A Social Development Practice Framework To Support Low-Income Families with Children

Transcription

1 To Support Low-Income Families with Children Briefing Paper June 5, 2008 Prepared by: Heather Froome and Noreen Steinacher Social Planning, Policy and Program Administration Division of the Region of Waterloo

2

3 An Overview of the NCB Reinvestment Initiative Report In 2007, the Region completed a review and analysis of the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Initiative from The research assessed four levels of impact: Assisting children and families; Building the capacity of community; Strengthening the network of local organizations; and Enhancing the relationship between community partners and the Region. The initiative contributed substantially to strengthening the systems of support in all four areas. The National Child Benefit (NCB) report summarizes lessons learned and challenges for the future. Some of the challenges (or creative tensions) that were highlighted included: Patch or cure Is the initiative addressing the root causes of poverty or simply alleviating its symptoms? Service delivery or community development Is the initiative incorporating social services into a community development paradigm or are community groups being drawn into social service delivery? Integration or navigation Has the initiative fostered greater integration of programs and services or simply provided a tool to help navigate what remains a fragmented system? The report summarizes that the foundation has been laid for outreach to low income families and challenges those involved to take the work to a new level and align these efforts with other social policy directives. The Purpose of a Practice Framework Upon completion of the NCB report, the Administrator, Social Development Programs and the NCB Reference Group began to explore the role of the outreach program in the context of the communities in which they work. The following questions emerged: Is there a bigger picture framework that can effectively describe the work? What if we were to consider the interconnectivity of the strategies, roles and functions? What if we were to intentionally frame the partnerships between informal and formal service providers so that we may better understand the work we do together? It was through efforts to address these questions that the practice framework evolved. The purpose of the practice framework is to acknowledge the fluidity of social development in progress. It is an attempt to leverage the activities that may address the tensions identified in the NCB report and achieve a balance as we work toward the long term goals. Page 1 of 8

4 The Practice Framework The practice framework (an appendix to this briefing paper) is rooted in lessons learned from the NCB Reinvestment Initiative The practice framework will be described in terms of the following: grounding in social development theory; theory of social networks; and social capital. It will then move to a description of social capacity building strategies; staff functions; and interventions that lead to long term outcomes. It is important to highlight that the long term outcomes of the NCB Reinvestment Initiative include: strengthening the system of supports; reducing poverty; developing an increased sense of belonging and well-being and increasing attachment to the workforce. Theory of the Practice Framework a) Social Development: Consistent with the overall context of the NCB Reinvestment Initiative, the practice framework is rooted in social development theory and is dedicated to the following: It is people-centred - tailors supports to the realities of specific individuals and groups. It is dynamic - responds flexibly to changes in people s circumstances and offers stable, long-term support when needed. It is responsive and participatory - provides opportunities for people in poverty to identify and address priorities, and for those providing support to listen and respond. It takes a multi-level approach ensures that grassroots experience informs public policy and macro-level institutions support people to build on their strengths. It is pursued through partnership - promotes collaboration among all stakeholders. (Region of Waterloo, 2007) The practice framework is also place-based in that it recognizes the person-in-environment and their social networks. The model is delivered at the community level through collaborative clusters with outreach workers and other Social Development Program (SDP) partners working directly in and with the community. b) Social Networks The Anne Casey Foundation (2006) in the United States published an article titled, Tapping the power of social networks: Understanding the role of social networks in strengthening families and transforming communities (Jordan, 2006). This article marks the first in a series of five articles that explore the literature on social networks, the significance of social networks and tools for mapping and measuring the development of social networks. The definition they use to explain social networks is: A social network is a set of people (or organizations or other social entities) connected by a set of social relationships, such as friendship, co-working, or information exchange (Graton et al., 1997). Page 2 of 8

5 Jordan (2006) asserts that, social networks provide the scaffolding or framework upon which successful community-building efforts are created (p.8). Social networks are the actual connections between people. Without these connections communities would be unable to build social capital, civic participation, collective efficacy, and organize or develop community. Essentially, relationships are the connective tissue of communities. Jordan (2006) emphasizes that the promotion of positive social networks may be the key ingredient to creating authentic, sustainable transformations in struggling neighbourhoods (p.6). Jordon outlines three main types of social networks: informal social networks; generalized social networks; and institutional social networks (described below). Jordan (2006) writes, efforts to build social networks in poor communities without attention to creating bridging and linking ties to institutional social networks (power) will not have a long-term, structural impact and could even result in more intense isolation of poor people (p. 20). Social networks are a necessary precursor to the development of social support and social capital. c) Social Capital Social capital theory is increasingly seen as a useful concept for understanding the role of relations and networks in social and economic development. After two years of consultation and research, the Canadian government, through its Policy Research Initiative (PRI), concludes that government action could be more effective if relevant programs and initiatives recognized the role of social capital and if social capital were considered in a more explicit and deliberate way. PRI (2005) suggests that social capital has particularly important implications for three key areas of public policy: helping populations at risk of social exclusion; supporting key life-course transitions; and promoting community development. Social capital theory has been criticized for neglecting considerations of power but Woolcock (2001) asserts: At its best, a social capital perspective recognizes that exclusion from (public, private, and civic) institutions is created and maintained by powerful vested interests, but that marginalized groups themselves possess unique social resources that can be used as a basis for overcoming that exclusion, and as a mechanism for helping forge access to these institutions. Intermediaries such as NGOs have a crucial role to play in such a process, because it takes a long time to earn both the confidence of the marginalized, and the respect of the institutional gatekeepers. In short, it takes an articulated effort of both top-down and bottom-up to help overcome this exclusion, but it can be, has been and is being done, with positive and lasting results. Gerwirtz, Dickson, Power, Halpin, & Whitty (2005) in their article on the deployment of social capital theory describe three main sources of social capital. Page 3 of 8

6 Bonding capital is derived from informal social networks and is used to refer to dense, tight-knit, homogeneous social networks of family or friends who can provide practical, emotional and psychological support and safety net in times of crisis. Bridging capital - is derived from generalized social networks and is used to refer to more heterogeneous horizontal social networks that give people access to valuable resources and information outside their immediate network of friends and relations. Linking capital is derived from institutional social networks and refers to vertical associations that provide links for communities upwards to powerful people, institutions and agencies. (p.668). In their analysis of the social capital building approach, Gewirtz et al (2005) emphasize the importance of a capacity focused participatory approach for project design and implementation. Respect for people s cultures, ways of life, and values are essential for their dignity and willingness to participate in the engagement process. Gewirtz et al (2005) write, recognition is not just about inclusion in other people s agendas. Rather, it is about valuing whatever it is that is important to people and ensuring that policy agendas reflect and do not deny the breadth and depth of people s experiences and perspectives. Woolcock (2001) described social capital formation in terms of strategies: Bonding Strategies build trust and cooperation among individuals. Bridging strategies break down barriers across groups and communities and enable collaborative action on shared objectives. Scaling-up or Linking strategies connect communities in collective action for policy and systems level social change and development. Strategy of the Practice Framework The practice framework acknowledges the theory (above) upon which the community outreach work is grounded. It then proceeds to address strategies that are connected to the work of the outreach worker (i.e., bonding and bridging) and intentionally names other strategies and work activities that involve linking and mobilizing low-income families. Bonding activities may include outreach, recreation, parent drop-in, self-help, and other informal support networks and activities. Bonding activities help people to get by. Page 4 of 8

7 Bridging activities may address immediate family needs through concrete support from the Basic Needs Fund, may bridge to agency services, neighbourhood organizations and related activities, bridge to education and employment or to advocacy that assists with a transitioning activity. Bridging activities help people to get ahead. Linking activities occur at the level of the community organization/neighbourhood centres. It is place-based in that it is tied to a community space for the promotion of social belonging and principles of family wellness. It is through this strategy that we can begin to develop community and address needs on a larger scale at the same time we are building leadership capacity and know-how at the individual level. Linking activities will include community leadership building, community engagement, problem identification, priority setting and solution finding. It is important for the community to address problems in a participatory way, striving for cultural inclusiveness and giving value and meaning to that community. Linking activities help people to get influence. The PRI Social Capital Project (2005) explains that a social capital perspective focuses on a more co-ordinated approach to service delivery, decision making, and problem solving based on a recognition of the role of formal and information networks. Out of this work springs the next level of activity mobilizing activity. Mobilizing activities expand on Woolcock s (2001) social capital formation and takes it a step further considering activities such as larger scale community mobilization, service integration and coordination and civic entrepreneurship. Through collaborative efforts, communities can mobilize around macro areas of concern for policy and systems level social change and development. Mobilization activities help people to get results. The NCB report highlights the importance of a participatory approach with low-income families. Some SDP partners (by virtue of their community development history) may well be utilizing a participatory approach and their experiences have shaped this practice framework. For others, the act of engaging low-income families in problem identification, priority setting, and solution finding may very well be new territory. If embraced, the activities can facilitate the development of important social networks and a level of empowerment that is valued and supported in this framework. Function of the Practice Framework Everett, Homestead and Drisko (2007) authored an article that analyzes empowermentoriented practice from the perspective of clients and workers in high-risk communities. Team leaders and family support workers were able to articulate six stages associated with this empowerment process (i.e., recruitment, engagement, involvement, retention, partnership and leadership). Further, they emphasize the important shift in roles during various stages of the process. In the practice framework, the staff function describes ways of working that Page 5 of 8

8 complement the different strategies described for capital formation. To support the empowerment process, it is believed that two staff functions are necessary: 1) Engager/Connector (e.g., outreach worker) establishes relationships, recruits and engages new families, shares knowledge, connects families to emotional, recreational, and concrete supports (i.e., Basic Needs Fund). 2) Facilitator (e.g., community centre resource coordinator) is a connector and weaver in the community with a focus on skill building, hearing the stories of the community and the outreach worker. The facilitator may supervise the outreach worker and others, analyze patterns, focus on organizational capacity building, leadership development, facilitating community planning activities and reaching out to other formal service partners to bring in necessary supports and resources. The facilitator function engages service partners who may include: community members; social services; health and public health services; education; recreation; housing; cultural/multicultural; and crime prevention services. The list of participating agencies is fluid and tied specifically to the needs and interests of a particular community. The facilitator takes on the role of weaver as the connecting process, information sharing, planning and skill building activities are carried out in a top-down and bottom up manner. The collaborative clusters described in the practice framework represent neighbourhoodbased organizations and their service partners. The facilitator will work with service partners to engage system partners who may include: social planning councils; comprehensive community initiatives; community impact councils (United Way); agencies; religious groups; municipal governments, the Region and other collaboratives (e.g., Alliance for Children and Youth, Community Food Systems Roundtable, Waterloo Region Shares, ROWCAPS, Opportunities Waterloo Region Leadership Roundtable). These groups have the potential to act as the transformative leaders to effect system and policy change. 3) Transformative leaders (e.g., variety of service and system partners) are focused on long-term change, change management, redefining goals, embedding change, taking responsibility for change agendas, and will work to excite, inspire and energize others around system and policy change. The agendas of transformative leaders draw the process back to task on humanness, moral and ethical concerns like social well-being and poverty reduction. It is important to acknowledge that there are many others who contribute to the social development practice framework (e.g., peer nutrition workers, community health workers, community engagement workers, recreation workers, parenting and child support workers). Everett et al (2007) emphasize the importance of training and supervision for all frontline workers in order to equip them to work toward a common goal of effective empowerment practice. Page 6 of 8

9 Interventions in the Practice Framework The practice framework also describes intervention types including: practical interventions (service delivery) and strategic interventions (planning activities). Service delivery involves the provision of concrete, social and emotional supports for low-income families. Practical interventions also encompass the relationship building and engagement activities that lead to the development of social capital (bonding and bridging) and this in turn represents the first stage of community development. Importantly, the practice framework is addressing one of the NCB tensions (i.e., the tension between service delivery and community development). The practice framework identifies the need to integrate the work of service delivery and community development activities into responsive and practical interventions. As communities move toward strategic interventions (i.e., collaboration, integration, policy and systems level social change and development), the practice framework highlights the importance of striking a balance between these intervention types (practice intervention and strategic intervention) and maintaining this balance. It is clear that community members exist at many stages of development throughout the framework. There is always fluidity of entry, progression and regression through the various stages (Everett et al., 2007). The practice framework acknowledges that individuals and communities can be working at many different stages at once and although the process is often fluid, the overall context is one that moves back and forth between practical interventions and strategic interventions. This movement mirrors the necessary balance between the individual (micro) capacity building activities and activities with a broader scale capacity building focus (macro) that will address the long term goal: to strengthen the system of supports for low income families. Next Steps The Social Development Practice Framework should be examined for relevance to the current and future work of the community centres/sponsoring agencies in which outreach workers are housed. If there is agreement that the practice framework accurately describes the context, the next step in the process should include a discussion about how to move the practice framework forward and redefine or clarify the approach to be taken as informal and formal partners in the next phase of the Community Outreach Program. Page 7 of 8

10 References Everett, J., Homstead, K., & Drisko, J. (2007). Frontline worker perceptions of the empowerment process in community-based agencies. National Association of Social Workers, 52 (2). Gewirtz, S., Dickson, M., Power, S., Halpin, D., & Whitty, G. (2005). The deployment of social capital theory in educational policy and provision: the case of Education Action Zones in England. British Educational Research Journal, 31(6), Government of Canada. (2005). Policy research initiatives' social capital: A tool for public policy. Briefing Note. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from Jordan, A. (2006). Tapping the power of social networks: Understanding the role of social networks in strengthening families and transforming communities. Baltimore, Maryland: The Anne Casey Foundation. Retrieved May 27, 2008 from Region of Waterloo. (2007). Waterloo Region s national child benefit reinvestment iniative A social development approach to supporting the needs of low-income families with children. Waterloo, ON: Region of Waterloo, Social Services. Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Isuma. Canadian Journal of Policy Research/Revue canadienne de recherché sur les politiques. Ottawa: Government of Canada s Policy Research Secretariat. Vol 2, No. 1 (Spring, 2001). Page 8 of 8

11 (Place-based) Low income families with children Theory Social Development Strategy Bonding Bridging Linking Mobilizing Outreach Recreation Parent drop-in Self-help groups Informal support networks Basic Needs Funds Bridge to agency services Bridge to neighbourhood organizations Bridge to education Bridge to employment Advocacy Community engagement Community priority setting Problem identification and solution finding Collaborative Clusters Linking with formal services Community mobilization Integration Coordination Civic Entrepreneurship Function engager connector facilitator transformative leader Intervention Long Term Outcome