| |
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.
|
|
