Burnout
Supporting families in the Focus Group – particularly those families with most if not all of the characteristics as described – can be difficult and energy sapping.
(This short post is a brief discussion on burnout – please also see the post on how trauma seeps into teams).
Part of the reason that it is energy sapping is that there is a lot of flexibility required in respect of 1): the commitment to the holistic way of working with the inevitable uncertainty that that brings, and 2): the existence of the complex variables that I described in the Chapter on Modalities. Also, our natural desire to see progression in families and individuals is constantly challenged.
The support offered by our organisation to staff needs to match the stress encountered by staff from the ongoing uncertainty and (sometimes) tragic and difficult situations.
In this, the type of supervision offered must focus on strengths, trust us to be of good will, and encourage creativity and adventure through promotion of solutions based on good, sound, common sense and wisdom.
In addition to internal supervision, external supervision (individual, or sometimes, team) should be offered. This is to give us the opportunity to explore deeper meanings of strong emotional reactions to situations that arise during our work.
An honest, rigorous, exploration of such matters serves to enhance security as we feel that the organisation trusts us to utilise supervision in good faith. All above address the issue of burnout. Ongoing supervision and/or as needs be should be the norm.
Awareness of stress and strain is relevant here. I believe that our organisation as a whole is strained (and can alter its shape [1]) when stress that we are under is not acknowledged in a real and substantial way.
The six to ten sessions beloved of the Employee Assistance Programmes which are now popular are not of much help in our field!
Status
When I mention status I do not mean a status based on rank or position, or who might get the best parking space…….
However I believe that we need to feel confident meeting fellow practitioners, e.g. social workers, health care workers, (nurses and doctors), teachers, Gardaí etc. on an equal basis.
Sometimes, because many projects are of a voluntary or pilot nature, we may struggle to carve out a place for ourselves in the overall child protection/family support picture, and/or to be taken seriously.
Once again the families and children are the ones that suffer. Our voices, that advocate on their behalf, and that they perceive to be on their side, might not be really heard.
Good training and some of the conditions mentioned in the previous post would go a long way to ensure that we have the status that comes from the knowledge that our employment has value.
Morale
Finally, morale, which, I often think, is half way between a slippery ball and a delicate flower, is enhanced greatly if we take what is described in the previous post and the one before it seriously.
Morale is greatly undermined if we feel insecure. On the other hand, job security enhances many desirable characteristics. Our work should not be based on a one year pilot scheme to see how it goes.
It is difficult to over-state the benefits that a sense of belonging brings to very distressed and isolated people who never had a sense of it. A measure of security that facilitates consistency enhances this greatly. Feelings of insecurity (i.e. how long will this person, or this scheme be around) filter through organisations to families.
Another harmful element that arises from constantly-changing-workers is concerned with responsibility. I propose that consistency in attending to a difficulty or problem (we called this tenacity elsewhere) assists a person in taking responsibility for finding a solution to it.
If, however, I am very hurt, and I have to get to know a new worker and tell my story all over again, not to mention building up a trusting relationship (and all the uncertainty that that brings), my journey towards responsibility may be a lot more difficult.
[1]. What I mean here is that non-essentials become priorities and essentials are relegated to a lesser status.