Distinguishing Between Enabling and Supportive Relationships
My thanks for the blog request on this specific topic.
I’d be hard pressed to think of a housing support worker/case manager that deliberately tries to make the life of any client worse. People go into this type of work because they tend to want to help others. But I think we need to take time to reflect on when helping becomes hurting – even when it is unintentional…when our actions aren’t actually helpful at all. Understanding the differences between enabling our clients and supporting our clients is an important part of self-reflection as a practitioner and is an essential distinction to be made in the type of help we are providing to people.
I look at support as the art and act of encouraging a person to achieve goals. It is the function of working with the clients we have the privilege of assisting, not working for them. We want the individual to deliberate before making decisions, have information to make informed choices, and to experience and understand the consequences of their actions. In a supportive relationship, we want our clients to accept full responsibility for their life – to increase their self-awareness and self-management to the point where they can reframe and rebuild their life. Through supportive relationships we are respectfully presenting opportunities – at times challenging opportunities – for positive life changes while increasing opportunities for growth, learning and awareness.
I look at enabling as the act of encouraging or failing to prevent a person from engaging in unhealthy or self-destructive behavior. It can be deliberate or through omission. In this situation, support staff tend to do things for their clients instead of with their clients. The worker is more likely to try and shield their client from decision-making or painful experiences. They are more likely to make excuses for ongoing behavior. They are less likely to focus on motivating change, and instead can become experts at reinforcing the status quo. In an enabling relationship, the “help” provided by the worker is hurting more than it is helping.
One of the ways to examine our work as practitioners is to ask ourselves about the motivation for why we are providing assistance in a particular way for a particular person. If our motivation is to “meet people where they are at” and then increase learning, inspire change, teach different approaches/behavior, allow people to gain greater independence, empower people to make mistakes that they can learn from – then we are supporting them. If our motivation is to shield people from consequences or pain, because we feel sorry for them, to keep them engaged with us because we fear that they will never do well without us, cover-up deficits, to do things for people that they can and should do for themselves – then we are enabling them.
It isn’t a matter of being nice or being mean – which is an argument I have heard before. I think friendly professionalism is warranted in supportive relationships. It doesn’t make us less compassionate. I’ve also met self-interested, defensive and dramatic guilt-using enablers.
Workers that know how to support their clients are more likely going to see goal attainment in the individualized service plan and report a sense of gratitude and fulfillment in their work because they experience changes with the people they are working with. Workers that tend to have more enabling relationships are more likely going to talk about being “stuck” in getting clients to move forward and are more likely going to be unhappy in their work – even feeling a sense of resentment or false sense of control over their clients at times. Enablers, however, can also feel “wanted” by their clients, which again creates a false sense of importance in the client’s life.
Through supportive relationships we should see incremental – and at times iterative – decreased acuity in components of an individual’s life through our support. In an enabling relationship we will likely see fewer improvements in overall acuity across the individual’s life. In a supportive relationship we should see strong evidence of a recovery-orientation – reinforcing hope and a future-orientation in a person’s life. In an enabling relationship we are more likely to see living in the moment or the past.
Remember that our goal in providing supports to people once housed is to help them achieve greater independence. We want them to integrate as much as possible into the broader community. Should they need ongoing supports for things like parenting, mental wellness, physical ailments, addictions, etc. we want them to get connected to other professionals in the community that can meet these needs long-term. We are brokers and advocates, not healers or fixers. So, if you are helping your client build a bridge to greater self-sufficiency then you are being supportive; enabling is an open-ended commitment to co-dependence (whether that is conscious or sub-conscious).
Some specific things to think about in your work that may be helpful:
Ensure prospective clients are making an informed decision to enter into a program with your supports and that they understand the nature of the supports that you are offering;
Present housing options for clients to choose from, and avoid the notion of housing placements or that we know best where people should live;
When a client wants to see a dentist, doctor, psychiatrist, etc, make the appointment with them, not for them – and work towards them doing it on their own in the future;
Motivate change by presenting scenarios for them to consider relative to the goals in their case plan – focus on change;
Be clear that your role is not indefinite and that you want to assist the person with integrating with other community opportunities and resources;
Teach and model skills with an eye towards self-sufficiency in the future;
Ask yourself what your motivation is for suggesting particular courses of action for your clients to consider;
Debrief mistakes and consequences with an eye to realizing the impact of what has occurred while maintaining a future perspective…that lessons can be learned.
I encourage you to think about your practice. Self-assess whether your interactions with clients are supportive instead of enabling. Resolve to make service improvements to be as supportive as possible. Doing so will be better for the client and yourself.
Iain De Jong is the President and CEO of OrgCode Consulting. As a practitioner, he has had to confront his own enabling behaviors to become a more effective, supportive practitioner. Through self-awareness, he has assisted hundreds of housing support practitioners in becoming more supportive and less enabling in their work.
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen & Gentlewomen
We’re winding down another year here at OrgCode. Heck, we’re even going to shut the door and turn off the phones for a week between Christmas and the New Year and that will be a first since we re-booted the company in Q4 2009.
God rest us merry gentlemen and gentlewomen.
It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since John Whitesell and I shook hands to grab the reins of OrgCode together – and a real honor for me given John had been leading the company as Managing Director for over 25 years.
Taking a retrospective gander at 2011 there are some things that stand out for me as great opportunities as well as lessons learned. They are:
Our professional integrity remains intact. We truly want to be catalysts for better outcomes and when we were challenged in a “bait and switch” RFP to be the mouthpiece for somebody else’s agenda after we won the project, we noisily declined to continue and ended the engagement. If you listen carefully, sleepless nights can be informative in and of themselves.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness still rocks. I just totally dig their staff and everything the organization stands for. The fact that they decided to let me start guest blogging this year is and honor and icing on the proverbial cake.
Speaking of blogs, I finally got the hang of taking point for the OrgCode blog this year. The 10 part series on the essential elements of successful housing programs was particularly well received. The one on youth and harm reduction also got some good conversations started.
Facebook page. I let attention to it slip for a while but focused attention brought with it some good results. The “Insights” button on our page tells me we are big with women. Given so much of OrgCode’s work is in human services and housing, it is no wonder that so many women look at our page due to their disproportionate representation in those sectors. Now, if only we could get to 100 “Likes”…come on guys!
Minnesota is a larger state than I thought. When I did a five-day workshop and speaking tour through the state I was amazed how long it took to get from one destination to another. Thank goodness for gracious hosts from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency who were much more than tour guides.
Detroit would be more fun if border crossings were easier. Yes, I am working on getting my NEXUS card. I also had a habit of getting lost when in Detroit but that led to some interesting insights about the changes in the City. The work with HAND and CSH was really terrific and totally offset the tardy border crossings As an aside, there is a humorous blog I wrote after staying in a hotel in Detroit.
Another affordable housing study done. I like that we have, in a couple short years, been successful at preparing affordable housing studies in small, rural and urban communities.
Tweeting about things that matter. Slowly, I have learned the art of the 140 character haiku that is the core of the Twitterverse. Linking to interesting research, news articles and highlighting where we are and what projects we are working on has turned out to be a good use of the medium for OrgCode. Our followers have increased, and many of them are directly related to the work that we do. Now that we have the hang of it, we are looking forward to attracting many more followers in 2012.
I appreciate how much certain Executive Directors teach me. This year in particular I learned loads from Robin Miiller who is the ED of the Medicine Hat Community Housing Society about patience, seeing the big picture and graceful leadership. I learned about embracing change as an organization from Marion McGuigan who is the ED of CMHA Red Deer and in charge of the Buffalo Hotel. Susan McGee at Homeward Trust in Edmonton has shown me the value of constantly trying to improve an organization and seeking excellence day in and day out. There are other fine EDs that I have had the privilege of working with as well, but these three fine women immediately jump to mind.
Providing leadership training rocks my world. It was a real honor to roll out the leadership training curriculum, especially for folks in the trenches of non-profits who rarely get the opportunity to participate in this type of training. The few weeks I spent this year delivering this training really fuelled my soul.
Kudos are a nice feeling, but I really do like knowing what people think of my presentations, workshops, speeches, keynotes, etc. At the Ending Homelessness Summit in Michigan this year, I was the top-ranked speaker. That felt awesome. I’d still like more people to fill out our survey to give us feedback on how we can be even better in the future. We are offering a $250 donation to a charity of your choice by means of a draw from the people who complete our survey. The winner will be announced on our website and through social media on January 20.
It may be time to buy property in Alberta. The people and organizations I meet in the province keep blowing up the stereotypes that I had about Alberta. This, in turn, keeps me going back there to the point where I am spending about a third of my time in the province. I have concluded that we need to buy property in Alberta so now the “where” becomes a challenge because I have enjoyed the local nuances of every place that I have visited!
It remains an honor to stay connected to academia through York University. I love that I get to spend time with graduate students chewing on ideas related to housing, homelessness and community planning. I really dig how this helps translate into my professional work. I especially enjoy that John and I have the opportunity to take on interns and provide meaningful connections for them to the real world. Our interns have helped us to anchor some of our research work. For example, we are doing a research project with E4C in Edmonton on the experience of sexually exploited women and Housing First. Such a project would not be feasible or possible if it weren’t for the connections to York University and the involvement of my students.
Growth of a company can have false starts. I want OrgCode to grow. We have loads of work to do. But trying to find the right fit for the way that we operate, our ethics and values isn’t all that easy. The private sector and non-profit sector may seem incompatible but, in fact, they are starting to mesh and we have to plan accordingly. We had a few people cycle through this year because the challenge of our work combined with our expectations surprised them. The gem of the year has been Ali Ryder. She is a complete geek in all the right ways. She gives John and I the gears. She is an awesome analyst and I know she has a really bright future.
John is a terrific business partner and great friend. Really sappy, I know, but John is a super duper good dude. In his role as Chief Operating Officer as well as a frontline consultant, he takes care of all the stuff that I suck at, without complaining. He encouraged me to start using the President & CEO title with the full knowledge that growth and succession are realities of both life and organizations. When I look at some of the projects like Newfoundland & Labrador, Saskatchewan and others where John did the lion’s share of the work this year, I remain in awe at the breadth and depth of his knowledge. He is going strong with an exuberance that would challenge professionals half his age. There is still so much I want and need to learn from John. Even as my business partner, he hasn’t relinquished his mentorship duties and for that I will always be grateful.
And that pretty much wraps up the quick 2011 retrospective and all of us at OrgCode hope that we have the chance to connect with you in 2012. In the meantime, here’s our wish that you get a chance to sip some eggnog, hang out with people you care about, and enjoy a safe holiday season.
How to be a Kinder, More Informed & Strategic Funder
I have been a funder. I have been a practitioner. I remain a researcher. I am a faculty member at a rather excellent university. I am now a consultant.
I am going to do my best to not make this blog a rant. In my attempt to remain professional, allow me to make this an open letter to all funders of homeless and housing programs for marginalized populations, as well as administrators of community-based grants programs.
Dear Funder,
I’ve been meaning to write for sometime now. I know I see you in crowded meetings when there is a new initiative to be launched. About once or twice at other times in the year you call or visit to make sure I am using your money wisely. I get a lot of directive-type emails from you (which are way too long for the number of hours in the day by the way). Truth is, I have missed you. You are important to my work. For some reason, though, I think you think I only exist to give you stats.
Sometimes I feel like you don’t know me at all.
Day in and day out, deep in the trenches, we work our butts off to meet the needs of people who, for better or worse, society have decided should have their needs met by us. It is a privilege and I don’t want you to think we are ungrateful of our responsibility. Money didn’t drive us to do this work. We felt a certain vocation to service. That makes us different than some other people in society. I love what I do.
Don’t think I’m trying to get you to pity me or give me a badge of courage. I just want to make sure that you know my prime motivation is service. I deliver the best services possible. I stay current on thoughts and practice in the field as best as I am able. When money allows I attend conferences (though not as many as you…just an observation, not a critique). I believe in data to drive program success. In fact, we collect way more information than you ask for because we believe it will make us better and better and better.
I like it when you invite me to meetings to discuss new initiatives. But I would like to have a real conversation. I like to be communicated with, not spoken to. Trust me, you are missing the opportunity to tap into some expertise that you may find really helpful.
I don’t mind when you bring in external people to facilitate meetings or provide training, but can we make a small improvement going forward (if you are open to suggestions)? Can you make sure they know our reality? Maybe some practical experience in the field instead of just theoretical experience? How about someone who can marry academia with practical experience? Oh, and make them smart and funny and charismatic. I want to feel inspired. And goodness knows I need a laugh. Plus I’d like to like the person.
I know you haven’t done front line work…or at least not in this millennia. So I want to make an offer for some experiential learning for you. I’d love to have you do a rotation for four or six weeks to see the reality from our side on the frontline. You are welcome to come whenever you like. We could use the extra hands, and I think you would like the experience. You may find it helpful to ground your service theories in practice if you had the chance. And I’d encourage you to do it at more than one organization so that you don’t just have the view of how one organization does the work.
I know that part of your job is to ask us for service statistics. I expect it. I embrace it. In fact, I love it. But I do have a bone to pick with you – and I hope you don’t think I am being too forward. Can you please stop the retroactive requests? You know, that little tidbit that you didn’t ask for at the start of the program but see as critical now? Each time you do that we have to track down every single person who has come in contact with our program or dig through mountains of notes in case files. I want to give it to you, for sure. But if I knew in advance what you want, I can cater our collection approaches to meet your needs. You keep telling me about budget restrictions and efficiencies, so thought you should know that retroactively searching for information is not a good use of our staff resources. It costs us a whack of dough in staff time.
By the way, I am seeing other funders in addition to you. I know when you speak to me you think our relationship is exclusive. It may break your heart to know that I rely on others too. Each of them has different demands of us. Such is the nature of the business. If I had time, though, I would host a Funder Forum. I’d like to put you all in the same room. I would want to share with you all of the administration requirements each of you as and reporting requirements. I’d point out where there are very slight differences and hope that you could figure out how to align what it is you want from us. In a perfect world all of our funding years would align, but I know that may be asking for too much.
The big thing for me right now is that I’d love for you to truly understand what it is I do. At meetings when you speak and demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of my reality, I am not sure if I should laugh, cry, drink, walk out or all of the above. There is a space that has grown between us wider than the Grand Canyon. I want to bridge that divide. I just don’t know how. I think your policy directives and requests (and demands?) come from a place that is disjointed from the space-time continuum that I rely upon to meet people where they are at each and every day. Truth is, I think you have a big heart too. I don’t think you are mean. In the same way that you have educated me on loads of things, I want the chance to educate you too.
One more thing – and I am not trying to throw other well-deserving organizations under the bus – can you please treat us equally? I bust my chops to do all that you ask. Seems you keep investing in other programs that get neither the outputs nor outcomes that you ask for. Yes, I know they are politically connected. Yes, I know they are well intentioned. But you could reinvest the money in us and see way better results. Just saying. I mean what is the point of having staff on your side of things monitor contracts if performance doesn’t really matter?
Hopefully this letter hasn’t rubbed you the wrong way. I just needed to say what needed to be said. I think we can turn the page, start anew – pick the metaphor that makes you happy. But let’s have a chat about that. I’d hate you to think that I am looking for a new policy and procedures guideline on how you think we should start over.
Sincerely,
The Organization that Busts its Chops to be the Best Organization Possible
Harm Reduction and the Provision of Homeless Services to Youth
Harm reduction approaches can be seen as controversial when working with many populations, including unaccompanied youth. Some will cite reasons pertaining to the illicit nature of certain substances, the age of maturity, psychosocial development and the like. Others hold on to the “just say no” mantra.
Harm reduction has gotten a bad rap in some circles because it is not well understood. Some erroneously think it is willy-nilly state sanctioned consumption and participation in risky behavior without consequences.
Let’s try working with this definition:
Harm reduction is an action-oriented response through policy and programs that reduces the harmful effects of behavior. It uses a range of approaches that aim to be non-judgmental. Harm reduction employs strategies that increase skills, resources, knowledge and supports for individuals, their families and communities. The individual, their family and community can thereby make decisions to be safer and healthier.
A harm reduction approach is pragmatic. It aims to acknowledge the dignity of all people. It is neutral – it neither condones nor condemns the activity that is causing the harm. It focuses on the harm to the individual and the community. It prioritizes the ability to meet immediate needs, while also encouraging a range of intervention options (which can include reduction, less risky use, and working towards abstinence if that is the individual’s desire). It believes that people who have experience with higher risk behaviors have an important voice in shaping programs. In addition, harm reduction approaches have public health benefits, decrease policing costs, and also decreases emergency room, ambulance and hospital costs.
The time has come for a more reasonable and responsible discussion on harm reduction approaches when working with homeless and at-risk youth. First of all, members of the medical community, in reviewing the issue of harm reduction amongst youth, have concluded “a harm reduction approach is consistent with what we know about adolescent development and decision-making.”
Secondly, there is some research to suggest that youth who have experience with behaviors that may be considered “high risk” will be better able to help other youth than an adult with an authority-laden approach to providing service and supports. This is in keeping with a key principle of harm reduction, which values the voice of persons with lived experience.
Thirdly, being a youth is a natural time of experimentation and risk-taking. This will take various forms from exploring one’s sexuality to use of alcohol and drugs. This is why programs like Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) have been proven in several studies to not produce the desired effect of “just say no” because it is not a natural expectation of youth development to resist experimentation and risk-taking. (see Beck, J. or Lynam DR, et al.)
Fourthly, peer reviewed studies of various types of harm reduction approaches with “out of the mainstream youth” (e.g., unaccompanied youth that are homeless, street involved, engaged with sex work, etc.) have proven to be successful. The Street Teen Alcohol Risk Reduction Study was designed to decrease alcohol and drug consumption using motivational interventions. (see Baer, J. S., Peterson, P. L., Wells, E. A.) Needle exchange programs for youth in California have demonstrated decreases in sharing needles and syringes. (see Guydish, J., Brown, C., Edgington, R., Edney, H.)
Finally, substance use as a youth does not predict a lifetime of substance abuse. There is research that demonstrates that the likes of alcohol problems with youth are often intermittent and can stop without formal treatment and may not progress to adulthood. (see Sobell, L.C., et al and, Tucker, J. A., et al)
For a service system to be effective there needs to be a range of service options. That means prevention education and abstinence through to treatment and harm reduction. Given the participation of homeless youth in activities that may present greater risks (e.g., sexual intercourse without protection and/or with multiple partners; alcohol consumption; inhaled, injected or orally consumed narcotics; etc) we need to be sure that our homeless and housing service delivery systems are not excluding youth who are currently or who have in past participated in these activities and that programs do not discharge youth to homelessness for participation in these types of activities. Our ability to be effective in meeting their needs depends on it. And the evidence is pretty clear that it is warranted.
Iain De Jong is the President & CEO of OrgCode Consulting. Previously he directed one of the world’s largest Housing First programs, which included services specifically for homeless youth. A pragmatic, evidence-based and evidence-informed practitioner, he embraces a non-judgmental approach to effectively meeting people where they are at to achieve long-term housing stability.
Things Will Go Wrong
[serialposts]
PART TEN: Things Will Go Wrong
This is the last installment in our 10-part blog series on essential elements of successful housing programs. We’d love to hear from you about your thoughts on the series or any other topics you’d like to see in a future blog. idejong@orgcode.com
I have never seen a perfect housing program. Have you? I’ve seen some darn good ones, but never a perfect one.
I don’t even know how we’d absolutely measure perfection given there are so many variables. When I think about simple, complicated, complex and chaotic systems, I think primarily about the work of Ralph Stacey and Brenda Zimmerman. I think housing programs are complicated – akin to sending someone to the moon. It isn’t impossible, but you need the right people do the right things to get there, and get back. However, the experience of homelessness is a complex one – there are too many variables that are outside the control of the housing program, from conflicting policy to individual autonomy and how people respond and react to various situations. Zimmerman uses the analogy of raising a child – you can do all of the things that you think are the best things you can do as a parent, yet your child will be subject to other actors in their life that can also have an influence.
It seems that the two measurements people are most drawn to are retention rates over time (whether the clients stay housed – even if it is at a different address) and whether the quality of life of people improves as a result of the housing programs and its supports. Seems a lot of programs do the former – albeit often not with longitudinal follow up (which I would argue is a shortcoming). Not nearly enough organizations do the latter – and I would hope that more organizations do.
In the previous nine installments of this blog series I’ve talked in great detail about things you can do to make your housing program better. It has been based upon research, visiting loads of housing programs, evaluating housing programs, interviewing clients and staff, and my own experience as a researcher and practitioner.
What I know to be true is that stuff will go wrong. Whether stuff goes wrong is not a black eye for your housing program. How you address things when they go wrong is what counts, as does demonstrated efforts to be proactive and trying to prevent certain things from happening.
The things I have encountered that have most frequently gone wrong are:
Guests/partying
Rent payments
Damages
Pests
Pets
Hoarding/Excessive Collecting
Conflict with neighbors
Boundary issues
Operating the housing program like a crisis service
Training and innovation can help address these issues on an ongoing basis. Some of my ideas and observations on each are as follows:
Guests/partying – this happens most frequently in the Formative Phase of being housed. I encourage organizations to have the “What does it mean to you to be a responsible tenant?” discussion with their clients at least three times – when they are expressing interest in your housing program, when you are searching for the place to live, and during the first month of their tenancy. Lecturing your clients about rules isn’t going to be nearly as effective as them coming to the conclusion on their own that maybe having 12 people over in the middle of the night with the stereo blaring is not a good idea.
Rent payments – the best ways I have found to address this are through third party payment of rent directly to the landlord from income assistance or the place of employment, coupled with each housing worker checking with each one of their landlords by the fifth business day of the month to make sure they each received all their rent from all of housing program clients on time and in full.
Damages – the more you allow for choice in where to live (rather than placements), the more you allow for choice in furnishings and belongings for the unit (rather than pre-furnished) and the more you undertake home visits, the less likely there is going to be damage and/or when there is minor damage it is addressed before it becomes an ongoing or larger issue. Avoiding damage can also be part of what you want to hear clients talk about in the “responsible tenant” discussion.
Pests – bed bugs, mice, rats, cockroaches, etc happen. Rarely is the proliferation of these pests a direct result of your clients, though they may get blamed. When pests are detected, I encourage you to work with the client to notify the landlord and see how the landlord implements their pest control/eradication strategy. (You can read an article I co-authored with Stephen Hwang, Tomislav Svoboda, Karl Kabasele and Evie Gogosis on bed bugs in urban environments for the Center for Disease Control’s Emerging Infectious Disease publication.)
Pets – if the lease restricts pets or the number of pets and/or there are local laws that prohibit a certain number of pets within a residence, then I recommend specifically drawing these things to the attention of the client prior to move-in. You may not even know if they are a pet lover or not, but better to address this in advance than later. As much as I am a fan of pets, I hate to see people have to choose between their animal and becoming evicted. Bring proactive matters on this front.
Hoarding/Excessive Collecting – the portrayal of hoarding on TV shows seems so different from the experience I have had with clients who are hoarders, but I digress. The best defense there is to help counteract hoarding is the fact that there are regular home visits as part of the housing program. Yes, there will be times when the housing unit can be filled between visits, but this is rare and exceptional, not the norm. Seeing a mass of stuff start to grow when present at home visits allows for early detection, probing questions about the impact the client thinks it may have on their tenancy and if necessary, can allow for a connection to be made to a community-based expert in the matter before it gets out of control.
Conflict with Neighbors – rarely does anyone choose their neighbors. Sometimes we get lucky and our neighbors are people we like and form real friendships with; other times we are cordial, polite and tolerate their existence; other times still there is friction and conflict. I think it is good for clients to be encouraged to ask the landlord when they are looking at the place what the other residents are like. I think it is good for clients after they move in to introduce themselves to people living around them (as in “Hi, I’m Iain and I just moved in next door.” – not, “Hi, I’m Iain and I am formerly homeless and my support worker just helped me find the place next to yours.”) I also think that in some instances time on the part of the support worker will be spent modeling various types of social behavior. I remain hopeful that most clients, perhaps with some coaching, can address conflicts with their neighbors on their own, but I appreciate sometimes a mediator/facilitator will be necessary. Let us also not forget that sometimes it is the behavior of the client we are supporting that is the cause of the conflict. This is one of the reasons why I advocate for checking in with landlords/superintendents when the case manager does a home visit.
Boundaries – while I wish I didn’t have to write this as a common issue, I would be remiss not to bring it up given the unfortunate frequency with which it occurs. Our clients are not our friends. We have a professional relationship with them and nothing more. Do not hug them, kiss them, have sex with them, invite them to babysit your kids, ask them to build you a deck, hire them to clean out your gutters, invite them to rent the apartment in your basement, loan them your car, buy or accept gifts of value from them, befriend them on Facebook, have them over for Christmas dinner, ask them to house-sit for you, etc, etc, etc. It is perplexing to me that these types of relationships not only happen, but the frequency with which it happens. I think we need to create outlets for case managers to safely reveal when they think they may be about to cross a line prior to it occurring.
Operating the Housing Program Like a Crisis Service – your housing program is not a crisis service. (Repeat that again in your head or out loud if necessary – it is very important.) Too often I have seen service planning with clients get completely derailed because the case managers drop everything to deal with crisis after crisis. More often than not they soon find themselves never visiting some clients who are not in crisis, and spending a great deal of time with a smaller number of clients – many of whom will act like they are in crisis but are not really in a crisis state at all. I know a lot of staff that have been in this position that also soon feel that they are not really making any progress with casino their caseload and online casino are more susceptible to burnout and frustrations with their job. One of the ways we can help our clients understand our role is to complete a Crisis Plan with them soon after they have been housed. We also have the ability to help them understand the role of the case manager through the Objective Based Home Visit approach, discussed in an earlier blog in this series.
I hope you operate the best housing program you possibly can and that the blog series has been helpful to your professional practice. I encourage you to chat up the problems most frequently experienced within your team and/or across other housing teams in your community. Coming up with proactive strategies and solutions is a shared responsibility for our professional programs to get better and better.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong welcomes your feedback and input on the blog series idejong@orgcode.com
Planning for Success throughout Phases of Housing Stability
[serialposts]
Part Nine: Planning for Success throughout Phases of Housing Stability
My pal (and Founding Partner of OrgCode), Dr. John Whitesell, has reinforced in me over the past dozen years the usefulness of the Sigmoid Curve to represent change, growth and development within people and organizations. He has also ingrained in me the ability to chunk the S-Curve into three main phases: Formative; Normative; and, Integrative.
While appreciating that everyone experiences housing support services somewhat differently, John and I meticulously went about trying to typologize various client characteristics in program phases relative to the S-Curve. Upon review of a whack of case files, interviews with staff in some highly successful housing programs, interviews with dozens of clients, mining of various data sets and reflecting on my own experience in creating and leading a rather successful housing program, we arrived at the following broad-stroke phases as experienced by the client, and as supported by the case manager:
The key is to use the understanding of stages of change and objective-based home visits to assist clients in moving through the program stages.
You may also have noticed reference to things like the Crisis Plan and the Exit Plan, as well as Risk Assessment. If you want copies of any of these sorts of documents, drop me a note atidejong@orgcode.com
And there are, of course, other tools and techniques that you can put into place through each phase of the program to help track progress and work on increased success. Some of my favorites (click on any of them if you want more information from the source documents) include:
If we plan for success, have a sense of what to expect along the journey of housing and life stability, support appropriately without coercion or misguided expectations, use tools & strategies to increase the likelihood of success and remain focused on the major outcome of helping people achieve greater independence over time, more success will be had.
[serialposts]
Iain De Jong has considerable experience helping organizations better understand how to support clients in moving from one phase to the other, and thinking about resource allocation and time management of staff in supporting clients in each of the phases. Feel free to drop him a line or ask questions idejong@orgcode.com