Kristen Komara
February 2004
This paper was written for
partial fulfillment of course requirements at
February 2004
Family Support in a Community
Context
“. . . children do better when
their families are strong, and families do better when they live in communities
that help them to succeed” (Annie
E. Casey Foundation).
The quote
above, taken from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s website, was presented to me
by my supervisor when I began working at my new field placement. He assured me
it was going to be important to our work, but at the time, the phrase had
little significance for me. At first, I did not see the connection that it
would have to my work in the new Community Outreach program of San Miguel, a
non-profit organization whose primary services revolve around two middle
schools in the Back of the Yards and Austin neighborhoods of Chicago (my work
is in Back of the Yards). Several months and courses at SSA later, I have a
better understanding of what my supervisor was telling me that first day,
putting it in terms of family support and the importance it has for the
families of our middle school. In addition, spending time in Back of the Yards
and getting to know community residents has helped me recognize the important
role that the community plays in our work.
This paper
takes this issue of family support in a community context further. By drawing
on my experiences at San Miguel and literature from the fields of family
support and community-based initiatives, this paper aims to gain a better
understanding of (1.) the relationship between family support and
community-based initiatives and (2.) some of the challenges of utilizing a
family support approach in a community setting.
In thinking
about the relationship between family support and community-based initiatives,
it is important to consider the meaning of the two terms, and the connection
they have to each other. Literature from the field informs us that while there
can exist a family support program, the term family support is better thought
of as an approach, or way of thinking about working with families, compared to
family support as one specific type of program. Family support programs can
look very different in different settings, and while there is no one commonly
accepted definition of family support programs, most family support programs
have similar aims. This is apparent in the definitions of family support
offered by Dunst. For example, “the goal of …family support programs is not to
provide families with direct services but to enhance parent empowerment—to
enable families to help themselves and their children” and “Family support
programs…are efforts designed to promote the flow of resources and supports to
families that strengthen the functioning and enhance the growth and development
of individual family members and the family unit…in ways that have empowering consequences…(Dunst,
p. 4). Much of the literature also points out that family support programs are
often community-based efforts. This characteristic of family support programs
further links family support to community-based initiatives.
Looking to the
literature on community-based initiatives, similar principles emerge. Kubisch
suggests the following definition for comprehensive community initiatives:
“they are neighborhood-based efforts that seek to improve the lives of
individuals and families, as well as the conditions of the neighborhoods in
which they reside, by working comprehensively across social, economic, and
physical sectors.” This sounds much like what was described as family support
above. Additionally, Kubisch and others (Chaskin, Hyman, Traynor) site the
importance of “community building” to these initiatives—the same as the
individual and community empowerment principles of family support.
The previous
discussion illustrates that family support programs and community-based
initiatives are very similar. In fact, family support programs can be part of
community-based initiatives and vice versa. Both concepts are approaches to
community development that guide our thinking about working with and
strengthening communities. These two approaches ask us to deviate from
traditional deficit-based, client-centered, narrowly focused efforts to more
asset-based, family-centered, comprehensive community initiatives. In addition,
scholars and practitioners urge us to consider the following themes that emerge
from the fields of family support and community-based initiatives: the
significance of community to these efforts; the need to be comprehensive; and
the importance of community building, or resident empowerment. Each of these
topics is discussed separately below.
The first
question to consider is why family support programs and community-based
initiatives emphasize the need to adopt a more family-centered approach? And
why should we consider the community context at all? The answer to these
questions lies in an ecological perspective to human development. Utilizing an
ecological perspective means considering the multiple and interconnected layers
of life that affect individual functioning, including individual
characteristics, family, school, friends, community, the juvenile justice
system, and ideologies. Difficulties in one aspect of this ecological framework
affect functioning in other aspects. Schorr (cited in Halpern, p. 200)
illustrates this dynamic:
“not only do the interconnected child and
family problems associated with inner-city poverty—difficulties in school,
juvenile crime, substance abuse, school-age childbearing…neglectful and abusive
parenting—cluster together in individuals, but ‘increasingly the individuals
also cluster, and the damage that begins in childhood and becomes so visible in
adolescence reverberates throughout a neighborhood…:’”
From this point of view, it follows that if interventions are
to enhance individual functioning, they must look beyond the individual to the
families and communities in which individuals are embedded.
In my experience at San Miguel,
understanding the community context has been crucial to my work across multiple
levels, whether it be the community, family, or individual. For example, Back
of the Yards has a high incidence of violence. A recent article in the Chicago
Tribune reported Back of the Yards as having the second highest level of
violence in
Literature on family support and
community-based initiatives stress the importance of comprehensive community
development as opposed to one-shot programs that fail to address the systemic
connections among problems. An ecological perspective has already been used to
argue that a problem in one domain of a person’s life is likely to affect
functioning in other domains. This interconnectedness among issues and problems
is the rationale for comprehensive community development. Many underserved
communities face multiple and interconnected problems. Thus, the only way to
achieve noticeable and sustainable change is to intervene on multiple fronts. I
recognize this in my own work. For example, one participant in our Community
Outreach program is facing financial difficulties. At the same time, she has a
low-wage job, has low education, and is not a legal resident. The point is,
enhancing functioning relies on a comprehensive approach that aims to
accomplish multiple changes across systems within a community.
The Importance of Community Building and
Resident Empowerment
Much of what
is written on family support and community-based initiatives stresses the
importance of community building, empowerment, and resident participation. From
Kubisch (p. 26), community building is “the process of strengthening the
ability of neighborhood residents, organizations, and institutions to foster
and sustain neighborhood change, both individually and collectively.” Family
support also emphasizes the use of paraprofessionals and “participants as the
professional,” rather than “professionals as the professional.” This means
moving away from seeing clients who receive help and services to seeing residents
and participants who are agents of change and who are part of the
community change process. Inherent in this is the important balance of
professionals and outside resources with resident participation.
But why is this so important to sustainable
community change? The answer lies in the belief that change is more lasting
when residents are empowered to take part and have ownership of their
community. Community building aims to foster formal and informal relationships
that build social capital within a community. In effect, change is lasting
because residents are empowered to have the skills, desire, and resources to
continue the community building process. San Miguel has moved towards this by
creating a women’s prayer and action group made up of female leaders in the
community. The group is an opportunity for the women to support each other
while collaborating to change identified aspects of their neighborhood.
Implementing
the previously discussed principles of family support and community-based
initiatives is not an easy task, especially for organizations and communities
that are used to going about “business as usual.” Challenges emerge when
individuals and communities shift from traditional frameworks of service
delivery to initiatives that are family-centered and community-based. From my
experience at San Miguel, three major challenges of applying family support
principles in a community context include (1.) collaboration and the integration
of services, (2.) diversity and working in ways that are culturally sensitive
to community residents, and (3.) resident involvement and the balance between
professional and paraprofessional.
Part of being comprehensive is integrating
community services and collaborating across community organizations and service
providers. Adopting these core principles of family support and community-based
initiatives, San Miguel’s growth includes building and maintaining mutual
relationships among community stakeholders. My supervisor is often saying that
when developing programs we “don’t want to reinvent the wheel,” but with
limited resources, especially limited workers’ hours, it has been difficult to
pursue the time-consuming task of building relationships with community
stakeholders. We struggle between needing to maintain current programming, and
wanting to grow and reach out to the community. Certainly, hiring an additional
staff member would be one way of dealing with the problem, but even still,
collaboration in a community that has been historically disintegrated is a
daunting task. Possible strategies for moving forward include:
§
Initial
community forum.
Hold a community forum and invite various community stakeholders, luring them
with breakfast and an interesting keynote speaker. Stakeholders would include
community residents as well as representatives from service providers,
businesses, and community organizations. After the speaker, divide into smaller
groups and briefly discuss being done in the community. Form smaller task
groups around various community issues, and most importantly, do not dismiss
without scheduling another meeting.
§
Take
the time to follow-through.
In the Back of the Yards, a Peace and Education Coalition already exists to
discuss the educational and safety needs of youth, but I have noticed that
little follow through takes place, whether it be on the part of San Miguel or
other members. Indeed, it takes time to follow-up, but building partnerships
and working together will save time and energy in the long run.
§
Collaborate
to conduct a needs/strengths assessment. At San Miguel, we recognize the need for a
community needs assessment. We talk about the neighborhood as underserved and
disenfranchised, and while there is truth to this, the reality is that we have
a lot to learn about what is out there. Collaborating with stakeholders to
perform a needs assessment would be a way to gain access to information that we
do not have, as well as a way to build consensus around community issues.
Inherent in
the principles of social work, family support, and community-based initiatives
is an appreciation for the diversity of human life, and the need to be
culturally sensitive and respective in all aspects of work. In theory, this
concept is clear; however, in practice, it is much more difficult to
operationalize. This is the case at San Miguel. Indeed, no one at San Miguel is
culturally intolerant or ignorant. There is no blatant disregard of our
families’ culture, but it is true that the majority of those who work at San
Miguel operate from a different cultural background and may find it difficult
to recognize and appreciate the differences that exist. A vivid example of this
occurred last month. During a parents’ meeting in which parents were receiving
help with the FAFSA (form for government financial aid for college), parents
were asked to split up based on their residency status. We asked families who
were undocumented to stand up and leave the room to discuss alternatives to
government financial aid. At the time, we thought this would save undocumented
families time by not having to sit through the session on FAFSA, a form that
essentially has no use to them. As it turned out, this was not a good idea.
Undocumented families were unnecessarily alienated and made to feel
uncomfortable. Greater cultural sensitivity and respect for diversity may have
avoided this situation and guided our practice in another direction. Some
strategies for gaining greater cultural sensitivity include:
§
Hire
more Spanish speaking staff. At San Miguel, translators are used when necessary, but it
would be great if more staff spoke Spanish.
§
Culture
diversity workshops, especially on the Latino culture. Diversity workshops would be
useful, as simply knowing a little more about a culture often makes it easier
to work within it.
§
Hire
more paraprofessionals and residents from the community. This would take care of the need
for more Spanish speakers as well as for a better understanding of the
community’s culture. This would also be a step towards the organization’s
community building goals.
§
Open
discussions about strengths and weaknesses in dealing with diversity. Rather than dance around issues
of race and culture, staff should be open to the challenges that exist when
working in a different cultural and community context. Greater self-awareness
among staff would enhance San Miguel’s programs.
This is a
crucial challenge for San Miguel, especially since resident engagement is one
of the core principles of comprehensive community initiatives and a key
characteristic of family support programs. The major challenge for San Miguel
and the Community Outreach program is balancing resident driven community
practice with the need for professional resources. My supervisor clearly
recognizes the need for resident engagement, and programs that are driven by
the strengths and needs of the community, but time and resource constraints
have limited these principles in practice. Most of the planning for Community
Outreach takes place behind the walls of San Miguel. Strides are being made
with the recent initiation of a women’s prayer and action group, and time will
tell if it will continue to be guided by the residents themselves. Strategies
to consider along the way include:
§
Hire
more paraprofessionals and residents from the community. The same as above, hiring more
residents from the community will assure that the organization’s programs truly
follow and utilize the strengths of the community. Several community residents
have been hired in the past, but mostly to fulfill administrative positions. To
move forward, San Miguel could hire residents to play a greater role in the
decision making of the organization.
§
Conduct
resident focus groups and participate in community meetings. Community focus groups and
meetings would be an opportunity to engage residents and build a consensus
around community issues. Of course, this strategy will only work if residents’
ideas and opinions are acknowledged and put into practice.
§
Create
opportunities for “professionals” and residents to work together in the
planning process.
As we expand and build the capacity of the Community Outreach program, we need
to consider the fact that sustainable change is unlikely to occur unless
residents are engaged and empowered to take collective action.
As San Miguel
continues to grow and build capacity as an organization, its placement within
the Back of the Yards will have a significant effect on the shape and
characteristics of the programs that emerge. And while the previous discussion
suggests that there are many challenges to applying family support in a
community setting, this approach to community development is likely to have the
most lasting effects in our efforts to build strong families and communities.
Returning to the quote at the beginning, “. . . children do better when
their families are strong, and families do better when they live in communities
that help them to succeed,” community-based organizations must shift
directions and move towards a family support and community-based initiative
approach to practice.