Human Services the National Organization for Feminist

Human Services

The National Organization for Feminist Human Services

evaluation of human resource practices

MACROBUTTON NoMacro [Click here and type name]

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM - HUMAN SERVICES

The Human Services Council appreciates the opportunity to provide comment and guidance on the merits and drawbacks of incorporating inclusive and anti-oppressive practices in our human service delivery. As you may already know, in the past, many feminist social service agencies such as ours have faced grave trials in maintaining our commitment to anti-oppression work in the current setting of practice. After interviewing several in our department, it has come to my attention that with practitioners our feminist agencies in New York have revealed the extent to which a changing policy background has affected the power of our organizations to integrate anti-oppressive principles into our company practice. However, in spite of these challenges, however, I think that by identifying drawback and benefits like other feminist agencies in our community, we can continue to maintain an organizational commitment to anti-oppression work setting.

It has come my attention that utilizing the anti-oppressive model of social work practice in our company will help seeks important change in the arrangements of our organization and the society that are continuing to preserve oppression (Hick & Pozzuto, 2005; Mullaly, 2002). I believe that personal issues are redefined as political concerns needing structural answers through a method that delivers instant care to those who are experiencing systemic damage and advancing a bigger change in the direction of social justice (Mullaly, 1997). Here in our organization, we believe that as an tactic informed by an examination of power relations, anti-oppressive social work can strive to enable the political and personnel authorization of groups who are disadvantaged by interconnecting systems of heterosexism racism, classism, ableism, bigotry, and other types of oppression (Mullaly, 2002). To that end, all degrees of communication inside and outside social work practice such as ours will need to be are targeted for change (Dominelli, 1998).

It has been understood that in recent years, there has been a lot lively selection with the model of anti-oppression inside social work theory (Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R.O. (2005), Simultaneously it is clear to our organization that as anti-oppressive practice are gaining widespread acceptance, and the context of practice is dramatically changing. Right now, the current context of social work practice is branded by financial effectiveness, managerialism (Barnoff, L., George, P., & Coleman, B. 2006), fragmentation, deskilling (Baines, 2004a), and bureaucratization (Moffatt, 1999). We think that the increase of prevalence of residual, market-oriented ideologies has possibly reduced the position of the welfare state (Lo, J., & Halseth, G. 2009). In our company, there has been a snowballing extraction of capitals for social services over time.

At the moment, this tendency continues to have a bad influence on the social service subdivision (Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R.O., 2005). Even in our organization, it has led to services driven by forces of the market rather than by needs (Barnoff, L., George, P., & Coleman, B. (2006), organizations like ours who have in the past have placed importance on income over people (Barnoff, L., George, P., & Coleman, B. 2006)), and harsh, punitive social programs (Lo, J., & Halseth, G. 2009). We believe that this climate will encourage an approach to social service delivery that will simplify and limit the concerns facing our service users (Brown, H. 2008) and give only suggestive relief to the needs of people (Baines, 2004a).

It is also necessary to address the lack of satisfactory resources in the current setting of practice has a critical negative influence on the skills of feminist agencies such as our in engaging in some critical facets of anti-oppression work. We are learning that when agencies do not have the necessary resources, then agency personnel are sometimes forced to become almost wholly focused upon guaranteeing that the agency simply continues to function. We have found that one of the undesirable influences in relation to the addition of anti-oppression work is that agencies do not have the "bonus " to involve in the long-term tactical planning that is required when an organization is trying an important shift in its organizational trainings.

We at our organization think one of the things that make it hard is that women's organizations are being pursued way too much more by this government and are losing backing. People are being fired, so now we there are more workers now doing twice as much work just to make sure the organization is going perfect. Some are even asking the question. "How can you make us to take this [anti-oppression structural change work] on? Obviously now, it is clearly about survival. (Janice)

In our organization, we understand that the lack of sufficient funding makes a climate in which anti-oppression work can be looked at as unimportant. In some situations, not having enough funding can be expended as a basis by agencies to evade the work of anti-oppression altogether. Many in our organization have shared about how some agencies are taking advantage of the fact that they are famished of resources to evade involving in any anti-oppression work: "I think not having any resources can be used as an excuse not to participate in anti-oppression work. So, of course, it does make a difference. If there is a whole lot of money it absolutely does [but] many are seeing that being used in ways not to do just some work that does not cost a lot, and can be done in a lot of different was" (Jonathan).

These employees made the point to us that, while a lack of subsidy can make certain characteristics of anti-oppression work difficult, it does not make all anti-oppressive exercises impracticable. Further, they make the point that, in spite of the continuing challenges, agencies cannot just set aside exertions to follow integration of anti-oppression practice while expecting the entrance of more funds from the funders.

In our organization, we also understand that integrating anti-oppression organizational change strategies will costs us some money. And we also understand that honestly, that is how many people and organizations have managed to get away with not doing much work at all. However, our organization has run a deficit for three years since we would not give up a feature of our service that will provide admission for women who speak languages that are not English. Of course our organization would not do it. We believe that if you are a feminist, then you should commit to guaranteed principles. An individual should commit to the framework. So of course that might mean that they are going to have a decrease in service in a specific region or it should mean a lot of things, but it is very important that you still have to move ahead and do it. In our organization in the past and maybe going into the future that we may have to take a salary cut when we run our deficit, to come out of that and then again we are aware that is a hard choice.

Resounding this feeling, another employee has put it this way: "We should never use lack of not having enough resources as an excuse for not doing and work at all. I think that it is important that you do the work with fewer resources, but still the work will have to be done somehow. You still find a way to do the anti-oppression work, but you do it in such a way that whatever little you may have, it will allow you to still do it" (Eric).

In our organization, we understand that the position of these employees was that, if an agency does consider anti-oppression to be a part of its essential organizational reason and processes rather than just looking at it as just an "add-on," the influence of inadequate reserves is felt, but it does not totally disrupt the agency's energies. When anti-oppression exercises are seen as "add-ons," nevertheless, they become a target that is easy when resources are cut. Another employee, for example, talked about her experiences in a previous agency where almost all the anti-oppression connected creativities were limited inside the Access and Equity Department. Although some agency associates thought this was a valuable way to assimilate anti-oppression, when the agency underwent a grave funding disaster, the Access and Equity Department was the primary zone to be cut (Buhler, S. 2009). Her involvements in a feminist agency that was much smaller where anti-oppression work was intellectualized as an essential part of all of its procedures gave a difference: when funding cuts took place in this specific agency, pursuing anti-oppression advantages as an "easy" way to save up a lot of money was impracticable because they were basic to the core workings of every facet of the agency and therefore could not be simply removed.

We are also aware in our organization that as in relation to organizational strategic planning, features of anti-oppression work that are requiring long-term savings of time and possessions have become problematic. Other employees did identify human resource development as another place that has underwent a similar shock. For example, one employees form another feminist agency suggested that, even when an agency is committed to assimilating an anti-oppression agenda, the "survival mode" atmosphere does not permit for the expansion of human resources to make this conceivable:

It's not just about the money...it really is about structuring knowledge inside of an organization. It's compounded by the idea that you have high staff turnover, you have a lot of people that are going through burnout that is happening. If there was some workforce that was done around ten years ago, the likelihoods are that you've done some [anti-oppression] work and you are in a place where you can apply some things. However, given the atmosphere and with contract workers, there is no stability. We do not get subsidized to have full-time everlasting positions with benefits, so that we end up doing eight-month contracts, and every time a person is hired, they have to be trained and then you have to put all of your energy into teaching them about anti-oppression work, and then after a year of work, they turn around and leave. (Paul)

Other employees that we talked to argued that funders should support agencies sufficiently, so they can assimilate a less insincere, more intensely rooted form of anti-oppression work into their structural systems. In another feminist agency, for example, we have heard that about the ongoing staff turnover (stemmed from current money trends) guaranteed that anti-oppression training had to stay focused at a fundamental place. If the same exact staff team were together over a longer era of time, the agency would be capable to construct upon preceding training and could emphasis on more multifaceted features of anti-oppression practice as time advanced.

Participants told our organization that even those funders who do command some type of anti-oppression work in agencies flop to assign resources to this end, which, in peoples' minds, is an avenue for failure: "If the City [New York] is instructing that all establishments that get [municipal] funding need to apply a diversity implementation plan, they need to have some very sophisticated training, something to help the women understand what they're doing" (Fiona). Further, participants argued that funders who expect agencies to develop anti-oppression policies to guide their work should also ensure that agencies are actually implementing these policies.

As an organization, we have to also consider that with practice and policy one has to expect the efforts related with change. Even in broad-minded settings literacy is needed in human relations in order to endorse anti-oppression changes. In anticipation of resistance and struggle and, all facets of our agency need to be reflected for change in order to apply change. Our organization addressing oppression through specialized programs or appointing practices is insufficient so long as the organization does not address as well its complete arrangement, purpose, mission and commitment among organizational members.

As an organization, we are learning that too often, anti-oppression is dealt with as if it is a policy vision or matter. We have discovered by modeling after other organizations that the naming of the problem and the delivery of rules is not sufficient. Anti-oppressive organizational change and exercises in our organization will be defined as open-ended and open to continuous change and review. In addition, the policy content in our organization that supports anti-oppression will be somewhat different than that to which we have become comfortable with. Policy that speak to anti-oppression would incorporate statements about the conflict nature of principle and practice, an integrative comprehension of the nature of social change and personal emotions and, most essentially, the best ways to describe processes that are open to struggle instead of avoiding it.

We understand that the practice of anti-oppression is difficult by the fact that organizational associates are going to need to be clear about the ongoing struggle, and the changes that need to be made, but also be open to reassessing how that is achieved. For this reason, our organization that is dedicated to change will need to build within our structure places for procedure where disputes can occur, where disturbing practices will be challenged and where compromise can be reformulated among organizational associates. The Leadership of our organization will need to be more comfortable with guiding our members through inconsistent processes, and unclear relations. Developments among organizational associates, even though concentrated on a common objective, may be tense and confusing. This is to be estimated when working in a setting of diversity and straining to bring about change that is transformative.