Toward Understanding of Accountability (housing)
14 October 2005
Good Morning,
As I head into next week three appointments loom. Monday a small group will convene to offer advice on helping a program mutate through funding and systemic change. On Tuesday will be data collection and measurement of services to homeless individuals. Thursday is a trip to learn about state expectations for my job. All challenge me to take a stand and have something to say—it is a personal and professional contest to take a verbal stand, defend it and not feel defeated by questions from the audience.
In following up with an earlier post, accountability is important.
Accountability comes with a sense of belonging or ownership. Sometimes it is only accountability to one’s self. Does this define “integrity”?
The original question of accountability refers more to motivation. Motivating consumers by having them pay for a service. For some people this will work; it may even work for most people over the short term. What happens when an even greater motivating force arrives? Investments are often dropped.
Accountability to a program then becomes a matter of personal investment in a personal growth goal. To get to that point, other needs must be met. Enter Professor Maslow.
Following from Maslow’s hierarchy housing programs, by definition, provide for basic needs. The five level theory then provides for a step up to belonging to a group—identity. Here is a place where accountability and alliance are built. For an overview (without consideration of Rollnick & Miller) of motivational needs try Huitt, W. (2004).
The article provides “grist for the mill” of how to structure a program. Especially, as the programs concerning me right now are group environments. Anyway you slice it, the bread is baked with connections between people in the middle.
What is suggested is that faith in one’s self and one’s comrades is paramount, once basic physiological requirements are taken care of.
If a program provides food and shelter, does it need to do anything else? Now we’re back to my original question: “How can someone justify their existence?” Wow! That’s a little broader than my original question—“If a public program provides for your basic needs, what is your reciprocal responsibility?”
Here, then, is the perennial question facing social work students: “are there deserving and un-deserving poor?” Embellish it anyway you like, the question returns in many fields—I just happen to work with low-income individuals. The answer, of course, is “no”. At least until you meet a person who offends you.
I usually answer the question through the concept of informed consent. If you wish to enter a program you should be able to get all the information up front. Then an informed choice can be made. Sophisticated contract service providers of all stripes require the contract to be signed and recorded in the record.
Well, if someone is admitted to my program (they are eligible and they choose to do so) then it is my job to meet their needs inside the boundaries of the program. It is their job to follow through on their agreement, also lined out in the contract.
If there are problems, it is my responsibility as the program to learn how the program can fix the problems. In the end, both parties must agree to work for common goals or to part.
Okay, accountability of a consumer to a program is a choice. Accountability of a provider to a program is a choice. I can live with that & help providers come to grips with there consumers.
Rmcox
