9 OCTOBER 2009
NO 1498
Poverty, guilt, and hopelessness
The overriding issue for many of the families we see is the impact of poverty and the constant struggle to keep their heads above water. Many families on our case load are on income assistance, and they battle on a daily basis to keep their children fed, clothed, and housed. The income that they receive from welfare is grossly insufficient and rarely is enough to supply them with their basic monthly needs. Many clients look to the food bank to fill the gap in their grocery budgets. As for the extras that most families would take for granted, such as summer camps, school supplies, field trips, sports equipment, and even car insurance and gas, our clients might as well be trying to fund a trip to the moon as try to include these items in their budget. Often their children go without new clothing and shoes, relying instead on hand-me-downs from friends or on the community clothing exchange. Although this may not have as negative an impact on elementary-aged children, it becomes another source of stress for the parents of adolescents who struggle to understand why their families cannot afford the latest designer brands. These stresses contribute to the already over-burdened parent, often leading to a reduced capacity to parent effectively. Fatigue, neglect, and abuse are often the outcomes leading to interventions by the authorities.
Callahan (1991) states: "Children who are poor are more likely to come to the attention of child welfare agencies." She goes on to say:
The reasons why poor women and children and Native women and children are more likely to come to the attention of child welfare agencies are not hard to imagine. They cannot afford alternative child care arrangements, professional counselors, summer camps, boarding schools and holidays away from their children; the central planks of the child welfare system for the well-to-do. Nor do they often have connections, education and status which would buffer them from inquiries by the child welfare agencies. (p. 7)
Coupled with the ongoing strain of finding basic provisions, many clients are additionally burdened by the feeling that if only they could manage their money better, they would not be trapped in this constant crisis. This guilt is often accentuated by insensitive workers who also imply, subtly and otherwise, that indeed they should be managing better. As a result the client becomes a victim in a vicious predicament: no matter how smartly they organize their finances, the simple fact of the matter is that there isn't enough to go around. The resulting guilt that these parents feel as "poor providers" is compounded when the system appears to also blame them for "not managing".
Callahan (1991, p. 8) notes: "There are several ways in which women's inequality is maintained through the present child welfare system. First, although most of the women and children are poor, the present system does not address their immediate poverty nor the endemic reasons for it" (my emphasis).
Dealing with the issues of poverty leads many parents into despair and an overwhelming sense of hopelessness. As McCann and Pearlman (1990) point out: "Persons who have been victimized often find themselves in situations of extreme helplessness, vulnerability, or even paralysis" (p. 139). Many feel that they are careening from one crisis to the next without the possibility of even catching one's breath. They live with the knowledge that the wolf is around the next corner and only perpetual vigilance will keep him at bay. As a result, many of the clients we see are just plain tired, and with this fatigue comes a sense of hopelessness. Clients have the feeling that they are in a never-ending battle zone with no possibility of amnesty. The pervading sense of despair and hopelessness means that clients lose the ability to come up with new solutions to their financial, relationship, and personal troubles. Compounding their fatigue is the fact that many of our clients have no relief from their duties as parents. Because money is an issue, there are no funds available for sitters, hence no down time during which the parents can recharge their batteries or pursue interests of their own. These are the "central planks" of support that Callahan (1991) speaks of. Often, extended family members are not able to provide respite due to family dysfunction or geographical distance. Hence, the parent is not only the sole support, but also the only nurturer. When the children in the family react to this constant stress (and they invariably do) by acting out in the family or in the community, the parent begins to feel that all their efforts are pointless. Hard as they try to keep the family on an even keel, it appears to them that even their own children are working against them. Parental fatigue and despair prevent them from seeing the situation empathically from their children's point of view, and they become caught in an escalating cycle of explosive anger and mistaken revenge. In some cases the parent decides to place the child in care, not out of a lack of willingness to care for the child, but out of a sense of growing desperation.
IRIS ELSDON AND SHARON PRIEST
Elsdon, I. and Priest, S. (2001). The same difference:
Themes and experiences in CYC practice. Journal of Child and Youth
Care, 14, 3. pp. 17-24.
REFERENCES
Callahan, M. (1991). Feminist perspectives on child welfare work. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.
McCann, L. and Pearlman, L.A. (1990). Vicarious traumatization: A framework for understanding the psychological effects of working with victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3, 1. pp. 131-147.
