Practice with Communities for Administrators of the
Sheriff King Home: Holistic Community Practice Perspectives
in the field of Family Violence
By
Shannon Daniel
For
Richard (Dick) Ramsay
SOWK 375
Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary
April 15, 1997
Note: The hardcopy of this paper scanned and digitalized. Hopefully, all related errors have been corrected. Minor editing was carried out.
Executive Summary
The issue of family violence within our society today is a rapidly changing field
of practice for social workers. As a greater understanding is gained of the
origins, implications and effects that abuse has on individuals as well as the
family, it is becoming evident that an increasingly broad perspective of the
intervention process must be taken by social workers and the agencies in which
they work. Working from a broad perspective, I will argue in this paper that
the understanding and treatment of family violence will be better served by
adapting a “holistic” framework to this field of practice in social work.
Specific reference to and recommendations for the Sheriff King Home, an
emergency shelter for women and children will be included. As well, the paper
will assess the current strengths of using a holistic framework in an emergency
shelter environment.
The adaptation and increased utilization of a comprehensive community practice
perspective will be discussed as it relates to working with issues of abuse.
Recent literature on community practice has shown the benefits of utilizing a
comprehensive framework that can account for a wide number of variables
impacting situations, rather than continuing to use the more compartmentalized
and distinct models of practice of earlier years. By adopting an adapted
framework, which is much more holistic in nature, the field of practice can
incorporate the dynamic nature of family violence, including the impacts and
influences of a system which is much larger than the particular individuals
involved. The contribution of intergenerational patterns as well as societal
values can be accounted for with the use of a comprehensive community practice
perspective.
There have been arguments in the literature that are critical of categorizing
approaches in community practice that tend to typologize groups and wrongfully
group them under a specific “label” when in reality the individuals and issues
are complex and diverse. Drawbacks of using a categorizing approach to
community practice will be addressed in the paper and applied to the discussion
of community practice at Sheriff King. An important concept that is addressed
by this critical perspective addresses the lack of focus on the passion and
commitment that social workers put into their work. I agree with this critical
viewpoint and I will attempt to incorporate the level of investment social
workers make at Sheriff King. The paper begins with a review of theoretical
perspectives with regard to community practice and a holistic (comprehensive)
framework of practice, and then proceeds to discuss the methods of practice
used by social workers at the Sheriff King home. Effort will be made to address
the agency’s strengths, as well as providing suggestions for possible
improvements towards a holistic method of practice from a community change
agent perspective.
--------------------------------------
As the nature of
our society is rapidly changing in an age of technological advancement, social,
cultural, and economic diversity, among other societal transformations, so is
the nature of social work practice changing to meet those needs. Within the
realm of social work practice, community practice is experiencing adaptations
and advancements to its conceptual models and modes of practice to accommodate
for individuals changing needs. Inherent in these transformations is a holistic
or generalist model of social work practice. A “new science” or way of knowing
is emerging within academia which is moving away from a linear or reductionism
views of the world that tend to analyze data in an empirical and systematic
fashion in order to gain a greater understanding of the whole (Capra, 1996).
The recent progression to a more holistic way of knowing is grounded in systems
perspective that proposes that the whole is always greater than the sum of its
parts. This implies that data cannot be analyzed in discrete parts and added in
aggregate ways in order to gain an understanding of the functioning of the
whole system (otherwise referred to as parts to whole thinking). Rather, it is
imperative, in order to understand the whole in its entirety: to start with the
whole, and systemically gain knowledge of its parts through discovery of the
dynamics and interactions within and between the various factor involved
(relationships and interactions within the system). This way of knowing can be
conceptualized as whole to parts thinking (Capra, 1996).
An extension to understanding this holistic way of thinking is offered by the
ecological perspective. Within a foundation of deep ecology, this perspective
is not bound by the parameters of the system in which it exists; rather it is
able to incorporate the greater environment of that system. The ecological
perspective can, therefore, account for and include a wider range of variables
within the social environment, including spiritual or religious awareness. Such
considerations as these are beyond the scope of a simple systems perspective
(Capra, 1996).
With recent awareness regarding the “nature of human nature”, existing models
of community practice appear limited and unable to account for the complexities
of our changing social environment. Conceptual frameworks that have been used
to guide the discipline of community practice are in a period of reformation
and adaptation towards holism and interconnectedness, which exists between component
parts and their interactions. The following articles illustrate early
transformations toward holism, and the difficulties encountered along the way
in gaining acceptance of this new way of conceptualizing the dynamics of human
nature, and the nature of community practice.
Rothman (1996) in incorporating locality development, social planning/policy
and social action components developed a three-pronged model of community
practice. These categories were considered to be distinct areas of community practice
that involved separate issues and modes of intervention. Locality development
focuses on citizen participation in the helping process (self-help), in which
the individuals identify what the issues are and contribute to the goals of
intervention. Social planning is concerned primarily with problem solving
substantive community problems. It includes data gathering and decision-making
through either consensus of conflict. The social action approach is focused on
shifting power relationships and resources. It is much less concerned with
reaching a consensus, and utilizes conflict, confrontation, direct action and
negotiation in order to address social injustice, deprivation and inequality.
Rothman and others have treated these three intervention approaches in
isolation from one another since their creation in 1968. I state that they were
“treated’ in isolation until only recently rather than “practiced” in isolation
because in actuality, they have always been practiced in some form of
combination. I would argue that holistic community practice has always existed
in that social environments have always been considered to be complex and
multi-faceted, and that there has always existed a minimum of four dimensions
within the domain of social work practice. Many factors have since contributed
to this shift to a holistic way of thinking. Science (or the old science of
analyses, reductionism rigorous empiricism) was unable to account for the
dynamic and unpredictable nature of the social environment, as well as the
increasing skepticism of the medical model that pathologized the individual and
ignores the impact of environmental factors at play. I feel that a discovery of
the relationships between variables, situational factors (which are always
unique) and a focus on interactions rather than on tangible subjects or issues
to represent the most fundamental principles to holistic community practice and
social work practice in general.
Rothman (1996) has since expanded his three-pronged model of community
intervention to incorporate an overlapping and intermixing of approaches within
community practice. He states that the models, illustrated previously as
mutually exclusive, are in fact interdependent, and appear in various “mixed”
forms in practice. This concept is consistent with a generalist paradigm of the
profession. The generalist paradigm is able to address situations from a
multitude of perspectives, which take into account differing emphases,
situational variables, values and resources specific to a client’s
individuality as well as the worker’s values, theoretical orientation and
experience. Flexibility and individuality are attributes that are
characteristic of a generalist framework intervention, and are also outcomes of
using Rothman’s “intermixed” approach to community intervention. A further
advantage of using both the generalist and intermixed approaches to practice is
that it does not limit the possibilities for the client (client also meaning
community). A worker is not constrained by the framework in which he/she works,
nor is the client limited in the options that may be available to him/her.
Rothman’s new model of practice refers to an analogy of primary colors. The
primary colors are red, yellow and blue; therefore there are a minimum number
of three dimensions. The possibilities that exist from the combination of these
three colors is infinite. This is not unlike the Tetrahedron model of holistic
practice, which allows for an infinite number of dimensions to exist (Ramsay,
1994). It assumes there to be an element of unknown, and a goal to be the
minimization of its impact on the situation. Rothman aptly states: “Just as the
primary colors make up only a very small proportion of the total universe of
color, the basic intervention modes comprise only a fraction of the world of
practice” (Rothman, 1996). I think this makes an important point in that
conceptual frameworks should be used to guide our work, but that the real work
involves the art of flexibility, diversity intuitiveness.
Another discussion by Rothman regarding the dynamics of practice involves the
diversification of professional values. It has been found that professionals
are not highly integrated with regard to their values. It is now viewed to be
much more acceptable for professionals to differ with regard to their value
systems than it was in the past (Rothman, 1996: 95). The intermixing of
approaches allows for a greater diversity of value systems and aligns with the
holistic model, which incorporates the paradigm of the profession with the
domain of the practitioner (Ramsay, 1994). “The various intervention approaches
can all be applied in a way to pursue values conducive to positive social
change and human betterment (Rothman, 1996: 95). This suggests that it is not
as important to choose a particular intervention strategy or framework over
another in all situations, rather to be sensitive to each situation as unique
and to be flexible. Rothman extends this notion by stating that “there is a
need for research concerning which situational criteria, or clusters among
them, are most critical for strategy development (Rothman, 1996-97).” This
captures the component of the holistic framework that places an emphasis on
situational criteria, and the impact it has on system dynamics. This is reliant
on the nature of interactions, including all components of a system (with the
minimum being four), as well as the emphasis (or weight) that is allocated to
each individual component.
The reformulation of Rothman’s three-pronged model of community intervention
appears to be a great improvement towards the notion of a holistic practice
framework; it is broader in scope and more flexible in nature. In spite of
these improvements, it has been criticized for the limitations of its
categorization. Hyde (1996) responded with a critique of the Rothman article on
various issues. Hyde warns of the dangers of a categorical approach to
community practice, suggesting that it results in a typology of groups that are
in fact diverse and distinct (in this case feminism). Additional problems are
seen to be an absence of ideological dimensions within the framework,
longitudinal development, commitment and passion inherent in community
practice, as well as the incorporation of social movement literature (Hyde,
1996).
A fundamental critique of Rothman’s account of feminism is that he confuses the
political perspective, feminist, and the process, organizing, with
“organization” which is a structure in which mobilization can occur. This
represents a lack of clarity with regard to the unit of analysis, and implies
there is one notion of feminism when there are many existing forms. I agree
that confusing these concepts may result in a misunderstanding of feminism,
which could constrict the broad scope of existing perspectives. The concept of
holism becomes an issue of concern whereby Hyde states that feminist
interventions can be found across all modes of intervention because of the
diversity of the feminist perspective. However, I do not understand the intent
of Rothman to be the implication that feminism is limited to locality
development in connection with the social action approach (which is proposed in
his article). By offering this example of a mixed intervention perspective, I
believe he was widening the possibilities of the perspective and increasing the
scope of community practice as a whole, with the implication that interventions
may look very different depending on each specific situation.
Hyde re-illustrates the intervention chart proposed by Rothman to include
community interventions, organizational types, and feminist examples of each.
The chart clearly shows the diversity of the feminist perspective and modes of
intervention within a community practice framework. I do not feel that the
content or the significance of the chart would be questioned by Rothman (or
community practitioners in general), although I also do not feel that it was
the intent of Rothman to place limits on any perspective, and in actuality I
feel that they are both arguing the same point: the scope of community practice
is much more broad than was once perceived, and that differing perspectives are
not limited to particular intervention strategies. Further, I would propose
that Hyde’s account of the feminist perspective to be an expansion of the
Rothman conceptualization framework of community practice.
Another significant flaw of Rothman’s intervention approach as seen by Hyde is
the absence of the role of ideology within the intervention types (Hyde, 1996).
An ideology conveys the values and beliefs of an organization and has a
profound impact on the choice and implementation of an intervention. The
concept of ideology is a significant aspect of the holistic model of practice.
Ideologies are an influence in what “validates” individual thoughts and
behaviors. Ideologies can be seen in a macro perspective as the societal
beliefs and values inherent in a specific culture or area. They can also be
viewed through a micro perspective as the make-up of all the beliefs and values
of a group within a culture or within an individual.
I would not dispute the importance of ideology within a holistic practice
framework; however, it remains unclear to me where the shortcomings of the
Rothman model lie. Hyde states that ideology guides the organization in the
development, structure, process and outcomes of intervention (Hyde, 1996). I
would challenge Hyde in that although this concept is valid, ideology is not
limited to the operation of organizations as a whole. In fact, organizations
are in many ways bound by the ideologies of the society as a whole as well as
the ideologies that are held by the individuals within these organizations. The
impact of ideology on the nature of community practice intervention is
extremely complex in nature, and is a manifestation of what is valued by
society, the organization, the culture, the nature of the situation, the client
and the worker. In my opinion, this is characteristic of the notion of deep
ecology in that ideology, in many ways, represents the entire “environment” of
a system. It is an intangible force that is continually impacting every
dimension in ways that are specific to each individual situation.
I feel that
Rothman does address the concept of ideology, though perhaps not as overtly as
Hyde feels is necessary. The premise of the model reformulation is that
intervention strategies are not mutually exclusive and need to be
operationalized in conjunction with one another. This is directly linked to the
idea that differing value orientations will lead to a variety of interventions.
By mixing the approaches, it denotes an acceptance and encouragement of
ideological differentiation. Values can be plural and conflicting and include
divergent commitments without being limited to one conceptual framework.
Further, this will result in a minimization of the functional limitations that
are experienced when utilizing one specific intervention.
The concept of ideology is expanded to include a macro orientation within the
Rothman article through the discussion of the flaws of existing political
paradigms. Political ideologies, as they exist in their pure form, (e.g.
communism, liberalism) contain shortcomings that can be compensated for through
the mixing of philosophies. This discussion takes the idea of ideology beyond the
realm of organizations to include macro political forces which impact
organizational functioning.
Another criticism of the reformed three pronged model concerns the dichotomy
between process and task goals. Rothman concludes that locality development is
a process goal, social planning is a task goal and that social action is a
combination of the two. Hyde refutes this and states that interventions are
always a combination of both, and that ideology shapes the goals of all
interventions (Hyde, 1996). It is not possible to categorize the nature of
interventions in this way, and it is imperative to learn the ways in which task
and process goals balance each other within the field of community practice. I
feel that this represents the critical misunderstanding that Hyde possesses
with regard to the intermixed model. Going back to the primary colors analogy
referred to previously, the existence of the pure colors red, yellow and blue
would represent the frequency in which the individual interventions of locality
development, social planning and social action would occur within the field of
community practice. All the possible variations (or inter-mixing) of these
colors would represent the extent to which combinations of interventions are
utilized. If this represents the nature of interventions, then the process of
categorizing them is to understand where the influences of intervention
strategies originated, and allows for a greater comprehension of their uses.
Hyde largely misunderstands this concept, which I feel to be the focus of the
Rothman article.
The final criticism to be addressed by Hyde involves the passion and commitment
that community practitioners invest in their work. She believes that this is
the core of community intervention, and that it is lost in the categorization
of approaches. Hyde states that without this passion, community practitioners
have only a partial understanding of their world (Hyde, 1996). I agree with
this notion of passion and commitment, and feel that it is largely underestimated
within the literature of community practice and social work practice in
general. Perhaps due to the fact that it is difficult to conceptualize in
writing the effect that energy (including relationships and interactions) has
on the outcomes of intervention. Inherent in this dilemma, is the way of
thinking in which we as practitioners are accustomed to. This all returns back
to the question: What is science? Within scientific literature, is it
imperative for concepts to be empirical in order to be valid? This analytic way
of conceptualizing the world is not conducive to the discussion of the ways in
which passion and relationship rapport and energy effect outcomes. Does this
mean we disregard these rather existential dimensions of practice, or find a way
to reformulate what we know to be true? A grasp of the ecological framework
allows us to consider these and other variables which can not be accounted for
by alternative ways of knowing.
The previous discussion of comprehensive practice frameworks within community
practice can be applied to the field of family violence in a number of
different areas. There are many skills that social workers use to facilitate
change for the clients they work with, occurring at an individual level as well
as at the community level. Family violence is an area of social work that can
benefit in many ways from the adoption of a comprehensive model of practice.
The issues that are connected to, and influence the dynamics of the problem are
systemic in nature and should not be treated in isolation in the intervention
process. Sheriff King demonstrates a comprehensive model of practice in many of
the skills and interventions that are utilized as will be discussed. In
addition to discussing methods that I feel are the agency’s strengths I will
also suggest possible improvements towards a holistic practice framework from a
community change agent perspective.
The discussion of the methods of practice at the Sheriff King Home will begin
with a description of the agency as well as the clients in which it serves.
Sheriff King Home is an emergency shelter for abused women and their children.
The shelter defines abuse to include physical, emotional, sexual and financial
components. To my knowledge, all of the women who stayed at the shelter since
January have experienced physical abuse. The shelter can house up to
twenty-eight women and children at one time, and the maximum stay is three
weeks. In addition to providing shelter for those who have experienced abuse,
another component of the shelter is to provide housing for clients-in-need for
various reasons. It is again limited to women and their children and the
maximum stay for housing is one week. A client may be in a transitional stage
and require a place to stay if they are establishing a new residence, if they
are new to the city or are experiencing other issues that are displacing them
from their homes.
In addition to providing in-house services which include counseling, meals,
child care as well as material resources, the shelter also operates a crisis
line and facilitates psycho-educational groups on family violence. These groups
are mandatory for the shelter clients to attend in order to stay at the
shelter, and groups are also run out in the community. There are groups for women,
men and children and there can be as many as three levels to each group. It is
always a requirement to complete the first level in order to advance to the
next group. Therefore, the community that the shelter serves is two-fold, the
primary focus is on the community of abused women and children who are staying
at the shelter (as safety always takes a priority), and the second community is
based on geographic boundaries. The outreach component of the shelter provides
support to men, women and children who are currently in, or have previously
been involved in abusive relationships in the communities in which they live.
Upon entering the shelter, an assessment is done on the client in the form of
an initial intake. This is not an extensive procedure, as it is assumed that
the client may not be ready to undergo a lengthy process. This initial intake
gathers primary information about the client and the situation she is in. It
identifies the abuser and determines the level of immediate risk the woman is
in. This assessment is done within the first twenty- four hours. A secondary
intake is administered within three days of entering the shelter. This is a
detailed assessment and requires more advanced counseling skills. Included in
this process is a concrete plan of action. Goals are established for the time
the client is to stay at the shelter, as well as some future goals and possible
ways to achieve them. Also included in the secondary intake is family
background information of the client as well as her partner (past and/or
present). At this stage an assessment is done of the clients support network
(eco-map) as well as a genogram. The intake has been remodeled a number of
times in order to assess as many factors of the client’s situation as possible
before the intervention process. I feel that great improvements have been made
towards a holistic framework of assessment in that the minimum of four
dimensions of influence that Ramsay (1994) articulates have been adequately
assessed at this point.
All children which enter the shelter are also administered an intake. One focus
of the assessment is to determine the extent to which the child understands
what is happening in the family as well as the ways the child is being affected
by the crisis. A primary focus of the process is on feelings, specifically, how
does the child feel about relationships and issues in his or her life
presently. Another component of the intake assesses the child’s physical
health, affect, attachment and social skills. The intake process of both women
and children within the shelter is very thorough and meaningful. It establishes
where the social worker should proceed in the use of intervention strategies
based on where that client is at in the present time. As it has been shown that
past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior (Sheafor et al, 1997),
it is essential to establish where the client is coming from, including her
coping skills, past decisions and previous crisis outcomes.
A primary value within the shelter is that of self-determination. Counselors
always encourage and even insist that the clients decide what decision is best
for them. The fundamental role of the social worker is to provide the
information and resources which are needed to enable the client to make that decision,
as well as to offer emotional support. I have experienced this to be a
difficult balance to achieve when dealing with a woman in crisis. They often
have extremely depleted energy and feel a lack of confidence in making
decisions. They are often looking for someone who will make decisions for them.
Rather than doing this, however, the shelter tries to alleviate some of the
other stresses in the woman’s life so that she is better able to make
appropriate decisions for herself. I have to remain very conscious of this
concept in the process of helping someone, when often times this would be the
quickest and most effective way of helping in the short term. However, no one
is likely to be there for that person in other times of need and it is more
useful to foster a woman’s independence.
While I view this approach to be effective and empowering for the client, I do
believe there are some negative effects. The range of situations and women who
come to the shelter is extremely wide. Some of the circumstances that the women
are escaping are terribly abusive and frequently life threatening. I would
question anyone’s ability to make appropriate and thoughtful decisions under
these circumstances. In taking a holistic perspective, I propose that the
client should not be worked with in such a restricting way, isolating all
decisions to be made by the individual, rather, I feel it would be helpful and
perhaps relieving to have some of the responsibility of decision making shared
by a social worker. Perhaps an assessment could be created to address the
extent of mental and emotional duress experienced by the client. If it exceeded
an identified level, the degree of self-determination could be altered.
Especially in cases where you see the same client visit the shelter numerous
times, I find myself questioning the extent to which we, as social workers,
should appear value-free.
Another skill used by the workers within the agency as well as in the community
groups is the identification of client strengths. There is a great degree of
optimism in the shelter environment that stems from the attitudes and
mannerisms of the counselors. They seem to really promote an environment for
change in the belief that everyone has the inherent capacity for healthy
functioning and growth. This is particularly evident within the community
groups. A large part of the learning that takes place within the group is on
building self-esteem. In conjunction with presentation of information regarding
abuse, power and control issues, safety, anger among other topics, facilitators
(including myself) encourage clients to identify and work from their strengths.
I find this to be a very powerful process, and also one of the most rewarding
ones. At the beginning of the group I may check-in with the request of everyone
to identify something they are particularly proud of and get minimal responses,
but when the group is over and I use that statement as a check out, I most
often get positive responses from all members. I believe this encourages
clients to focus on themselves as “whole” people, and by that I mean that
problems often take over a person during a period of stress, and they may
forget of all of the positive qualities that they also possess. I would take
this one step further to argue that the dimensions of a person’s life (using
the domain of practice, Ramsay, 1994) can also be seen in an excessively
negative way, and it is important for social workers to try to achieve a
balance of a client’s self-concept.
One assessment that is perhaps not focused on enough is that of role
performances (as described in Sheafor et al, 1997). I feel this to be an
important issue to be dealt with by social workers. Many of the women at the
shelter or in the community groups experience role performance difficulties due
to the stress they are experiencing in their relationships. This is not
surprising for us as social workers, but to many women, they feel incapable or
incompetent as a mother or employee or whatever the role may be. I think more
emphasis should be placed on making the women aware that the consequences they
are experiencing in the various roles in their lives are due to the effects of
the abuse and not that they are bad mothers or workers. By normalizing and
validating their experiences, it takes the blame away from the client and
places it on the situation, which is likely beyond their control.
In connection with the idea of role performance, the social worker could
discuss with the client the notions of role conception, role expectation and
role behaviors. If a woman perceives the role of wife as being subservient and
obedient to her husband under all circumstances, it is unlikely that she will
attempt to change her life in an abusive environment. It is important to gain
an understanding of the beliefs that guide people’s behavior in order to
facilitate a change in that behavior. The questions posed by Mager and Pipe
(cited in Sheafor et al 1997) would be useful in the assessment process at the
shelter. They provide an increased understanding of the beliefs, behaviors and
self- perception of the client, and would be useful in the intervention
process.
A systemic approach is used by the shelter when working with a client. A
person-in-environment perspective (Ramsay, 1994) is acknowledged to be the most
holistic and helpful way to practice. People and behaviors are not dealt with
in isolation, and by this I mean that all parts of the family are seen as
contributing to the maintenance of a problem. The shelter encourages all family
members to attend groups, where the identical information is presented. Making
changes in one individual in a family and returning that person to an unchanged
environment is not conducive to change for that family system. In addition,
systems concepts are taught to the clients as well as used by the workers. In
the presentation of the cycle of violence, it is explained how violence tends
to spiral, and group members are encouraged to ask themselves in what ways they
may feed into that spiral, as well as identifying the points at which it can be
broken. Unhealthy patterns ingrained in family systems are illustrated, and
clients are encouraged to look at their own inter-generational patterns and
family rules.
Overall, I feel that the community practice methods utilized by the shelter are
exceptional. One issue, however, is particularly troublesome to me. It is an
issue that I feel is recognized by the shelter policies and procedures, but is
not dealt with adequately. Mental health issues frequently arise within the
shelter, although they cannot be accommodated. If it is clear from the initial
intake of the client that there are mental health concerns, then that woman is
not permitted to stay at the shelter. The belief is that it is disturbing to
the other residents, who also have issues to deal with. In many cases, however,
it is difficult to determine the nature of a person’s mental health (especially
because there is not a psychologist or psychiatrist to confer with). Therefore,
a woman is admitted and goes through the same process as a woman without mental
health concerns.
As mental health is an extremely serious issue, it is unlikely that the woman
will be able to make progress and change in other aspects of her life without
some form of treatment. As this treatment is not available, all other
interventions used will be in vain. This is an inefficient use of time and
resources as well as set-up for failure on the client’s behalf. An increase
towards a holistic practice framework should include partnerships in practice
with other professionals to increase the quality of service given to clients.
By recognizing areas in which social work interventions can be used
effectively, as well as situations in which a referral would be more
appropriate promotes a significant advancement toward holistic practice as it
is perceived by all of the helping professions. As a community practice change
agent, I would recommend a rotating psychiatrist to all three of the women’s
shelters in the city. The social workers could establish a list of clients they
would refer on a weekly basis. If a diagnosis of mental illness were made, the
client would be in a position to access the resources she needed (medication,
hospitalization, therapy, etc.). This process would decrease the number of
women who are falling through the cracks of the system.
It seems to me that there is a large fear of duplicating services in the field
of social work. I can understand this fear due to ever decreasing funding for
social services. It is difficult to balance the coordination of services for
clients, especially when many clients require numerous services. We must be
careful, however, to not let these people slip through the system because they
fall outside our mandate in whatever way. In our journey towards a holistic
method of practice, I see there to be two vital components in which we need to
focus. As social workers, we need to be thoughtful of the many dimensions that
make up an individual’s life, and be conscious that they can never be limited
to a finite number of influences. As a component of the helping profession, we
need to be conscious of the area in which we work, as well as the areas within
the domain which serve clients in ways (and address dimension) we cannot This
conscious awareness will ultimately benefit the many needs which individuals
present. This requires an excellent communication system between social service
agencies. I believe a closer network needs to be formed within the various
agencies, especially those who are serving many of the same clients.
References
Capra FJ (1996).
Deep ecology - A new paradigm. The Web of Life (3-13). New York: Anchor
Books.
Hyde C (1996). A Feminist Response to Rothman’s “The Interweaving of Community
Intervention Approaches.” Journal of Community Practice, 3, 127-145.
Ramsay R (1994). Conceptualizing PIE within a holistic conception of
social work. In J Karls and K Wandrei (eds), Person-in-Environment System: The PIE Classification System for Social
Functioning Problems (171-195). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Rothman J (1996). The Interweaving of Community Intervention Approaches. Journal
of Community Practice, 3, 69-99.
Sheafor B & Horejsi G (1997). Techniques
and Guidelines for Social Work Practice (4th edition). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.