Community Work

Learning and Supervision

Catherine Briscoe, David N. Thomas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781032041902
• eBook ISBN: 9781000437836
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Social Work

The growth of interest in community work during the seventies was very marked. But while much had been written on the actual practice of community work, there was for too long a lack of British material on the vital subjects of useful theory, training and the development of skills.

In this title, originally published in 1977, the authors brought together for the National Institute for Social Work experienced teachers and practitioners of community work in an integrated and carefully structured textbook which would further understanding of the means through which community workers develop their knowledge and skills; it would be widely welcomed by all those involved in aspects of community work – as teachers, students, practitioners, supervisors and as local authority training officers.

The first part of the book has four chapters on the principle means through which community workers develop their skills within their employing agencies. Part two deals with theories and the contribution made to community work by the social sciences, group work, research methods and management and planning studies. The last part of the book contains three papers which examine the major problems and issues in the placement, learning experiences and assessment of students on field work.

PART I DEVELOPING PRACTICE: THE WORKER

Introduction to Part I

Training and learning do not come to an end at the conclusion of the community worker’s period of study. Students will continue to develop their knowledge and skills ‘on the job’, as community workers employed in an agency or by a community group. Indeed, many community workers do not have any training other than that which they acquire in service, and other professionals working in the community are usually able to develop the community work component of their jobs only through opportunities presented in the course of their work.

Many writers have stressed the value of in-service training,¹ and the chapter by David Thomas and William Warburton outlines the different opportunities for staff development that are available for community workers in social service departments. Many of these opportunities are available in the other settings in which community workers are employed such as planning, housing and chief executive departments, and a variety of voluntary agencies. Thomas and Warburton discuss the use that is made of supervision, consultants and community workers’ groups, and in the subsequent papers each of these opportunities for staff development is explored in more detail. Patrick Harris discusses the contribution of agency-based supervision; Catherine Briscoe treats the role and work of the community work consultant; and Peter Baldock reviews the opportunities for training that may be found in community workers’ groups. Each of these chapters attempts to analyse the current situation in respect of supervision, consultancy and peer group support, and each presents specific recommendations that are relevant to community workers and those responsible for their ongoing learning and development.

The chapter by Patrick Harris examines the administrative, educative and supportive aspects of the community work supervisor’s task. Harris argues that ‘a supervisor should strive to help his community workers become more independent, self-critical and self-directing’. The paper indicates that there are many factors which may frustrate this objective, including the supervisor’s commitment to his agency and the community worker’s political views and loyalty to the community groups with whom he works.

Catherine Briscoe suggests that consultancy is a way of promoting and developing community work practice. She explores the types of help that community work consultants are asked to give. These include planning, training, conflict mediation and confirming values and goals. The chapter also presents a process of consultation that includes a checklist of tasks for the consultant and the community worker.

The final chapter in this section is by Peter Baldock. He examines the composition and tasks of community workers’ groups. He suggests that very few of the tasks undertaken in community workers’ groups relate to professional development or training. Baldock indicates some of the difficulties that these groups encounter in taking on a training function, suggests some solutions and concludes with the view that the role of community workers’ groups in training is necessarily limited.

References

1. See for instance John Ward, ‘In-Service Community Work Training: A Job-Centred Approach’, in D. Jones and M. Mayo (eds), Community Work Two (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975).

Chapter 1 STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN COMMUNITY WORK IN SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS^*

David N. Thomas and R. William Warburton

An important task in any organisation that delivers goods or services is that of monitoring, and helping to enhance, the quality of the work of its employees. In the social services the motivation for quality control does not come from a possible loss of patronage if standards decline and services deteriorate. Rather, it is largely dependent on the standards individual agencies or departments set themselves and the motivation of individual staff members.

Social services departments attempt to develop the competency of their staff through a variety of mechanisms. These include supervision with the Area Officer or a senior social worker; general discussion opportunities of an informal nature with colleagues; in-service training in the form of attendance at courses and seminars; and the provision of a consultant, often from outside the department. Standards of practice may also be improved by the individual himself through learning from experience, working and observing others and through reading and private study.

In the remainder of this chapter we shall suggest some of the factors that influence both the provision of such opportunities and the use made of them by community workers. It is our contention that many community workers are not, and do not wish to be, influenced by those mechanisms which have traditionally been used in social work agencies to improve the practice of their staff. We suggest, for instance, that supervision and other discussion opportunities are inadequately exploited by community workers and their departments.

The Provision of Opportunities

The scale and quality of the provision of in-service training opportunities will be affected by a number of factors that derive from the nature of the organisation in which the community worker operates. These will include, but are not limited to:

* This chapter draws upon contacts and discussions with groups of community workers where members are attached to area groups. Many of the ideas that we put forward are being further explored by us, but we feel it might be of use to share them at this early stage.

• the culture and tradition in the department in respect of ongoing education and training;
• the resources available to the department. For instance, the size of the budget allocated for staff training, as well as the expertise that is available both internally and externally. Many departments and agencies may find it difficult to find people sufficiently experienced in community work for tasks such as staff consultancy;
• the department’s perception of community work. It is not uncommon to find confusion in the social services about the nature, goals and methods of community work. To the extent that these are unclear, it will be correspondingly difficult to identify and provide for the development of community work staff. In this respect, the presence of a community work adviser at a senior management level may help towards the provision of in-service training opportunities.

The Use of Discussion Opportunities

In this section we shall look particularly at the use made by community workers of supervision meetings and of informal opportunities to discuss their work with colleagues. We shall refer to both kinds of opportunities for skill development and knowledge promotion as discussion opportunities.

The use by community workers of discussion opportunities will largely be determined by the relationship between a community worker and his social work colleagues. This relationship will in turn be fashioned by a variety of factors, amongst which we select the following as important for community workers in area groups of social service departments:

1. the office of the community worker within the organisation of the area group. An office ‘is a point (location) in organisational space defined by one or more roles (and thereby one or more activities) intended for performance by a single individual. It locates the individual in relation to his fellows with respect to the job to be done and the giving and taking of orders’;¹
2. the training and work background of the community worker;
3. the goals and values of the community worker;
4. the basis of the authority of the community worker’s supervisor;
5. the community worker’s sources of authority;
6. the role orientation of the community worker.

The office of the community worker

It may be the case that the readiness of a department to provide, and that of community workers to use, discussion opportunities will depend in part upon the extent to which the community worker is seen, and sees himself, as part of the area group within which he works. It is our view that many community workers in social service departments are only marginal members of their area groups, and that their office is usually located on the boundary of the area group organisation. Many community workers seem to be members of the department only insofar as it pays their salaries, provides minimal resources such as a desk and telephone, and gives some general mandate for their work. We believe that the neighbourhood interventions of many community workers are ‘grafted’ on to the social services department and that their area group is, in effect, a ‘host’ system for a range of goals, values, strategies and activities that remain unintegrated within those of the department.²

The community worker, unlike his social work colleagues, is relatively free of devices which manage the import of problems upon which he works and which control the quality of the service that he gives. Whereas intake teams or allocation meetings distribute individual cases to particular social workers, the community worker makes decisions himself about the work he will take on. We have found little evidence that these decisions are made with reference to the views of colleagues, or to the overall goals or priorities (where they are articulated) of the area group.

In addition, many community workers are not fully members of a team within their area group; they often describe themselves as ‘attached’ or ‘allocated’ to a team, sometimes on a rota basis. Community workers seem in most cases to be directly responsible to the Area Officer and often they have direct access to people further up the hierarchy, like an Assistant Director. Whatever the value of this access to the worker’s activities, it certainly serves to heighten his distinctive position in the area group structure.

The boundary office of a community worker in an area group is often a source of anxiety and community workers talk frequently of their feelings of isolation. It also exacerbates worries about conflicting loyalties to department and community groups: many community workers, feeling isolated, vague about their duties and uncertain about their area group’s expectations, will expend much time and energy in attacking the department but without recognising it as a resource to aid their decisions and develop skills and knowledge.

The training and background of the community worker

We suggest that a community worker’s experience in social work, if any at all, as well as his previous education and training for community work, if any, will help to determine whether or not he will be able to identify with (and be influenced by) the importance given within the social services department to the monitoring and enhancement of the competence of staff. Community workers with some form of social work training and with some previous experience as caseworkers may be more ready to accept the responsibility of the department, and the contributions of their area group colleagues, to further skill and knowledge. Such workers, through their previous experience of social work, may be in a state of ‘role readiness’ and thus be more willing to accept the authority of the department, and the opportunities given by working in it, in respect of staff development.³ In effect, they will have been socialised to the culture of the social services department and be more willing and able to respond positively to those elements of the culture that attach importance to quality control and improvement.

The goals and values of the community worker

It may be hypothesised that the readiness of community workers to make use of discussion opportunities presented within their departments will also be determined by the extent to which the community worker subscribes, if at all, to its significant goals and norms, and perhaps to those within the social service profession as a whole. Rothman has also indicated, following on a number of research studies into the role of social service professionals, that ‘among social work professionals, community organisers and group workers are more likely to support activist political strategies than their colleagues in casework’.⁴ To the extent that community workers identify a dissonance between their values, objectives and strategies and those of their social work colleagues, they will be reluctant to make use of opportunities provided for staff development. This reluctance may derive from the apprehension that experiences such as supervision will be used to exact conformity with the department’s goals and values.

The basis of the supervisor’s authority

The perception of many community workers that events like supervision sessions and team meetings will be used to exact conformity with the goals and norms of the department influences and is influenced by, the community worker’s view of the nature of the authority and power of those who are responsible for the management and supervision of workers. We shall explore this by using French and Raven’s categories of bases of power.⁵

They include:

• coercive power (based on a capacity to withhold rewards and hand down punishments);
• reward power (the provision of different kinds of rewards);
• expert power (power based on knowledge and expertise);
• legitimate power (that derived from legal, administrative or moral norms);
• referent power (power based on personal identification with the leaders).

We believe that many community workers perceive their supervisor’s authority (the supervisor is usually the Area Officer) to come largely from his higher rank in the bureaucracy (legitimate power) and partly from his power to support or refuse requests for finance for community groups (reward power).

In this kind of situation, supervisors will be seen to have both the institutional authority and the veto over financial requests that are often necessary and useful in securing compliance with the goals and norms of an agency. More significantly, many workers deny or do not acknowledge the expert and referent power of their supervisors, most of whom will be experienced in some area of casework rather than community work.

The community worker’s sources of authority

The phrase ‘sources of authority’ is used in much the same way that it was developed by Martin Rein.⁶ We use the phrase to refer to those sources from which the community worker derives authority and legitimisation for his work and activities; that is, his sanction to operate.

Rein has suggested four sources of authority for the planner, and we shall use these to indicate those of the community worker.

They are:

• expertise;
• bureaucratic position;
• consumer preferences;
• professional values.

We shall add one more source to this list:

• from statute.

The authority to work of community workers in social services departments derives, whether they like it or not, from holding a position in the local authority bureaucracy, accountable to a political and administrative hierarchy. But many community workers also see themselves as accountable to the group with whom they work so that their strongest drives are to derive and assert authority as consumer advocates – as servants of community groups. We perceive this tension between reality (bureaucratic position...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I: Developing Practice: The Worker
• Part II: Theories for Practice
• Part III: Developing Practice: The Student
• Postword
• Index