Shelley Loader says we have to work together as a community to solve social issues.
OPINION
Shelley Loader is the manager of Community House Whanganui.
It’s not working. Social issues in New Zealand are increasing, particularly regarding cost of living, housing and mental wellbeing.
The conversation we must have as a community is how we can purposefully work together more collaboratively to lessen the social impact and financial burden of social problems to us all.
So, what does authentic collaboration look like?
Authentic collaboration is a process by which all perspectives work jointly as equals towards a shared goal.
It is characterised by trust, respect, open and transparent communication, active listening and empathy, and a willingness to compromise.
It ultimately leads to a solution everyone can agree with and benefit from.
Everyone must contribute to the process and be accountable for the outcome, fostering shared responsibility.
The Survivor of Abuse in Care Hui last year beautifully illustrates different perspectives working together authentically.
There was no funding, so the collaboration saw a volunteer mix of survivor, supporter, community, government, and religious representation.
Potentially a recipe for disaster with all these perspectives collaborating in a sensitive space with next to no resources, but it was the opposite.
We had a goal. To unite and support survivors through the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and Faith-Based Institutions apology and redress process, and to educate ourselves on how to do so in a way meaningful to survivors.
There were sensitivities from all perspectives, many moments that were emotionally confronting.
But together we worked through it with honest communication and genuine support for each other.
We built trust by creating safety to speak authentically and understanding by listening and showing empathy.
The hui received attention nationally. Our collaborative efforts resulted in Survivor Support and Recognition Fund (SSRF) funding for our region.
We coordinated and received the full amount we requested. We did not, however, request as much as we could. The pot was limited and there are many survivors nationally deserving of support.
In the journey towards apology and redress, survivors and their supporters fought hard, including taking their case to the United Nations Committee Against Torture and Committee on the Rights of the Child.
While the outcome represents a significant step in healing and accountability, the apology was a long time coming and the redress process is only just beginning.
We still have much to learn as a society, not just in terms of overt harm, but also the covert harm that we inflict on each other, unintentional or otherwise.
As advocates challenging mainstream belief systems, we are often met with resistance. This happens across the board.
In voicing alternative perspectives, we risk being perceived as naive, uneducated, or if we persist, difficult.
There may be consequences.
The people we are networking and collaborating with are often the same people who make funding decisions, and between us we are competing for limited funding.
Funding decisions impact directly on our organisations, the people and communities we support, our jobs, and those of our colleagues.
There are so many fine lines and conflicts of interest for us to navigate.
While some competition is good and keeps us all accountable, too much competition is counterproductive.
During the Covid-19 pandemic we saw considerable Covid-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF) funding directed to social service organisations supporting identified vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.
Funding has purportedly returned to pre-Covid levels. However, many organisations are reporting difficulties accessing funding exceeding pre-Covid levels, particularly grassroots organisations.
In our decline letters, community funders are reporting unprecedented demand for contestable funding far exceeding supply.
Simultaneously, government agencies are grappling with cutbacks, creating more gaps in service delivery, effectively pushing more work our way.
Are we authentically working collaboratively to use available resources wisely?
Or are we just giving the appearance of doing so in this competitive environment to meet KPIs, tick the funding criteria box, remain viable, or to meet a predetermined outcome?
And the big question, if it’s this hard for us trying to navigate these dynamics, how much harder is it for the people and communities we support?
Over the past two months, I have received overwhelming positive feedback and support for this column from individuals from all corners of our community.
It’s sparked conversations about how we can all be more accountable and work more collaboratively to address social issues in a way that benefits us all.
So, if we’re doing the best we can, what is standing in our way?
Power dynamics, hierarchies, and control of resources are barriers to cohesion and collaboration.
Resistance to change, new ideas and perspectives can further impact.
When resources are limited, and interests and priorities conflict, it is human nature to feel distrustful and competitive.
Cultural, belief system, and personality differences can further complicate.
Lack of understanding, communication and coordination results in organisations and agencies working in silos.
When we align with others while still excluding alternative perspectives, we are still working in silos.
Understanding these dynamics and working purposefully collaboratively can help us mitigate them. Authentic collaboration costs nothing and everyone stands to benefit.
Times are tough for everyone, and cracks are appearing. Police are stepping away from mental health callouts to focus resources on core policing.
The health system is stretched and there is concern that mental health services are not resourced to compensate.
Community organisations are even more under-resourced to pick up the slack.
The impact on the increasing number of people experiencing mental health issues and our wider community has the potential to be significant.
Research shows the availability of services and support is an essential factor in reducing mental health issues, and the availability of timely crisis support is a crucial safety net for people in immediate need.
We can do better together, cohesively, as a community.