Search

found 2 results

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury earthquakes, which started with the 7.1 magnitude event on September 4, 2010, caused significant damage in the region. The September 4 earthquakes brought substantial damage to land, buildings, and infrastructure, while the 6.3 magnitude earthquake on February 22, 2011 (and its subsequent aftershocks), brought even greater property damage, but also significant loss of life in addition to the region. Thousands were injured, and 185 persons died. A national State of Emergency was declared and remained in effect until April 30, 2011. A significant number of people required immediate assistance and support to deal with loss, injury, trauma experiences, and property damages. Many had to find alternate accommodation as their houses were too damaged to stay in. Of those affected, many were already vulnerable, and others had been too traumatized by the events to effectively deal with the challenges they were faced with. A number of human service organizations in the region, from both government and non-government sectors, joined forces to be able to more effectively and efficiently help those in need. This was the start of what would become known as the Earthquake Support Coordination Service. The aim of this report is to present an evaluation of the Earthquake Support Coordination Service and its collaborative organization, based on documentation and interviews with key stakeholders of the service. The aim is also to evaluate the service based on perspectives gathered among the clients as well as the coordinators working in the service. The final aim is to offer a reflection on the service model, and on what factors enabled the service, as well as recommendations regarding aspects of the service which may require review, and aspects which may be useful in other contexts.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

INTRODUCTION: After the 2011 Canterbury earthquake, the provision of school social work was extended into a larger number of schools in the greater Christchurch region to support discussions of their practice priorities and responses in post-earthquake schools. FINDINGS: Two main interpretations of need are reflected in the school social workers’ accounts of their work with children and families. Firstly, hardship-focused need, which represented children as adversely influenced by their home circumstances; the interventions were primarily with parents. These families were mainly from schools in low socioeconomic areas. Secondly, anxiety-based need, a newer practice response, which emphasised children who were considered particularly susceptible to the impacts of the disaster event. This article considers how these practitioners conceptualised and responded to the needs of the children and their families in this context. METHOD: A qualitative study examining recovery policy and school social work practice following the earthquakes including 12 semi-structured interviews with school social workers. This article provides a Foucauldian analysis of the social worker participants’ perspectives on emotional and psychological issues for children, particularly those from middle-class families; the main interventions were direct therapeutic work with children themselves. Embedded within these practice accounts are moments in which the social workers contested the predominant, individualising conceptualisations of need to enable more open-ended, negotiable, interconnected relationships in post-earthquake schools. IMPLICATIONS: In the aftermath of disasters, school social workers can reflect on their preferred practice responses and institutional influences in schools to offer children and families opportunities to reject the prevalent norms of risk and vulnerability.