distinction between deserving and undeserving poor. This however did not take into account unemployment; they were undeserving because they were able bodied but did not work.
- Institutions cropped up. Work Houses were feared by the poor. Dehumanised individuals and were used as a threat. They didn't want people wanting to go into the work houses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)