Intake Assessment in Social Service Programs

Most of the clinical/community services are begins with an intake interview. Depending on the setting and the purpose of the service the interview may vary from structured or unstructured. Freeburg & Van Winkle (2011) elucidates that a balanced and effective intake interview could gather information and builds a working alliance between the worker and client. I think workers should demonstrate a comprehensive rapport building skill to manage the dynamism involved in the screening process. Also exhibits an applied understanding that intake assessment is a skilled effort to adapt individual needs (Freeburg & Van Winkle, 2011).

Intake is defined as “an act or instance of taking in” (Random House, 1993, as cited in Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2003). This definition is very much apt for the intake screening as it is the entry point of a professional service. From my experience, many of the screening processes determine the eligibility of the client in order to seek services using structured interview schedules to gather information from clients. Most of the intake interview schedules are focused on the data collection for basic eligibility for the services; few screenings are intense by identifying, assessing and exploring client’s problems and goals. It also gets hold of client’s interpersonal skills, personal and medical history. In addition, these in-depth assessments took account of client’s present life situations and functions. For instance, community programs for a low income families include current situation of the life, problems of life, education, family details, employment, mental health history, medical history, substance use, legal issues, support systems and reason for service (goal). In a social work point of view, many of these determinants were assessed with an ecological perspective, structural factors had limited or no role in the assessment process.

From a critical standpoint, most of the intake process are merely a risk assessment or identification of problem rather no action for alternative solutions. According to Fook (1993) defining a problem itself is a persuasive force to establish constructive steps to alleviate it. In my experience intake assessment process is always framed on the basis of government guidelines; a standardized form of assessment and procedures are followed. The intake assessment mandate of the Canadian Social Service programs crop up in association with individual responsibility of neo-economic ideology of the state. As a result intake assessment practice is simply a formal review model of practical approach. Apparently, welfare programs turn out as an involuntary social intrusion with more focus on identification of the problem with no remedial recommendations or no emphasis on alternative solutions of the problem.  I think these kinds of approaches are not really helping the families in terms of a long term sustainable change.

As Fook (1993) explains an assessment process should determine the category and type of the problem, so that the intervention matches with the exact situation of the individual and address the particular causes. She classified the human problems into two broad categories according to the factors predominates in their problematic situation, personal factors, and structural factors. Not all the personal problems are structurally driven but structural factors interplay with personal factors can intensify the problem (Fook, 1993). A general classification of the causes of the problem as personal factors and structural factors would help the workers to find more appropriate services for the client. A clear applied understanding of various socially constructed and structurally influencing factors are very much relevant for a reliable assessment.  

References

Arboleda-Flórez, J., & Stuart, H. (2012). From Sin to Science: Fighting the Stigmatization of Mental Illnesses. Canadian Journal Of Psychiatry, 57(8), 457-463.

Diaz-Granados, N., Georgiades, K., & Boyle, M. H. (2010). Regional and Individual Influences on Use of Mental Health Services in Canada. Canadian Journal Of Psychiatry, 55(1), 9-20.

Fook, J. (1993). Radical Casework: A Theory of Practice. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Union.

Freeburg, M. N., & Van Winkle, J. L. (2011). Increasing intake interview skills: A creative approach. Retrieved from http://counselingoutfitters.com/ vistas/vistas11/Article_33.pdf

Hickson, H. (2011), Critical reflection: reflecting on learning to be reflective, Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12(6), 829-839.

Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R, (2003). Clinical Interviewing (3ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Client’s Self-determination in Community Development. Anish Alex MSW

Client’s Self-determination in Community Development

     The right of making decision about a person’s own life is the cornerstone philosophy of social work profession. Client’s self-determination is defined as the capacity of an individual to make decision on their lives, actively play a vital role in the helping process and/or the right to lead a life according to their personal choices (Weick & Pope, 1988, as cited in Wong, 2000). This conviction has ascribed value to the social work profession through the official forms of code of ethics promoted by professional bodies (Furlong, 2003). In the community development sector, client self-determination is a collective right. It is the power and responsibility taken by the community for their own lives and development. It covers the perception of freedom in the socio-economic, political, cultural and the context of existence in which people live, socialize, raise families, participate in the community activities, vote, work, and relate to each other. The concept of community self-determination is the empowerment of the community to organize for social rights and justice for themselves and their peers.

     Furlong (2003) explains that even though client self-determination is the fundamental principle of the profession; well canvassed limitations are there to exercise it. When I was working as an outreach anti-poverty program coordinator for people living in poverty in a south Asian pluralistic community, I faced numerous challenges in the context of client self-determination. I had to implement various anti-poverty programs in a community which was totally different belief and value system from me in terms of religious and political ideology.  For instance, government introduced a provincial employment program as part of economic development of disadvantaged communities. The provincial government identified fifty high-risk neighbourhoods and planned to open meat processing and packing units in each community. The program was designed to support the unemployed members of the community. As I was involved in different stages of planning, I was convinced about the potential of the program to enhance the economic development of the local community within the ‘poverty pockets’ areas. I anticipated that the project would be helpful for my clients to earn good income. I was so proud to announce the project to the community with an assumption that I know their problems better and the project would be a solution for their problems. But majority in the community were reluctant to welcome the project because they believed that the meat processing and packing unit is not an appropriate place to work according to their religious belief. I became confused that the pilot projects were a success in other communities. After few weeks of indecision I realized that I should respect my client’s decision as they owned the right to decide what kind of work they want to do and how to lead their own life. I reported the decision of the community to the government.

     As a critical self reflection, I was trying to impose the mainstream social and political ideology in the form of employment program without considering the client’s capacity to determine their choice of life. I appreciate that the community possess their unique interpretations for their decision. However as Wong (2000) argued in his article it is a “moral constraint” up on workers.  Even though the community’s decision was contrary to my belief and genuine interest to support them; I should understand and respect the cultural and religious value system possessed by the community. I need to accept their decision just because it was their choice of employment (Wong, 2000).

     Moreover, my professional knowledge and the mainstream discourses about the needs of the community is not greater than the community’s unique experiences of their life situations (Wong, 2000).  As a helping professional I should constantly confront the oppressive factors which restricts the self-determination/collective right of my clients in the context of micro and macro level of practices, indeed, it will add more value in to community development interventions.