Social workers talk a lot about ‘meeting clients where they are’. And, as a community organizer and a social worker who believes in the transformative power of radical solidarity alongside those with whom we have the honor to work, I talk with students and colleagues a lot about the importance of staying rooted in the lives of those whom we serve, about shaping policy with an understanding of their realities, about navigating the differences that divide us from those with whom we work, about elevating their voices in the political process.
And, yet, sometimes I’m reminded, poignantly, of the limits of these efforts to bring our professional selves into a fuller understanding of the realities of our clients’ lives, realities that, for them, are not ‘grassroots’ or ‘authentic’ or ‘compelling’, but just ‘life’–hard, sometimes sad, sometimes joyful, often complex, life.
I read Jacqueline Novogratz’s book The Blue Sweater last fall. (I recommend it; she tells a very moving and very human story about how we often fail our way to succeeding in working well with vulnerable populations very different than we are, and I appreciated her honesty and courage and vision in telling this story and in building the social enterprise that she has created to address poverty around the world). She has a couple of kind of ‘punched in the gut’ paragraphs relating to this idea of the impossibility of really “getting it” in terms of working in solidarity with people in poverty, particularly in the developing world.
One is when she’s reading about the erupting genocide in Rwanda, a place where she lived for several years. Reading the headlines from the safety of her subway train in New York City, she remembers a conversation with a Rwandan woman who commented on how expatriates come and never stay. I can imagine her smiling knowingly at Jacqueline’s protestations about the commitment of foreign aid workers (like herself) to the country. Yes, she would think, but you have the safety of those foreign passports. You’re here by choice. And you’ll never really know.
She deals with a similar moral quandry when buying food for a celebration; her friend selects two $60 bottles of champagne and Jacqueline hesitates, since that’s more than most Rwandans earned in a year at that time. She comes to realize, though, that she can’t deny the privilege that is a part of her mere existence, and that consumer decisions are only a superficial part of that. “Most precious of all were our passports that would allow us to leave the country whenever we wanted and our sense of empowerment that led us to believe we could accomplish the impossible. The challenge wasn’t whether to buy a couple of bottles of champagne; it was instead not to take our privilege for granted…” (p. 102)–for the record, I wouldn’t have bought the champagne!, but she makes an important point about the real work, which is confronting our own nature as outsiders, and figuring out how to be truly helpful to those we intend, from this vantage point outside, to help.
All of that reminded me of one of my own moments of realization. I was engaged in a fairly hot debate with immigrant leaders and some other advocates about whether or not to accept a proposal for driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants if they would be in some way distinguishable from the licenses available to U.S. citizens. In my indignation over this affront to the basic dignity of the community with which I work, and my legitimate fear about the profiling and harrassment that could stem from such a labeling, I was arguing fairly forcefully for a political response that would reject ‘second-class citizenship’ and insist on full rights to identification.
We went back and forth, all of us, talking about the alternatives and the strategies for moving forward, and I’d like to think that I made some impassioned pleas for solidarity and building a movement for social justice, and not settling for a non-solution.
And then.
One of the undocumented immigrant women leaders with whom I had worked closely for a few years already at that point put her arm very gently on my shoulder. She leaned in so that she could speak quietly. And she said,
“Melinda, ya tienes tu licencia.” Melinda, you already have a driver’s license.
That’s all she said. And she smiled, very slightly, when she said it, as if to say, “hija, I know that you mean well. But this is not your fight. You can’t walk our walk. And you can’t pretend to know what we know. So it’s not. your. call.”
That exchange (you can’t even call it a conversation; I was pretty much silenced immediately as I sat chastising myself) has stuck with me. It led me to take some positions, as an advocate, that I found strategically (although not ethically) objectionable or unwise. It led me to make some very politically unpopular statements and even to alienate some people in power whom I had previously considered friends. Because every time I felt a bit entitled, because, you know, I was sacrificing a lot of my time, and my personal life, and even my mental health at times, to fight these fights, and even though I was roundly embraced by the community as though I was one of them, ya tenía mi licencia.
And so I couldn’t really say.
Here’s to never forgetting what we don’t know.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Rethinking Agency Intake: The Voter Connection
photo credit, junrinon, via Flickr
I know I’m not the only social worker who has read over an agency’s intake form and thought, “why in the world are we asking that?” or “who would seriously fill all of this out?” Seriously.
Out of respect for our clients, we must ask ourselves, always, if we need to know everything that we’re asking them. Do we need to know their income level? Their marital status? Their Social Security Numbers (hint: that last one is most often ‘no’, at least for those of us in the nonprofit world!)? If we can’t explain how each piece of information is connected to our programming and evaluation agenda, then we should NOT ask it, period.
So, after we review our agency intake materials and eliminate the questions that are hanging on because some funder once upon a time asked for them or we just assumed that everyone else asked them, so we should too, we should have some extra space and time in that initial encounter.
What to do with it?
Well, besides the obvious: get to the work of helping the person who came to us more quickly, we need to consider the tremendous potential to ask a few very, very simple questions that can have a much more profound impact on our clients’ lives: “Are you registered to vote?” “Can I register you to vote today?”
Intake is a prime opportunity to register our clients to vote; we’re already asking them questions, so why not add two that matter so much? Then, all you need to do is collect their name, address, and a little more identifying information, and you’ve got a newly-registered voter.
But what else can we do to make the voter/intake connection?
I’d like to see every nonprofit organization ask clients how they prefer to be contacted for service-related matters (related to their client relationship), advocacy issues, and volunteer opportunities. Since we won’t be needlessly asking about number of sexual partners anymore (until Allison Fine shared a similar story in Momentum, I thought I was the only one who had discovered that randomly on an intake form!), we can ask for cell phone numbers, and whether they are open to receiving text messages from us, for example. We can ask if they have any social media profiles that they’d like to use to connect to our agency (emphasis on they authorize the connecting!).
And, then, we can use those connections, and that data, to encourage our clients to go vote at election time (and, of course, to share advocacy information in the meantime, that connects the issues they face in their lives to the policy and political agendas decided by elections).
Then, we’ll have an agency intake process that really works: that provides us with the essential information we need to initiate the services that clients are seeking and that we know how to (excellently!) provide, and that sets the stage for a transformational relationship that views clients as co-creators of social change and lays the foundation for how we’ll work together to achieve a more just tomorrow.
And you can still run it off on multicolored paper if you really want to. Just like old times.
Share this:
Like this:
→ 3 Comments
Posted in Analysis and Commentary
Tagged clients, elections, nonprofit organizations