6.1 Getting The Pillars To Believe

You are now reading the final section, the Epilogue, a fairly short Section consisting of just two Chapters. The first is this one, why it is important to encourage people within the Pillars to believe in what we community workers who support families in the Focus Group are trying to do, and the second Chapter rounds off the website with a few Closing Remarks.

As I pointed out in the Chapter on Important Descriptions, the structures of politics, the public and civil service and academia tied together by the media, are not geared up to address – and generally do not appreciate – the complexities of what is involved in support work with our Focus Group. As I have also mentioned, practitioners who are willing to take on the work and do appreciate the complexities often find themselves inhibited, or somewhat constrained by the structures.

And I don’t have any evidence to indicate that the Pillars are setting up (or intend setting up) appropriate structures, or, are moving towards understanding the complexities in the foreseeable future.

It reminds me of a Peace Conference that I was at once – where a speaker said that the politics to stop wars happening haven’t yet been invented.

Perhaps the societal (i.e. political, academic, statutory or media) structures to protect vulnerable families and children haven’t been invented either!

I also believe that it is very helpful for the people that we have the privilege to represent, and advocate on behalf of, to build strong partnerships with statutory bodies – and good practitioners within them that work on the ground.

This can require diplomacy and tact. To sum up, getting the Pillars to believe is a constant challenge for leaders in our sector, because:

1. There is a general consensus out there – that is hard to shift – that the problem seems too great to solve.

2. There is nothing in it for anyone in power.

3. The complexity of the work is not really appreciated like, say, so many technological challenges that are undertaken.

4. There can be a perception that everyone is an expert.

5. We community workers are not confident enough in our understanding of what needs to be done.

and, finally, (wince again) ……………

6. We are too full of our own self-importance to reach out to those in the Pillars we need to reach out to.

Taking up this important challenge is what this Chapter is about, and within it there are four Sub-Chapters.

6.1.1                WHY DO WE WANT THE PILLARS TO BELIEVE?

6.1.2                HELPFUL POINTERS

6.1.4                THE UNIQUE POTENTIAL OF PRISON STAFF

6.1.3                PARTNERSHIP

There are two principal reasons why it is necessary to get the Pillars to believe.

~ One is to get funding to continue the work and even build on it [1].

~ Another is to foster good will among those with whom our organisation already works in partnership, or has identified as partners in the future.

Both are equally important.

As we try and get others to believe, it is important that:

~ We model what we want (and we are alert to the temptation to mirror what we don’t want).

~ We affirm good work being done (and we don’t threaten something that is already there).

We know from our history that revolutions as we commonly understand them don’t turn out that well.  (That is, after the initial change the old patterns re-emerge in a different form – and, in particular – the same people remain powerless).

For the Focus Group this is far truer than for society in general.  This is where a creative approach by our voluntary or community organisation in being different and doing something different really comes in.

The traditional radical approaches constantly point out, through the media, the deficiencies of the Pillars, embarrassing them and comparing them to what they should be. In addition to being counter-productive, this can risk displaying a kind of arrogant specialness or aloofness. And in this respect, changes that result from knee-jerk reactions to embarrassment are usually short-lived.

The truly radical practitioner keeps the Pillars on side, knowing that we are all in this together. Also, painting them as some sort of enemy, highlighting their failings, and then taking them on and winning is not only impossible, but risks alienating good people (some of whom, as I said already, may be in very senior and influential positions) who work within them.

Building and maintaining good relationships displays humility. It involves seeking out the best within other organisations whether statutory or voluntary and, perhaps, accepting elements within them that don’t appear to want to change.

Keeping the Pillars on side (or on board, to use a nautical expression) also recognises that sustainable change happens slowly – but if it is sustained it will have far more impact than flavour of the month type change so beloved of the angry revolutionary.

It also fosters a certain amount of reality in respect of what we can achieve in our working lives – no matter what stage we are along it.

I will give a brief example of what I mean in the next post.

[1]. If there are other reasons (e.g. feathering one’s own nest – as has been revealed in different enquiries into wrongdoing in charities in Ireland over the last few years) then that kind of voluntary agency is not really the subject of this website.

I know that I said a few times that I wish to focus on the positive – and that I’d mention the negative only to give weight to the opposite – and also to point out some realities!

Here is one such example.

In the Chapter on Research and Evaluation I referred to some research which a small organisation in which I was employed did off our own bat (or, off our own back, as is sometimes said in Limerick) on homelessness among teenagers in a housing estate where we were doing streetwork at night.

All that happened as a result of that research was that we were criticised as being unprofessional, unscientific etc., and the issue regarding the protection of vulnerable children that our findings threw up was totally ignored. 

Obviously, we were threatening something that was already there.  (The fact that what we were threatening wasn’t working well – if at all – was irrelevant).

At that time I could have gone to one of the Pillars (the media) and gave them a juicy story that would have been (at the least) embarrassing for another Pillar (the then Health Board and even the Department of Health), pointing out the hypocrisy of expounding about protecting children while at the same time ignoring information that showed that teenagers were sleeping rough.

I could have given names of people in top positions of authority on the Health Board (some of whom were politicians, another Pillar), in the hope that it would embarrass them into doing something.

However, much as I was tempted, I didn’t do that.  I am sure if I had done it I would have got a short term tactical gain (including some notoriety for myself – if I was that way inclined) but it would, in the long term have been disadvantageous to the young people who were suffering.

The reason for this is that the powers-that-be at that time would have considered me and our organisation to be an unsafe pair of hands and distrusted us into the future. We would also have, potentially, alienated good people working within the system.

I believe that it was far better to use the incident as a learning experience for myself (i.e. identifying the difference between the myth of the intention and the reality of what happens, and within that, the limitations of the system).

Other people may disagree with me here – which is fine – but I really don’t believe (based on my experience in observing campaigns and media exposure over many decades) that anything would have really changed – long term – if I had got all bolshie and used the example as a stick to beat the Pillars with.

I may be repeating myself here – but I can’t say it often enough. Virtually all change that comes about as a result of media exposure, and subsequent embarrassment of the Pillars – in matters to do with the Focus Group – is short lived.

A major challenge for us community workers is to be aware of the world of the Pillars, and get the balance right between being rolled over and being equal partners.

Without detailed knowledge of our complex area and the skills to apply the knowledge, we almost certainly will be rolled over. 

Knowledge and skill (including a felt sense of what complex means) will give us the confidence to use all that is best within the Pillars but equally to spot something that isn’t helpful.

We need to be able to think independently, make an independent decision, rationalise the decision, and then take full responsibility for it.

By and large, I believe that the well-meaning Pillars (and many well-meaning corporate funding sources also) have yet to be educated in the complexities involved in the work described in the Sub-Chapter on Complex Variables and the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics in general.

And on the subject of being independent and knowledgeable, in the early part of the book I referenced Paulo Friere’s warning about community workers taking on the values of the oppressor (or in our case the mainstream).

Our exposure to mainstream education and conditioning, and subsequent mainstream thinking is probably the reason why Pillars’ opinions influence us so much when we wrestle with social problems.

We all carry some of the values of the mainstream – many corporate-type values seep unknowingly into our consciousness.

There are many communities and estates in our country where, traditionally, there has been high incidence of poverty, unemployment, crime and anti-social behaviour.

In the 1990’s, organisations known as Community Development Projects were set up in many of these areas to try and nurture all that is good in the estate and/or community.

These Projects that have stood the test of time are generally very positive initiatives that do good work, and (from my observations anyway) have an ethos of inclusion and synergy with those who matter most, that is very desirable in community work.

In respect of community development itself, I propose that a close look would reveal a critical mass of people resident in the community whose emotional distress is so acute that it prevents them functioning well.

In the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics we explored how trauma seeps into teams and I don’t think it is too far-fetched to say that it seeps into communities too.  It follows that if there was more happiness and at-ease relationships in homes the community would develop from within with far less external top-down assistance.

I remember reading in a book about community work (The Politics of Community Development, by Fred Powell and Martin Geoghegan, 2004), that 85% of community workers find the statutory sector (which includes the Pillar of the public and civil service, who are, mostly, their partners) difficult to work with.

That, I thought, is a huge percentage, and speaks for itself in respect of genuine partnership.

Of course, that is some years ago and perhaps community workers’ opinions might have changed over time – though from my own anecdotal evidence I doubt if it is significantly different.

But, I know from experience that many community workers find individuals within the statutory sector that they can work well with, and are of great assistance – I do anyway – though that had not been researched in the book.

Interestingly, the headline that the newspaper used for the review of the book (that prompted me to read it) was The Most Marginalised Still Believe They Have No Say.

It is a very telling headline – written in 2005, and clever enough to spark my interest. But it’s a headline that is absolutely true – in my opinion!

It is because of such statements, and similar pronouncements which I have heard all my career, that I encourage community workers not to get sucked into the ways of thinking of the Pillars. [1]

[1]. It is typical of Pillars thinking that many of these Community Development Projects, who had developed strong local identity and developed home-grown talent in a relatively short length of time, have been amalgamated and centralised, and much of their localness has been diluted.

It is most important that statutory funders are dissuaded from considering private sector contractors as an option for control of support work with members of families in the Focus Group.

At its best, the private sector embodies all the features that we wish for in the voluntary sector – as stated a few times already, e.g. creativity, energy, economy, innovation etc. 

And while I am sure that the vast majority of privately run care entities are operated with integrity, there have been enquiries in the recent past in Ireland (here is one link, and here’s another) that uncovered very unethical and abusive work practices.

However, there are many idealistic and passionate people within the private sector who can be offered paid work on a contract basis – but control [1] (in the best and most holistic sense of its meaning) of all operations needs to be retained within either voluntary or statutory sector – depending on the nature of the work.

Of course, thousands of workers (including myself) make a living in the caring professions – but the entities that employ us should have an ethical position and value system that is driven by compassion and empathy, concern for fellow humans and care, not by private sector profit. And no matter how well-meaning, private sector contractors will always work for profit – that is their bottom line.

Surely, in any country that calls itself civilised, or democratic, or even free, privatisation of health, education and justice, and the inequality that results from same, should be off limits.

How can it be right that alleviation of the difficulties that vulnerable children and families face is driven by financial gain?

Now I know that there have been a lot of enquiries and revelations about former homes and institutions run by religious orders in Ireland in past decades. (I gave examples of such places here). These were, of course, voluntary charitable organisations, not private companies. But they were also very large [2] all-powerful institutions who felt that their law (Canon Law) was superior to the law of the land.

Also, many of these homes and/or institutions were actually making a profit for the religious orders – so they were kind of private sector. I believe that these highly immoral and unethical financial practices contributed to the abuse that occurred.

Finally, is there not a danger that if we move towards privatisation of services for vulnerable people, (for example, care homes for children), can privately run prisons be far behind?

[1]. In addition to developing self-belief to undertake this challenging work we need to develop the skills of maintaining a healthy and assertive control of the process, content and results.

[2]. It might be interesting for you to read the Sub-Chapter on Size in the Chapter on Organisational Matters – if you have not read it already – to read how largeness contributes to disconnect. The extent of disconnect within the traditional religious orders in Ireland contributed to the harmful and abusive practices that were the subject of the many enquiries.

Continuing with the Sub-Chapter on helpful pointers I’d like to propose that statutory funders are not particularly motivated by the voluntary sector making them feel sorry for people.  (If they were, our country and indeed our world would be completely different).

Perhaps one of the Pillars (politics) embarrassed by another (the media) will be driven to fund research done by a third (academia) that will lead to a kind of short-term programme or scheme which will be rolled out by a fourth (the public service), that will, in turn, temporarily alleviate some high profile sad situation [1], but overall, the sympathy card yields little in the way of long-term results.

Within the general public this holds true also, and anyway I believe that there are ethical considerations in portraying poor people (including children) to be helpless, hungry, etc. to garner public sympathy.

Sympathy will often offer short term lessening of social problems (i.e. giving to charities who then dispense handouts) – but, in my experience, sympathy, by itself, will not lead to long term change or, in particular, challenge the injustice that leads to poverty, homelessness and similar.

(This is not to denigrate charity – it has an important place in alleviation of suffering, and, increasingly, charities are getting more and more involved in rights and justice issues).

I believe that one of the reasons why the general public do not feel sorry for people who fail to survive the competitive, comparative world of mainstream education – for example families in the Focus Group – is that (and I hope that it is not too harsh of me to say) the general public don’t like failures.

Handouts are fine, but genuine engagement seems to contain some kind of risk for us!

One way to assess how we perceive failure is to look at attendance at sports events.

Arguably, it’s when a team is losing (failing to win) that the encouragement of a big enthusiastic crowd is needed most.  But very few of us will go to a match and support a team because we feel sorry for them. In fact a losing team is usually deserted by us, the fickle public.

This has resonances in politics too. We often tend to vote for those who are powerful and/or have celebrity status rather than those who have integrity, or want change to take place, or want fairer or more equitable policies, or have some vulnerability, or are underdogs.

And think of all the films, books etc. based on the so-called rags-to-riches story, or a holder of truth taking on a corrupt system and winning. If the central figure stayed in rags, or lost his battle against the system, would the story have such mass appeal?

Our choices are probably due to our inner need for success that is projected onto the winning team or successful celebrity that we want to identify with.  Perhaps identifying with failure or vulnerability runs the risk of us failing also.

The curious thing about this is that our projective need for success and/or our fear of being contaminated by failure appears to be greater than our need to reach out and help others and/or take a risk with change for the better.

So, if funders are not motivated by sympathy, what might be a better strategy to adopt to squeeze money out of the reluctant system?

I believe that the funders that are most likely to believe are those that:

1. Are empathic – which is different to sympathy – towards the work, i.e. who have heart for the work – yes, there are many of them!

2. Have common-sense in the application process and who demand high standards of accountability [2] in the reporting back process.

3. Visit the Project to meet who is doing the work, see for themselves what exactly is happening, and its impact.

4. Seem to understand that creativity and thinking outside the box are necessary to achieve ends – and who are willing to take a risk.

5. Have some experience and appreciation of the complexity of the work – and/or display a willingness to learn about it.

[1]. A reminder of this short-term interest in doing-something was the tragic death of a homeless man outside the Dáil in 2014.  Because it happened right on their doorstep, so to speak, members of the political establishment spoke at length about plans to end homelessness. I don’t think that anyone reading this is surprised that people are still dying on the street, and homelessness is just as bad (if not worse) now in Dublin (and Ireland) than then.

[2]. If it was my money – I would too!

In a previous post I mentioned getting the balance right between being too anti to be attractive (on the one hand) and being too compliant and getting rolled over by the Pillars. I will expand on that a little in this post.

We need to be very clear about our rationale and confident in the value of our model in supporting the Focus Group for the reasons 1 to 3 below.  Our leadership skills will be tested in getting funders within State departments (Education, Health and Justice mainly) to believe and not be diverted into simpler, time-limited solutions that don’t work.

1. Considering the enormous cost of criminality to the State (almost too great to calculate) it still seems to be the belief among the Pillars that containment is the only option.  Perhaps that is due to the belief that the problem is too great to solve as mentioned already.  However it could also be down to age-old rivalry between Departments that have responsibilities in this area – that is, they are so accustomed to conflict that they find the practices that foster true cooperation and partnership difficult.

2. In theory it is tempting to believe that elements within the Pillars should be held accountable, and forced by legislation or other means to support initiatives that would include people who are very poor and disadvantaged.  I know of no example where this has worked and it is almost impossible to do in practice.  All sorts of reasons can be given (including financial, health and safety, etc.) to resist legislative pressure.  Also, when budgets are tight, it is the poor and the most disadvantaged who always suffer.

This has been true as long as Governments exist, probably in every country in the world, and it is unrealistic to think that it might change.

So the thinking that no else will do this – we are going to have to do it for ourselves certainly holds true here.

3. Central to our sharing power model (and also central to saving money in the long term) is the person centred method of working. Despite the huge amount of research positing the benefits of this modality, including the impact of relationship on change, it can be difficult to get statutory funders to believe in it.

The Pillars seem to be determined to reduce problems to bite-size chunks.  (This tendency towards reductionist thinking is discussed in many different parts of the website).

When focusing on our rationale, there are a number of other related matters worthy of inclusion.

Firstly, there are many families within the Travelling Community in the Focus Group, who have many if not all of the characteristics described. Getting people to believe that supporting Travellers is good for society, not to mention highlighting their rights is not very popular in Ireland.  Travellers are not equally represented or included at any levels in our country.  Funders that allocate money to Traveller populations are few and far between.

Martin Luther King’s book Why We Can’t Wait [1] is very relevant here!

Secondly, revisiting the Chapter on Research and Evaluation, it is important, if funding is sought for research, it is for what works and not the myriad of research topics that are commonplace among the Pillars.  There has been so much research done on so many subjects concerned with exclusion, poverty, housing conditions, imprisonment, children in need, etc. that it could be argued that allocating money to further research on such topics is a waste of money that could be spent on alleviating distress that previous research has unearthed.  (This does not, of course, apply to student theses, dissertations etc. necessary for their education).

Thirdly, we need to set (or at least negotiate) evaluation parameters in an honest and open way with funders. This is most important.

It is healthy and necessary to have outcomes, goals, outputs, performance measurements, but they must be realistic – and take cognisance of the needs of the Focus Group and the impact of the complex variables we discussed in the Chapter on Modalities, Section Two.

[1]. This book (which, as I mentioned in the Introduction, inspired me) is well worth reading by anyone who wishes to work in this field.

Some years ago I was invited to a conference, and was asked to speak out of experience in respect of families affected by imprisonment – the Focus Group.

I was reluctant as I have (fortunately) not had the experience of imprisonment myself – yet!  I never went to bed hungry growing up.  Nor were my parents irresponsible alcoholics or drug addicts.

I was voicing my concerns about my lack of direct experience in the matters about which I was going to speak to a very courageous woman who had had very difficult experiences of poverty, addiction and imprisonment in her family.  After a short conversation where I doubted my abilities, due to my lack of direct experience of the issues, she said to me “if you don’t speak for us – who will?”

I was greatly heartened by the trust that the woman had placed in me and it was indeed a great privilege, but I was also challenged by the responsibility to reflect realities to the audience.

And one of those realities is the strength and wisdom that people have.

In getting others to believe, it is necessary to reflect both the realities of the difficulties of situations – and equally another reality – that is, what people can do (and actually do) for themselves – mentioned here.

On a final note, there is nothing more off-putting to the Pillars (or to any entity in Irish society in general) than setting oneself up to be superior. We may be different to other countries here that seem to value superiority and hierarchy. In our culture it is the kiss of death and leads to true marginalisation.

Perhaps this is begrudgery, or some sort of very long memory of the hunter-gatherer way of keeping everyone humble – but whatever it is we need to accept it – if we have ambitions to thrive.

(Though the Biblical reminder to us that he who humbles himself is exalted and he who exalts himself is humbled would indicate that dislike of superiority has been around for a long time and is not just an Irish thing ……)

In this Chapter where I am encouraging people within the Pillars to be interested in sharing power when supporting families in the Focus Group, it might be helpful to explore the context of our work.

Because many people consider this work to be challenging, I believe that its psychological-emotional context makes partnership challenging too.

Let us once again focus on the family to illustrate why.

An alcoholic or drug addict in a family is usually considered to be a burden to those members who are trying to get on with their lives.  Almost always, there is a history of worry and attention going back to childhood or early teenage years.  That mixture of anger and love that is almost unique to family is constant.

Concerned parents and other family members try everything but nothing seems to work.  Embarrassment, distrust, shame and guilt are common.  The member of the family who carries the burden is viewed with sometimes admiration, and sometimes condescension and it is thought that it is all right for him/her but I couldn’t do it.

Above all, the prevailing thought is that if only we didn’t have this problem our family’s troubles would be over!

While the person who carries the burden is allowed carry it, the condition is that (apart from the odd outburst of irrational anger) other dysfunctional behaviours within the family that might be contributing to the excessive misuse of substances – sometimes illegal – on the part of the member (or members) are not named, or challenged.

Almost always, if the burden carrier (or caretaker) begins to name these things (not to mention trying to change them) she faces an uphill battle.

And in addition (usually anyway) – because of the distrust that exists and has grown over so many years – the caretaker will rarely have much inclination to share power with the person who has the problem.

Perhaps it is because alcoholism and drug misuse touches so many families in Ireland that we tend to bring our nothing seems to work, or there’s nothing we can do except contain it prejudice into the helping arena.

Because this is what happens in society too.

So long as the widespread dysfunction, abuse, injustice, inequality and unfairness of society is not challenged, the well-meaning voluntary agencies and charities are allowed get along with it, and carry the emotional burden.

And, indeed, it may be the same with this website. Some of it may challenge you to think about the existing order of how-we-do-things and/or how-we-think-about-society. I am fairly sure that because it pushes out the boat a bit in those areas there may be many of you who will disagree with it’s propositions, ideas and even the conclusions that I reach about certain matters.

And you’ll probably think that I have some sort of obsession about this, but the points system to get into third level education is a perfect example – if you think about it – in that it is totally at variance with all modern theories in respect of what is good for children’s healthy development, and still it exists! There are now counsellors in schools to support children who are stressed but if the source of the stress is the education system it is the child who has to change – not the system.

Obviously, homelessness is another – there will be all sorts of tinkering with supplements, tax loopholes, caps on rent etc. to alleviate distress of those most affected but the current paradigm of providing housing will not be challenged.

And in our efforts to reduce the incidence of addiction, clever advertising which promotes addictive substances (and most certainly contributes to its incidence) is rarely challenged either.

Or, consider the environment. Primary and Secondary school students might be encouraged to do a project on something to do with saving energy, or recycling, or the benefits of preserving wild meadows so bees can thrive. A Government Minister might even come to the school and give some award, praise or recognition – and the pupils might be praised in the local paper. But taking the big corporations to task is beyond us. (It even appeared to be beyond us at the most recent climate change conference where, following endless debate and discussion, it is largely business-as-usual for the world’s mega-corporations).

And I won’t even mention our health system!

The reality is that if I, a community worker, try to protect a young child who is dropping out of school, and I notice that parents are putting undue emotional stress on the child, I can attempt to raise the parents’ awareness of the negative effect of their (often well-meaning) actions.

But I can rarely if ever do that if the system, or some element within the system, is causing him distress.  He just has to put up with it, as the vast majority of the population do, and try and work his way around it, or through it.

I’m not saying (nor do I have any confidence) that I believe anything will change here, much as you or I might wish for it. I’m just pointing out things that I regularly observe and that might make the task of getting the Pillars – as an entity – on board very challenging…….

The long running debate in Ireland about social partnership and whether or not it was/is good for vulnerable communities is still rumbling on.

In social partnership, meetings take place between high-up officials in Government Departments and decisions are made that, they maintain, will ensure that people on the ground get a better service, things will operate more smoothly and fairly, and there will be (what is nowadays known as) joined up thinking across all Departments that have responsibility for the welfare of vulnerable people.

These decisions are then communicated to community leaders on the ground, some of whom may have been involved in the meetings – but often having (in my experience anyway) very little real power.

For example, there have been a number of services for vulnerable people privatised in the recent past that, I am sure, would not have happened if the community’s voice had really been heard.

Also there is the amalgamation of the Community Development Projects as I mentioned already.

The lack of ground-up community influence is mostly due to Pillars dominance of the community and also because of the realities mentioned in the last post about how the Pillars will allow us get on with it on condition that we don’t challenge the paradigm of our top-down unequal society.

Once again, I need to say that while such social partnership processes might bring some good to some people in general in communities I don’t have a lot of faith that they effect substantial change in the lives of families in our Focus Group.

It is easy to be think negatively, be cynical, and throw our hands in the air.

However, I strongly believe that all the time that this is going on we can be forming relationships with good people in health, justice, education, social work, homelessness, even business to further the well-being of those for whom we advocate.

In fact I believe that we are being neglectful if we don’t.

And one of the reasons why we are being neglectful is that we are modelling difference rather than togetherness, them and us rather than us, blame rather than responsibility, and ultimately, dependence rather than autonomy.

Personal relationships with other agencies, particularly those within the Pillars who have significantly different goals, aims and values can be very challenging – but the rewards are substantial.

Partnership can, and is, a substantial protective factor against increasing individualism, neo-liberalism, privatisation and such tendencies by the State, that, in the past 30 years in Ireland, has – I believe anyway – allowed itself to be infiltrated by the values of the corporate world.

Working locally towards a common goal is very satisfying for practitioners – and we know from systems theory (upward and downward causation) that we will influence others – and, be guided and influenced by others’ wisdom also.

And what does it really matter if the Government or some local politician gets on the bandwagon and takes the credit. The most important thing is that a person’s suffering may be eased, his view of Government bodies may be enhanced, and maybe, he might even gain confidence in advocating for himself.

In well-thought-out low-key partnership, community work can mount a challenge to the dominant economic elites that want us to be passive consumers of their products.