The other day I was at Clarke Quay there were this lovely string trio [?], in both looks and skills, performing to an oblivious audience, performing in spite of an oblivious audience, bravely soldiering on. The show must go on I suppose.
-
So I had a letter published in the ST today [big big somemore]:
NCSS should focus more on its clients
I REFER to Ms Ang Bee Lian's letter 'Govt benchmarking social workers' pay' on Sept 26.
I have been a social worker for almost two years. While I am not seeing the kind of salary that Ms Ang refers to, I acknowledge that there has been some positive movement in that regard.
However, I feel that the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) can do more for the people.
The biggest issue is the structural way NCSS divides the services of a population within distinct demographical categories, like age or physical condition. Each group is further divided into specific needs and services, like home nursing, meals delivery, family counselling and so on. Such a model is not comprehensive, as considering how diverse people are, there inadvertently will be needs an individual faces that existing formal services do not provide.
A corollary for such a framework is that social service organisations are set up around these services that NCSS has earmarked due to the funding. This inadvertently results in agencies becoming very specific and not going beyond a certain duty to fill up any possible service loophole, either because they lack the resources or, for whatever other reasons, because it is not 'in the service guideline'. While specificity often leads to specialisation and efficiency, the precursor is economies of scale, which most social service agencies are unable to achieve.
A third offshoot is a duplication of assessment that results from a client being referred from one agency to another. Each agency requires its own separate assessment. While a specific service will assess a client differently, there are common facets like financial and background information that can be better shared. For example, multiple financial testing requires multiple collection of financial documents from the client and the family.
While NCSS has gone some way to supporting social workers, I feel we can be better supported by focusing on the clients.
Chen Lingshen
As with all things online, there will always be idiots and as of now, here's the only idiotic comment:
I think the writer, being a rookie, does not understand how the sector works.
Such embarrassment, hearing these comments from these young social workers who are passionate but don't go deeper into what they see or hear on the surface.
My next question to these rookies are: so what are you going to do to facilitate change in your position?
The idiocy of this idiot screams so loudly I don't think I even need to speak for him.
Edit. Apparently someone replied that idiot:
what embarrassment about these comments? quite sensible perceptive observations made by Chen Lingshen.
(1)"the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) can do more for the people"
nothing embarrassing about this fact.
(2)"the structural way NCSS divides the services...inadvertently will be needs an individual faces that existing formal services do not provide". correct again. such rigid divisions means this is not in my service guideline, not my area, so results in multiple referrals which hamper the efficiency of the system.
(3) clients `referred from one agency to another. Each agency requires its own separate assessment' - waste of resources and hassle for people requiring fast help.
Rookies? - better than fossilised veterans who are moulded to the old rigid inflexible system. we need more such refrshing views.
I'm embarrassed actually; he says it much better than i could ever hope to.
-
On a relatively unrelated note,
The general consensus is that the letter was 'very well written', that I was very brave to have written it. My bosses were livid. [Edit. I have since been cleared cuz I didn't mention the company name] Tomorrow, all these will be forgotten until NCSS replies, which will go along these lines: they'll denounce me as a wet behind the ears rookie, full of passion but ultimately myopic and misguided, list down their accomplishments probably in terms of how many people have benefitted from their services and the high percentage of positive evaluations, and mention how NCSS strives to keep ahead and relevant and pretend it never happened.
I'm not actually say anything new or brilliant, or made up; these are things everyone has been saying but not to NCSS, or they're not listening, or something. [Edit. I've just been informed that Case Management communicates with NCSS directly and they're able to implement changes every 3 months. Power to Case Management I say; You can be a Case Management too if you're above 60, lack social support and have one chronic medical condition]. I'm just saying what alot of people are saying but not saying to NCSS. Which is what irks. Things didn't just suddenly become like that overnight; it should have taken a hell lot of indifference for things to become what they are today.
Abit of clarification: NCSS doesn't actually provide the service or set up the agencies that do; what they do is demarcate the specific services by deciding what gets funding and what not, divide it into geographic regions and you kinda tender for it; you're free to set up your own agency providing any service you want but obviously why do something for free when funding is just a soul's sale away. You get this nice groovy service manual to follow and are required to submit stats every once in awhile purporting to the efficacy of your service but actually meaning nothing; you also have to provide any other stats, colour coded in technicolour, that the great powers at NCSS needs to set policy. I must have missed the fine print somewhere because you are also required to get your comments and observations ignored and you can't speak to someone higher ranked [at NCSS] than you directly. [I don't know where this notion of rank came about actually: technically the politicians appoint the civil servants and the power of politicians comes from the people; therefore politicians are the lowest ranked and therefore civil servants, and psuedo civil servants aren't that far off too?]
Years ago, I attended a meeting where the SINDA-FSC director was present. He was rather quite disdainful of education and prided himself on his years of experience. He was particularly proud of his 'experienced' corp of volunteers in this service implemented, boasting that they were able to make thorough and complete assessments with just an hour. How this is related to the current mess I don't know but I just think that experience or education, neither one is more important than the other. You need a theoretical basis as a guide how to proceed; yet a guide will never cover every possible situation that you will encounter. Experience and education to me are just the same facets of probably-knowing something; I say probably-knowing because I don't think we can really ever know anything [and even this I don't know for sure]. I think the day I do know anything for sure is the day life ends.
Yet another common comment is so 'why am I not doing anything about it' or 'what solution do i have to offer'. I don't know? I wrote a letter didn't I? And I did give up the pursuit of a discipline [psychology] that I am thoroughly in love with for one [medicine/genetics] that is no doubt just as exciting but with a much longer, more uncertain and onerous journey because I believe it's for the best. I did design a database to store client records; I spent and am still spending droplets of time I manage to squeeze out from my laden schedule of work and school learning from scratch computer languages like MYSQL, PHP and HTML in the hopes that I can bridge at least a few services together. My system is not perfect, but it will be eventually. I really really would like to think I did and am still trying to do something about it. I actually don't quite understand the logic that when you criticize, you must have an answer. Afterall, I'm not the one that's being paid an obnoxious amount of money here.
But I actually do have an answer, and it doesn't involve raising taxes or implementing surcharges. I suggest, rather than a service-centric model, we should adopt a client or geography-centric model: that is a social worker is assigned to an area, and the entire gamut of needs of persons in that area is the responsibility of that social worker [TM]. When the social worker feels that the client requires services that the social worker is unable to render, he/she can refer to an organization providing that specific need.
One of the complaints in the social services is there's not enough resources, which is actually the same complaint in every other industry. I don't think there's not enough resources; it's just that everyone, every organization, every industry demands their own set of resources. I call this the Food Court Rice Theory [TM]. When I go to the food court near closing time, there's alot of stores who have run out of rice and have to close for the day yet there are also many other stores who still have lots of rice left. Or or or how mornings, the roads are practically jammed but if you look inside each car, you'll see there's most likely only one, at most two persons in each car that sits five people. Or you see the roads going towards the city is clogged yet the roads coming from the city is empty. Or you can never get a taxi when you need one yet taxi drivers spend a good part of their jobs waiting at taxi stands. Obviously resources are not being used all that well. And coming from my Food Court Rice Theory is the final piece of my solution: where possible, the social services should not set up a specialized service but utilize existing commercial sources [TM]. Why do we have to send food all the way from Henderson to Beach Road when there's so many eateries littering the area? Why can't we use taxi drivers who are free to send clients for medical appointments? Of course, my idealism requires alot of micro planning, coordination, and a quid of human kindness and initiative, which is the bit where it will all come apart.
-
Actually I don't know I struggle so much for what. If I just shut up and do my job, receive my [relatively] obnoxious pay, spend my pay, and live happily ever after, I would be living happily ever after instead of this mess I'm in: feeling pissed, feeling pissed that I'm pissed, career's in limbo, all plans derailed. Nothing's gonna change, moone else cares, and it doesn't matter that I care, and noone cares that I care.
-
I kinda think at the end of the day ideals are important. Sure, they don't put food on the table, and power to you if your ideal happens to be the same as putting food on the table, but ideals, even if you never meet them, make you you.
