| |
Since these are services delivered solely by the non-governmental
sector there is no monitoring body that either oversees the quality
and nature of their work nor evaluates the impact of what they do.
Of course some of these are international non-governmental agencies
and they are self regulatory in nature. There are no gatekeepers of
their knowledge as such for they claim to be all things to all
people which in one sense are the nature of their multidisciplinary
focus.
The State is also interested in knowing what codes of conduct guide
them for they belong to no professional group. Finally is the
question of sustainability. These are issues that need closer
scrutiny in the interest of all psychosocial workers, the
stakeholders, clients and the State.
This paper will address these in a dispassionate way hoping that the
psychosocial workers will get their act together in the interest of
the clients they serve.
What is psychosocial work?
Is it something new? It is both yes and no. Like all workers in the
social arena they will defend their turf by claiming that they do
something that others are failing to do. The workers who claim to do
psychosocial work come from different fields and many from the
various subject areas in the humanities.
There are cultural anthropologists, lawyers, sociologists,
psychologists, geographers, counselors, a few psychiatrists, and
many others. Not all these are tertiary qualified and moreover there
is no formal training as such in psychosocial work. In fact there is
no governing body or a certifying mechanism or a course as such in
psychosocial work.
Because of these lacunae they seem to describe psychosocial as an
attitude or a perspective in which case it is unfair to pronounce
someone as a psychosocial worker for it is patently not true. An
approach is something that anyone can learn in a matter of days and
it has no claims to professional status.
The author believes that this is a legitimate attempt by various
social and psychological scientists to enter the social arena. They
have a worthwhile claim to serving the people by becoming a team
member.
The social workers on the other hand are trained to become
generalists having learnt the fundamentals of most liberal arts
subjects in the universities prior to embarking on social work
practice on that foundation.
But psychosocial graduates have only been taught their own
discipline with a smattering in the practice area. Hence they can
only become a team member among others who are also working in the
field.
All human services work is psychosocial work and no one can claim
ownership to the total individual other than being a member of a
multidisciplinary team. Social workers have been traditionally
dominating the field as workers who have some special skills and the
capacity to work alongside psychiatrists, medics and others.
There are international covenants calling for many professionals to
recognize the interconnectedness of the work and also the importance
of the social component, which is salutary. But that does not
legitimate a special group of people as gatekeepers of that proviso.
However if psychosocial work is an approach that demonstrates the
interconnectedness then there is no reason why a group of
professionals cannot provide that systems knowledge in a
professional manner so that others may find it compelling to
incorporate that element in their professional training.
The medical faculties now have psychologists and social workers and
psychologists do community studies and sociology. Psychosocial work
is a new development in the academic world which hitherto taught
human sciences in isolation and jealously guarded their turf.
In Sri Lanka sociologists who were reluctantly admitted initially to
the universities then barricaded themselves by not allowing
vocational professionalisms such as social work or social policy to
the faculty.
When they realized that they could not enter as professionals to the
social development field they surreptitiously dabbled in community
development, social work, international relations, and human rights
work, as elements in applied sociology.
When the universities in other countries are quick to accept the new
developments in technology and science our universities tend to
still cling onto traditional disciplines as sacrosanct and then the
foreigners swamp the country at every opportunity.
When tsunami struck there were no social workers who were tertiary
brained and the foreigners who flooded through were totally alien to
the culture and society of Sri Lanka. But they came with the goodies
and hence they were called the leaders in the rehabilitation effort.
An embarrassment of riches?
Sri Lanka needs workers of all sorts in the human services. We have
just started the Bachelor of Social Work at the National Institute
of Social Development which functions under the Ministry of Social
Welfare only in December this year. It will produce about 50
qualified social workers every year. But the need is great.
In the estimates done we have about 2000 working as social workers,
though not university trained. But by international standards,
including India the need exceeds 40,000.
In hospitals, schools, children's homes (34000 children) certified
schools, prisons, field workers to prevent abuse, domestic violence,
probation, social services, housing community development, etc.
Psychosocial workers work in these areas but predominantly in the
conflict zones where non-Sri Lankans are in need, as well as
comfortable.
The sector of psychosocial is virtually donor driven and it operates
mostly outside the State mainstream services. What is necessary is
for the State to know what they do and whether what they do conform
to the standards set by the international covenants.
It is always possible to transmit unsavory commodities in the
name of human services for we are told that some organizations which
are proscribed in other countries operate here under the guise of
psychosocial.
Given the numbers of workers and the thousands of dollars which are
presumably donated to Sri Lanka we are curious to find out the
impact of the work they do. If the claim that there are over one
hundred such agencies in the North and East and a similar number in
the South then we ought to be a happy, bubbling community with all
our psychosocial problems been attended to.
We must be psychologically and socially a fit and proper society
which is far from the truth. A cursory examination reveals that the
problems are getting worse.
A need for ground investment?
There is one thing blatantly clear. However much many of these
workers may not like it much of this donor funds are consumed by the
workers themselves. The State is rather perturbed that there is very
little of ground investment of this dollar. What we mean is that all
dollars are circulating among the experts from afar and the middle
class local workers.
The poor are only receiving the therapeutic sweet talk. These poor
people are assessed over and over gain, interviewed by so many,
promised so much but at the end of the day the material impact is
nil or negligible. Although so much of research is done on them and
they receive very little of the money for their crying need which is
poverty.
In the social field there is no need for exploratory research
because we have this information, except for nationwide compilation
of existing research which none of these groups does. The
psychosocial work is to relieve the poverty of spirit but underneath
that lies poverty of material living. We must be able to alleviate
that at least to some degree.
Generally people have good coping skills in times of grief and loss
but that resilience has a lot to do with the fact that this strength
depends on a material base. To go on with their life they need both
a sound mind and a good economic standard.
Losing loved ones is distressful to say the least but, let's not
forget, it was also a loss of livelihood. Psychosocial workers and
donor agencies must put aside a part of the money to lift people up
materially because therapeutic talk is insufficient.
One thing in favour of social workers and psychosocial workers is
that unlike the specialists such as doctors and psychiatrists these
are generalists who coordinate with others to deliver a package of
services. In that regard they are performing a valuable role.
In a country without many qualified social workers these workers are
necessary but only as an adjunct to material supplies. I am sad that
many of these donors who are from rich countries fail to understand
that psychosocial work in their respective countries is given to
people who have a sufficient material base to manage the other needs
and wants.
For them it is mostly poverty of spirit but to our poor people it
is mostly absolute poverty. With kin supports, good cultural
education, etc., they can lift themselves easily only if the former
is made available. This is the fundamental truth that all social
workers in a developing country ought to realize.
There lies the difference in the practice of social work between
developed West and the developing countries. That is social
sensitivity without which any psychosocial work becomes meaningless.
Counseling and advice about child rearing, good hygiene, holistic
health, fulsome nutrition rings hollow to a person who cannot fork
out two square meals for the children.
To say that putting one's children in an institution is a betrayal
of the mothering responsibities is not only bad advice but also a
cruel allegation to a poor mother.
The 34000 children in the children's institutions in Sri Lanka are
not much because of poor parenting skills but deprivation and
poverty. It is about time that all psychosocial workers,
particularly those good intentioned souls who come on mercy missions
need to understand.
The Government ought to demand that from every donor program a good
portion is directly put into the people as a ground investment which
will at least be fair in the distribution stakes.
It will also contribute to the sustainability of many of these
programmes once the donor funds and the donor funded personnel are
gone.
|
|
|
