Summary
Contents
Subject index
The Handbook of Community Practice is the first volume in this field, encompassing community development, organizing, planning, and social change, and the first community practice text that provides in-depth treatment of globalization—including its impact on communities in the United States and in international development work. The Handbook is grounded in participatory and empowerment practice including social change, social and economic development, feminist practice, community-collaboratives, and engagement in diverse communities. It utilizes the social development perspective and employs analyses of persistent poverty, policy practice, and community research approaches as well as providing strategies for advocacy and social and legislative action.
Service Coordination: Practical Concerns for Community Practitioners
Service Coordination: Practical Concerns for Community Practitioners
Social workers have always understood that individuals, families, and communities often have multiple problems that require service from a variety of agencies and professionals. The complex nature of individual and social problems often means that a number of service systems must be involved to resolve problems because no single agency has the capabilities to meet all client needs. At times, a single referral will ensure the mobilization of all necessary client services. However, the complexity of many of today's problems, combined with agencies' funding and service limitations, often requires that social workers coordinate the efforts of a number of organizations to ensure their clients get the care they need.
Too often, social service agencies and funds are narrowly focused and highly specialized. Unfortunately, social problems are rarely that simple. People in need of services cannot be reduced to one-dimensional entities and expected to respond to one-size-fits-all services. Agencies are often set up to provide a specific set of services, however, and individuals and communities with complex needs are often expected to negotiate complicated systems and coordinate a maze of services for themselves.
A potential alternative to formal service coordination arrangements are market arrangements (Wallis, 1994), which might use vouchers or other payment arrangements and may be more subject to market forces in assessment and/or service planning. Although such arrangements might work for simple service needs, market arrangements also leave to clients the responsibility for coordinating complex service situations by themselves, and involved agencies may not see coordination with a service system as part of their mission. Experienced social workers know that for services to be effective, service coordination is needed. This holds true historically and currently.
Among the earliest attempts at service coordination were the charity organization societies, which sought to eliminate duplication of services among agencies and improve effectiveness and efficiency. Service coordination has continued to be an ongoing theme, with efforts of the United Way, other private entities, and government organizations being devoted to such efforts. A great deal of professional literature has discussed service coordination issues (Austin, 1997; Dill & Rochefort, 1989; Dunst & Bruder, 2002; Edelman, 2001; Goering & Rogers, 1986; Lehman, 1989; Meyers, 1993; Reitan, 1998; Rosenblatt, 1996). Variations of service coordination efforts may also be known as service integration, collaboration, community liaison networks, partnerships, or wraparound services.
Service Coordination as Compensation for a Fragmented Service System
The nature of current social service arrangements too often mitigates against easy problem resolution. Historically, many agencies were founded and developed independently of a clear and overall systematic plan for social services. Instead, charities were formed by individuals or groups in response to the funders' often narrow perception of what was needed in society. Funding was equally disjointed. Increases in government funding over time did not resolve such problems because funding often was provided in a way that focused on narrow problems or categorical definitions. Separate rules and regulations applied to each service system or domain, such as child welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice. Adelman and Taylor describe this phenomenon as “hardening of the categories” (1997, p. 415). Others have referred to these funding and planning domains as “smokestacks” or “silos” where there is little connection among service systems. Each service system too often operates within its own silo, independently of other systems. The problem, of course, is that individual, family, and community problems rarely fit neatly into the categories established by agencies; as a result, services remain uncoordinated and are thus not fully effective. Mitchell and Scott state that “the single most potent threat to successful interagency collaboration lies in the historical division of client needs into distinctive ‘problems’ that are seen as amenable to treatment by the application of a particular agency's staff energy and expertise” (1996, pp. 172).
...
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life -
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Read next
More like this
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches