导言:公民权和公民权导向的关怀

M. Rowe
{"title":"导言:公民权和公民权导向的关怀","authors":"M. Rowe","doi":"10.1080/15487768.2017.1338034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Citizenship as understood and evaluated by the editors of this special issue and several authors of the articles included here, is defined as the person’s strong connection to the 5 Rs of rights, responsibilities, roles, resources, and relationships that society makes available to its members through public and social institutions and association life, and a sense of belonging that is validated by others (Rowe, 2015). The citizenship framework was inspired by the limitations of mental health outreach to person who are homeless. In that work, outreach workers and case managers found and built with relationships with their clients and, after mutual trust was built, offered them a broad range of services—mental health and primary care, access to income through disability entitlements or employment, and access to housing. Outreach work, though it developed independently of the recovery movement during the 1990s, was characterized by person-first and strengths-based values that are consistent with those of recovery. The problem occurred when people were housed. Some felt so isolated in their apartments and so out of place with others around them that they considered moving back to the streets where they had friends, knew what to do, and shared with others the valued role of being one who could survive homelessness. Outreach workers and teams, then, could provide services and treatment that would equip people for “a life in the community” in all areas but the identity of being a member of that community. And the problem wasn’t confined to outreach. Citizenship might have been inspired by jail diversion services, assertive community treatment, or even a Housing First approach. The outreach team lived at the margins of the mental health system of care, but it was a part of a system that, in placed of full, valued, and participating citizenship, could offer only a bounded or program citizenship. Citizenship work over the past 20 years was developed iteratively. A community coalition of people who were or had been homeless, mental health providers of care, and other community members demonstrated that such a coalition could be formed and undertake meaningful education and networking actions. It was not equipped nor oriented to the challenge of helping individuals—homeless, with incarceration histories, or otherwise none defined","PeriodicalId":72174,"journal":{"name":"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation","volume":"2014 1","pages":"198 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: Citizenship and citizenship-oriented care\",\"authors\":\"M. Rowe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15487768.2017.1338034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Citizenship as understood and evaluated by the editors of this special issue and several authors of the articles included here, is defined as the person’s strong connection to the 5 Rs of rights, responsibilities, roles, resources, and relationships that society makes available to its members through public and social institutions and association life, and a sense of belonging that is validated by others (Rowe, 2015). The citizenship framework was inspired by the limitations of mental health outreach to person who are homeless. In that work, outreach workers and case managers found and built with relationships with their clients and, after mutual trust was built, offered them a broad range of services—mental health and primary care, access to income through disability entitlements or employment, and access to housing. Outreach work, though it developed independently of the recovery movement during the 1990s, was characterized by person-first and strengths-based values that are consistent with those of recovery. The problem occurred when people were housed. Some felt so isolated in their apartments and so out of place with others around them that they considered moving back to the streets where they had friends, knew what to do, and shared with others the valued role of being one who could survive homelessness. Outreach workers and teams, then, could provide services and treatment that would equip people for “a life in the community” in all areas but the identity of being a member of that community. And the problem wasn’t confined to outreach. Citizenship might have been inspired by jail diversion services, assertive community treatment, or even a Housing First approach. The outreach team lived at the margins of the mental health system of care, but it was a part of a system that, in placed of full, valued, and participating citizenship, could offer only a bounded or program citizenship. Citizenship work over the past 20 years was developed iteratively. A community coalition of people who were or had been homeless, mental health providers of care, and other community members demonstrated that such a coalition could be formed and undertake meaningful education and networking actions. It was not equipped nor oriented to the challenge of helping individuals—homeless, with incarceration histories, or otherwise none defined\",\"PeriodicalId\":72174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"2014 1\",\"pages\":\"198 - 199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487768.2017.1338034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of psychiatric rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487768.2017.1338034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

由本期特刊的编辑和本文的几位作者所理解和评估的公民身份,被定义为一个人与5r的权利、责任、角色、资源和社会通过公共和社会机构和协会生活向其成员提供的关系的紧密联系,以及一种被他人认可的归属感(Rowe, 2015)。公民身份框架的灵感来自于向无家可归者提供心理健康服务的局限性。在这项工作中,外联工作人员和个案管理人员发现并建立了与客户的关系,在建立了相互信任之后,向他们提供了广泛的服务——心理健康和初级保健,通过残疾人权利或就业获得收入,以及获得住房。外联工作虽然是在20世纪90年代独立于康复运动发展起来的,但其特点是以人为本和以力量为基础的价值观,与康复的价值观是一致的。问题发生在人们被安置的时候。有些人在公寓里感到如此孤立,与周围的人如此格格不入,以至于他们考虑搬回街上,在那里他们有朋友,知道该做什么,并与他人分享作为一个无家可归者的重要角色。因此,外联工作人员和团队可以提供服务和治疗,使人们在所有领域都能“在社区中生活”,除了作为社区成员的身份。这个问题并不局限于外联。公民身份可能受到监狱转移服务、果断的社区治疗,甚至住房优先方针的启发。外展小组生活在精神卫生保健系统的边缘,但它是一个系统的一部分,在充分、有价值和参与的公民身份的位置上,只能提供有限的或计划的公民身份。过去20年的公民工作是迭代发展的。由无家可归者或曾经无家可归者、精神保健提供者和其他社区成员组成的社区联盟表明,可以形成这样一个联盟,并开展有意义的教育和联网行动。它既没有装备,也没有面向帮助个人的挑战——无家可归者,有监禁史的人,或者其他没有定义的人
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Introduction: Citizenship and citizenship-oriented care
Citizenship as understood and evaluated by the editors of this special issue and several authors of the articles included here, is defined as the person’s strong connection to the 5 Rs of rights, responsibilities, roles, resources, and relationships that society makes available to its members through public and social institutions and association life, and a sense of belonging that is validated by others (Rowe, 2015). The citizenship framework was inspired by the limitations of mental health outreach to person who are homeless. In that work, outreach workers and case managers found and built with relationships with their clients and, after mutual trust was built, offered them a broad range of services—mental health and primary care, access to income through disability entitlements or employment, and access to housing. Outreach work, though it developed independently of the recovery movement during the 1990s, was characterized by person-first and strengths-based values that are consistent with those of recovery. The problem occurred when people were housed. Some felt so isolated in their apartments and so out of place with others around them that they considered moving back to the streets where they had friends, knew what to do, and shared with others the valued role of being one who could survive homelessness. Outreach workers and teams, then, could provide services and treatment that would equip people for “a life in the community” in all areas but the identity of being a member of that community. And the problem wasn’t confined to outreach. Citizenship might have been inspired by jail diversion services, assertive community treatment, or even a Housing First approach. The outreach team lived at the margins of the mental health system of care, but it was a part of a system that, in placed of full, valued, and participating citizenship, could offer only a bounded or program citizenship. Citizenship work over the past 20 years was developed iteratively. A community coalition of people who were or had been homeless, mental health providers of care, and other community members demonstrated that such a coalition could be formed and undertake meaningful education and networking actions. It was not equipped nor oriented to the challenge of helping individuals—homeless, with incarceration histories, or otherwise none defined
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pilot Test of Using Peer Specialists to Deliver Cognitive-Behavioral Social Skills Training. Is Capability to Manage Finances Stable Over Time? Screening homeless Veterans for a voluntary money management skills training program A recovery-oriented peer provider (ROPP) work-role model and prototype measure A qualitative description of community service, business, and organization perspectives on mental illness and inclusion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1