Open Family have a flexible and innovative approach which allows its workers to correspond directly with clients and their social environment. This correlates with Barnes, D and Hugman, R (2002 p.280-1) views on “The roles of social work”; indicating evidence of it’s operation on ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ levels, accounting for both ‘private troubles’ of individuals and ‘public issues’ bringing about broad-ranging changes in societal arrangements.
Open Family also intends to achieve growth in the number of workers providing the Open Family model of assistance so that alienated children have access to a street outreach worker ( OF.com), characterizing the agencies unconditional practice and commitment to reconnecting disadvantaged children to mainstream supports.
There are many significantly disadvantaged groups within society; this includes disadvantaged children, homeless children and the target group “street children”. Open Family’s estimate of the target group is 15,000 which are consistent with about 0.079% of the population (OFA Annual report, 2002 p.7). Professionals within the agency deal with “street children” usually voluntary or non-voluntary clients who are aged 18 or less.
The target group are defined as children who:
are most alienated and excluded from society, face a host of complex problems, engage in significant anti-social and self- destructive behaviour, are often chronically homeless, distrust formalised services, under-utilise available helping resources, and exist beyond and below the boundaries of traditional welfare systems (OF.com).
These children’s immediate concerns are survival and shelter, as a result of being detached from their families due to poverty, overcrowding within the household, sexual or physical abuse resulting in homelessness or institutional care. Furthermore it is worth noting that these children are in the streets as a method of coping with issues such as; drug use, health and mental health, crime and unemployment.
The devastating demand and direction of this target group has fostered the development of Open Family, providing social and welfare work within Australia. The agency provides programs such as: Accommodation, health, education, employment, training, legal, social and recreational opportunities. These programs are inherently driven by the professional services and values of its workers which include: Significant resource persons, individualised support, out of hour’s availability, non-coercive offer of assistance and continuity in the child-worker relationship (OF.com).
The agencies central emphasis on offering relationships instead of services foregrounds a postmodernist approach to social work within the organisation. This approach is expressed by Poulin, J (2000 p. 10-11) as constructivism, which is based on the assumption that language is used to construct our perceptions of our reality.
Essentially the organisations auspice and funding arrangements was a vehicle for the ongoing services and induced its development and success. Open Family’s income consists of fundraising from; government grants and provisions( limited), donations and grants by companies and philanthropic trusts, endowment fund and other incomes ( OFA Annual report 2002 p.1).
Consequently as a not-for-profit organisation, Open Family notably struggle to provide sustainable funding, and ultimately rely on the generosity and contributions from a wide range of support. “Funding is gathered through individuals, families, bequests benefactors, charitable trusts and foundations, companies, service clubs, community groups, anonymous donors and church groups (OFA Annual Report 2002 p.10)”,moreover what needs stressing is the limitation of government support.
Statistics show that government grants only cover 32% of total income in contrast with the 68% of income coming from donations and contributions, emphasizing its lack of assistance, limiting the services and resources provided to “street children” by the organisation. Open Family allocates 89% of expenditure to street work operations consisting of; wages and staff cost, welfare costs, motor vehicle and travel costs, rent and building outgoings. Not surprisingly the high percentage of expenditure on street work operations is directly related to reality of the core problem which needs to be addressed.
Meanwhile Open Family’s financial objective “intends to achieve growth in revenues so that our operations can be funded reliably from one year to the next, providing a street outreach worker within reach of alienated children throughout Australia”(OF.com);this creates conditions for work at grass roots levels, giving alienated youths a voice and connection to society.
It is worth pointing out that the organisation has not reached its full potential, lacking workers, government funding, in turn reveals under resourced communities and the shortage of access to services to clients. Even more importantly this sheds light on the fact that there are other disadvantaged groups who also need the services and support Open Family provide. Nevertheless Open Family should be applauded for its efforts and contribution to society, effectively existing as an independent not for profit organisation that is not formally aligned to any religious or political group.
PART 3
The role of Open Family Australia “street outreach worker” is mostly dependent on the professional values of its worker/s, indicating the dominance of professional activities modelled within the organisation. With reference to the interview conducted, the employee portrays his role as street children’s “significant other” acting as a friend, advisor, mentor, advocate and motivator amongst other functions, increasing the child’s accessibility to available resources in the community.
Undeniably by its very nature, this role is equivalent to the ‘social work values’ of social workers outlined by Hepworth, D, Rooney, R and Larsen J (2002 p.9) stating “ Social workers are committed to assisting client systems to obtain needed resources. Organised around the strengths based generalist practice views of Poulin, J, the employee is available to street children on a one-on-one individualised basis, meeting their changing needs and circumstances.
The relationship between worker and client is the underlying factor which is essential for the employee to “Develop their trust and “street credibility” so the child feels comfortable seeking a streetworker’s help”, in doing so “workers interact with street children as their friend not as an authority figure” (OF.com).
Notably the employee is accessible on a 24hour, 7 days a week basis providing availability which extends beyond physical presence. Specifically this availability characterises the ‘purpose of social work’ documented in the AASW code of ethics (1999 p.5), statement that “The social work profession is ‘committed’ to the pursuit and ‘maintenance’ of human well being”.
Generally as a professional social and welfare worker, the employee is aware of his position of influence and is mainly concerned with “developing reciprocal relationships based on trust, authenticity and credibility” all of which relies on being respectful and non-judgmental. Even more importantly these relationships are characterised by permanence, and are viewed as prominent to street children’s continued well being.
Surprisingly being employed as a social and welfare worker within different agencies for several years, the Open Family employee interprets his wrestle with many issues concerning the profession of social work.
He begins by discussing the ‘organisational change’ within the profession of social work stating; “I do a whole range of things, whereas other services can be quite limited and just do mental health issues, or drug and alcohol”. This is isomorphic with Mullender, A and Perrott, S’s views on “ The organisational context of social work” highlighting that “ managing change is an essential skill in the profession of social work”. He has adopted the view that social work uses the “Band-aid solution” when dealing with welfare, only patching up the problem, and not addressing the core social injustice taking place.
In this respect the employee wants to suggest that “social work should be more about community development, where many organisations are too detached from the community and are too clinically focused”.
This remark clearly points to the dominance of the logical positivism or scientific approach implemented within modern social and welfare organisations, Poulin, J documents “The worker is expected to be a neutral, value-free participant, and the relationship is expected to be hierarchical”. Furthermore his view of social work is inconsistent with the ‘Responsibilities to the profession’ framed in the AASW code of ethics (1999 p.21), and doesn’t take into account that “Social workers will promote the profession of social work, it’s processes and outcomes and will defend the profession against unjust criticism”.
Consequently the employee exposes the true nature of social work as a profession, making it clear that “being a professional it’s hard to not get emotionally involved with clients, going through supervisions and debriefing with my co-ordinator”, naturally being concerned about himself and the rights of the children.
The employee notes the importance of both organisational as well as professional activities, where Open Family “provides the grounds for direct in environment work, where the realities of living standards of clients are looked at”. However he attempts to show that “organisations are of necessity, giving rise to professional social work activities, yet they constitute and subordinate our individual state of affairs”. He asserts that the “dominance of bureaucracy” has foreshadowed “corruption in the system” loosing focus on the clients, ultimately depicting the development of too many policies.
Put differently his views of policies within the profession of social work parallels with Considine, M’s views on “policy”, stating that “policy insiders used special languages to shield themselves of outsiders”, emphasizing the critical and analytical work required to survive within the policy systems of social work organisations.
More to the point the employee turns our attention to the lack of resources, services and political will from council and the local/state government, dressed up as a lack of ‘understanding’ of problems which bears a resemblance to the “structural injustice implemented within organisations in society and the profession of social work”.
Eventually through the analysis of Open Family Australia, and the interview on its “street outreach worker”, one can see that its organisational structure and professional values and services is clearly in harmony with Jones and May’s initial claim.
REFERENCE LIST
-
Hepworth, D., Rooney, R and Larsen, J. (2002). Direct Social Work Practice 6th edition. Australia; Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, c2002.
-
Poulin, J. (2000) ‘ Collaborative Social Work- Strengths-based Generalist Practice’ F.E Peacock Publishers: USA. Principles and concepts of generalist practice. Chapter 1. Retrieved March 23rd, 2004 from the World Wide Web: .
-
Australian Association of Social Workers (1999) Code of Ethics second edition copyright AASW 2002.
-
Open Family Australia Home page(OF.com), accessed from the World Wide Web: http://www.openfamily.com.au
-
Anywhere Anytime, Open Family Australia Annual Report (2002), OFA incorporated
- Learning Units, Introduction to Social Work (SOCW1001) session 1 2004
-
Barnes, D. and Hugman, R. (2002) Portrait of Social Work in Journal of Interprofessional Care’ Vol. 16 No. pp 277-288
-
Mullender, A. and Perrot, S. (1998) Social Work and Organisations in Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (eds) ‘SOCIAL WORK – Themes, Issues and Critcal Debates’ Palgrove: Hampshire pp67-77
-
Considine, M. (1994) Introduction and Overview from ‘ Public Policy – A Critical Approach South Australia, Macmillan.
