I have mentioned resources vs needs briefly already and I will revisit the topic now.
Our organisations (e.g., community, non-governmental, charitable type organisations) are nearly always set up to meet a need that is identified by concerned people with what is often called a social conscience. Some people believe that the more helping facilitates we put in place the bigger the problems will be, as dependent people become even more dependent. I have some sympathy with that viewpoint.
Helping can become a self-sustaining industry and people within the industry, like people everywhere, want it to grow.
Notwithstanding the above, there are some sobering realities that have to be taken into consideration when supporting people who are suffering deeply.
Like; there are always:
~ More children that need protection than there are social workers to protect them.
~ More homeless people than hostels and other accommodation to house them.
~ More people on the waiting list for housing than there are houses to accommodate them.
~ More young people getting into trouble than youth workers to engage them in activities to divert them.
~ More families in need than practitioners to support them.
~ More people struggling with addiction than there are places in treatment centres.
~ More women experiencing domestic violence than shelters to keep them safe.
~ More children needing psychological assessment than psychologists to assess them.
~ More public patients than there are beds in public hospitals to cater for them.
~ More people with acute disabilities than facilities to care for them.
~ More young people deemed to be at risk than Garda Juvenile Liaison Officers to respond to them.
~ More people with money than banks to put money into.
(The last one is a joke – I was just checking if you are concentrating)………
And on and on and on – can you think of more?
All the above points affect the Focus Group more than any other section of society – except the last one of course!
The fact that all the facilities that are set up to assist people who have complex needs are over-subscribed is a sign that there is 1): so much unhappiness hidden in our family homes, and/or 2): the systems set up to address the issues are hugely under-resourced.
For example, in respect of 1), once upon a time there were no safe havens for women experiencing domestic violence. But that doesn’t mean that there was no domestic violence. When they were first built, women had an option. Instead of suffering silently they came to the safe havens.
Similarly, many decades ago there was very little in the way of wet-houses to accommodate those who are homeless who will not give up drink or drugs. When they were first established, parents could draw a boundary for their drink/drug-addicted sons or daughters with less guilt because they knew that if they weren’t allowed live at home they wouldn’t be sleeping rough.
And in respect of 2), (the under-resourcing), in the way that the Government attempts to solve a serious social problem I often use the analogy of the aeroplane.
Let us say we are tasked to build a plane for 500 people. Generally, the system does not give enough resources to build the complete plane – so we do the best we can and just build a fuselage – with no wings or engines. So, we end up with a lovely pretend plane that never takes off. The 500 people get on the plane and they appreciate the nice seats and decor, maybe even get a cuppa from the cabin crew, but they never actually go anywhere.
Or we can choose, with the resources we have, to build a much smaller plane with engines and wings that can actually take off and go somewhere – but this can only take 50 people. In this case, 450 are either left out altogether or they have to wait for a long time to get on because – obviously – there is no room for them!
Personally, I am drawn to the building of the smaller plane because at least we can say that we have something that actually works and, who knows, it might be easier to argue for resources to build a similar plane. It is also better for morale – and that, I believe, is important.
But I’m not saying that I’m right in this. Others feel that it is better to give people a sense of what getting on a plane is like – even if it goes nowhere – and then they’d have a taster of what flying is like.
(I will revisit this conundrum when I discuss size later – and see also the bottom of this post for another reference to the plane)!
I am just mentioning the resource vs need problem very briefly here; in this post I give it further consideration, and in the Chapter on Universal Theory of Change I will deal with it in far more detail.