course material

1. Case Study – Community Based Housing Organisation A Place called Home
Case Study – Community Based Housing Organisation A Place called HomeDO NOT
DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE. INSTRUCTIONS ARE CLEAR. Thank you!. The
Report • It must be a report with headings and subheadings. • It must be suitable for
presentation in a professional setting. • It must be 2000 words. • It must be written in the
third person. • You must use credible scholarly sources to support your analysis and
recommendations. • You are to write your report from the perspective of a social worker
employed in the community-housing organisation. The Task • You are required to analyse
the case study for the purpose of assessing the function of the organisation and making
recommendations to address organisational issues. • The recommendations must be
constructive and aim to move the organisation forward, for service users, the community,
staff, management and the funding bodies. Marking Criteria You must convince the reader
of the following. Understanding of human service organisations. (10 marks) Understanding
of impacts of organisational contexts. (10 marks) Level of analysis demonstrated. (10
marks) Persuasive and pragmatic recommendations. (10 marks) Effective use of report
format demonstrating English Language Proficiency (ELP). (10 marks) Literature supports
analysis and recommendations. (5 marks) Minimum of 12 scholarly sources. Accurate in-
text and end-text referencing as outlined in the ECU Referencing Guide. (5 marks) Learning
Outcomes This assessment assists in achieving the following learning outcome/s: ? Analyse
the functions and characteristics of human service organisations from different ideological
perspectives. ? Explain the impact of different organisational structures, management styles
and locations (with a focus on regional, rural and remote communities) on social work
practice. ? Identify the ways in which human services are delivered through policies,
programs and organisations. ? Understand and explain the development of the welfare
state. ? Understand how to practice effectively within organisational settings. Think about
this report as a role-play…You are a social worker employed in a community housing
organisation. The Management Committee have asked you to report on the current
situation including the organisational context and make recommendations with clear
strategies that support the Management Committee and staff to work constructively for
service users and local communities. The case study description is written from the
perspective of the Management Committee Chairperson. It describes a period of change for
the community housing organisation up to the point where one program within the

2. organisation has moved to separate premises due to protracted and ongoing tensions
within the team. Everyone supports the move. The Management Committee have asked you
to report on the current situation and make recommendations for moving forward. The
Management Committee have requested the report present a convincing analysis of the
current situation and establish persuasive and pragmatic recommendations for moving the
organisation forward constructively for service users, the community, staff, management
and the funding bodies. As a student you are required…Remember as a student you are
required to meet the marking criteria for the report. Your report must be based on the
information in the case study shown in this unit plan – you are not allowed to embellish the
narrative of the case study. You are required to use credible scholarly sources to support
your analysis and recommendations. Please use professional standard report format as
outlined in the ECU Academic Tip Sheet for Report Writing. You need to develop suitable
content areas for this report. The report should be typed using 1.5 or 2.0 spacing in a simple
font (eg. Times New Roman, Cambria or Calibri), with page numbers. Be consistent with
headings and sub headings. Use a capital letter for the first word and each noun in a heading
and for the first word in each sub heading. Report writing resources Bogg, D. (2012). Report
writing. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. eBook Cleak, H. (2009). Assessment
and report writing in the human services (Ch 1., pp. 1-13). South Melbourne, Australia:
Cengage Learning Pty Limited. High use collection Please refer to Chapter 1 from Cleak
2009 regarding report format. Wiseman, J. (2000). All for one and one for all? The past and
future of the Australian welfare state. In A. McMahon, J. Thomson, & C, Williams, (Eds.).
Understanding the Australian welfare state: Key documents and themes (2nd ed. 229-247).
Croydon, Australia: Tertiary Press Alston, M. (2010). Australia’ s rural welfare policy:
Overlooked and demoralised. In P. Milbourne, (Ed.). Welfare reform in rural places:
Comparative perspectives (pp. 199-217). Bradford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. eBook
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodern approaches to
organizational studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization
studies (pp. 191-217). London, UK: Sage Publications. High Use Collection Australian
Association of Social Workers [AASW]. (2010). Code of ethics. Canberra, Australia:
Australian Association of Social Workers. Pdf on blackboard AASW. (2013). Practice
standards. Canberra, Australia: Australian Association of Social Workers. Pdf on blackboard
AASW. (2014). Supervision standards 2014. Canberra, Australia: Australian Association of
Social Workers. Pdf on blackboard Australian Community Workers Association [ACWA].
(2012). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Community Workers Association.
Pdf on blackboard Please note these books have useful ideas for writing this report but bear
in mind the content of the report required for SWK3110 is focused on organisation and its
context rather than service users. Report Writing Academic Tip Sheet
https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/20628/report_writing.pdf Case
Study – Community Based Housing Organisation A Place called Home The story begins
three years ago. I am the chairperson, on a small community-housing organisation. It has
five staff, a voluntary management committee of nine and a capacity to house around eighty
households. There have been three approaches from different groups in the past two days
about the same issue. The first approach is from an Aboriginal housing program that has

3. run into great difficulties managing its housing program. It is no longer interested in
managing the program and asks will we take it on. The second from an Indigenous Elder of a
different local group, asking that the organisation agree to take the program on, because
housing needs of Indigenous people in this locality are so great. The third is from the
Queensland Department of Housing to ask if the organisation would take the program on, at
least in the short term, until it can be put to tender. Workers and committee of the
community-housing organisation were keen to respond affirmatively. Correspondence
occurred with local Indigenous people, the relinquishing organisation and the Department
of Housing, to explore the possibilities and options and the decision was made, with
everyone’ s agreement, to take the program on in the short term. The workers then set out
to get the program functioning well. There was never any explicit criticism, but in an
environment where Indigenous people are assumed to be incompetent in managing
organisations, the power of this action of taking on, and “ fixing up” the program sat heavily
and was part of the ‘ undiscussable’ . The program was put to tender (a government
obligation under competition policy). We took guidance from the local Elder, and consulted
with local and regional Indigenous Organisations about whether we could support them to
tender for it or whether we should tender for it. The various Aboriginal groups listened to
our proposal, and said politely they would discuss it among themselves and get back to us.
Finally, the response came: “ We think you should tender, but employ a Murri worker and
set up a subcommittee so local people can work towards running it themselves” . The
tender was successful, the Indigenous sub-committee was established, the position
advertised. The sub-committee undertook the selection process and recommended to the
management committee the employment of a local Aboriginal person as the housing
worker. Within 3 months the new worker was in the job. Keen to make the new venture
work, the Management Committee and workers within the organisation undertook cross
cultural training with two different trainers – 3 afternoons with each trainer over a 12
week period. Support for this new development was unanimous within staff and
management committee. We met, we talked, we made agreements, but …much was unsaid.
We were agreed that, in line with social justice, we wanted greater access for homeless
people to affordable housing which was appropriate to their needs. There were four parties
to the early discussions, the Indigenous group who were relinquishing the program, the
Indigenous group in the local area who wanted to be sure the program stayed in the area,
the Housing Department and the local housing organisation. Disrupting Housing Practices
Only three weeks into the job, tensions were mounting between non-Indigenous and
Indigenous workers. All new workers are subject to scrutiny, but whether non-Indigenous
people scrutinise Indigenous people more, or whether Indigenous people are extra sensitive
to all white surveillance, we faced a predictable difficulty which we should have foreseen
and had not adequately allowed for. 11 | P a g e SWK3110 Organisational Contexts Unit Plan
off-campus 2016 The first crisis was over a neighbourhood dispute. Organisational practice
(unbeknown to committee members) had been to move Aboriginal families onto another
house when neighbours complained. The Aboriginal housing program worker baulked at
this. “ No” , he said, Aboriginal people had always been moved on, until there was nowhere
but the edges of towns for them to be. The co-ordinator called me. The Indigenous worker

4. called me. We met, they talked the issues through. We tried to raise the issue of different
assumptions and expectations, and of how to make them more explicit. They determined
they would communicate more and develop a better understanding of each other’ s
approach. This was the agreement. We agreed to include the Management Committee and
other workers in discussion. The Management Committee listened and confirmed the
Indigenous worker was to have the opportunity to explore how best to manage
neighbourhood disputes in relation to Indigenous tenants. Some Management Committee
members offered instrumental as well as moral support. The committee invited all workers
to suggest some ways to relieve any tensions this might cause. The Indigenous worker built
community supports around the Indigenous family who were subject to the complaint. He
worked with the distressed tenant to establish whatever support the tenant found
acceptable -the Indigenous health worker, the Indigenous medical centre, school liaison
officers, police liaison officers. The neighbours took a petition via the local Member of
Parliament, to the Minister. They wanted the family evicted. The local member and the
Minister were keen to have local conflict resolved quickly. A housing department
representative and a Management Committee member visited the neighbours to see if they
could be appealed to, to hold off. They said they had not spent $250,000 on a house just to
have to face such unacceptable behaviour from neighbours. One of them was a member of
the local Labor Party with good connections. This put pressure on some local leaders who
initially wanted to be seen as supporting all parties. The local Labor party member spoke
out in support of the homeowners and spoke patronisingly to the organisation.
Nevertheless, as the organisation liaised with neighbours, they began to feel heard and
slowed down their complaints. Subsequent events led the local Member of Parliament to
withdraw his support from the organisation altogether. In the office things did not slow
down, tension was high. The first agreement around communicating more openly was
already broken. The way things are done in the organisation, and indeed its operating
paradigm was being challenged. The non-Indigenous workers applied a line of tension to
pull the Management Committee back into line. Variation from policy, they said, left them
uncertain how they should deal with neighbourhood complaints. They insisted on one
policy for all. They complained such approaches took the Indigenous worker out of the
office too much, so they had to do his work. Unprecedented numbers of neighbourhood
complaints came to the office and the Indigenous worker began to suspect that he was the
victim of a plot in which his colleagues clandestinely stirred up landlords and neighbours to
put the pressure on. Management Committee tried to mediate and put policies and
procedures in place, but became divided and anxious. The Indigenous worker was caught.
He had to work to his community in ways, which maintained their support. They had certain
expectations. He knew his task from their point of view was as much community
development as service delivery. For the local community this service was an anchoring
point in a longer-term process of securing a better life for Indigenous people in the local
community. He was testing the boundaries of his position. Whilst some of the detail had
been planned for, or worked out theoretically, he wanted to know, in practice, what the
boundaries of his authority were, what scope he had to work with his sub-committee to
shape a service to suit the community, and how readily he could access the resources he

5. needed. This very same moment was the time, from a service delivery perspective, when the
new worker was to be trained in the existing operating procedures (explicit) and inducted
into the cultural norms 12 | P a g e SWK3110 Organisational Contexts Unit Plan off-campus
2016 (implicit) of the organisation. Two discourses, service delivery and community
development, each with their own trajectory collided. Both were legitimate, and even
necessary, but their collision contributed to what was becoming a significant struggle. The
worker knew he needed orientation, and even training, for he had little housing experience.
Nevertheless within a few days the worker appointed as the trainer exclaimed in frustration
“ he’ s untrainable!” Access became a further point of tension. The office, located in an
ordinary house, had no sign outside and the front screen door was kept locked. People had
to knock and were then greeted in reception. These arrangements may have been
determined by staff and may perhaps have been negotiated with a previous Management
Committee. The present Management Committee had inherited, rather than been part of,
such arrangements, and yet had not previously questioned them. The Indigenous worker
requested a sign be displayed for his program and that the door be unlocked to make the
place more welcoming. This was vigorously resisted by the non-Indigenous workers, and
when management committee, unable to persuade or convince, made a decision to have the
door unlocked one day a week, the workers approached the union about unsafe working
conditions, and gained their support. For some of the committee members unfamiliar with
the Management Committee role, the involvement of the Union was intimidating and
further raised anxiety levels. Struggling with my own role in providing leadership, which
would hold open a space and enable the various parties to this conflict to make the
transitions they needed to make, I asked the workers what would help. They said they
thought the Management Committee members had become biased and that facilitated
conflict resolution processes would help. Rather than lift the tension, this made the
environment more hostile between all workers. Some complained the performance of the
Indigenous worker was the issue. He felt he was not being given a chance. Within these
facilitated sessions, all workers spoke, and were heard. Management Committee still took
the position that the Indigenous worker was within the funding guidelines and the
constitution and policies of the organisation. They acknowledged that the two different
approaches created tensions for the workers and asked the workers to recommend a way
forward. The first action, negotiated between the committee and workers was to make the
Indigenous worker accountable directly to the Management Committee. The senior worker
contributed to this decision, but maybe later felt it reduced her power. The Indigenous
worker said he felt he was being punished by the other workers for every bit of support the
Management Committee gave him. The other workers said they felt the Management
Committee supported him more than them. Review of policies and procedures was
undertaken to address structurally any further points of conflict and uncertainty.
Discussions about structure however did not run smoothly. Trying to build shared
understandings and minimise defensiveness was interspersed with angry outbursts,
disruption of meetings, resistance, and agitation. The tension in workers, as procedures
(with their advice and involvement) were examined and affirmed or replaced, became too
great, provoked too much anxiety and the process became fraught with angry resistance.

6. The workplace was clearly uncomfortable for everyone. The non-Indigenous workers were
drawing their own ethical boundaries. They wanted a reaffirmation of a status quo, which
would affirm that operating model with which they had confidence. If this meant excluding
the Indigenous worker, so be it. Several Management Committee members were of like
mind. Other Management Committee members tenaciously held open the possibility of
working things through. Yet this was read as polarising against the movement for closure.
The Indigenous sub-committee asked that the Indigenous program run from different
premises. It was clear to them that the tensions within the existing office were inhibiting the
work and de-authorising the worker. The non-Indigenous workers also saw this as a
solution. The Indigenous worker was keen to move, and so, the committee agreed to this, at
least for the interim.