|
Hi Again,
Lets just recap from the 'home' page for a minute.
If we choose to write and speak simplistically, in Plain English, this
satisfies most of us. If this writing (and these conversations) come
from a more emotional perspective, this best expresses the
frustrations experienced by many, if not most who work within
and receive these services. This style can also succinctly
describe 'felt' needs & 'felt' community & service 'obligations'.
Obligations that, in fact, do exist for everyone who wishes to
enjoy the wider benefits of Community resources,
as we will demonstrate. Unfortunately even Plain English can be
confounding when it is difficult to understand 'why' a service
is not available to you, when you 'feel' you need it and 'feel'
justified in asking.
Unfortunately we now mostly live within very critical &
rather self-centred societies, that are usually poorly persuaded
by purely emotional arguments. When we are trying to get
help from a service (that we are now beginning not to
understand) emotional arguments are often all we have available
to us. This emotional approach does not work well where:
Money is at stake; Where demands on a service are excessive;
There is an impact upon and a need for adjustments (or
accommodation) by the local community, or service; Where services & issues
(and you) tend to challenge
peoples' existing assumptions & prejudices; Or, Where there
is a lack of basic, understanding of Human Rights, Civic
Entitlements, Legal Constraints, Civil Requirements and all the associated responsibilities
that go with the benefits that we should 'all' enjoy.
Put simply; Plain English, with an 'emotional' slant, does not work well with the
'less
socially attractive' Adolescent, Adult and Older Adult problems, needs
services and social issues. The emotional concerns
of the 'Child', by contrast, or comparison, does generate very adequate
responses (although not always the best kind). It is easy to
evoke a positive and supportive responses to a child, or
children in distress. Child Care Professionals, or Child
Protection Services, are more likely to be responsive to these
more emotional presentations than the equivalent 'Adult Care'
Services. If the issue is not critical, though, the likelihood
of support is much lower.
So, If you are and Adult, or Adolescent, and your problem does not 'scale up'
to a serious problem (yet); Or you are an an older child (or representing one)
who is not at serious, immediate risk; Or, you are any age, are disabled and
have a carer who is managing adequately; If you are obtaining a service but
don't feel it is adequate, or good quality, but are safe; If you already have
another problem, that is being addressed by another service; Or, quite frankly,
if you are requesting a service and your face, or attitude doesn't quite fit,
and there are no immediate risks; Any and all of these factors will reduce the
chance of getting the service you requested, in a time scale that you feel
appropriate.
On the other hand, over time, people with Visual, Hearing, Physical and Learning disabilities
have tended to
get a better 'Press' these days, but this is often
obtained by 'emotionalising' the disabilities and to some degree
'disempowering' the people with these disabilities. To get the
sympathetic responses, in order to raise the profile of these
service users' needs, it is often felt necessary to resort to
the same kinds of simplistic and emotional arguments that are
used to raise the concerns for 'children in need'. There is
nothing basically wrong with this but we are dealing with adults
in this case and their wish is ultimately to be seen and treated
as adults, being able to speak for and represent themselves,.
In general, simple, emotional argument (on its own, at least)
does not work well with the professionals, who are firstly going
to protect their position as 'experts', to some degree,
retaining their expert language and concepts. These do have a
significant 'key' effect in getting access to specialist
services. More importantly, they also need these persuasive,
'rational arguments' to present to bosses and funders, in order
to obtain the services for their Patients and Clients. This is
now a significant, time consuming part of their job, if not the
most efficient part of the process of providing the service.
Resources are scarce and they are often poorly organised.
Providing a service to people, even children who are a emotional
and psychological risk, is significantly rationed in various
ways. It is often difficult to understand why this would be the
case. Using the right language is often critical to getting a
service. This is why it is important to understand these other,
'professional' languages, at least to some degree. This is a
true for Health Workers seeking Social / Community Care funding
& services, Social Care Workers seeking Health Care funding and
services, or for Service Users and Family Carers, trying to gain
access to some of these services.
You could, of course, try and rely upon the Professional you
are approaching to 'translate' your needs (or those of you
client of patient) into the appropriate language to obtain the
service that was felt to be needed. If you do rely on this, you
may be stomped; if they do not agree with that identified need.
Knowing the appropriate language will help you ensure that the
needs were adequately expressed in terms that were most likely
get a beneficial result for you, or the person you are
representing. It is very frustrating and can be distressing but
it is how things are at the moment. To get any specialist help
from mainstream, Health & Social Care institutions is quite a
challenge, even for many professionals.
Whether we are Professionals, Volunteers, Family Carers &/or Service Users,
we operate within, and with, very rational and somewhat intellectual,
and what are often described as 'risk
averse' (fearful) institutions. These institutions have become very skilled at:
Defending
financial resources; justifying some 'restrictive practices'
(withholding help); protecting themselves from litigation; and
also displacing general criticism onto others (including
yourself). The more defensive these institutions and services
become the more criticism they generate.
It is a bit of a vicious circle of 'relative' ignorance
with little 'transparency'. By this I mean; each bit of
the service knows itself well, but other parts of the services
relatively poorly. Any particular service is has to protect its
scarce resources and seeks to displace demands onto other
services where it can. In doing this they are not as open as
they should be (not transparent as government would say).
Other parts of the services do the same kind of thing and these
is often a 'gap' in the middle and, for that matter, often at
either end. Don't ask me why this is able and allowed to happen.
frankly I find it incredible that this still goes on. The only
viable explanation is, that it limits the take up of services
and financial resources and forces people to further 'qualify'
to obtain them.
These services and other resources, are barely adequate if
they were used well. An institutions defensive character is
partially due to the fact that it is realised they are not used
efficiently and they are inadequate. Further more, they are
constrained (or feel constrained) to publically admit this
limitation in simple English. This is another reason to learn
and understand the special language used. It is a real Catch 22. This means increasing amounts of
resources are allocated to plugging the dyke (stopping the
'leaks'), rather than fixing the actual problems of providing
appropriate and efficient, transparent & robust services, which
tend not to produce 'leaks' (and other complaints). If you
feel that this is dishonest, you are probably right.
It is a real irony that the level of criticism & litigation (suing)
that Services Institutions experience, almost certainly correlates,
or corresponds closely
with how 'defensive' (self protecting) the institutions
& professions have
become. This general
defensive stance also colours, and often prejudices, the
professional attitudes and practices. Individual professionals
can
also become defensive, even Family Carers and Service Users pick up
on this and can even become apologetic in making their requests and
demands, or else angry and increasingly over demanding, often
seen then, as problem patients and clients. This is progressive
effect which often not fully recognised. It reduces the quality
& effectiveness of the services we are all attempting to
provide. As a consequence, institutions do not produce the kind
of empowering (none-dependency creating) services that users and
family carers would be inclination to accept.
Most of this happens outside the professional's control and
is a consequence of the 'detached' 'executive' management
attitudes, people who are not necessarily 'best fitted' to
manage at that level, or who were never best fitted to
understand the purpose of the services being provided (or,
sadly, both). This is not unfair criticism of them. There is
always a 'miss fit' when professionals become managers. Or if
commercially orientated people manage 'people services'. There
is a fundamentally different purpose and intention that
contrasts 'social & health care' organisations versus 'products,
commercial & financial service' organisations.
The more ideal arrangement would be to have the
professional / caring services and the financial / budgetary
arrangements separated. Each side accountable to their own
specialist chains of command. Currently, pretty well every
'purchased' service and change in circumstance, requires a
separate funding applications and decision at a high managerial
level.
Attempting to keep 'a foot in both camps', in this way, is almost
impossible, with the constraints & demands that are unreasonably
placed upon them. It is executive managers' job to make this
clear to those who 'pay the piper', so I have little sympathy
(especially since I have been there myself and had the courage
to do this). This responsibility does not stop at Managers,
though, we all have responsibility to demonstrate where systems
fail to do their job, miss spend, inefficiently use public
funds, or infringe human and statutory rights (even when by
neglect or lack of foresight). We are not running a fashion show
either. Some things are fundamental and shouldn't have to be
part of a big experiment in style and fashion. Leave the
economics to the bankers and backers of services and make sure
they are there to 'facilitate' services.
To counter this tendency and to make an adequate stand for
the rights and entitlements of service users, the community, and (not
incidentally), to improve the quality of professional
employment, practices and good will; We also have to present
sound 'rational' arguments that effectively challenges
established attitudes and practices. We have to prove (whether
we like it or not), that the current way of doing things falls a
long way short of the obligations they have, to provide a
quality of service that is perfectly possible with the finances
that are available. We also have to demonstrate, when given the
chance to do so, how things can be improved.
If I were to stick to the simple argument alone these would
be 'shot down' and dismissed very quickly. Emotional, passionate
assertions have their part to play and I
enjoy presenting issues in that way, but they are not adequate
on their own to 'change' and 'improve' practices and services.
If, on the other hand, we just stuck to the 'rational' arguments, supporting our
case with logic and evidence, this would be tiresome and may
tend to go over the heads of many. Some would feel overwhelmed
and complain that such simple ideas and principles have to be
presented in this complex way.
I actually agree with you (if that is how you feel). It is
very frustrating that there are people (at any level) in the
caring professions and services, who appear not to be capable of
understanding and adjusting services to better reflect the needs
and wishes of those who have to suffer them. Some people can be
very 'dumb' in their sophisticated, intellectual, or rational
understanding. This has always been the case. Institutions do
have a 'dumbing down' effect and sometimes this is tantamount to
bullying, neglect and mismanagement of people, services &
resources (finances). Many professionals and Managers know this,
others are in partial, or complete denial. It frankly
embarrasses them.
I therefore ask you to trust us, at least to begin
with. The services
do significantly fail us all and do not understand, as
institutions, the real life situations and constraints that make
us who we are! Hopefully you will understand this as we move forward. So, I ask you bear with us and 'trust' these intellectual
arguments are doing their appropriate job 'else where' and
accept that our emotional arguments are evidence of our genuine
commitment to 'the cause' of community services, the empowerment
of service users and the general improvement of conditions for
committed professional, wanting to do a more effective and
honest job.
In that process, I would also ask you to read and engage with
these more rational arguments. They are understandable,
but are designed to be very precise. These can almost certainly
be improved upon without necessarily loosing precision and
meaning. There will be some who are skilful at this already and
will understand that simple changes 'can' change meanings
significantly. The needed adjustments will have to be cautious but the
debate is good and often sharpens the focus and arguments to our
mutual benefit. Please respond and contribute. I promise we will
take account of all contributions and make them available on the
site, should you wish this, and accredited to you, should you
wish this.
Please don't feel that this 'rational' understanding is beyond you, it
probably is not. I used to find it very difficult to read and
write in logical and rational ways, especially concerning social
issues. I have a measure of dyslexia and problems maintaining
attention, which has only improved with time and practice. It
would be great if people would just trust in our integrity and
expertise, unfortunately this is not always enough these days.
Services are controlled by accountants and solicitors in large
measure. We have to face realities and accept responsibility for
ourselves also. Speaking out takes courage, unfortunately,
because of how well defended these institutions are.
The formal process for specific complaint are there, use
them. Even the worst examples of service have this channel, they
are obliged to have this and to encourage service users and
family carers to use the complaints (and suggestions) process.
The better organised services use these as evidence for moving
services forward. You will often get an apology (assuming you are judged to have a
case) and there will at least be a local adjustment to meet your
complaint. It is not, however, an effective way of getting (or
seeing) a more general improvement of services. These
institutional processes are slow, cumbersome and the issues
often fall down the list of priorities, relative to keeping up
the 'protection' & conserving finances.
There are also many initiatives for 'including' service users,
family carers and ordinary members of the community, in the
decision processes and development of 'people centred' community
services. These are a welcome developments and a move in the
right direction. Their failing is that they assume that this has
to be limited to having a couple of more vocal members of
representative groups, on a committee set up and organised by
the 'institution'.
This limited arrangement is understandable, institutions
often don't know of a more dynamic way of doing things. They
work by committees. It has
been some time since a 'service user' or a 'campaigning group'
had a 'radical' impact upon 'local' services. Institutions take
great ideas, get excited then pass them through committees, where
powerful interested parties ponder, modify and make them safe
for the existing provision. They cant help this, its in their
nature remember. It can take months and even years for an idea
to get into practice and by the time they do get to us, they are
practically unrecognisable as new ideas. Ideas get corrupted and
distorted by
this process.
Take consolation that institutions are 'defensive'. It slows
up 'over reaction' a little and leaves novelty and real progress to the
rest of us. My love of science & technology gave me the focus and
precision needed to win arguments for service users and
employees, and for advancing services at the request of 'more insightful' service managers. This was in spite of the clever
antics of accountants and solicitors and those managers who just
want a quite life, few hassles and retire without having rocked the boat.
The 'service user' sanctioned services, that were produced in
this way, were usually more cost effective than the
'institutional' forms of service. They were also more readily
taken up by other service users. It makes sense really, doesn't
it. Well, apparently not to everyone.
My earliest experience of 'a disclosure' of a professional,
who was concerned about the serious mismanagement of a service, was when
I was under 11 years of age. This person was in considerable
distress and had been suspended from his job. He came door to
door to get local residents to understand the nature of the
issue he had raised within his organisation. He was very polite,
logical, clear in his thinking, committed to his principles,
stuck to the facts, warned of the consequences for the community
and had the greatest respect for local authority services
generally. He was a 'systems' man. With
all that, he was very frightened concerning the
consequences for himself and his confidence and mental
health was clearly on a
knife edge.
I will never forget the effects on this very
intelligent and committed person, even at the age of 11. It gave
me a perspective on why professional people put up with such
'crap' from some managers and so much distortion from the basic
principles & ethics of their professions & occupations. Fear is
a big factor in people keeping quiet and not challenging the
inefficient and inappropriate behaviour of managers and
colleagues. This fear is not just the normal consequence of
adult bulling and manipulating (the kids kind), which is bad
enough. It extends to undermining peoples good practices and
confidence, by interference & judgments, often because it
may shows
others up as incompetent &/or failing in their duties. This
modern fear comes out of the powerful use of 'intellectual' and
more
'academic' arguments, to play 'mind games' with peoples
commitments and emotions. So much for dignity at work, eh!
If you want to challenge these kinds of situations, you need to get organised
within an existing support group of some kind and learn a little how the
'system' works, the language used and the channels to go through. You will
eventually get a service but you may have to change the way you go about it. We
are often too apologetic and do not clearly demonstrate the urgency of our needs
and the developing risks to ourselves and others.
Just a final point. There is nothing in our emotional, or
rational arguments (my own, or that of others), presented on
this site, which is not substantially supported, by specific and
more general evidence. This evidence has been gained and
recorded during a 30 year operational research on my part, in
the statutory and voluntary services. In addition are the
anecdotes and reflective accounts of the experience of service
users, past and present, including those who are currently being supported
by the services. Much of this evidence is publishable, in that
time has made it anonymous enough &/or adequate permissions have
been gained to publish. Other evidence is in preparation for
publishing, having made it anonymous enough to protect those who
provided it.
Thank you for bearing with us and please contribute in any
way you can. The provision of services to the community is an
exciting venture and the constant improvement keeps us focused
of who they are intended for.
See Also: Written Material
|
NOTE:
This Document is still at some stage of
development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its
logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see
its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary.
I thank you, in advance, for any
contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in
any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is
also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and
individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate
activities.
Copyright:
Although you will see very few reference
to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to
the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and
clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this
rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading.
If any content of this document
describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where,
(prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I
acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for
financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to
retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have
made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a
past influences.
Other than this, I invite you to share
and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of
individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for
constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing.
Should you wish to use any material
presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web
site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current
Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory
(unless stated otherwise).
This 'Reading Date' may be an important
part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will
be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those
following up on such a reference at a later date.
Thank you for your cooperation.
TRC. eMail:
terry.couchman@visitweb.org
|
