In providing social services, there can often be a range of cultural & language barriers that prevent people accessing the help they need. Why? There are various reasons. It may be just a basic lack of language skills which impedes communication. And for someone who is in a state of stress, the added stress of trying to get someone to understand you or to try to make sense of what they are telling you is enough to stop you from speaking out or asking for help.
Sometimes it’s because the way things are done in the organisation you are seeking help from, well these ways of thinking are alien to you. It’s not the way you see the world. The way they define problems, which then determines the way they develop solutions, doesn’t fit in with the way you see the world. So you go, you listen, but you find that there aren’t the answers you were looking for.
Sometimes it’s about familiarity. You go into a place full of people who look nothing like you, who don’t understand your background, traditions or culture. You feel like you don’t belong in that place, you feel like an alien. And because of these feelings, again, you might hesitate to open up and seek the help you actually need. You think of the energy it would take to explain all the intricacies of your particular situation, and it just feels too hard.
And sometimes it’s about discrimination. You very presence is causing the person you are seeking help from to place you in a box, to use their prejudices and stereotypical assumptions to make judgements about you that you know are unfair. The language they use & their responses to you make it clearer that they are judging your culture as inferior, and using your case to reinforce their own stereotypes and prejudices. At a time when you’re feeling vulnerable, it’s the last thing you need.
This is why we have seen the proliferation of service providers set up by various communities to provide services to their own. Kaute Pasifika, for example, provides services for people with a Pacific Island heritage in Hamilton. Whanau Ora is an extension of this principle, with Maori service providers helping Maori communities, because they can do it in a way that makes those services more accessible and therefore more effective.
Other ethnic minority groups have also been providing specialised services. For example, Shama (Hamilton Ethnic Women’s Centre) has been providing services for ethnic minority women for many years now.
This model isn’t always understood or appreciated by, for want of a better word, mainstream service providers. They don’t see or understand the barriers I’ve written about above. Or they think that by having a few staff who are Maori or Pasifika or Asian, they will have dealt with those barriers and so there is no need for a separate service. What they don’t recognise is that having a few staff from minority groups or even a division in a large organisation still doesn’t overcome the fact that the dominant discourse, the power structures, the method & methodology are going to be determined by the dominant group. Since that is the case, the barriers still remain and the staff valiantly trying to cater for needs that are distinctly different will often find it difficult to succeed. They just don’t have the power to push for meaningful change.
On top of this, our social service sector has been placed in a competitive environment, where organisations are fighting each other for funding. Competition isn’t always healthy. In fact for social service organisations it can be quite destructive, as organisations try to protect their patch. It’s an expected result, as a loss of power and influence leads to a loss of funding, so organisations hold on closely to what they have. The failure of so many NGOs serve to reinforce this behaviour – Christchurch Rape Crisis is a recent closure that will have terrible negative impact in that city.
And so we find that that sometimes existing organisations can be less than supportive of new organisations starting up. They see new organisations as a threat, and are afraid of losing power and funding. Yet these new organisations are often catering to a specific need, especially the ones catering for specific minority communities. And rather than being a threat, they are actually providing a service to communities who are currently not getting access.
We saw an example in Wellington recently, where a community organisation started deleting entries on their Facebook page from another organisation in the same city that was catering to ethnic minority communities. It was an unfortunate incident, but indicates how difficult it is for new communities or marginalised communities to challenge existing power structures, and to gain a share of resources to provide for their own.
There’s no easy solution to this state of affairs. The current government has a policy of requiring NGOs to “collaborate”. But for the organisations set up by and for ethnic minority groups, that word sounds a little too much like “assimilate”. The point of difference, the very need that led to such an organisation being set up, will be lost in the push to collaborate. It’s not a solution, because those organisations strong enough and established enough to protect their own patch and to maintain their power will continue to do so. It’s the new, smaller, more vulnerable organisations who are at risk.
I think what’s needed is a new way of funding organisations. Instead of having to employ staff to spend hours on preparing funding applications for up to 50 or 60 different organisations – government departments, philanthropic trusts and various other funders – wouldn’t it be better if organisations could get steady, permanent funding so that they could focus on providing more and better services?
It would be great, but it would also be a fundamental shift in the way our institutions are structured and in the way we think about service provision. The end result though, should be a sector where one organisation doesn’t see another as a threat, but as an ally. A sector where we all have the same goal of reducing harm and improving the well-being of people in our communities, and can strengthen each other by being supportive. Some of that happens already, in spite of the environment we work in. But a better environment would mean that it would happen a whole lot more.
Anjum Rahman. – I fit into a lot of boxes – I’m an ethnic minority (born in india), a religious minority (muslim), and a woman. I’m a mother, an accountant, a political activist and a feminist. All of these form part of my identity to a greater or lesser degree. most of all though, I’m a rebel who refuses to fit neatly into boxes or to conform to the patterns that people expect of me.
”It was an unfortunate incident, but indicates how difficult it is for new communities or marginalised communities to challenge existing power structures, and to gain a share of resources to provide for their own.”
If it is a true ”community” then it has it’s own communal resources.
every community also has the right to a fair share of government resources, and to a fair share of funds from other funding organisations. each community pays taxes, contributes and should therefore be funded adequately to provide what are pretty vital services.
Good article. The way some organisations regard others in the same area reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian where the revolutionaries are trying to decide who the enemy is. There’s enough work to be done for all of them.
Yes Anjum. What you say is very correct.
It is correct however, for any group in our society.
I am a woman, and I am a NZer, and yet I face these exact same biases as you do.
It is not just a race thing, or a sex thing. The problem lies with and within the services. It is the way they are taught to treat everyone – in this sociopathic or psychopathic manner.
You are not alone, so do not take it as a personal affront due to your minority. This issue belongs to everyone who seeks the use of any service in NZ nowadays – other than private business services.
Everyone needs an advocate to go with them. Everyone! There is ‘them’ and there is ‘us’, and this ‘us’ Anjum, is you, and it is me too. We are all in the ‘us’ group.
Those in the ‘them’ group, are seriously affected by their psychopathy, and we ALL wear the burden of this.
Make sure you don’t vote National, and this will be step one in hopefully getting rid of these psychopaths, and getting these places back to functioning the way they are supposed to be.
You are not a minority, remember that, you are one of ‘us’.
Opinion.
lol, i’m a list candidate for the labour party & have been a member for over 10 years. i don’t think there’s even the slightest danger that i’ll be voting national.
i don’t understand your comment about taking it as a personal affront to my minority. my post is about isn’t about a single minority group. and i recognise that women also face barriers, hence we have organisations like women’s refuge that cater to women. and yes, women’s organisations have traditionally struggled to get funding & support in a partriarchal funding environment – hence the under-funding for specialist sexual violence services for so many years.
sorry but i’m also not sure what you’re getting at with the “us” and “them” comments either.
@Anjum:
Yes lol.
How come I didnt know you were a Labour party candidate.
Anyway, I reckon the only reason we, and that means anyone, not just minority groups (because we dont actually have minority groups within our NZ ‘system’).
The ‘system’ that everyone tries to access from time to time is staffed by psychopathic and sociopathic employees, and it does’nt matter what sex or race you are – it is always difiicult.
It is designed to be as difficult as possible – WINZ and ACC and IRD, privacy commission, Ombudsmans, are my prime examples. (the ‘them’ group)
Other than the presence of an interpreter for some, there is no difference in the approach that these systems tackle you with. The psychopaths in these organisations are ‘them’, and anyone trying to access any of the ‘services’ that these organisations control are the ‘us’.
We ‘us’ all need advocates to get past all the gobbledegook that is fed to us by ‘them’ to deny us anything we request.
It is not about minority anything – it is about the fact that these organisations are full of staff who have been employed because of the propensity of their psychopathic tendancies.
The us is anyone trying to access, and them is the staff at these organiastions. There are only 2 groups.
All the confusion and competition is by design,so that at the end of the day, the people who need access to assistance cannot get it. It’s not that they don’t get it – they just cannot get the assistance they are supposed to get, or what is needed.
Lets use the recent example of the rape crisis in CHCH closing down – this now meaning that a victim of rape (regardless of any ethnicity) can ONLY get access to counseling services if they go through the psychopaths that work in the ACC. This will of course cause the victim to become more traumatised – but there is now no alternative.
It is by design that this situation has arisen – otherwise they would have been given their funding, and the victims could seek humane assistance from the rape crisis team, rather than being forced to close their doors.
So now ACC know that they are the only option and the victims of rape etc won’t be able to have the service of the advocate from the rape crisis center to help them through the ACC loops and bullying and re-traumatising that occurs. The person (victim) is now on their own, faced with the trauma of dealing with the psychopaths at ACC, and possibly WINZ. This situation must be by design, otherwise why is it so?
Opinion.
I think calling the people who work for these governmental departments socio-paths or other names is not constructive. They are being recorded, and assessments are made on almost every phone call they take. That is a hell of a stressful environment to work in, indeed it is quite nasty when any phone call you take, can be played back as part of team meeting. It’s a sick situation, demeaning and a dehumanising way to work.
Fight it I say. There are many ways. Personally I complain about the management, bitterly denounce them as coffee latte sipping sycophants (or what ever comes to mind) who could not get a real job in the real world. I’ve had feedback when you start slagging off management, the recording ends. So, win – win.
Remember, the economy is still custard contrary to what the propaganda machine is spitting out. So people are hanging on to their jobs. Many didn’t sign up for this s*&t but they got it anyway.
The culture in those places is sick. And you know it’s bad when IRD is the best of a bad bunch.
I agree divide and rule is fully in effect, when dealing with the state and it’s so called social services.
My personal opinion is that the state is pretty bloody useless at providing social services. For two reason; One the dominate male culture will always rule out. and two, as it can be captured by any idealogical grouping with an agenda to push.
But then again, there is a fetishist type love affair with the state in this country – so we will keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. Probably with variation on theme, but the same mistakes none the less.
I agree with Adam, name calling is not helpful. I was offered a job with WINZ when I was out of work. I would have had to take it if I did not find anything else. I met some lovely case workers who saw my humanity and my need and treated me well. I was also gender and culturally matched with an appropriate case worker. I think the front line workers do the best they can in impossible circumstances. They are meant to be work brokers not social workers but overwhelmingly dealing with peoples dire needs every day. The state needs to recognise that there are not enough jobs out there and some people will always need a benefit for disability or long term chronic health conditions and they should not be put through continual assessments and humiliating interviews to describe their medical needs every few weeks. That is what doctors certificates are for.
Comments are closed.