Katherine Rose Adina Horne a Thesi-S Submitted in of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN EXAMINATION OF EVOLVING POLICY AND PRACTICE IN THE REHABILITATION FIELD IN MANITOBA, TN RELATION TO STANCE AND ENDS-IN-VIElrr; AND AN EXPIORATION OF POSSIB],8 T'UfURES By Katherine Rose Adina Horne A thesi-s submitted in partial ful-fil-Iment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER Or' SOCIAL IIORK SchooI of Sociaf tr^/ork University of lulanitoba Septemberr lg\l !l lì i1 t:, lI ).; *,. li 'ìi1- .:J, lJ " AN EXAI'ÍINÁTIO¡{ OI¡ EVOLVING POLICY ÁND PF.ACTICE Ill TI-IE REHABILITATION FLELD It\* I'{AI'{IT0BÂ, I}'i I{ELATION T0 STANCE A¡]} ENDS-IN-VTEtr{; AI{D ril! EXPLORATION 0F POSSIBLE FUTUF.ES llt KATHERINE IìOSE ADINA HORj.{E A tllcsis srrburitted to the Faculty of Graduetc Studics of the University of N{anitoba in partial ftrlfiilnlclit of tlre rcqrriicurents ol tllc clcgree of I"IASTER OF SOCIAL I..JC'Rl( o" t98l Pci¡nission has been grantcd to the LlBIìARY CF THE UNIVER- SITY OF N{ANITOBA to lcnd or sell copics of this tircsis, to thc NA'I-IONAL LllliìARY OF CAI.IADA to nricrofilnr this thesis and to lend oi sell copies of tlle filnl, and Ul.li\,/ERSITY IllCRCi:iLN,f S to prrblisl: an abst¡act of this thesis. Tiic arrthor r"rscr\¡es other pLrblicatic-'li rights, a¡rcj ¡reitlie r tlle tlrcsis rror extensive extracts froul it i:try be priirtecÌ cr other- *,isc rcproduced rvithout the author's rvritieil 1-leriuissiou. ABSTRACT If ü,e look aL the historicaf evolution of policy and practice in the rehabilitation fiel-d r¡,e note that these have been directed toward independence and employment. This end-in-view has never been reachabfe because of economic and social reality. FuII employment has not been achieved. SociaI reality for all people requires inter- dependence rather than independence. This thesis explores a number of underlying assunptions (stances) which have contributed to the present dilemmas in the rehabilitation field in Manitoba. In particufar \¡re note the influence of the Marsh Report (Canada'- 1943) which focused on fulI employment as a solution for Canadian social- reconstruction. This is contrasted with the Beveridge Report (Great Britain, 1942) which identified social- responsibiJ-ity as the primary end-in-view for al-I citizens. The implications of these and. other policy statements (such as those produced by the consumer movement ) are explored. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOì^ILEDGEMENTS.. ..... i PREFACE. v Chapter 1. TNTRODUCTTON ..... 1 Statement o f Probl-em. 2 Sources of Information. 4 Explanation of Terms 6 2. THE PROBLEM EXPLORED... 8 DESCRIPTIVX OVERVIEI{ OF CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE FIELD OF REHABILITATTON 16 Statement of Conditions 16 Early Period of Rehabilitation in Canad.a '1600's rBoors... 17 189O - 1942 (Heal-th and Vrielfare, 19BO)..-. 1g Modern Rehabilitation Tield Conditions 27 Historical Overview of the Society for Crippled Chil-dren and AduIts in Manit,oba ( sCCA Annuat- Report, 19jj-Bf ) 14 ,, STANCE 4o T,evel- of Significance. 4o Division of Systems. .... 4l Normafizati-on ..... ..... 46 Pol-icies Viewed as Ou+-d.ated. 4B End-In-View Not Being Met".. 51 Repercussions on Agency Services. .... 51 Services and. Stances 52 Work-Employrnent... .. o.. 54 Need and Servíce.. 56 Ramifications for Rehabilitation cR Relationships Mismatched with Present Ends-In-View. 6o Three Relational Frameworks ...... 66 E PRACTTCE .PERSPECTIVES IN THE REHABILITATION FÏELD ..... 6B Ten Guidel_ines of Practice . ?1 Implications for Practice . ?z coNcI,UsroNs ?? BTBLTOGRAPHY . ?g APPENDIX A... Bg AC KNO\¡ILEDGMENT S Atthough the ueaknesses in this paper are my responsíbi1ity, its strengths are for the most part due to people working together, each bringing their own gifts-- experiences, insights, and skiIIs to bear on a certain issue. This paper would. not have been completed without peoplers support, contributionsr ü¡illingness to communicate and share l-ife experiences with dedication, Iove and a search for justice and truth. The following people and organ:-zations are much represented. and. acknor,rledged. as my supporters, colleagues, teachers; my community in uhich I feel very honoured. to be a part. Professor Miriam Hutton, my major thesis advisor, has shared much of the work involved in sorting out the threads and identifying important parts to the overall pattern that are easily identifiabl-e to those people perhaps not involved in the rehabilitation fiel-d.. \¡lithout her constant support and. co-creative attitude, the paper would not have circumvented therrone-eyedrrview of the world--the all- or nothing stance that is the major difemrna facing decision makers tod.ay. Professor l,ottie Culham, and Professor Peter Hudson. ií have given valuable insight and support especially centered on policy and direct practice issues. Mr. John Laners enthusiasm and ability to keep me on the ground of practical apptication, as wefl as his examples, have been greatly appreciated. Professor Joseph Ryant has contributed to the paper through his So ciaf tr^lelf are II course and his htitlingness to share his work completed with the Social Services Review both federally and municipally. Professor Shirley Grosser's consistent availability and insights into systems theory has been a major contri- bution to much of the thinking centered on this emerging perspective of practice and delivery systems. I would like to thank the support on aII levels of being--physical¡ sPiritualr enotionaf and intell-ectual provided me by the community of St. Johnrs College aL the University of Manit'oba. , Father HaroId MacDonald, who constantly shared his experiences vrith organizations and the many dilemmas faced by pubtic service groupsr was also an inspiration to me. The Reverend Ronald Fletcher and. the Student Christian Movement membership and supporters shared. their perceptions of my work in refation to a Christian-Radical viewpoint which has enriched my o$tn understanding of the work that the paper represents. My appreciation also goes to Mr. Henry Enns (Chair- person of the Steering Committee of the lVorl-d Coal-ition of iii the Physically Handicapped) who has opened. doors for my involvement with the consumer organizations including the PhysicaIJ-y Handicapped Concerns on Campus and. the Manitoba T,eague of the Physically Handicapped. Henry also shared insight centered. around. the international scene. Through my work with the consumer organízaLions, I had the opportunity to i,,¡ork with the Society for Crippled Children and. Adults as a Board Member. The learning experience has been immeasurable and. the support and open- ness of feIlow board members has been exciting and upJ-ifting. The Society and. j-ts staff were my rnajor resource not only in terms of research but also as a cfient and. consumer of their services. They suppl-ied me r¡ith typists, financial costs,and a place to begin. Special- thanks to Mr. Tim Thurston, for his openness and. willingness to explore his o\dn hi-story as a social worker vis a vis the history of the Society and policy evolution in the 1970, s. [hanks also to Miss Dorothy Thompson, and Mr. Merve Thompson, Miss Donna Zd,rilikr and Mr. Rick Ìrloelke, who alt took the time to discuss the dilemmas with me. Special appreciation must go to Mr. Archie Carmichael, who has shown continuous support and interest in my work. I am very pleased to have worked $¡ith him when exploring the devel-opment of the Society over the last thirty years. Much of the theoreticar basis centered on relation- ships has come from cfose association v,ith Miss Jean rord.er l_v and Mrs. Raf DeCeccior both of whom l{ere Vocationaf Rehabilitation Counsel-Iors in the rehabilitation field in Ontario and. both of vihom had a strong influence on alter- native assessment programs and consumer involvement in decision making. Miss Gail- Vlill-8oss and. Mrs. Shirley Knip have been a great heJ.p, using their capacities as'rrnists and editors in the last agonizing throes of completion. I woul-d like to acknowledge the Buller and Hil-ton families who have made Winnipeg home. To all other friends who are sharing their lives and. in sharing have mad.e a contribution to t'his thesis t thanks o Finallyr mY love and. appreciation to my parents and. family who gave me the life and the potential to gain experiences in which this paper is written. Katherine Horne September 21, 1981 PREFACE One Body with Many Parts rr...For the body itself is not made up of only one partr but of many parts. rf the foot were to saJr rBecause I am not a hand., I dontt belong to the body,r that would not keep it from being a part of the body. And. if the ear were to sayr rBecause I am not an eler f donit belong to the bodyrr that would not keep it from being a part of the body. rf the whol-e body hrere just an eye r how would it hear? And if it ü,ere only an ear, how would it smer-r? As it is, however, God put every different part in the bod.y if it were all- only on e part. As it is , there are many parts but one body. So then, the eye cannot say to the hand, tI donrt need you. t Nor can the head say to the f eet, rrìdell f don I t need you. rr on the contrar¡r, we cannot do without the parts of the body that seem to be weaker; and those parts that we think arenrt worth very much are the ones which we treat with greater care; while the parts of body which donrt look very nice are treated with special modesty, which the more beautiful- parts do not need.