AUGUST 20, 2012

Class 2: Engaging Client Voice & Power

Objectives for today

To understand how privilege & oppression manifest in organizational practices

To build methods to rework power relationships with principles of transparency, voice, accountability and empowerment at all levels of organizational practices

Core Competencies

Understand professionals (ourselves) as dangerous and unreliable allies

Methods to increase client/community voice in the organization Assessment of current practices Strategies to increase client voice and influence

Increased power for service users Improved research practices… knowing our strengths and areas for

improvement… for whom

Overview of content

Review learning from sensitivity tools from last weekWhat is wrong with the status quo?What benefits could result from change?

For the organization For service users & community members

Quick review of own organization’s practices in engaging the client and centering their experiences

Introduction to Arnstein’s ladder of powerReview “client satisfaction tool” & research practices

together Small groups to develop structures to expand client voicePresentations back on suggested modifications

Reflections on Sensitivity Tools

New learnings?Contentious items?

What’s wrong with the balance of power now?

Positional privilege – as service providers we hold privilege and power over our clients Human services thus becomes a site of oppression & privilege We become implicated as agents of domination

Our “goodwill” to equalize power is not enough to redress these inequities… why? We (collectively as service professionals) have been doing a terrible job at remedying

disparities We don’t have same identities as service users

We, and others more privileged than us, designed services for “them” even while ignorant of the challenges they face in their lives

We don’t have a lived connection to their experiences (mostly) We are arrogant in our expertise, believing we have the solutions to other people’s

problems We can notice injustices, remain silent, and no repercussions exist

Services have line staff at the bottom of the organization – vulnerable to cuts, poor working conditions, absence of voice & inclusion… and service users are below that level! And vulnerable to our dissatisfaction

What is wrong with relying on our goodwill to deliver change?

Such an emphasis relies on our voluntary transformation into allies “Slow, bourgeois journey of [white] discovery” (Allen, 2004)

“But our children are waiting” (Akande, 2008) “Hunger is in a hurry”

Service professionals are “dangerous allies” (Lopes & Thomas, 2006) Typically need/want recognition We want to see ourselves as “exceptional” rather than implicated & complicit Our stature traditionally depends on NOT rocking the boat Might turn our attention elsewhere next year We cannot be trusted to have durable commitments to this work…

”If I don’t have an embodied experience whereby the fibers and neurons in my body resist and scream in the face of oppression and privilege, then I am an unreliable ally” (Curry-Stevens, 2010)

We can’t ever “know” the experience of oppression of service users “Building expertise about the ‘other,’ is ripe with arrogance and error” (Curry-

Stevens, 2010)

Resolution? To create structures to provide service users more power

Our premise is that by increasing the formal power of service users, we will improve the following: Less social distance between decision makers (top of hierarchy) with

service users (bottom of hierarchy) This improves the knowledge base for decision making

Those with deeper investment in disparity reduction will press for change better than staff/managers do They will advocate for better addressing of disparities They won’t accept “window dressing” responses They have better wisdom to understand the causes of the problems and

the solutions likely to work And, ideally, “they” should become “we” as the organization provides

real power to service users and community members

Or said differently…

“…successful accountability practices need to be rooted institutionally within bodies that have the lived experiences of oppression and who have durable commitments to its eradication. It is within those communities that the imperative for change is urgent, for they hold the investments in the future of their children who are waiting for an end to racism and other forms of oppression. They should hold the power to enforce change.” (Curry-Stevens, 2010, p.68)

AND WE AVOID THE SHORTCOMINGS OF ISSUES ON THE PRIOR PAGE!

Concrete benefits for the organization

WisdomWatchdog functionsLegitimacy – as we are informed/led by constituents who

depend on our servicesUrgency & action – getting in front of disparity work

Benefits for community members

Reducing disparities means improving the future for their childrenOther service effectiveness improvementsLeadership development Increased community capacity & social capital

Networks, knowledge, skills, engagement, heightened expectations All are developed through such involvement

Self-efficacy (= both confidence to act and skills to act increases likelihood of future action)

Visibility (much better than invisibility!)Reduced alienationEmpowerment (building real power)

Overall best features?

1. Rejection of “client-hood” stature for service users (from Hardina, 2003) By increasing consumer voice and power inside the organization, we

build shared investments in services Replaced by reciprocity and mutuality

2. Increased likelihood of systemic advocacy engagement3. Improved prospects for disparity reduction

Situating our own practice:Reviewing client voice & power

What practices does your organization use? Consultation during strategic planning? Representation (how many?) on Board of Directors? And how does

one get such nomination? Client satisfaction surveys? Annual reports that are available to clients? Annual general meetings, that invite community members to

attend?

Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizenship Participation

Characteristics of each power level

Non-participation = When clients are compliant with the organization and its rules & practices. The service staff are the experts and they make decisions for the organization.

Characteristics of each power level (Cont’d)

Tokenism = Participants have a voice but no power to ensure their voice has influence. Informing: Important first step, but too often one-way

communication is the norm. There is no channel for feedback to the organization.

Consultation: Exists through surveys, meetings and focus groups. But this is usually just a “window dressing” ritual with no mandate to consider these voices. Typically these data are used when they confirm the organization’s existing beliefs.

Placation: Organization retains power to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice provided. Co-optation of “exceptional” community members is one such example, as is selecting 1-2 spaces on boards of directors for community members & service users.

Characteristics of each power level (Cont’d)

Citizen Power = Negotiation is enabled and decision making responsibility is shared. Works best when clients & community members have organized and resourced networks Partnership: When communities and clients join tables to make

decisions on key issues. Delegated power: Clients and communities hold majority of power

on committees to make decisions. The grassroots base now has the power to assure accountability of the organization to them.

Citizen control: This is the highest level of empowerment. Here the community handles all decisions.

What terms fit for your organization?

Discussion: Diagnose your organization overall What have you seen in your organization that reflects efforts to

involve the community & clients in the organization? Where do these fit on the ladder?

How could you move further up the ladder? Consider issues such as:

Transparency Voice Accountability Authority Control Empowerment (building real community power)

More on client voice & power

Board membership How is one selected? How is one confirmed/elected? By whom? If voted by members – how does one become a member?

What research & evaluation practices do you use? Client outcomes

What data is available by race – client base? outcome data? Satisfaction levels? Who is such data available to? How is it made available?

What disparities exist in your organization? If this is not known – why? For staff? What barriers exist for equity within the organization?

What about “watchdog” functions outside your organization?

We can’t be trusted to police ourselves nor hold ourselves accountable… this is a step beyond building consumer power inside the organization Who “watches” your accomplishments? What is your role in this? Do you welcome it? Are you defended

against it?If none exist – how can you catalyze this?If one exists – how can you strengthen it?

Routine Input from Service Users: Client Satisfaction Surveys

Generally, RF has solid practice here Consider adding probing questions about the following:

Did they have a staff who understood their experiences of poverty, LGBTQ, age and/or racism? [more on this in our next class on AOP counseling]

If they held a marginalized identity – would they have preferred to have staff and other service professionals who had the same identity?

And probes about specific AOP practices contained within this course

Sample Satisfaction Survey

Instructions

Use the following scale to grade this program, the way teachers grade students.

A B C D F N/A Excellent Above Average Average Poor Failing Cannot Grade On This Question

Section 1: Program Staff. Please circle the grade you would give the program staff on: How they treated you. A B C D F N/A How much interest they had in helping you. A B C D F N/A

Amount of time you had to wait in the waiting area for them. A B C D F N/A

The efforts they made to answer your questions. A B C D F N/A

How fair they were. A B C D F N/A How well they explained what you had to do to meet the program requirements. A B C D F N/A Overall, how would you grade program staff? A B C D F N/A

Additional Research Issues

Tool itself What racial identifiers are asked?

Ideally, we ask questions about race & ethnicity and income. Allow people to select multiple racial identifiers And ask people to select the race that identifies them best Include Hispanic/Latino as a race, please… or else you get some Latinos

identifying themselves as White and some who do not – which places them in the terrible place of having to say they are “some other race”

What class identifiers are asked? If you want to begin to understand how poorer clients fare, you have to ask

for income levels (can use 5 categories) This would let you disaggregate by income, and eliminate the chance that

richer clients “pull up” your results

Who is surveyed? Usually only those who complete intervention How can you capture insights from people who attend only once or twice?

More on client satisfaction surveys (through AOP lens)

Analysis What analysis of the data occurs? Are the results disaggregated by

race, ethnicity and/or income?Representation

If shared at all… how are the results reported? What degree of detail? What diverging or marginal experiences exist?

Sharing the results Are the results public? How are results made available to those who complete the forms?

Implementing changes What accountability exists to make changes?

Additional concept

Marginality and inclusionHow are marginal voices understood in your

organization? Usually only norms included

Discussion

Identify possible structural improvements for client voice and power in your organization

Which hold potential to reduce disparities in your organization?

Homework

Find an example in your own community of an organization that works to improve the power of clients and community members in relationship to the organization?

Present details of these innovations back to the group at our next meeting