Understanding Organizational Culture - Assignment Example

Organization of Service Delivery Family to family is a support program adopted by particular organization to help tackleand handle problems facing families. Family to family programs particularly intends to provide support services to the disabled or maltreated members of a society in a family manner. Evaluators of quality of services offered in human service organizations can use the family to family program as a method of evaluation. This evaluation will target the asylum seekers detained by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as they await clearance to live in Australia. The Australian detention center for asylum seekers is one such human service organization that has particular culture. Australian Department of Immigration and Citizens is the legal organization that influences the execution of policies, and practicing of norms and values. At the same time, it is the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that provides funds for the running of the detention centers for asylum seekers (Crock 1993, 16). Evaluation Team members and Stakeholders Due to likelihood to experience interference from the political class and the management of the organization, it is important to use external evaluators who are independent of either interest group. Evaluators should also lack anything connecting them to the financiers of the organization under evaluation. Outside evaluators who also independent and immune to any influence of the political class and management will somehow accurate and reliable findings. This is because the evaluators have no group to favor or show compassion. Evaluators will investigate staff members serving in the detention centers for asylum seekers and the detained persons themselves. Evaluators will assess and compare states of the institution before and during the evaluation process. Project Logic and Indicators The evaluation method used is very important as it directly seeks to gather information regarding how the staff members in the detention centers have abided to the accepted norms and cultural practices in delivering their services. Goal- to determine the extent of to which the organization has practiced and respected the Codes of Ethics as required by the Australian Association of Social Workers. The goal of the evaluation is also the impact of training offered to the staff regarding proper cultural and ethical and concerns in the detention centers. Purpose – the purpose of the evaluation is to identify loopholes and weakness depicted by staffs and organization in general towards proper service delivery for the detained asylum seekers. This evaluation also intends to advice and encourages staff members and organization in general to heighten the level of good practices when handling the detained asylum seekers. Outputs – the number of respondent detained asylum seekers who dispute the quality of services offered and respondent staff who cite reasons for poor standards of service. Activities –motivational speech to the detained asylum seekers, training and encouragement of the junior staff members. Methods of Evaluation For effectiveness and need for valid responses, the evaluation process will consider applying interviewing and questionnaire method to gather information. Asylum detainees, who are the actual parties affected or benefiting from the services offered at the center will form the best sample group for this evaluation. Staff members working in the detention centers for the asylum seekers will also supplement the study sample as there may be certain factors missing in their work environments that work to compromise the quality of the work they do. Interview questions Interviews will be on a face to face basis and not through telephone as some or all the sample groups may have limited access to phone, and if they have unlimited access they may give wrong impression of situations on the ground. The following questions will apply to the detained asylum seekers If any case you have stayed here for long time, have been able to detect any changes or improvements in the quality of services offered to you? How do you think the staff members at this center view or consider you in their minds? How frequent do see the leaders in this organization making visits to you? What assurance if any has the management of this institution made to you concerning the process of clearing you? The following questions will apply to staff members in the detention institutions How many times have there been delays in your remunerations? Do you think the services you offer are consistent with the provisions in the Australian Codes of Conduct for Social Workers? Questionnaire Questionnaire for the detained asylum seekers will include the following questions Do you think that there are reasons to hope or expect improvements in the nature of services offered to you? In a scale of 1-100, 1 representing poor and lower services that do not comply with the international set standards for proper conducts of social workers, and 100 representing excellence, how would you rank or classify the staff members and organization in general? Issues to consider in the Evaluation This evaluation program will pay great concern to the policy requirements and directions of the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethics 2010 and the Australian Evaluation Society. The Australian Evaluation Society (AES) has the purpose of encouraging and promoting good practices in the evaluation process. In its purpose, AES advice that every evaluation should be in such a way to depict and prove high level of independence from any parties that may have interest in influencing the process. Like in this case, funders of the evaluation program and the political class should not involve in the process. The involvement of such people may lead to flouted and compromised findings and accreditation based out of the realm performance. Unfortunate involvement of the management may also flout the findings as they will seek to influence elimination of truth reflecting negative practices and advocating only for positive comments. Instead of looking or paying attention to interest groups, evaluators will only focus on the goals and mission of the evaluation to provide unbiased assessment results. Evaluation process through the evaluators will also ensure total concern for respect of human dignity and privacy. Evaluators will also ensure that the evaluation comments are derived from the information gathered during the evaluation process. Evaluation will also heed to the provisions of Codes of Ethic adopted by the Australian Association of Social Workers. Evaluators will examine if the organization and the staff have met all or part of the codes or ethics dictating their individual practices. According to Yehesk (2010, pg. 13), Australia has policies defining good practice standards for social workers operating within its borders. Policy number 4.1 of the practice standards for Australian social workers requires that all workers maintain high level of responsibility and diligence in their works, with which they can decide the social values to exhibit in relevance to the circumstance or context of work. It is however disgusting that the social work values directing human services providers in the detention centers in Australia tend not to express respect for the integrity, social justice and freedom of the asylum seekers. It is therefore very urgent for the government through Department of Immigration and Citizenship to influence managers and workers in the refugee detention centers recognize and perform their roles in line with the social work values (O’Connor 2012). Recommendations to Improve Conditions Officers in the detention centers should treat children in more special manner than the ably and healthy adults. If possible, measures should be set to quicken clearance timeframe for any children and their parents. Moreover, the institutions should allow refugees guaranteed access to attorneys to represent and forward their complaints to the managers and courts if situation become unbearable. In addition, reform process of the detention centers should see managers and boards of the institutions increasing the number of social workers through recruitment and thorough training in consistence to the provisions in the social work policies. To further reduce congestion problems in the detention centers, the Federal Government of Australia should stipulate running of offshore clearance centers. Implementation of the adaptable social values in the refugee detention will not be possible without contribution and facilitation from the leadership of the particular institutions. Leadership is the legal structure that dictates implementation process of the policies esteemed to govern the running of the detention institutions. To be effective, leadership of the individual institutions will have to be strict to breach of the transformation policies and motivation of workers tending to be consistent with the principles of social work values. Ways to According to Kirkpatrick (2002, pg. 33), leaders can achieve the set missions by rewarding junior social workers who work hard to improve living standards of the detainees. Such rewards can be in form of job promotion, gifts, presents and salary increments. Leaders can also organize and facilitate training for the junior workers to remind them of the right values and importance of exercising such values in the work environment. Furthermore, leaders can facilitate achievement of the positive social values among workers by planning regular visits to the actual confinements to assess the real situation (Alvesson 2002, pg. 13). This will enhance accountability among the juniors, thus limiting cases of abuse of the refugees. However, there still remain difficult challenges as in the line of funding of the operations. It will be hard for management to reward and motivate workers without sufficient funds as cited by the management of the institutions to be the reason behind deplorable conditions. References Alvesson, Mats, 2002, Understanding organizational culture, London, SAGE. Ariyawansa, Sayomi, 2005, Australia’s Treatment of Refugees is Unnecessarily Harsh, viewed 15 November 2012, < http://www.questions.com.au/young_writers/pdf/What_Difference_Writing/Sayomi_Ariyawansa.pdf>. Briskman, L, Zion, D & Loff, B. 2012, ‘Care or Collusion in Asylum Seeker Detention’, Ethics and Social Welfare, Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-55. CROCK, Mary, 1993, Protection or punishment? The detention of asylum-seekers in Australia, Sydney, The Federation Press. Daiya, Abbas, 2012, Afghan Refugees in Australian Detention Centers, viewed 15 November 15, 2012, < http://outlookafghanistan.net/topics.php?post_id=348>. Ferguson, Sarah, 2011, Asylum, viewed 15 November 2012, < http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/10/20/3344543.htm>. HATHAWAY, James, 2005, The rights of refugees under international law, Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. KIRKPATRICK, Donald, 2006, Improving employee performance through appraisal and coaching, New York, American Management Association, http://www.lib.sfu.ca/cgi-bin/validate/books24x7.cgi?bookid=11940. MCMASTER, Don, 2002, Asylum seekers: Australias response to refugees, Carlton South, Vic, Melbourne University Press. O’Connor, Patrick, 2012, Australian High Court strikes down ASIO-dictated detention of refugees, viewed 15 November 15, 2012, < http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/asio-o06.shtml>. Pagliaro, Alex, 2012, Live from the ground of Australia’s detention centers, viewed 15 November 15, 2012, < http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/27622/>. Yeheske, Hasenfekd, 2010, Human Services as complex organizations, 1st edition, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA Read More