Comprehensive Social Work Framework and Planning Paper

By

Helen Daly

For


Richard Ramsay

SOWK 379

Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary


April 4, 2003

Note: The hardcopy of this paper scanned and digitalized. Hopefully, all related errors have been corrected. Minor editing was carried out.


“And now here is my secret, a very simple secret. It is only with the heart
that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
Antoine De Saint-Exupery

OBJECTIVE:
My objective in this paper is to take a case study of one refugee woman, who is a client at the Calgary Immigrant Women’s Association (C1WA), and prepare a comprehensive framework (4-component) social work assessment. To carry out a comprehensive person-in-environment (PIE) assessment and develop a suitable plan of action, I will utilize the following:

a)  Ramsay’s (2001) comprehensive (4-component) framework;

b)  assessment guidelines from Miley, O’Melia, and DuBois’ (2001a) textbook Generalist Social Work Practice: An Empowering Approach1;

c)  Person-In-Environment (PIE) classification system, and

d)  CIWA’s intake form.

I will address the advantages and limitations of the assessment system used in this case study from a PIE perspective. I will include further information in the Appendices to enhance the reader’s knowledge of Ramsay’s (2001) comprehensive framework (including Ramsay’s (2003) 5-chair practice model); key terms; CIWA’s Intake Form, and other documents mentioned in this paper.


INTRODUCTION:
The Calgary Immigrant Women’s Association (CIWA) was established in 1982. CIWA is a non-profit, charitable organization whose mission is to promote and support the integration of immigrant women into the community and larger Canadian society (Annual Report, 2002, p. 1). CIWA receives funding from various sources including: government grants; the corporate sector; private donors, foundations and grants. A total of 62 staff (speaking 44 different languages) are employed by CIWA. In 2002, CIWA staff served a total of 3,912 clients from various countries and 275 volunteers provided 19,011 hours of support to CIWA and its programs and services. At present, C1WA operates 13 programs offering clients a range of diverse services (Annual Report, 2002).
As a third year practicum student working at CIWA I am involved in the Intake, Settlement and Referral Services (ISR) Program and The New Friends and Neighborhood Groups Program (NFNG). The objective of the TSR program is to “Ensure that immigrant women will become more independent by better understanding their rights and responsibilities and being aware of the services/resources available to them in the community.” The objective of the NFNG Program is to “Empower isolated immigrant women to become confident, develop a social support system and make informed decisions that will enable them to integrate more fully into Canadian society” (Annual Report, 2002, p. 16-17).
Terms such as 4-DC framework and comprehensive framework will be used interchangeably throughout this paper. These terms refer to Ramsay’s (2001) comprehensive framework.
KEY TERMS: Empowering Assessment; Indirect Work; Direct Work; Natural Systems Approach, and Transactional View/Dimension. (Please refer to Appendix 1 for definitions of these terms as they relate to this paper).
DEFINITION OF ASSESSMENT:
Assessment is: “A skill, a product and a phase of the interventive process which involves the systematic collection of relevant data by ethical means from representative sources through an appropriate data collection methodology, and the analysis of that data by the application of selected concepts, constructs, and theories into an organized set of perceptions about a client’s problem-situation which can serve as a rational basis for interventive planning” (McIntyre, 2000). Meyer (1993) noted that one of the cornerstones of professional social work practice is to be able to understand cases through the assessment process (p. 6). According to Meyer (1993), social workers need to know what issues in the case are important to include, what factors belong together, what factors have prominence over others, and what factors are irrelevant (p. 22).
COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK:
Miley, O’Melia, and DuBois (2001a) stated that “Proficiency in social work practice requires a coherent practice framework, resourceful ways to look at human and social system functioning, and dynamic processes for change” (p. 21). While academics such as Pincus and Minahan (1973) and Germain and Gittermain (1980) developed frameworks for the profession those frameworks had shortcomings in terms of organizing frameworks for the social work profession (Ramsay, 1985, p. 3). Karls and Wandrei (1994) reported that “the profession of social work has suffered from the lack of a unifying framework that might bring together the diverse areas of expertise within our profession” (p. x). Based on the work of R. Buckminster Fuller (1981, 1982), Ramsay (2001) developed a holistic four-dimensional tetrahedral conceptual (4-DC) framework for social work practitioners using a natural systems approach.

Holism is derived from the Greek word “holos” (whole) meaning everything. Whole systems represent systems with all parts interconnected. A minimum whole system consists of four components interconnected by six relationships. The minimum holistic system pattern is called a tetrahedron (Ramsay and Loosmore, 1999). Ramsay (2001) noted that: “Although the 4 components are interconnected with each other, each component would be unique by itself, but together they would include the whole of social work, all its specializations and the relevant bodies of knowledge from the humanities and sciences that are needed to inform social work practice” (p. 5).
Ramsay (2001) incorporated four concepts universal to the social work profession in his 4-DC framework. These components are: Domain of Practice; Paradigm of the Profession; Domain of Social Work Practitioner, and Methods of Practice. Each component can be unfolded or multiplied into its own minimum system (or more) complexity and reconfigured to show the progressive complexity between the components (p. 5-6). Ramsay’s (2001) comprehensive framework appears to be one of the most inclusive, coherent, and flexible frameworks that have been developed for social work practitioners. It is my view that Ramsay’s (2001) 4-DC framework is an example of the unifying framework that Karls and Wandrei (1994) referred to because it brings together the diverse areas of expertise within the social work profession. (Please refer to Appendix II for further information on how Ramsay’s comprehensive framework (including a tetrahedron) can be depicted).
APPLICATION OF RAMSAY’S (2001) COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK & APPROPRIATE TEXT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES TO A SPECIFIC CASE STUDY:
DOMAIN OF PRACTICE (DOP)
Domain of Practice refers to social work’s central area of concern. It is “the identifiable domain that describes the area in which social workers do their work” (Ramsay, 2001, p. 6). Karls and Wandrei (1994) noted that the social work profession has struggled to establish its identity and to assert its uniqueness among human service professions (p. 4). Traditionally, social work had a dual purpose - personal (client/micro) change, or social (environment/macro) change (Ramsay, 2003).
The first person to clearly articulate social work’s domain of practice as the “Person, Interaction, Environment” (PIE) system was Harriet Bartlett (1970). She believed that interaction was a crucial dynamic in all social systems and identified it as the central focus of all social work regardless of specialty boundaries. This interaction focus is a distinguishing feature of social work when compared with other human service professions that generally identify client/patient-centered approaches as central to their respective disciplines (Ramsay, 2001, p. 6).
In his comprehensive framework, Ramsay (2001) identified four interrelated components of the PIE domain. These are person; personal otherness; validator otherness and resource otherness. The person (P) element includes the developmental, demographic and social functioning status of individuals in families, groups, communities, or organizations (Ramsay, 2001, p. 6). The P element can be unfolded into increasing levels of complexity. The next level of complexity can include the social, physical, mental, and spiritual factors of a person’s life. Environmental components include personal otherness (P0) (personal social support systems— intimately close or significant other to an individual or family; friends; groups; community or even a nation); validator otherness (VO) (values, beliefs; customs, laws; policies - culture); and resource otherness (RO) (opportunities; resources; goods and services). (Please refer to Appendix III).
CASE STUDY: AISHA

I was assigned to carry out an intake assessment for a drop-in client (Aisha) at CIWA in February 2003. I had no information regarding Aisha prior to our meeting as this was her first visit to CIWA.

My meeting with Aisha provided me with an opportunity to put into practice Ramsay’s comprehensive framework. Having identified PIE as the DOP, in this instance, the Person (P)/client was Aisha. To facilitate a trusting, respectful, and collaborative relationship with Aisha I explained to her that I was a student at C1WA. I asked for her permission to work with her to find out what assistance CIWA could offer her (Dialogue Phase - collaborative relationship - Miley, O’Melia, and DuBois, 2001a).
It is CIWA’s policy that a CIWA intake form be completed with each new client. This form can be used as a means for assessing clients in relation to their environment (PIE system). (Please refer to Appendix IV). Prior to completing this form with Aisha I discussed the issue of confidentiality with her. I explained to her that as a student I would need to share relevant information with my supervisor and other work colleagues who may at some stage be involved in her case. I obtained Aisha’s permission to discuss relevant issues with appropriate staff members. I also explained to Aisha why we needed the information contained in the CIWA intake form. Completing this form with Aisha helped me to begin to get an insight into the complexities of Aisha’s situation.
AISHA’S CASE CONTINUED

By gathering the data on the intake form with Aisha I learned that she was a 30 year single mother who was born in Iraq, and is of Kurdish descent. She came to Canada (Calgary) as a government sponsored refugee in December 2001 with her two sons - Abrahim -7 years old, and Moussa - 5 years old. She and her children are now classified as “landed immigrants” (because they already received their landed immigrant documents). Aisha speaks and writes three languages - Kurdish, Arabic and English. She has a college certificate in health administration from Iraq. At present she is a stay-at-home mother. She receives social assistance (Support For Independence - SFI). She has no family or relatives in Calgary. She has acquaintances - neighbors and students in her English class - but no close friends in Calgary. Her English instructor referred Aisha to CIWA. She came to seek support and information.

As I filled-in the data on the CIWA intake form I realized that the layout of the form influenced my approach to the assessment process. In using the form I had become too mechanical. On the one hand, the intake form had helped me to gather information regarding Aisha’s situation. On the other hand, the manner in which I completed the form created a barrier between Aisha and myself because I failed to see Aisha as a unique individual. Yet, assessment is about individuation - acknowledging that each person’s situation is unique. I also failed to address the interconnectedness between Aisha (P) and her environment (PIE). I knew I could not retrace my steps and start the intake process from scratch. I realized that if I was going to re-establish a collaborative, trusting and positive relationship with Aisha I had to change my approach to the assessment process. To do this I decided to incorporate Ramsay’s (2003) 5-chair model of practice (Please refer to Appendix V) and an empowering (strengths) approach to the assessment process. I set aside the intake form and re-focused my attention on Aisha as a unique individual.
AISHA’S CASE CONTINUED

In keeping with Ramsay’s 5-chair model of practice, I asked Aisha if she could tell me four factors that were important to her (A minimum whole system consists of 4 components interconnected by six relationships). These were: employment; her children; housing and social isolation. As Aisha talked about these issues (and before I had an opportunity to discuss the transactional dimensions of her situation), Aisha was able to explain to me how the interrelationships between herself (P) and her environment (personal otherness, resource otherness and validator otherness) inhibited her social wellbeing and the wellbeing of her children. She explained to me that as a refugee in Calgary she experienced discrimination in the workforce and was unable to find work (VO and RO issues). Therefore, she was unable to meet her children’s/her own basic needs (RO issue). As a refugee, Aisha received financial support from the Canadian government for her first year in Canada (RO). This support was discontinued in December 2002 (VO - belief that refugees are self-sufficient after 12 months in Canada/RO issue - financial support discontinued). Since then Aisha has received $828 per month from SF1, and $380 in Child Tax Benefits (RO). However, rent, utilities and her transportation loan ($1 00/month to the Canadian government for her airfare to Canada) amounted to $900 each month (RO issue). As a result, Aisha has been unable to make ends meet (RO issue). Aisha first applied for subsidized housing (Calgary Housing) in May 2002 (RO issue + strength). Her application to date has been unsuccessful (RO issue). She wondered if this might be because she was a single mother and a refugee (VO + RO issues). She visited the Calgary Housing office each week to check on her status (strength). In order to earn some extra money she was clearing snow from her neighbor’s path for a minimum fee (strength). She also told me that in her first year in Canada she studied English so that she could find a good job to support herself and children (VO, RO, + strength). Aisha then explained to me that in Kurdistan she had a strong support network and that people “cared about” each other (VO + P0 issues). Here, she finds that people don’t care about other people in the same manner (VO + RO issues).

As I listened to Aisha describe her situation I realized that she had taught me the significance of the PIE system (DOP) in social work practice and how this system operates in reality.
PARADIGM OF THE PROFESSION (POP):
According to Ramsay (2001) the POP component incorporates the broad orientation nature of practice and consists of generalist and specialist prepared practitioners who are committed to a common PIE domain. The POP also incorporates “Knowledge” in social work practice. Ramsay (2001) noted that social workers need to understand the reality-defined base of knowledge they are using. He asked social workers to think about whether their knowledge comes from a mechanistic worldview that treats all things as independent entities separate in space or time (modernism), or whether their knowledge comes from an ecological and organic worldview that treats all things as deeply interconnected in space and time (postmodernism) (p. 7). The mechanistic worldview (modernism) fails to acknowledge the interrelationship between a person and their environment and is therefore incongruent with postmodern social work philosophy and the PIE domain.