SOCIAL SERVICES: ALONE IN FACING THE CHALLENGE OF INCLUSION?
Original article published in catalan on 06/11/2023
Reflections shared at the conference titled "Social Services: Alone
in Facing the Challenge of Inclusion?" at the Inclusió.cat congress on
June 8, 2023.
According to Plena Inclusion's definition, we talk about inclusion when
people can participate in any activity with equal opportunities, and we
emphasize equal opportunities because they receive the supports they need. For
example, in a school environment, in a work environment, among others...
Therefore, it is also important to talk about an inclusive environment, which
is one that ensures that everyone has the same opportunities to participate in
it.
However, as mentioned earlier, from the perspective of intellectual
disability, we advocate for community-based inclusion, with the necessary
supports, as I mentioned, to ensure equal opportunities.
But what do we mean when we talk about Community? Without delving too
deeply, just giving a brief overview and relying on the community's decalogue.
Talking about community means talking about:
• A group or set of people, a system or ecosystem of relationships,
emotions, and references.
• A reality that is smaller and more manageable than society.
• Possibilities for self-organized solidarity, collaborative economy,
and close institutionalization.
• The community can be a positive factor for people's quality of life
and well-being; a space of welcome, hospitality, trust, care, and protection;
as well as a facilitator of civic participation for the common good and general
interest.
Therefore, social inclusion from a community perspective would be based
on identifying the existing community so that people can participate in it with
equal opportunities and, therefore, receive the necessary supports; it would be
one that, by relying on existing community dynamics, would simultaneously weave
close and trusting relationships. It would also be one that, by enhancing its
potential, seeks to empower people, transform them into conscious subjects, and
improve the quality of life of all those who are or can become part of it.
But I would like to emphasize the perspective toward social inclusion
from a management standpoint:
From my point of view, we must conceive social inclusion as a social
challenge/complex problem, and therefore, multifactorial and dynamic. From my
academic knowledge and professional experience, I like to try to understand the
problems or what is not working well to find solutions.
So, my view is that if we
understand social inclusion as a complex problem, teams, organizations, and
ecosystems will need to organize differently to address this challenge. How? In
a multidisciplinary and dynamic way.
As Quim Brugué (2022) points out, one of the problems with public
policies has been the belief that complex problems could be solved with a
double simplification: first, by thinking that we could classify them
sectorally (education, healthcare, social services...) and, second, that a
particular professional would provide a clear and indisputable answer. As
Brugué says, we must remember that complex problems do not accept the
irreducibility of complexity and that, therefore, in an environment of increasing
social complexity, problems cannot be simplified, and if we persist in
simplification, it will lead to the failure of public policy.
The second idea I want to highlight that Brugué contributes is that
"managerial models have brought efficiency in the provision of public
services, but they have not managed to ensure the effectiveness of public
policies." Therefore, my intuition is that if we really want to respond to
the challenge of social inclusion, we will need to rethink how we organize
ourselves, both within organizations and among the agents participating in the
co-production of public policies, to move towards greater effectiveness of
public policies.
💬What is the differential value contribution of third-sector social
action organizations in social inclusion processes? How should these entities
be structured to be true agents of social inclusion?
To answer the first question, I would divide it into two parts: the
first is to ask ourselves, what is the differential value contribution of
third-sector organizations? and, secondly, what is the value contribution in
social inclusion of third-sector organizations?
Starting from the premise that the intervention area is not the
differential value of third-sector organizations, as we reflected together with
F. Fantova (2022) in the article "Third Sector and Social
Innovation," we can name some traits that are indeed part of the
differential value: solidarity, gratuity, being community-based entities,
voluntary action, but I would especially emphasize the following two:
governance and management models, and their intersection with the community and
primary relationships.
Governance and management models must recover and be imbued with the DNA
of the entities' origins, which are community-based, socially initiated, and
therefore participatory and democratic.
On the other hand, their intersection with the community and primary
relationships should be an added value for community empowerment, fostering an
innovative culture to improve people's quality of life. Furthermore, the third
sector emerges between community, state, and market, strengthening the capacity
of society as a whole (Fantova, 2018).
Having understood what the differential value contribution of
third-sector entities can be, we could say that their value contribution to
social inclusion lies in the fact that they are in a privileged position to
provide first-hand knowledge of different social realities, to become a
"laboratory" of social innovation. We are the ones who will be
attentive to continue pushing forward in offering and demanding the necessary
supports for people in vulnerable situations. People who often find themselves
in a situation of unequal opportunities and political action. Therefore, the
third sector works to reverse these situations in terms of empowerment and
community inclusion and not with a welfare-focused and thus disempowering
approach.
But how should these entities be structured to be true agents of social
inclusion and ensure that these opportunities mentioned are guaranteed? Here, I
would link it again by reviewing organizational models and transforming them
into models that facilitate responding to complex challenges. The types of
organizations we would be talking about should largely meet the following
characteristics:
• Organizations that are more agile and flexible, able to adapt better
and respond better to social complexity.
• Organizations with a more ecological and less mechanistic approach
(Capra, 2002). Understanding organizations as "living beings" and not
as machines.
• More dynamic organizations, like a network of connections (Darceles,
2009).
• Open organizations: "A multitude of units capture and
interpret information, signals from their specific environment, and within the
framework of corporate intentions, they decide." (Vázquez and Ayerbe,
2000).
• Organizations with shared power: where decision-making is
shared.
• Organizations that include and recognize diversity: in people, knowledge, life experiences, etc.
• Organizations composed of self-managed
and self-organized teams.
• Organizations that promote and develop new leadership styles that
are less paternalistic and more feminist.
• Organizations that facilitate the emergence of strategy from
anywhere within the organization (Mintzberg, 1991).
• Organizations based on Teal principles (Laloux, 2016): capable
of handling large amounts of information, without immutable hierarchy or
top-down micromanagement.
• Organizations based on democratic governance: that recognize
different voices and the diversity of people.
• Organizations that also facilitate the generation of collective
knowledge, spaces for dialogue to imagine, design, and co-create.
And all this for what?
• To be closer to social realities.
• To be more agile in decision-making.
• To create multidisciplinary and dynamic teams.
• To recognize power also for advancing towards inclusive and innovative
strategies.
• So that hierarchy serves (Meadows, D., 2022) smaller units, and it is
from these that decisions and strategies can be made.
In short, to contribute to social transformation by responding to the
social challenges of the 21st century.
💬And finally, what are the keys to the daily functioning of a solidarity
organization dedicated to social services if it wants to contribute to true
pathways of social inclusion for the people it serves? And from your
experience, what would you ask the administration to advance together in the
challenge of inclusion?
I would share the following ideas to contribute to true pathways of
inclusion:
• Keep in mind that the people we serve must be at the center, and
therefore, we must transform/adapt the organization to be able to accompany
them according to their wills and life paths, rather than them adapting to the
structure of the organization.
• We must listen to the people we support to know and recognize them,
understand their life stories, wills, and desires. It is also very important to
know their community.
• We face the challenge of how to make more flexible person care models when the legal framework and financing model are so inflexible and
insufficient...
• We must weave intersectoral care models: with education, health,
housing, work...
• We must open entities to their environment in a bidirectional way:
from the entity outward as well as from outside into the entity: with schools,
businesses, civic centers, associations... to weave a system of close
relationships.
Therefore, we need to be flexible internally, intersectoral, and with
the community and agents with whom we interact.
At the same time, these inclusion dynamics must be part of the entity's
strategy on a macro level, but they will be woven from the micro contact, from
the day-to-day listening to the people we serve. We must weave relationships
and contacts within the organization without hierarchical barriers and with the
entire ecosystem to offer true Person-Centered Care.
To conclude, from my experience, and linking it to the beginning of my
reflection, I would ask the administration that, given that social inclusion is
a complex challenge, we must approach it in a multidisciplinary and dynamic
way.
That is why we need an entire ecosystem of agents contributing their
knowledge and competencies in an innovative and active way, creating
collective knowledge.
As we also reflected together with F. Fantova (2021) in the article
"Knowledge Ecosystems: Knowledge Management in Community Organizations in
the Context of Public Policies," this ecosystem would include:
• The political and academic spheres, as agents, would be the
main space and repository for deliberation and ideological knowledge (including
ethical knowledge).
• The university (and other training centers) and scientific
associations would constitute the field that, in principle, produces,
validates, and distributes scientific knowledge.
• The third sector of social action and professional associations
are the ones that would contribute practical or expert knowledge, although they
also accumulate ethical, philosophical, normative, and political knowledge.
• Research centers, technology hubs, consultancies, observatories… are those that, based on theory, would systematize technology or
methodology in the application of knowledge.
And I would also add:
• The administration in general, as an agent that must work to
provide the legal, economic, and supervisory frameworks to transform inclusive
public policies into reality.
In this sense, I would ask the administration:
• To be a facilitator and promoter of the social transformation in the
key to community inclusion that we need.
• To be an agent of change by also supporting the third sector
economically and in terms of legal frameworks for social innovation: to promote
more inclusive, community-based, and person-centered care models.
• To build a social policy strategy without forcing us to compete among
entities and for short periods of time, which do not provide stability and turn
us into experts in surviving the labyrinth of grants.
• To expedite legal changes that we have long known need to be made.
• To promote innovative participatory governance models for the
co-production of public policies among the different agents involved.
And since I am asking... should the administration also consider whether
the way it is organized contributes to advancing in this direction... or does
it also need to rethink its organization?
Thank you very much for having the opportunity of sharing these reflections.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BRUGUÉ, Quim. (2022). “Organizaciones que saben, organizaciones
que aprenden”. Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
CAPRA, Fritjof. (2002). “La trama de la vida”. Barcelona, Anagrama.
DARCELES, Maite (2009). “Guías para la transformación”. BAI,
Berrikuntza Agentzia. Agencia de Innovación.
FANTOVA, Fernando (2018) Colaboración y alianzas multiagente en las
estrategias del Tercer Sector de acción social. Revista Española del Tercer
Sector. Nº 38. Madrid (pp. 135-162)
LALOUX, Frederic. (2016). “Reinventar las organizaciones”. Arpa.
MANENT, Ariadna i FANTOVA, Fernando (2022) “Tercer Sector i Innovació
Social” https://lleiengel.cat/tercer-sector-innovacio-social/
MANENT, Ariadna i FANTOVA, Fernando (2021) “Ecosistemes de coneixement: gestió del coneixement en
organitzacions comunitàries en un context de polítiques públiques"
https://lleiengel.cat/ecosistemes-coneixement-tercer-sector/
MEADOWS, Donella. H. (2022). “Pensar en sistemas. Un manual de
iniciación”. Capitán Swing.
MINTZBERG, Henry (1991). “La estructuración de las organizaciones”.
Barcelona, Ariel.
VÁZQUEZ, Alfonso., & AYERBE, M. (2000). “La imaginación
estratégica: el caos como liberación”. Ediciones Granica SA.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario