sousa+2005

Liliana Sousa

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS

WHEN INTERVENING WITH MULTI-

PROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

Which strengths exist in the personal social networks of members of multi-problempoor families? This is a crucial question at a time when a substantial amount ofdata demonstrates the protector effect of social ties and the harmful effect of theirinsufficiency in aspects such as well-being, personal development and social adjustment.In addition, recent research has demonstrated that professionals are no longer the onlyproviders of solutions for the problems of families and individuals in need.Therefore, personal networks must be involved so that intervention is based on thecompetences and strengths of the family, its members and the social networks of theseelements.

With the aim of analyzing the strengths which exist in the personal social networks ofmembers of multi-problem poor families, a sample of 100 members of these families wassurveyed, using a structured interview, based on Sluzki (La red social: frontera de lapractica sistemica, Gedisa, Barcelona, 1996). The main results of this exploratory studysuggest that: strong family ties constitute a resource to be taken into account; friends andneighbours are a resource that needs to be activated; the members of these families need todevelop more reciprocal relationships within their personal network; emotional support isan open door towards the activation of other forms of support; it is necessary to givespecial attention to two sub-groups (women and the elderly).

Keywords personal networks; multi-problem families; network intervention

Introduction

The ways in which people relate to those around them is vitally important to thequality of their lives. If we are to make a positive difference to the circumstances ofmulti-problem poor families, it is essential to understand the ways in which theyrelate to and are inter-dependent with the significant people in their personalnetworks. Personal networks are stable but evolving relationships constituted byfamily members, friends and acquaintances, work and study connections, andrelationships that evolve out of participation in formal and informal organizations(Sluzki, 2000).

Journal of Social Work Practice Vol. 19, No. 2, July 2005, pp. 163179

ISSN 0265-0533 print/ISSN 1465-3885 online 2005 GAPShttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/02650530500144766

Over recent decades, there has been an increasing interest in conceptualizinghuman behaviour in the context of large family and social systems (Imber-Black,1988; Colapinto, 1995; Sluzki, 1996, 2000). The personal network has the uniquequality of being both centred on the individual and focused on relational systems. It isindividual-centred because it is always based on a particular informant; and it is eco-systemic since it includes as a minimal unit of analysis the meaningful socialenvironment as a whole.

Furthermore, recent developments have indicated that professionals are no longerthe only providers of solutions; so informal personal networks must also be involved,requiring new competences from professionals. Instead of prescriptive expertise,mobilizing skills are called for (Seikkula et al., 2003). Therefore, it becomesextremely important to gain a better understanding of the strengths of personalnetworks in order to use them as keys to solutions.

This topic gains particular importance regarding multi-problem poor familiessince they represent a particular case regarding personal networks; informal networkstend to be unstable since members of these families often lack the necessary socialskills for maintaining relationships (Macdonald et al., 1998). Moreover, since they arecharacterized by the presence of a chain of problems affecting an indeterminatenumber of members, and social agencies are almost always organized in accordancewith areas of intervention, the formal personal networks of these families arecharacterized by interaction with a multiplicity of practitioners and social agencies.

Thus, this exploratory study focuses on strengths in personal networks ofmembers of multi-problem poor families. The data was collected through a structuredinterview based on the model of Sluzki (1996), which included the followingvariables, divided into two main dimensions: structural size, density, composition,dispersion, reciprocity and frequency of contacts; and functional relationalproximity and contents (emotional support, guidance, social regulation, instrumentalassistance, financial assistance, access to new contacts, social company andprofessional help).

Personal networks of multi-problem poor family members

The personal network is a network centred on a specific individual, which includestwo types of relationships: informal, involving individuals with personal affinities, in anon-institutional context; and formal, comprising a set of individuals with the samefunction within an institutional framework.

Sluzki (1996) argues that the concept of personal network was developed andrefined in cumulative, but disordered forms by a series of authors, among whom standout: Kurt Lewin (1952) (field theory); Jacob Moreno (1951) (sociogram); JohnBarnes (1954, 1972) (first used the concept to study a small community); ElizabethBott (1957) (demonstrated how morphological characteristics of networks could berelated to marital role segregation); and Erich Lindeman (1979) (studied theimportance of personal social network on the co-determination of a crisis eventeffect).

Over recent decades, the network approach has begun to emerge as a potentiallyuseful theoretical model for the analysis and description of complex social systems and

1 6 4 J O U R N A L O F S O C I A L W O R K P R A C T I C E

interactions, as well as for intervention. A substantial and growing body of data isshowing both the protective effect of social ties and the detrimental effect ofinsufficient ties on health and well-being (e.g. Schoenbach et al., 1986; Erickson,1984).

Personal social networks play a fundamental role in any persons life, theirmain functions being: to protect the individual from stress related to environmentpressure; to attenuate, prevent or even collaborate in the treatment of physicaldiseases and emotional disorders; to offer support in some life events and in socialintegration; to promote well-being; it is one of the main keys of the individualexperience of identity, contributing to self-recognition (Sluzki, 1996, 2000; Speck &Attneave, 1973). In this context, personal networks of multi-problem poor familiescan play an important role mainly due to the specific characteristics of these types offamilies.

Multi-problem families are characterized by the presence of severe symptomsaffecting an indeterminate number of members. However, individual symptoms play aminor role when compared to family symptoms namely, the tendency towardschaos and disorganization (Linares, 1997). Incorrectly, multi-problem families haveconsistently been connected to poverty and low socio-economic status. Actually low-income families constitute a more visible group and an important core, but a familymatching the definition can be found in any social, cultural and economic context.

Research has given little attention to personal networks of multi-problem poorfamilies despite the widespread intervention programmes based on this model.Nevertheless, there is some research focusing on personal networks of low-income,depressed and excluded families, or rather, focusing on individuals experiencingproblems with a high incidence among members of multi-problem poor families, suchas: mental health, psychosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism.

Briefly, some characteristics of personal social networks of multi-problem poorfamilies are portrayed. Typically they are homogeneous, closed, and unstable and tendto be dominated by often critical, unsupportive relatives. They do not provide thekind of tangible aid, advice and guidance, or social and emotional support that parentsoften call on, to help with parenting. The personal networks tend to be dominated byrelatives who are critical, rather than supportive, interactions may be frequent but notvery helpful. The members of their social networks in general share and reinforce theneglectful parenting norms and behaviour. Macdonald et al. (1998) argue thatmembers of these families often lack the necessary social skills to maintainrelationships, already weak linkages tend to break down, leaving family membersisolated and lonely.

Networking approach with multi-problem poor families

Network intervention was originated in the United States of America in the late-1960s, especially through the work of Ross Speck and Carolyn Attneave (1973), withimplications for both social and mental health care. Network therapy flourishedduring the 1970s when therapists developed a wider repertoire for collaborating inbuilding, supporting, and restoring caring personal communities (Seikkula et al.,2003). Network intervention originally meant mobilizing full-scale network meetings

B U I L D I N G O N P E R S O N A L N E T W O R K S : M U L T I P R O B L E M P O O R F A M I L I E S 1 6 5

around crisis situations, but over time this orientation became a problem, sincemeetings could involve 3050 people and therapists experienced difficulty in learninghow to take charge of network meetings. Additionally, some network therapistsbecame critical of the method, particularly concerning the strong emotions generatedduring and after the meetings (Garrison, 1981). In the late 1980s, Imber-Black (1988)offered a pioneering model for understanding the familys multiple relationships withformal support systems.

Although traditional network interventions have decreased, the central ideas ofnetwork bonds around clients have been used and developed. Network therapycrossed over to Europe during the late 1980s, when the basic idea that various clustersof people are important factors in a clients life provided the opportunity to integratethe work of different authorities in the same crisis situation. Professional work beganto take place collaboratively instead of each expert working separately with the clientaccording to the principles of his/her profession. Such development occurred inPortugal especially with low-income families.

Practitioners have been more ready to accept the idea of networking amongstthemselves, than to invite people from the clients personal networks (Hespanha et al.,2000; Cerqueira et al., 2003; Seikkula et al., 2003). The latter course posed a greaterchallenge to conventional expertise, but the urgent need for additional problem-solving resources encouraged experts to take steps in this direction. This meant aconsiderable challenge to the concept of expertise. It is no longer the professionalalone who holds the solutions. New competences were required from theprofessionals: instead of prescriptive expertise, mobilization skills were called for(Seikkula et al., 2003). The clients network is no more an object for intervention, butrather an irreplaceable resource for proceeding.

Multi-problem poor families have been defined and conceptualized essentiallybased on their incompetence: isolated families (Powell & Monahan, 1969) whoseseparation from extended family and community is underlined; excluded families(Thierney, 1976) who are highlighted as detached from institutional and socialcontexts; under-organized families (Aponte, 1976) whose structural dysfunctionalaspects are pointed out; anti-social families (Voiland, 1962) where recurrent episodesof deviant behaviours are noted; and disengaged families (Minuchin et al., 1967).

As a consequence, the involvement with social agencies tends to be affected bytwo main problems: substitution and fragmentation, which both result in the increasein families incompetence. In particular, professionals have the tendency to try tosubstitute parents an especially difficult task since parents and children share deepand lasting relationships. Additionally, the multiplication of social agencies involvedincreases the difficulty of bringing together the different strands of the process, sinceeach agency protects its services from interference from the others, thusfragmentation is promoted. As a result the dilution of the family process in thesocial services (Colapinto, 1995) is promoted. For example, the focus of familyactivities shifts from interpersonal dynamics to interaction with social workers. As aresult, intervention generates feelings of incompetence in the family and incitesdefensive and secretive feelings (Doherty & Beaton, 2000). Principally, this attitudetakes responsibility away from the families and complicates the emergence andactivation of family competences (Ausloos, 1996). In consequence, the relevance of


building intervention on the strengths of personal networks emerges when interveningwith multi-problem poor families.

Objectives

This exploratory study aims at gaining a better understanding of the strengths ofmulti-problem poor families personal networks in order to use them as keys tosolutions. This research was carried out in Portugal, where these goals gain a specialmeaning because social agencies and health services are poorly articulated. In ourcountry, assistance to families in need is provided by public and private organizations(these are usually financed by the State). Recently some efforts have been made toimprove articulation and partnership, mainly by creating multi-disciplinary teamsinvolving professionals from various institutions, but other steps need to be taken, inparticular, the involvement of families and their personal networks. It thus becomesrelevant to study and analyze the potential of the informal networks, so that theprofessionals may incorporate more fully the target population in the intervention.

Method

This exploratory study is based on the perceptions of the actors in their personalnetworks. It was decided to study the personal social networks of the heads of thehouseholds of multi-problem poor families because the personal social network(where the focal point is an individual) is the most operational, the one that has beenmost thoroughly explored, not only as an instrument of analysis but also ofintervention. In addition it has the unique quality of centring on the individual andsimultaneously on the relational system (Sluzki, 2000; Erickson, 1984); the head ofthe household is the family member that functions as the connecting link to the socialservices.

Data was gathered through structured interviews based on Sluzki (1996) with aview to obtaining a picture of the personal network as perceived by the subjects. Asthis study constitutes an exploratory approach, this method was selected on account ofits capacity to discover new directions in the search for deeper understanding of thetopic. The subjects were asked to:

Please identify people around you that have helped you during the last sixmonths. Think about your family, friends, workmates, school, church, andneighbour; you may also receive support from a particular organization as well.

Table 1 describes the interview and each of the variables. The sample comprises100 heads of multi-problem poor households, previously identified and characterizedby social workers. They were contacted by the social workers and agreed toparticipate; researchers went to their home to administer the questionnaire.

Respondents were identified by gender, age, household type, and professionalstatus. The age mean of the sample is 49.2, ranging from 19 to 89 (standard-deviation: 18.1), and females represent 72% of the total subjects. The professional


TABLE 1 Description of the interview and variables

question variable definition

dimension 1. structure basic morphological characteristics of the network

list the names of all the most important people

to you during the last six months

size total number of people

listed by the subject

identify each personal sector (family, friends,

neighbours, workmates or social services)

composition proportion of the

network members that

are placed in each sector

who knows who in the network? density connection between the

members, beyond the

focal person; in a

network containing n

people there are n(n21)/

2 possible linkages

specify the geographical distance between your

residence and the residence of each member of

your network (1 living in the same house; 2

living in the same neighbourhood; 3 living in

the same city or village; 4 living up to 50 km

away; 5 living more than 50 km away)

dispersion accessibility of network

members

who asks you for support? (1 never, 2 rarely,

3 sometimes, 4 frequently, 5 always); and,

what level of support is given by you? (1 none;

2 little, 3 moderate, 4 much, 5 very much)

reciprocity if the focal person fulfils

the same or equivalent

functions in the network

specify the frequency of contacts with each

member of the network (1 every day; 2 more

than once a week; 3 weekly; 4 some times per

month; 5 some times per year)

frequency of

contacts

accessibility of network

members

dimension 2. functions contents available and performed by the network

specify the level of support received from each

member in each of the following eight* areas (0

non-supportive; 1 low; 2 low medium; 3

medium-high; 4 high)

relational

proximity

all support in all sectors

content contents or functions

assured by the network

* Areas of support: Emotional support any action that functions to assist the focal person in

meeting his/her personal goals or in dealing with the demands of any particular situation. Guidance

provision of information or supervision on how to achieve a certain goal or complete a particular

task. Social regulation any interactions that function to remind and re-affirm the focal persons

responsibilities and roles, avoiding deviations from social expectancies. Instrumental assistance

any action in forms of material assistance. Financial assistance any action in the form of money

assistance. Access to new contacts any interactions that functions to assist the focal person to get

in touch with new people. Social company any relationship that involves carrying out joint

activities. Professional support based on technical/expert support services.


situation category reveals: 31% retired; 31% employed; 23% unemployed; 15%housewives. Dominant types of families are: nuclear families (33%), and large families(29%). The others are: elderly (living alone or with other elderly) 19%; singleparent 16%; single adult 3%.

Results

Size

The overall mean size of the sample is 6.2 ranging from 0 to 23 (standard-deviation:4.3). According to Erickson (1984), the average size expected of an effective personalnetwork of an adult is usually around six members. Consistent with this formulationthe variable was organized into three categories: small size (05) 50%, mediumsize (611) 42% and large size (1323) 8%. Results suggest a low percentageof large size networks and a higher percentage of small and medium size networks.

Sluzki (1996) deems that the medium size personal networks are the mosteffective. A minimum size network is less effective in high stress situations, becausethe members tend to move away (can not handle any more) or to overload. On theother hand, an extended network can be inactive since each member supposes thatsomeone else has already provided help to the person in need.

Network size was compared by gender and age through the calculation ofexpected versus observed frequencies. Data suggests that female networks aresignificantly smaller; regarding age, no significant statistical differences were found.

Composition

Sluzki (1996) indicates that a personal network centred in one or two sectors(quadrants) is less effective and flexible, generating fewer options than largercompositions. In order to understand the personal networks of the sample the numberof sectors with members was calculated as follows: 0 sectors 2%; one sector 15%; two sectors 42%; three sectors 26%; four sectors 13%; five sectors 2%. Thus, networks present a tendency to include two or three sectors, and lessfrequently, networks with four or five sectors. The networks of the members of thesample are centred essentially on a reduced number of quadrants.

It is important to point out that in relation to the professionals quadrant, only39% of the elements of the sample identified an element in this quadrant. Thisreference is relevant because all these subjects and their families have frequent contactwith various professionals.

No significant statistical differences were found in gender and age. Thecomparison according to the professional status suggests that the unemployed havefewer sectors (one or two sectors) in their network than the employed (two or threesectors), which is understandable since having a job facilitates new acquaintances.

It is also important to study the weight of each sector in the personal networks;table 2 shows the mean weight of each sector for the sample. The family is the maingroup, followed by friends, neighbours and, at the bottom, workmates and socialservices.


Density

Density was calculated using the formula: n(n21)/2. Sluzki (1996) considered that amedium density (fragmented) promotes the network efficacy; this type of network isorganized in sub-groups that know each other, but do not know the other sub-group.A high level of density (cohesive) means that all the members know each other whichfacilitates conformity among the members and promotes passivity. A low level ofdensity (dispersed) reduces the efficacy of the network because the members do nothave contact amongst themselves; this network is characterized by the absence of linksbetween the members, their only linkage being the focal person.

The results of density were: cohesive (0.661) 77%; fragmented (0.330.66) 15%; dispersed (00.33) 8%. The personal networks of the sample show ahigh level of cohesion. Density was measured according to gender and no statisticallysignificant differences were found. The comparison between the age groups showedthat density increases with age, so older people have networks with higher levels ofcohesion (statistically different for p,0.05, LSD Test).

Dispersion

Dispersion indicates the geographical distance between each member and the focalperson; accessibility affects the networks sensibility to individual variations and itscapacity to provide prompt and effective support in a crisis. When the distancebetween the focal person and the members of his/her network is high, the personalnetwork reveals less sensitivity to the subject variations, so the reaction to a crisis isslower. Results show that, in general, members are close enough to be aware of thefocal persons needs; neighbours are the members living closest, followed by family,friends, social services and workmates. Dispersion is not affected by gender ornetwork size, but varies with age; the elderly show less geographical distance than theactive age group (3664 years) (statistically different for p,0.05, LSD Test).

Relational proximity

The level of relational proximity represents the mean of all types of support in allsectors (table 3). The sample presents a rather low level of relational proximity; the

TABLE 2 Mean weight of each sector in the personal social networks

distribution

weight of each sector (mean)

mean minimum maximum standard deviation

family 0.49 0 1 0.3

friends 0.24 0 1 0.3

neighbours 0.15 0 1 0.2

workmates 0.05 0 0.8 0.1

social services 0.09 0 0.5 0.1

All means are different for p,0.01, except the pair workmates versus social services.


global rate is 1.4 (on a scale ranging from 0 to 4) which can be interpreted as low orlow-medium support. Family constitutes the main support sector followed by friends,social services, workmates and neighbours.

Regarding professionals, although they are one of the sectors with less weight inthe social networks studied, their level of relational proximity is identical to thefriends sector (1.4), friends being the second quadrant with the most weight in thestudied networks.

Correlations (table 3) show that the global level of relational proximity isnegatively related to workmates and social services relational proximity. The dataseems to indicate that the subjects with less support from the most frequent supportsources (family and friends) tend to develop closer relations with co-workers andprofessionals.

The relational proximity of the family and neighbours is positive and significantlycorrelated. The support of the social services and friends is positively and significantlycorrelated, indicating that the people with more relational proximity with friends alsohave more proximity with the social services. The relational proximity with co-workers and social services is correlated, also, in a positive and significant manner.

Comparison by gender shows that the global level of relational proximity ishigher in women and statistically significant (p,0.05). Regarding age, the globalrelational proximity is lower in the older group (6589 years) and significantlydifferent from a statistical (p,0.05) point of view. This difference is mainly explainedby the relational proximity with friends, which is significantly lower for that group.Size is also related with relational proximity, so the large size group reveals lessrelational proximity.

Contents

Regarding functions assured by the network, table 4 shows that emotional support isthe most accomplished function. On the contrary, access to new contacts andprofessional support are the least undertaken. In general, all contents are highlycorrelated, meaning that higher support in one area denotes higher support in theothers. But there is one exception: professional support is only positive andsignificantly correlated to access to new contacts and social regulation.

TABLE 3 Level of relational proximity (means and correlations)

mean min max standard

deviation

1 2 3 4 5

1. global 1.4 0.2 3.1 0.6 1.0 2 2 2 2

2. family 1.5 0 4 0.7 0.12 1.0 2 2 2

3. friends 1.4 0 3.2 0.8 20.29 0.57 1.00 2 2

4. neighbours 1.0 0 2.2 0.6 0.24 0.86* 0.07 1.0 2

5. workmates 1.1 0 2.3 0.8 20.97* 0.10 0.42 20.05 1.00

6. social services 1.4 0 3.1 0.7 20.78* 0.37 0.82* 20.01 0.86*

* Significant for p,0.05.


TABLE 4 Personal networks contents (means and correlations)

mean min max standard

deviation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. emotional 2.9 0.7 4 0.8 1.00 2 2 2 2 2 2

2. financial 1.1 0 4 1.1 0.35* 1.00 2 2 2 2 2

3. instrumental 1.2 0 4 0.9 0.34* 0.35* 1.0 2 2 2 2

4. professional 0.5 0 3.3 0.7 0.17 0.15 0.15 1.0 2 2 2

5. guidance 1.8 0 4 1.1 0.54* 0.39* 0.22 0.16 1.0 2 2

6. new contacts 0.9 0 4 1.0 0.31* 0.34* 0.29* 0.39* 0.44* 1.0 2

7. company 1.8 0 4 0.9 0.46* 0.30* 0.41* 20.02 0.38* 0.27* 1.0

8. regulation 1.1 0 3 0.9 0.36* 0.24 0.20 0.30* 0.55* 0.40* 0.27*

* Significant for p,0.05.

17

2J

OU

RN

AL

OF

SO

CIA

LW

OR

KP

RA

CT

ICE

Contents according to gender were compared through means (LSD Test;p,0.05). In general, women receive more support, but the support is significantlyhigher (p,0.05) only in three areas: emotional, guidance and social regulation. Thecomparison of means by age category suggests that the older group receives lesssupport in the various areas, and the difference is statistically significant in four:financial, guidance, access to new contacts and social regulation. The small sizenetworks show a higher level of support in the different areas; however, thisdifference is significant only in three areas: instrumental, access to new contacts andprofessional support.

Then support content versus sector was calculated. Family is the main supportsector, occupying the leading position in six of the eight contents considered. The twoexceptions are professional support and access to new contacts, which are both led bythe professional sector.

Reciprocity

The level of reciprocity is low, only evident in 50% of the cases. Reciprocity is notrelated to size or gender. Concerning age, the older group has a low level ofreciprocity, significantly different from the others.

Frequency of contacts

Regarding the frequency of contacts, results suggest a mean of 2.1, which can beestimated as, at least, weekly contact. Contact frequency does not vary with genderor size. Older people show a higher frequency in contacts with friends, and a lowerfrequency with social services (statistically significant differences).

Strengths and constraints of multi-problem poor family memberspersonal networks

Family ties an unexpected resource (or maybe not)

The family emerges as the main sector of support for the heads of households of multi-problem poor families. However, these findings can be interpreted either from a positiveor a negative perspective. A negative perspective suggests that members of these familieslack the necessary social skills to maintain relationships and therefore, tend to maintaintheir networks centred on the family (Macdonald et al., 1998). This is reinforced by thedata which shows that the levels of relational proximity in the networks of theinterviewed are low. The levels of relational proximity with the family are equallylow although they constitute the sector where the relational proximity is highest. Apositive perspective shows that family is the sector with which individuals have highlevels of relational proximity, which is consistent with what happens in most familiesin the Portuguese context. Additionally, the family is the main source of support insix of the eight areas studied: financial, instrumental, emotional, counselling, socialregulation, and company. These findings show that family members have a strongemotional bond and make efforts to be supportive, despite the probable lack ofpersonal, financial and/or supportive resources (Linares, 1997).


Friends a resource to be activated

Friends emerge as a second sector of support in the personal networks of multi-problem poor families members. Several perspectives could be associated with theseresults: the dramatic contours of problems lived by these families probably drivedynamism into the community (Linares, 1997); the friends, equally, tend to bemembers of dysfunctional families and/or they live in precarious situations, and,therefore, they do not constitute a new contribution. In no circumstance does thepresence of a second sector permit a diversification of the resources in the network,which is most important in the case of these networks which are very cohesive andfamily centred. Yet, friendship requires more maintenance for exchange support,constrained as friends are by norms of reciprocity. Thus, the low levels of reciprocityof the sample can be a threat to the maintenance and deepening of theserelationships. The relational proximity with friends is correlated in a positive andstatistically significant way with the support proceeding from the social services, thusfriends are revealed as an important link with the formal support services.

Emotional support an open door to other forms of support

Emotional support is the prevalent function, revealing (at least) a medium level ofintimacy. Furthermore, high levels of support in one area are positively correlated tothe availability of other types of support. Emotional support is widely offered withinthe personal networks of the subjects, which means the accessibility of a person withwhom one can discuss problems and share feelings. Guidance, meaning support in theform of advice and information, is also available on a medium scale. On the otherhand, instrumental support and access to new contacts are less available, revealing aconstraint, since in poor families instrumental support represents an important needdue to the lack of means to access elementary resources for daily life, and the contactwith new and different networks provides an important element to learn new skillsand ways to interact with others. Consequently, members of the network alreadyproviding emotional support should be mobilized in order to make available otherforms of support.

Low levels of reciprocity

The low levels of reciprocity constitute a weakness in the personal networks studied.Exchanges based on reciprocity have the tendency to develop long-term relationships;in contrast, market-oriented exchanges or the exchanging of benefits and servicesrealized on the basis of a bureaucratic norm do not imply the obligation of futurerepayment. The primary social exchange is socialization (small talk, brief visits), thenother different forms of reciprocity may take place: help with domestic work such asexchange of benefits. Since multi-problem poor families have low social skills, theyare limited in socialization, and should learn to improve these competences.Furthermore, it is important to understand what type of competences focal personshave and how they could repay the received support. However, a positive perspectivecan, again, be established: as members are already responding, even if at a low level,perhaps they can be mobilized to increase that level.


Two special sub-groups: women and elderly

Women reveal smaller, but more supportive, networks. So, fewer members providehigher levels of relational proximity, especially concerning emotional support,guidance and social regulation. The importance of women in informal personalnetworks is well documented in national and international research (such as,Hespanha et al., 2000; Minuchin et al., 1998), emphasizing their role as mediators incontacts with social services.

Older people have personal networks characterized by: lower relationalproximity, especially due to lack of friends, more cohesion, less geographicaldistance and lower reciprocity. Old age is inevitably accompanied by a progressiveloss of the supportive ties through death or distancing by migration or relocation.Additionally, old age carries with it an exponential progression of physicalweaknesses. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult for the older individualsto carry on those tasks of network maintenance (Sluzki, 2000). Elderly membersof the sample reported to receive poorer support than the other subjects in thefollowing areas: economic support, guidance, access to new contacts and socialregulation.

The practitioners role in social networks

Multi-problem poor families have frequent contacts with various professionals. Themembers of the families who constitute our sample are the heads of households, whofunction normally as the connecting link with the institutions. In these circumstances,it was expected that the professionals would form a relevant sector in the socialnetworks of the interviewed. However, it was verified that only 39% of thoseinterviewed had indicated members in their networks belonging to the professionalsector. We can still observe that the interviewed with less support on the part of thefamily tend to reveal a greater relational proximity with professionals. This result canbe interpreted in two ways: when there is less support from the family, the subjectstend to look for support in the other sectors, and professionals are available; or whensome member of a family gets involved with the professionals, the dilution of thefamily process in the social systems tends to occur (Colapinto, 1995). In this secondcircumstance, the professionals will have to consider their actions, for they aresubstituting the family in their functions, instead of helping them to assumeresponsibility in their own process.

Although the professionals are not frequently mentioned, they are the secondsector with most relational proximity. When professionals become significant enoughto the subjects that they can be considered members of their social network, theyestablish a close relationship. However, the subjects interviewed consider thatinstrumental and economic support on the part of the professionals is low.

The support given by professionals appears correlated in a significant (andpositive) way with access to new contacts and social regulation. The fact that theprofessionals are the connecting link with new people and systems is fundamental forindividuals whose social networks tend to be cohesive and family centred. Socialregulation is an equally important function for members of families who move awayfrom social norms and, therefore, are at greater risk of exclusion.


Implications for practice

Fostering reciprocity between subjects and network elements

To maintain social relations it is essential to know how to be reciprocal. The samplemembers tend to be less reciprocal, which can occur for two reasons: subjects are notsolicited; or if solicited, they are unable to respond. The non-maintenance ofreciprocity can dismantle the relationship or make it asymmetrical, which could upsetthe subjects.

Thus the focal person in the network will have to be capable of identifying: howhe/she can be reciprocal, what he/she can give, what he/she would like to be able togive. At the same time, it is important to explore the perceptions of the members ofthe personal network. Where could the focal person be reciprocal and does not makethe effort to be so? What support do they need and would they like to receive fromthis person?

Activating the functionality of the network

The levels of relational proximity are low, emotional support being the mostoutstanding. Emotional support is correlated in a positive and significant way with theother types of support; thus, emotional support could be a starting-point for theactivation of other types of support. The functionality of the network still demandsthe promotion of instrumental support and access to new contacts; instrumentalsupport because these families live in a situation of need and access to new contactsbecause it allows a greater openness to other forms of social relationships and, also, tojobs, health and other social goods. The professionals appear as the sector which mostpermits access to new contacts, thus they will be able to use this functionality toinclude new members in the network.

Making use of the potential of family ties

Multi-problem poor families are mostly seen as incapable and dysfunctional, but atthe same time they have positive aspects and competences, mainly relationalproximity, influenced to a large extent by emotional support. Family is the source ofthe most important support in all areas and the most multifarious. In practice, theseties should be valued and not rejected, despite these families not being competent inaction.

Rethinking the role of the professionals

In the networks studied, the informal networks have more weight than the formalones. In a networking intervention the principle objective is to endow the networkwith competences so that it can progress on its own. Thus, a question must bediscussed: should the professionals get involved in the network so that they becomeeffective members, even if only for a limited period of time, or should they remainperipheral? The work carried out does not allow us to answer this question, but itraises some topics for reflection: a major involvement of professionals may lead the


members of the network to delegate to the professional their main responsibilities,and therefore, to have difficulties in making the network assume leadership of theprocess.

According to Sharry (2001), the functioning of a network concerning thefacilitator/practitioner should follow a process of encouraging group-centredinteraction, alternating between facilitator-centred and network-centred. Whenfacilitator-centred, the group members look to the facilitator for leadership and todirectly guide the group. This generally occurs when there is a high dependence onthe facilitator for guidance and orientation. When group-centred interactionsdominate the group process, the members interact directly with each other, ratherthan in turns via the facilitator. There may be times in which the facilitator-centredgroup process is appropriate and indeed desirable. However, if the full power ofgroup dynamics is to be activated, the group members must move to a point wherethey interact directly with one another and assume co-leadership of the group process.Thus, facilitators have a responsibility to encourage group-centred interactions anddecentre themselves from the group process.

Final remarks

Successful interventions with families experiencing many problems require thedelivery of a broad range of concrete, supportive community services from multiplesources and a combination of individual, family and group methods. The mostsuccessful interventions with multi-problem poor families include family membersand appeal to informal and formal networks rather than focusing only on the client(Minuchin et al., 1998; Imber-Black, 1988). When described in relational terms, apersons problems are not his or hers alone. This revitalizes the sense of communityand provides discursive options that centralize our relational engagement.

The main strengths of the personal networks studied are: family ties constitute animportant resource; friends are a resource to be activated; emotional support is anopen door to other forms of support. So, the strengths of personal networks can beused as a key for solutions so that the existing personal network of heads ofhouseholds of multi-problem poor families may widen, become more flexible andmore functional. Furthermore, the purpose of the networking approach is to render asystem flexible enough to be capable of dealing effectively with its own crises. Inorder to do this, the practitioners are catalysts, agents of change, who in the long runwill not remain within the system in crisis.

Briefly, it is important to underline the main limitations of this research: themethodology used is a static approach, which dimmed the evolving features ofpersonal networks; only the personal networks of the heads of households have beenstudied. It is important to analyse the personal networks of the various members ofthe family in order to understand how they relate and complement each other.

In terms of research perspectives, it is important to use a methodology whichcombines qualitative and quantitative methodologies to allow the extension of thecharacteristics of relationships and to deepen the study of the role of the socialnetworks in these families, from the clients point of view.


Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Daniela Figueiredo, Susana Pires, Carla Eusebio andMargarida Cerqueira for their participation in data collection and data analysis. Thisstudy was funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (39644/SOC/2001).

References

Aponte, H. (1976) Under organization in the poor family, in Family Therapy: Theory andPractice, ed. P. Guerin, Gardner Press, New York, pp. 432448.

Ausloos, G. (1996) A competencia das famlias, Climepsi Editores, Lisboa.Cerqueira, M., Pires, S., Figueiredo, D., Matos, A. & Sousa, L. (2003) Os problemas

das famlias multiproblematicas, Revista Servico Social & Sociedade, vol. 76,pp. 143164.

Colapinto, J. (1995) Dilution of family process in social services: implications fortreatment of neglectful families, Family Process, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 5974.

Doherty, W. & Beaton, J. (2000) Family therapists, community and civic renewal,Family Process, vol. 39, pp. 149161.

Erickson, G. (1984) A framework and themes for social network intervention, FamilyProcess, vol. 23, pp. 187198.

Garrison, J. (1981) Clinical construction of action social network, International Journal ofFamily Therapy, vol. 3, pp. 258267.

Hespanha, P., Monteiro, A., Ferreira, A., Rodrigues, F., Nunes, M., Hespanha, M., VanDen Hoven, R. & Portugal, S. (2000) Entre o Estado e o Mercado, Quarteto Editora,Coimbra.

Imber-Black, E. (1988) Families and Larger Systems: A Family Therapists Guide Through theLabyrinth, The Guilford Press, New York.

Linares, J. (1997) Modelo sistemico y famlia multiproblematica, in La intervencionsistemica en los servicios sociales ante la familia multiproblematica, eds M. Coletti &J. Linares, Paidos, Barcelona, pp. 2344.

Macdonald, E., Jackson, H., Hayes, R., Bagloni, A. & Madden, C. (1998) Social skill as adeterminant of social networks and perceived social support in schizophrenia,Schizofrenia Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 275286.

Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J. & Minuchin, S. (1998) Working with Families of the Poor, TheGuilford Press, New York.

Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B., Rosman, B. & Schumer, F. (1967) Families ofthe Slums, Basic Books, New York.

Powell, M. & Monahan, J. (1969) Reaching the reject through multifamily grouptherapy, International Journal of Groups Psychotherapy, vol. 19, pp. 118.

Schoenbach, V., Kalan, B., Friedman, L. & Kleinbach, D. (1986) Social ties andmortality in Evans County, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 123, pp. 577591.

Seikkula, J., Arnkil, T. & Erikson, E. (2003) Postmodern society and social networks:open and anticipation dialogues in network meetings, Family Process, vol. 42,pp. 185203.

Sharry, J. (2001) Solution-focused Groupwork, Sage, London.Sluzki, C. (1996) La red social: frontera de la practica sistemica, Gedisa, Barcelona.


Sluzki, C. (2000) Social network and the elderly, Family Process, vol. 39, no. 3,pp. 271284.

Speck, R. & Attneave, C. (1973) Family Networks, Pantheon, New York.Thierney, L. (1976) Excluded Families, Columbia University Press, New York.Voiland, A. (1962) Family Casework Diagnosis, Columbia University Press, New York.

Liliana Sousa is Auxiliary Professor at the University of Aveiro. Address: Health

Sciences Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal. [email:

[email protected]]


sousa+2005

Documents