3.6.6 Comparison Of The Three Elements In Systems

There are helping agencies that protect animals that are endangered, that rescue animals that are abandoned or abused, that work to preserve forests, rivers, wildlife sanctuaries that are under threat etc. etc., but the vast majority of helping agencies exist to support people directly.

The target group of the helping agency (that is the description of the Group that the agency is set up to help) determines how inclusive, creative, or bounded it needs to be. 

In this post we will compare three systems that work with people to describe the different emphases on the three elements in each one.

We will discuss, in turn, a school, a prison, and finally a project that is set up to support children at risk.

The School System

In the first example we will consider the school system, which is a very important helping agency that prepares children for adulthood. In this system, baby infant class in a primary school needs to be a lot more inclusive and creative, than Leaving Cert class in a secondary school.

Indeed if a child has been included sufficiently, and her need for creativity has been fostered in primary school, she will be able to accept the fairly strict boundaries of her Leaving Certificate studies.

Boundaries need to be introduced gradually, in tandem with appropriate assurances that a child is included within the boundary, and that her creativity will be allowed to shine, also within limits.

However, if she has never felt included in school, her need for inclusiveness will still be unfulfilled in secondary school with the likelihood that she will find the boundary of studying for her Leaving Cert very difficult if not impossible.

(I already discussed children’s need for inclusion, in respect of nurture, in this post).

As human beings are innately creative, there is a possibility that her creativity may be used in a manner that is unhelpful to herself in the long run.

The Prison System

In the second example we will consider a prison.  I will include the prison system as being in the general helping area as many prison services’ mission statements concern both the secure detention and rehabilitation of those in their care.

Many officers within the system care about those in prison, and often their families, and do their best to foster rehabilitation.  Modern training of prison officers includes it also.

In the prison system, keeping people in is of paramount importance so it is probable that the most important element, at least on the surface, is the boundary.

Any creativity (education unit, gym, classes, etc.) and inclusiveness (chaplain, humanitarian acts by prison officers, probation etc.) is done within the boundary.

In junior type prisons, however, attempts are made to be more creative and inclusive, and those in custody are brought on educational or recreational activities, go to classes regularly, get more family friendly visits etc.

Note that in the lists at the end of the Chapter, rigid rules are inhibitors of inclusiveness. When prisoners are adults, the rules get more rigid, and the opportunities to be inclusive reduce as the needs for security (boundary) increase.

Once again, as humans are innately creative, those incarcerated spend much of their time and energy trying to overcome the rigid rules that the boundary demands.

Support Agency for ‘At Risk’ Children

In our third and final example of different systems and the presence of inclusiveness, creativity and boundaries, we will consider a support agency that works with children that are affected by imprisonment and are at risk of getting involved in crime and anti-social behaviour.

In such an organisation, inclusiveness is a very important factor.

The reason is that, as we stated in this post, children affected by imprisonment may be accustomed to being excluded from mainstream facilities, and a pattern of avoidance becomes the norm for them.

The principal dilemma for such an agency is how to introduce a boundary that is healthy both for the organisation and the child and still maintain the commitment to inclusiveness.

This is, once again, where creativity is most important, which is why a full chapter is devoted to it in Section Five.

General Comments on all Three Systems

In respect of student behaviour, many teachers will try to be creative when it is difficult to maintain the boundary.  However when push comes to shove in a breaking of the boundary situation the child will eventually be excluded.  (Suspended and in extreme cases expelled).

In senior cycle secondary it is necessary to be inclusive and boundaried, and due to the looming exams which are of great importance creativity will usually take a back seat. Or else it is confined to class years which are not that important, exam-wise, when students are allowed undertake projects of various kinds in areas of interest to them.

For a support agency that works with children at risk creativity-taking-a-back-seat is not an option and there needs to be a firm commitment to creativity to maintain inclusiveness, so necessary in the work, while still attending to the maintenance of a healthy boundary.

In the prison system, inclusiveness is almost always sacrificed to maintain the boundary.  Traditionally, there has never been much encouragement for a prison service to be creative. That said, things are changing, it is nowadays a lot more common than of old, and creativity can often be, and is, enabled by individual Governors and Officers within the constraints of the wider system.

In the next post I suggest that you do an exercise to get familiar with how inclusiveness, creativity and boundedness manifests in different agencies or organisations.

I now invite you to do a little exercise on the three elements of family support in organisations. But, if you just happened upon this post as you were browsing you will need to firstly read the previous post.

It is a simple, guesstimate type of exercise, and don’t worry, there is no right or wrong. 

Also, no one else will see it, so you can be totally uncensored in your choices and responses.

I am sure that you have come across many agencies and organisations as you ploughed your way through the fields of life whether they have been sometimes fertile or sometimes a little rocky.  Even if you are a relatively young adult you will probably have experienced school, some form of employment, club, group of friends, or other.  Those of you who are older will probably have a wider range of organisations to choose from.

I invite you to get a blank page and draw a triangle.  Put B in one corner, I in another, and C at the third.  (Yes, you’ve guessed it – these letters denote ‘Boundedness’, ‘Inclusiveness’, and ‘Creativity’).  Now pick a few of the organisations or agencies that have come into your head, and that you have had some experience of.

Get a biro and place a tick or ‘X’ where you think that they should be in the triangle if they are to fulfill what you think that their stated purpose was, or is.  That is, what is probably contained in their mission statement, if they have one, or else what informally you understand, or have understood them to be.

For example, the local crèche should have a lot of inclusiveness so your tick should be well up in the apex where the I is.  If you are or have been in a band, or music group, choir etc. or taken up painting, sculpture or art, such groups should probably be denoted with a tick near the C corner, because you will expect them to have a lot of creativity.  If you have been to prison, or been a prison officer or Garda, or in the Army, firm boundaries are to be expected in such organisations so the tick should probably be in the B area.

Now get a red biro and place a tick, or ‘x’ where they actually are, i.e. how you experienced them as a service user, or joiner.  Perhaps you found College, where you expected a lot of freedom to think for yourself etc. to be very bounded.  Or the person in charge of the crèche was very strict on the babies, and it was far more bounded than you thought it would be.  Or maybe you went to a school that had a bit of a reputation and was expecting it to be very bounded but to your surprise it scored a lot higher on creativity than you imagined.  

Then on completion of the exercise, reflect on the differences between should and actual!

We will now address the question as to why organisations might get less inclusive over time. This has been mentioned in a number of different posts already (particularly in the Modalities of Helping Chapter).

It is a very important question for us to consider, and we need to reflect on the reasons at both a head and heart level.  The reason that it is important is that agencies are sometimes set up to work with very vulnerable populations. However as time goes on the oppositional side of their vulnerability becomes apparent.

Organisations, begin, gradually, to drift away from their original mission and choose instead people that are more amenable and compliant.

I propose that there are many reasons why this happens. I have listed fifteen below. There may be more that you might think of which may be sparked by your own experience.

They are not written in any particular order of importance, but I will say that when I was writing this part of the Chapter that anger, little reward, and unreasonable demands, jumped out at me first – so they must have some significance for me. (And when I use terms such as ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’ I am referring to us practitioners, staff members in the organisation).

1. Anger:  People who are very hurt may be angry and this comes out either directly (threatening or unacceptable behaviour), or indirectly (apathy, staying away, not turning up, etc).  We unconsciously (or sometimes consciously) make more time for, and are attracted to, less angry people.

2. Very Little Reward:  The very hurt person seems to be stuck in what we consider to be a destructive or unhelpful pattern of behaviour no matter what we do, so once again there is a natural tendency to favour those who change for the better like we want them to.

3. Unreasonable Demands:  Most of us have a core belief that other people should not make unreasonable demands.  If we continue to meet people who make unreasonable demands, and there is little or no let up, we will gradually find reasons to avoid such people and work with those who are reasonable.

4. ‘Health and Safety’:  We use health and safety reasons for not engaging with people who are very vulnerable.  We may confuse discomfort with danger.

5. Fear of Nature of Problem:  We fear that we might not be able to solve the problem presented, particularly if it is a matter of life and death.  (As it sometimes is)!

6. Size of Problem:  If there are many interconnected difficulties adding to complexity we begin to start believing that we are making such little impact that there is no point in doing anything at all.

7. Legal Action: Sometimes we fear that if we get it wrong legal action might be taken against us or our organisation.

8. Prejudice:  We believe that we know the best way to do it and when people don’t conform we gradually drift away and work with people who do conform to our way of thinking.

9. Pressure from Funding Agencies:  We have to prove to the people who fund us that we are achieving results and so it is easier to work with someone who progresses quickly.  In my experience the first people to be excluded (or subtly sidelined) in top-down type organisations are those who don’t appear to be making any progress.

10. We Have Responsibility without Power:  We are asked to do a particular task but we are not given the resources to do it so we chose, instead, a situation that we have the resources for.

11. Energy:  Our energy level is low as we are not offered, or do not ask for, enough internal or external support (e.g. supervision) as we go about our work.  In order to feel energetic we chose people who will not make as many demands on us.

12. Lack of Training: Our training is not comprehensive, nor does it match the work to be done with families.

13. Not Listening:  Because we feel that we know best, we do not listen to the concerns, hints, directions, etc. (sometimes given in code) of people we were set up to help.

14. Cultural Distance: We are culturally distant from the people who are distressed and we expect them to fit into our culture while we make little or no effort to close the cultural gap. Because of this we drift to people we are more comfortable with, culturally.

15. Power and Control: Working with people who are amenable and compliant feeds into our own need to feel powerful, and also our need to have control over our work practices, norms, values, core beliefs etc.

The fifteen reasons highlight the need for us to be creative (in order to continually encourage both ourselves and others to stay focused on the task in hand) and boundaried (in order to maintain freshness and energy) if we are truly committed to inclusiveness. Training is of vital importance also.

The Section on Practical Applications will address the above points and some light will (hopefully) be shed on how to build organisations so that they will be safe places for both staff and angry, disaffected and fearful people who make a lot of demands.