5.6.7 Security

One of the most important factors in building up a trusting relationship with a very distressed person, (or a group of people, i.e. a family), is consistency.

Many people begin their careers at community level working closely with distressed families, children and young people.  Very often, after some years, perhaps just as families are beginning to get to know them and (hopefully) trust them, they move on.

As I stated in a previous post, I’ve seen a lot of practitioners going to jobs in statutory agencies or, perhaps, academia, gaining fantastic experience in the community and voluntary sector and undoubtedly doing their job really well but seen as transient by the people that matter most.

I propose that there are a number of reasons why this happens.

While I acknowledge burn-out and secondary trauma are contributory factors, there is also the lack of proper career structure in the community and voluntary sector.

(That having been said, maybe things like career structures would destroy the freshness and vitality of the sector – though I think that career structure and freshness and vitality could both be accommodated)!

I also know a few people (including myself) who got fed up of working in the Pillars and chose to change to the community sector. I was always determined to develop myself in the context of the community rather than any other environment. Part of the reason for this is that the learning (virtually all experiential) that I experience day-to-day is richer and more meaningful.

And yes, I know it’s easy for me to say that, because I had stayed in school, been to college and worked in the Pillars!

One of the first things that I noticed about this area of work was that the people on the ground are the people who want the problem solved; many practitioners are passing through.  I think that this observation was very influential in my decision to stay in community work.

(I’d be interested to hear from you if you have been doing this and similar work over a long time – e.g. 15+ years – as to what were the motivating factors in your choosing to remain).

The next post and the one after it list some factors which are important in respect of staff security which I think we need in our organisation if we are committed to supporting families in the Focus Group.  They are not, of course, exhaustive – but they will hopefully spark some thoughts on general conditions of work in the sector.

Security encourages us, as we start out in the work, to consider it as a genuine career option, not as a stepping stone to better, well paid, more secure jobs in more mainstream agencies whether statutory or voluntary.

And, importantly, I also think that a feeling of security enhances our tenacity.

Pay

I have often wondered why people who want enough money for fifty lifetimes, are considered to be more competent than people who will work for the amount of pay that will afford themselves and their families a reasonably comfortable standard of living and a measure of security into the future.

Or, in other words, why is it assumed that people who like money are better at achieving results?

When it comes to pay, I believe that there’s a balance to be struck.

It’s not necessarily true that those who demand most money are the best for the job.  But it’s also true that there exists the reality of the market, and if voluntary organisations don’t match pay and conditions in the statutory or private sectors people who have a lot to offer mightn’t find the jobs attractive enough.

On this subject, (with some notable exceptions at the higher end) pay in the community/voluntary/charitable sector is mostly less than in the statutory sector and our jobs are, obviously, far more precarious, as I will expand on in the next post.

No matter how caring or enthusiastic we are, eventually we may get married/have a partner, perhaps want a house and car, have children, (with all the expenses that children bring), schools, holidays, etc.

I believe that organisations that set out to do this kind of work, while being realistic about pay levels, should commit to pay a decent wage with proper contracts and not be tempted to skimp on pay or conditions, zero hour contracts etc. 

Hours

In this post I mentioned how corporate values filter into the Pillars. One of the results of corporate influence in the community sector is that (with some notable exceptions) we are contracted to work the same number of hours as we would in a factory, bank, the trades, civil service etc.

This is despite the fact that many of us frequently find ourselves in highly stressful situations that are often a matter of life and death, and/or where people are making constant demands on us.

The long hours worked is one of the many reasons for the high turnover that is often a feature of those of us who work with families in distress, children at risk, families affected by imprisonment, troubled youth, homeless people, people who are in or have been to prison, who have acute mental health issues, and similar populations.

I believe that the 39 hour week is totally inappropriate for anyone who works in a setting where they wish to build meaningful long-term relationships with people who have suffered trauma!

In a previous post I mentioned that I feared that the current attention to trauma informed practice would result in lip-service being paid to it as we search for another quick-fix.

Like charity, trauma informed practice begins at home, and if we are serious about embedding it in our work the first thing we need to do is acknowledge how continuous exposure to trauma impacts individuals and teams.

A shorter working week is not the only solution, but it would be a good start!

One of the most harmful effects of long hours is that we experience burnout, and therefore we cease to be part of the process – see the paragraph entitled Secondly in this post.

And, of course, as I mentioned in the previous post people in distress need consistency in relationship.

Burnt out staff means a far poorer quality service for those who are seeking help, a gradual drift away from the person centred modality that I identified as being the one most suitable for our work, and, as I said already, a high turnover – the direct opposite to what people need.

Furthermore, the root foundations will not flourish in such an atmosphere.

Staff Retention – Implications of Insecurity

Other conditions that I could include could be pension plans, parental leave/pay, incremental increases, sick leave, hours of work etc. 

Improving conditions is easier said than done – but, a bit like the education of the bureaucrats – it is our responsibility to be assertive about it.

Very often, jobs in the community/voluntary or charitable sectors, particularly those that are very creative and innovative, are short term, insecure, and are given year-by-year rather than permanent budgets by the various Government Departments that fund them.

Imagine building a school on this basis? Everyone would say that it would make children’s lives very insecure if they didn’t know whether or not they had a school to go to next year.

The children who do not go to school, and/or struggle in school and who need extra support feel insecure without permanency also!

Obviously if we wish to settle down and have families we will want more permanent jobs, if they are available, and we will often sacrifice innovation and creativity (and sometimes happiness) for job security.

There is somewhat of a paradox here of course.

Because if we like innovation and creativity we may be motivated by the challenge of having to stay relevant to successfully get ongoing funding.

However I believe that a balance is attainable and funders thinking long-term would go a long way in encouraging us to remain in community work.

The Chapter entitled Getting The Pillars To Believe might be helpful in our aim to convince funders and policy makers that our work will yield huge dividends – not only financial but in terms of social cohesion and societal well-being.

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.