I mentioned cultural change already, and as is usual, I suppose I’d better give some examples! I will firstly give a general example and then a more specific one.
The ‘Survey’. Ah yes, the survey – sometimes called the consultation. The culture of surveying, researching or consulting is deeply embedded in the Pillars.
Let us compare the consultation, or the survey to a scientist in the world of technology doing research so that something new might be developed. The scientist researches from the perspective of what is already known – but the aim is to find something that is unknown. It is discovery of what is unknown that makes the difference to the development that results from the research.
Contrast this with the typical consultation that goes on in a community. It is very rarely that something that is truly unknown emerges. And if it does, it may not be accepted because what is discovered threatens the established order. Thinking about it, it is much easier to study things that don’t have opinions or feelings!
I have experienced many, many surveys, research, consultations, reviews, etc. of residents in disadvantaged areas, families visiting prisons, young men, young women, drug misuse, the lot of poor children and similar matters. These surveys are intended to glean knowledge that is, almost always, already known – even sometimes obvious. Most people who have even basic knowledge of the issues would know what the findings will be, and would have a fair shot at what might work as solutions. Many of the surveys are replicas of what has been done before. (If anyone wishes to contact me I can give examples).
The harmful thing about the survey culture is that the surveys or consultations raise people’s hopes that something different will be done to alleviate their pain or distress. Mostly, however, whatever is put in place (if anything) is much the same as what went before. Usually they are very expensive, are often done by academia, are funded by the civil service, have the approval of the body politic, and are often reported in the media.
(See also the Chapter on Research and Evaluation for a far more detailed critique of this topic).
Child Protection: I referred to mandatory reporting in a previous post. Here is an example of an experience that I once had. This one is at the more serious end – but not the most serious that I could have given.
Many years ago (before mandatory reporting – actually) I reported, to the HSE, the precursor of TÚSLA, information on a situation where there was a lot of circumstantial evidence to show that a Dad was harming his children. The evidence came from a member of his extended family who, to my mind, was sincere, genuine and concerned, as well as some on the street knowledge.
After a while I got a one-liner from HSE to state to me that the case was closed following an investigation. Now I am not going to judge the man who was causing me to worry about the well-being of his children – but the one-liner was, I felt, based on ‘fear that someone would get into trouble’ rather than ‘concern for children’s well-being’.
This is an example of classic Pillars culture – to my mind anyway. The latter (i.e. concern for children) would have involved HSE practitioners sitting down with someone like me (and the concerned person in the community who made me aware of it) acknowledging that whatever investigation that had been carried out had yielded no hard evidence, but acknowledging also that there was a possibility that the children’s well-being, or even safety, was at risk. The next step would have been to explore creative ways of supporting the children – including Dad if he was interested – and involving potential allies within the family or extended family.
I’m not sure where it would have gone – but to put a lid on it like was done at the time ensured that it would go down the no risk no gain route.
As I already stated, democracies, by their nature, are inefficient.
In fact, inefficiency could be said to be protect democracy, to some extent. Without it we may be too quick to jump to conclusions and waste money on something that has not been properly thought out or fully considered, or, in my second example above, apportion blame too quickly.
But that is not to say that we shouldn’t challenge 1): that which we see as waste or duplication and that is clearly a repetition of something that has gone before – or 2): that which is obviously fulfilling the letter of the law but not the spirit of protection of children.
And on that note, the fact that a particular entity is set up by the Pillars to have statutory responsibility for protecting very vulnerable children doesn’t mean that they are the best to do it. The reason that I say this is that I often wonder what happens to social work theory [1] – in particular the overwhelming research findings about how relationship is so important, when it is applied in very challenging and chaotic circumstances.
And does closing a case really serve vulnerable children?
Finally, when I talk about culture it is obvious from the above that I am not talking about art, music and literature (though they could, indeed, have some relevance). The culture that I describe involves long practiced habits, ritual, core values, dress, language and behavioural norms. I picked the the two major cultural elements of anger and language (see previous post) because they are of such importance in community work.
Cultural change is not easy – but we can do an awful lot if we keep it simple and take the time to understand anger ……..
[1]. As stated already, I will be revisiting this in Section Five in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation.