| “M i \H \H — \ I It WI 1 \ i HQ); I04 (DLOG) ' rvrr‘f'rvr‘ A. \ A STUDY OF THE FRIENDLY VISITOR PROGRAM IN THE GREATER LANSING AREA by Louis L. Lovette A PROJECT REPORT Submitted to the Scheel e! Beetil Hbrk Michigan State University in Partial Fulfill-ant ef the Requirements for the Degree e! MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK May 1962 y F Approved: W ZZ’V‘M Chairman. Research Committe Director 0 chool ,/ L7 A? v“ . ,-- '1‘?“ l i" , (if I I"; ACKNOWLEDGKENTS I am indebted to Dr. Gordon Aldridge, Director of the School of Social Work. and to the faculty members for their contributions to my professional education and cievelopment. In particular, I wish to thank Mr. Arnold Gurin and Dr. Ernest B. Harper for their technical advice. understanding, and support that contributed toward the completion of this study. The genuine interest anfi considerate help extended by the staff members of the Community Services Council. Lansing, Michigan is grate- fully acknowledged. Mr. Perot: Kat: and Mrs. Gerald Winona were thought- rul consultants and information eourcea. With 1 sincere word of gratitude I wish to acknowledge the encourage- ment and sacrifices made by my wife. Aurella, who has given unstintingly of her time and energy in order that this study might be completed. 11 CHAPTER I II III IV TABLE OF CONTEJ CKNOWLEDGHENTS . LIST OF TABLES . If TRODUCTION . '. _ P’RPOSE e . e e PROBLEM . . e N343 AND ROLE or VOLUN GREATER LANSING VOLUNTEER BEBE mfiffi lmflh TS IANSIf-IG'S FRIENDLY VISITOR PROGRAM. PURPOSE ND RESPOI‘ RECOI‘IEI‘iLE‘EDED TRAINING AND S .VOT “)4. MLTHODOLC'GY O D C O C O O 0 METHOD OF STUDY e e e e 0 DESCRIPTION OF METE‘IOD e e DESIGN CF on -FINDIKGS AND DISC PURPOSE . . e e rvqfr Du; AGENCY DATA e e e e VISITCR DATA. . . . . ECIPIENT DATA. . . . ON SU'EMARY AND CONCLUSIONS THE 133031.34 . . . . METHOD Elf-iPmYED CONCLUSIONS . . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX Ie 0 APPENDIX II e 5.1793?me IIIe AIPH‘IDIX IV e APPENDIX Ve e APPEIDIX VI e 0"... 00.... O O O 0.0... iii 0... 0.0... LSTIONNAIRE‘S e O... 00.... 00.... 0.0... BILITY. . . . . UPEE e e e e O I O 0 e e e e AU. . . e VISION. e e e e e e e e e e e e O O O 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e O O O 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e O O 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e IO‘OOOOOC F: Page 11 iv CDQDCDCh\Ht‘F‘ P‘ LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 2 3 1. 5 6 ‘1 10 11 12 Agency In Study And Using Friendly Visitor Program Education Background Of Friendly Visitors . . . Former And Present Cccupation . . . . . . . . . Opinions Cf Visitors On Adequacy And Assignment Areas Of Dissatisfaction. . . . . . . . . . .‘. Friendly Visitors Greatest Area Of Satisfaction Frequency 6f Requests To Perform Certain Tasks Recipients Former Occupation. . . . . . . . . . Educational Background Of Recipients . . . . . Financial Assistance And Recipient Humbers . . Recipients Opinions C! What Helped Most . . . . Listing Cf Recipient Tanks And Activities . . . iv Page 16 21 22 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION P11735903 E w The purpose of this study was to determine the need for, and the ser- vices performed by. the volunteer worker in the role of Friendly Visitor. as seen by the volunteer. the various health and social welfare agencies engaged Mn falily and child care, and those individuals who are at present recipients ef this type of service, in the Greater Lansing area. Friendly Visitor programs appear to be a modern day continuation of the origin of social work in America. Concern for the less fortunate‘. the sick, the aged. and the needy family. has been and is. a large factor in our cultural heritage. Volunteers play an important role in assisting a community'- social and welfare agencies toward fulfilling their designated function. and the establishment of a structured Friendly Visitor program, in the modern community. could conceivably make possible a more efficient and effective effort toward meeting felt needs that would otherwise go unmet or‘require increased financial expenditures. PROBLEM It has been recommended by Community Research Associates that the Great- er Lansing Volunteer Bureau continue its active recruitment program and encourage family and child welfare agencies to make use of the Friendly Visitor and volunteer who can carry cases requiring supportive help. under (1) professional supervision. The Friendly Visitor program in the Greater Lansing area is a rather loosely structured service maintained by the Volunteer Bureau which is. in turn. under the over-all supervision of the Lansing Community Services Council. A number of health. social welfare. family and child care agen- cies have shown reluctance or complete apathy. in one form or another. to- ward using volunteers enrolled in the program to augment their services. At the present time. the Friendly Visitor program is utilised by sin nursing and convslscent homes. two family and child care agencies. one health agency. and one public assistance agency. for a total of ten agencies. is a result ef saterials gathered there seemd to be twenty-three agencies in Lansing that could make beneficialuse of this type of volunteer assist- ance. There is thus a valuable potential for service beyond what is now being done. At the time this study was undertaken the Lansing Volunteer Bureau was in s stange of transition. A new Director had recently been appointed and was endeavoring to familiarize herself with the Bureau's many activities.. It was found that records of the Friendly Visitor program. in regard to agen- cies. number of volunteers. and number of recipients. were inaccurate and misleading. I. A STUDY OF SERVICES TO EAMILI 33 AND CHILDREN IN INGHAH COUNTY MECHIGW Community Research Associates. Inc.. April. 1956. Pp. m1; Health. welfare. family and child care agencies cannot. within the limitations imposed upon them by definition of function and the budgeting process. meet the total requirements of the community's sick. aged. and needy families. Increased availability and reliance upon volunteers through the Friendly Visitor program should result in more effective agency and community effort. In order to obtain an indication as to the current functioning and services being rendered by the Friendly Visitor progras in the Greater Lansing area. and to gain some knowledge pertaining to the acceptance and/or rejection of the program. it was felt this study should be made. NEED AND- ROLE OF VOIDNTEZURS m * m — Social progress. in the Lansing area as elsewhere. depends a great deal on the social action of volunteer citizens who work for the realiza- tion of the democratic concepts of equality and freedom. However. as the helping services tended to becone more professionalized. the continued seed for and use of volunteers was either ignored or minimized by special- ization. Mary Richmond early pointed out that " thexorld is not a stage upon which we professional workers are to exercise our talents. while the volun- teers do nothing but furnish the gate receipts and an open-mouthed admira- (1) tion of cur performances." 1. Colcord. Joanna c. and Mann. Ruth 2.5.. (eds) THE LONG VIEW-PAPERS AND ADDR CSES‘EZ MARY g; RICHMOND. New York. Russell Sage Foundation. 1930. Po 3h5e As social workers and their reapoctivo agencies have matured profess- ionally they have come to realize that regardless of training and special- ization the need for volunteers still exists. An article in the £3311; 22;; Yearbook states. "Now that the necessity for professional competence is generally recognized. increasingly volunteers are serving as partners with trained social workers in the area ef treatment and direct service te clients as well as continuing to act as board and committee neabers. This partnership has strengthened social agencies by supplementing limited staff. freeing trained workers for specialized tasks. interpreting the work to potential users and contributors of service. keeping the agency sensitive to community needs and reactions to program. and establishing confidence (1) in the service." Grace Ceyle describes four functions performed by volunteers which are characteristic of a democratic society: 1. They provide epportunity for social contacts 2. They provide channels for the exPression of cultural and individual interest 3. They make for a decentralization of power and counteract a monopoly of political power 4. Volunteer activities provide another basis and means for the promotion of general welfare “ Eduard C. Lindenan wrote. "The act of volunteering is an assertion ef individual worth. The person who of his own free will decides to work on behalf of the good of his community is in effect saying: I have gifts and talents which are needed. I an a person who accepts responsibility. 1. Knrt..RuBscll 3.. (ed) VCLUNTEZES IN SCCIAL WCRK. Social Work Yearbook. 195%. American Bock~Stratford Press. Inc.. New York. p. 533. 2. Ccyle. Grace I... GROUP Brennan Ann Djocv'rzc VALUES. The woman's Press. New York. 19h7. pp.12-l7. not because it is imposed upon me. but rather because I wish to be useful. (1) My right to be thus used is a symbol of my personal dignity and worth." The effectiveness and need for volunteers is determined. to a great extent. by the classification and assignment of volunteer roles. The specific tasks and functions ef volunteers differ according to agency. However. there are considered to be two rather broad general categories of volunteers:(2) 1. The "administrative volunteer" who serves as a board or committee sember. responsible for policy making and fund raising. 2. The "service volunteer" who assumes an active part in carrying out the purpose of the agency and who may or may not deal directly wit agency clientele. In a talk delivered at the National Conference of Social Work. Mrs. Robert Whitelaw wilson emphatically stated that "There need be no arbitrary limitations on volunteer service. Many tasks require professional skills and training. others. and there are many of these too. can utilize volun- teers if the work is carefully planned. supervised. and intergrated. Wel- fare agencies would be able to carry on a broader. more effective program if they could obtain services of more volunteers to release the professional worker for those sepects of the service in which they are the most indis- pensable."(3) l. Lindeman. Eduard C.. MOTIVATIONS OF VOLUNTEERS IN COMMUNITY SERVICE. Eg1_ DO THEY'EQHEI_Z’ Community Chests & Councils of America. Inc.. New York. p.2. 2. Cohen. Nathan E.. (ed) Egg CITIZEN VOLUNTdBR. Harper & Brothers. flew York 1960. p.40. 3. VOLUNTL ‘ER PHI? ECIPLES AND PHILO'SOPHY. A talk given by Mrs. Robert Whitelaw Wilson at the National Conference of Social Work. CleVeland. Ohio. June 2. 1953. The Social Uerk Yearbook, 1957. points eut that "one et the major activities for volunteers in public assistance is the Friendly Visitor procran established in eld axe assistance divisiens. The volunteer Friendly Visitor serve. under the general direction of a caseworker or supervisor. He functions at all times within the casework plan for the individual."(1) Sinilarily ” in family and child care agencies. volun- teers provide service as casework aides, escort children te clinics or doctor's offices, tutor children unable to attend school. visit shuteins, and serve in numerous other capacities which help to extend and supplement (2) the services of the professional staff of these agencies." GREATER LANSIN? VOLUNTEER BUREAU A number of individuals and groups in the late 1940's began to recog- nize the need for a volunteer Bureau in Lansing to afford the various agen- cies and organizations volunteer assistants and to utilize the free time. talents, and training of men and women who wished to give volunteer ser- '1CJe‘ At an executive committee meeting of the Inghan County Council of Social Welfare ( now known as the Community Services Council) on November 1. Kurtn, Russell H. (ed) VOLUETEERS IN SCCIAL ECRK. Social Work Year- book, 1957. National Association of Social workers, New York P0 59"‘5- 2. op. cit.. p. 592. 1“, 19Q9. the steering committee suggested that priority be given to establishing a Volunteer Bureau, stating that ” all phases e! the Council program, and agency programs, hinge on the active cooperation of well (1) trained and interested volunteers." The Lansing Junior League, on February 15. 1951, agreed to sponsor the Volunteer Bureau for tws years on a demonstration basis. and pledged 33.000 annually. for this period of time. to nest anticipated expenses.(2) Operating procedures that were adopted on June 6. 1951(3) set forth a three-fold purpose: To coordinate and erganise volunteer service. as that: 1. Community services may be continuously supplied with necessary volunteer workers. 2. All citizens may have full opportunity te participate. 3. Duplication ef effort in the recruitment and selection of volunteers may be decreased. On December 8. 1953. the Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board approved standards that were te be adhered ts by agencies using volunteers re- (4) sruited by the Volunteer Bureau. These standards outlined the pre- sedure agencies were to follow when requesting the Bureau to assign 1. TEE LANJEN? VSLUNTEER BUREAU, News Release to Lansing State Journal. 1955s f ' 2. Ibid. 3. 92erating Procedures‘gg Lansing Bureau. June 6, 1951. h. STANDARDS RECOMMENDED FOR AGENCIES REQUESTING VOLUNTEERS. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. December 5, 1953. volunteers to then and assigned the responsibility to agencies for volunteer training. supervision. reporting and selection of tasks. Agencies were to provide followbup staff consultation on the service being performed by the volunteers. LANSING'S FRIENULY VISITOR P?0GR&H At the meeting of the Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. on February 16. 1953. " plans were discussed for training and orientation of volunteers in terms of specific training for special jobs such as Friendly Visitor and general training in community orientations such as Know your Social Agen- "(1) nice. A special committee was appointed to make plans and recommenda- (2) tions to the board for meeting these objectives; This committee determined that it would be necessary to establish agency need for Friendly Visitors. and if need did exist. how many volun- teers would be required to adequately meet the need. It was decided that a questionnaire survey, directed to public assistance agencies and conval- escent homes would provide the Board with this preliminary information. Secondly. it was recommended that as the volunteers were recruited, they should be screened to gain some knowledge .1 their limitations, special skills, stability. and reasons for wishing to become a Friendly Visitor. 1. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. mum-es 9;: momma. February 16. 1953. 2. Ibid. Sane general training was recommended prior to assigning the volunteers to their respective agencies where they were to receive additional training in order to perform specific. assigned agency tasks. It was also recommend- ed that each volunteer keep a brief written record of visits. After con- siderable discussion the Board voted toinitiatejplans for a FriendlyVVisitor progran.(l) PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITY The purpose of the Friendly Visitor program was defined as being: 1. "To visit patients at a definite time on a regular basis. 2. to do such things as writing letters, shopping, reading and simple crafts.” (2) The Friendly Visitor program was designed to serve as an organized community wide plan. or process. where-in health. welfare. family and child care agencies might provide additional service to their clientele by the involvement of community volunteers. These volunteers would have indicated their desire to eesist in the meeting of community needs and would be trained to give understanding support to the sick, aged, and other needy families or individuals. The Friendly Visitors were to be trained by agencies to perform certain specific tasks in regard to individual and family health and welfare needs. 1. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board, MINUTES Q3 MEETING. May 10, 1954. Po 1‘2e 2. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. HINUYES g: MEETIKG. December 1%, 1954e 1 2e , 10 Sick, aged. and needy families whose physical or emotional well- being was impaired by loneliness and lack of personal attention were to be visited en a regular basis. They may. or may not, have been receiving public assistance. and could be living alone. with relative or in a board- ing. convalescent, or nursing home. It was haped that increased aVailability of adequately trained volun- teerl. through the Friendly Visitor program. would permit agency profess- ionally trained staff membere to devote additional time toward working with clients whose problems were more complex. or to see new clients. In addition. the Friendly Visitors were to serve as representatives of the community as they would be in an advantageous position to keep the agency better informed of client functioning and needs. as well as being able to serve as a "sounding board" for community evaluation of agency .functioning. REECOit-fi-iiiNDED TRAINIFFG All!) SUi-‘LIRVIFZICPJ There were to be three two hour training periods designed to in- clude: 1. "Orientation to nursing home facilities as well as gnneral orientation in volunteer service. 2. Interpretation of the psychological needs of the aging and their attitudes. (1) 3. A skit depicting the roles of visitor and patient." 1e Ibid. The committee expressed the feeling that volunteers must be under (1) the supervision of some definite person in each home. By definition, the Friendly Visitor program was established to perform Special jobs relating to persons residing in convalescent homes. However, one of the volunteers who completed the first training pregran was assigned. and placed under the supervision of the Ingham County Bureau of Social Aid. This Visitor was to work with recipients of Old Age Assist- ance. and was provided working space in the Bureau's office as well as being granted some clerical help. The Ingham County Bureau of Social Aid would require the Friendly Visitor to visit clients on a regular interval basis. provide clients with transportation to the doctor when needed,coo camaeoom .onH .hso>oo¢m coauaaoouu< hacnamma beacons: Monaco sHImth noonwuwo hoacom wuamsia doaudflao woammwho Mom huofioow hpcsoo adnmcm hoeem< oowphom hawseh A % .ocH .ucpccu accomofls>oco huflo Hagflmao defiuaaoommd neon moaned: ddmwnoflm seafloom uwmocoaom oaefiuflez neeoeoox secede .oeeeoeo eaeeo enemeeo cosmos eoeuaswaflaeeom ens Hmsosmos season eeeeeH coaucocdom Hacofiumz aheommnu hucsoo accmcH nee deacon no seesaw hocsoo esnmcH .ocH .aosom uHom noseswocmn< moons: mdwvamfl> wcwmccg hopeehu csom accomoasbcoo aeu>hflam .oeH .ooopcmm fleeces awaoeeuo N K .ocm .houcou accomoambcco hpwo Hopwnao GEO: wfiwmhnz osmom oeom accomoac>coo ofiudom mocha com axowcesd cancaaapc when ya eases nonwoum cowbhon onwccnowamosw nudes mo emmy venusaex aheadmfi> hduaeahh Mddmn one nozum ad eowodomd 13 Agencies not using Friendly Visitors stated that they did not do so because: 1. 2. 34 Agency services do not require them. Agency does not know how they would incorporate Friendly Visitors into their service Agency auxillory service provides this type of program. The Multiple Sclerosis Society is not using Friendly Visitors. but would if they were available. The responses indicate that agencies offering nursing/conVelscent home care tend to use the Friendly Visitor pregram more than any other tyge of “DEC: 0 Five of the six nursing/convalscent homes which responded. indicated that all of their staff members were aware of the Friendly Visitor pregrem. Agencies listed a number of subjects which they feltshould be incorpo- rated in the orientation program given to Friendly Visitors: 1. 2. 3. ‘I. 6. Heed and responsibility for confidentiality(three agencies). Acceptance of recipients as individuals. Define what Friendly Visitors are. their purpose. responsibili- ties. and problems they will encounter. Euphasize the need hr the Friendly Visitor to be a good listen- or. have a sense of humor and to be preysred to read aloud to the client. Teach some understanding of cultural differences, aging process, and individuals' illnesses. Emphasize need for dependability and regularity. Duties that Friendly Visitors could perform which would be most beneficial to agencies were stated as bein“: 1. 2. 3. Entertaining clients thct are hone-bound after surgery. Perform personal services that are not within the scoge of agency function, such as writing letters, stepping. furnishing reading materials. give shampoos. etc.. Provide client tranSgortation 19 h. Help with diversionel therapy, such as crafts. reading. showing picture slides. 5. Help educate the public in regard to clients' needs and the effect of illness on the entire family. Three agencies indicated that they request Friendly Visitors for their clients through personal contact with the Director of Volunteer Bureau. Two nuke their request via telephone and one agency does not know how it obtained the Visitors assigned to it. Eight agencies did not answer this question. None of the agencies that returned their questionnaires and thnt are currently using Friendly Visitors, provide Visitors with any form of agency supervision. One stated that after the first visit to a client the Visitor was on his own, another felt that supervision was the responsibility of an- other volunteer and a third stated that their agency did not feel that the Friendly Visitor required supervision. Five agencies stated that's Friendly Visitor could not perform any of the services that are at present being done by professional staff members. These five agencies are: 1. Catholic Social Services, Inc. 2. Ingham County Bureau of Social Aid 3. Lansing Child Guidance Clinic h. fiichigen Multiple Sclerosis Society 5. Hichigan Nursing Home Association The Holt Nursing Home stated that Visitors could do diversionsl thornyy which paid staff members did not have time to do. The remaining eight agen- cies listed personal chores, i.e.. sharpens. manicures, shooping as the ser- vices which they_fe1t Friendly Visitors could perform. The r noon given for not using Friendly Visitors as a part of agency service, coupled with the list of subjects which agencies feel should be incorporated in the orientation program. and the lack of Visitor super- vision all appear to indicate a lack of confidence in Friendly Visitors by professionally trained social workers specifically and social uclfore and family and child care agencies in general. This is further re—enforced by the listing of duties which agencies feel that Friendly Visitor¢could perform which would be most beneficial to their agencies and the stating by five agencies thet Visitors could not perform any of the services that are at present being done by professional staff members. It further ap- pears that agencies are limited in their knowledge as to the defined pur- pose of the Friendly Visitor program, how to obtain their services, and the responsibilities of agencies to the community to involve volunteers where ever possible, in their programs. VISITOR DATA Questionnaires were mailed to forty-four volunteers that were re- ported to be active as Friendly Visitors. Twenty-four comyleted the questionnaire and returned them for tabulation. two returned blank gues- tionnaires. Through investigation it was determined thet of the forty- four Visitors listed as active in the program, four were no longer func- tioning as Visitors and did not wish to return their questionnaires there- by leaving a total active listing of thirty-eight Friendly Visitors. Of that number. six additional Visitors, although returning their question- naires do not wish to continue as volunteers. 9 Twenty-two of the totaIIEturns were from women averaging 5?.6 years of age with the median age boin 63 years. The oldest woman is 70 years and the youngest is 37 years of age. The two men returning their questionnaires are 7% and 72 years of age. Seventeen of the women are married. two are divorced, two are single and one is a widow. One of the men is married and the other 13 a widower. Education background of the Lansing Friendly Visitor, as shown in Table 2. shows that a relatively high percentage of these volunteers havo received adVance formal training and should be capable of performing other than menial chores. Table 2 fiducation Background of Friendly Visitors 4* Formtfifi Number of Education Visitors College begreo 8 1 or more yrs college 8 Completed High School h Less than Kigh School h As might be expected from the data shown in Table 3, Friendly Visitors either have been or are currently employed in a variety of occupations. Table 3 Former and Present Occupation __A___ Former Present Occqration Number Occupatig2;_ Number_ Ioacher 6 House wife . 1% None 5 Retired # Eouseuife 2 Librarian 2 Librarian 2 None 2 Office Worker 2 Office Worker 1 Social Worker 2 Teacher 1 Cargenter l ?lumber 1 Sales 1 when viewed together, both educational background and former and present occupation show that a number of the Lansing Friendly Visitors have received the type of training, and have held positions which would have prepared them to assume responsibilities that lie within the defined purposes of the Friendly Visitor program. Some of the Visitors (6) have received formal training and hove been engaged in professional work that is considered to be closely related to social work. Table h shows that three-fourths of the Friendly Visitors return- ing their questionnaires. feel that they were adequately trained, prior to being assigned to their respective agencies. Twenty-one were satis- fied with their assignment while three expressed dissatisfaction Table 4 Opinions of Visitors on Adequacy and Assignment w Feelings of:§&gF.V.'s Number adequately trained 13 Inadequstoly trained 6 Satisfied with assignment 21 Dissatisfied with assignment 3 However, during the past several years. the only training which the JFriendly Visitors have had was the single session orientation arranged by the Director of the Volunteer Bureau. If additional orientation and train- .1ng has been received this has not been reported to the Bureau, nor is there any known record of its having occurred. From the suggestions offered by'agoncies as to what should be included in the Friendly Visitor training program. it is apparent that no additional training has been given once ‘Visitors were assigned to an agency. Although only three individuals indicated they were dissatisfied with ‘their assignMent a number did rcgcrt disco isfnction in other areas for reasons reflected in Table 5. Table 5 Areas of Dissatisfaction "1 season Number Each of supervision‘fi 9 wish to do more than just visit Question the good I am really doing No dissatisfaction PflW-t“ Per-one being visited are too demanding It may readily be seen that the major source of dissatisfaction on the part of Friendly Visitors is the lack of supervision. The reader will recall that none of the agencies indicated that they extended any supervision to the volunteer. assigned to them. Although the volunteer feels that he has skills . time. and abilities to give to his community and although he feels adequate- 1y tuned to perform tasks assigned him. he 13 dissatisfied with. the lack of supervision and accountability which accompany his efforts. This might account for the dissatisfaction of four who wish to do more than just visit and the three who question the good they are really doing. It is apparent that more than half of the Friendly Visitor. do not feel a part of the agency to which they are assigned. Eight, or one-third. of the Visitors. state that the greatest source of satisfaction in this role is the realization of beirg needed by others. This and other areas of satisfaction are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Friendly Visitors Greatest Areas of Satisfaction gstisfaction due to: Number of times mentioned Being needed by other: 3 Being accepted as a friend Having contact with older people Obtaining recognition from those visited Providing diversional activities Giving others help and recognition No comment urmmmu Thirteen Visitor. indicate that they spend from one-half hour to six and one-half hours per week performing their assignments. thus 25 indicating an average of two and three quarter houre per week epent in doing Visitor assignments. This ie mentioned to emphasise the satisfaction and willingness with which the Volunteer carries out hie aeeignaent and respon- eibilitiee. Most people want to feel that they are needed and accepted’. Only four of the Lancing Friendly Vieitore in thin etuiy indicated that they are still gainmlly employed and out are beyond the middle age bracket. By serving ethere. the Visitor is gaining recognition and satisfaction: which, in part. not hie own needs. In addition to the 'etated purpose of the Friendly Vieitor program. it appeare that those actively involved are also receiving benefit-a Vieitore are asked to pertora many tank- during the course of a regular visitation. Table 7 shove come of the more common requeote that the Visitor reoeivee from the agency clientele. Table 7 Frequency of Requests to Perform Certain Tam Occassionally Frequently Tang _ .. o more time Aeoiet with household budget 1 Administer medication 3 Advice on purchase of food 2 Advice on purchase of clothing 1 1 Perforn none housekeeping chore 3 Transport individual to doctor 1 Transport individual to hospital Traneport individual to a Social Agency 1 Do some counseling ‘4 1 Take individual on an outing 5 1 Refer individual to a Social . Agency for help 2 1 Other“ 3‘ " supervise other visitors 26 mzrxnzr DATA The questionnaire addressed to recipients of Friendly Visitor service was mailedto forty-six individuals who were listed by the Volunteer Bureau as recipients of the service. Seven questionnaires were returned unspened. These were stamped "unkown" or ' moved no forwarding address." Three ques- tionnaires were returned incompleted with an attached note stating that the recipient was deceased. There-fore a total of thirty-six questionnaires are considered to have been received by "active" recipients. 0! these only sixteen completed questionnaires were returned. One san and fifteen women recipients returned completed questionnaires. The nan stated that he is 76 years old. Average age of recipient women is 76.7 years. with the median being 79 years of age. The oldest woman is 89 years and the youngest 60 years of age. Three of the women are single. three are married, and nine are widows. The one man is a widower. Table 8 lists the former occupation of the sixteen recipients. by number e Table 8 Recipients Former Occupation Former Occupation Number Apartment Mgr. l Bookkeeper Former Housewife Housework Practical Nurse Sales person Teacher 0‘ a: a: r4 F‘ r4 r: F‘ None Formal education of those receiving Friendly Visitor services is relatively limited. Four categories of scholastic achievement are shown in Table 9. Table 9 Educational Background of Recipients Formal» Number of Education Recipients College degree 1 l or more yrs of college 0 Completed High School 3 Less than High School 12 Recipients were requested to indicate what type. if any, public assistance. OASDI benefit, or pensions they are receiving» As indicated ‘in Table 10. ten of the sixteen. were receiving public assistance. Table 10 Financial Assistance and Recipient Numbers irr- Financial Assistance . ”umber Aid to Dependent Children Aid to the Blind Aid to the Disabled Conpany Pennies Old Age Assistance ’ case: (Social Security) ' Other (private income) 1 ' Two recipients receiving 0AA and OASDI meteor-no The average age of recipients of Friendly Visitor services. their\ Iarital status. for-er occupation and formal education would appear tot ildicate that recipients. new old. alone. dependent. and with little formal educational background feel the need for services not within the scope of existing agencies. Advanced age.\andg:;;sioal health. prevents thee free indulging in all but a few activities which can be undertaken with liaited.physical effort. Lack of formal education restricts intel- leetual interests. financial dependency. as shown in Table 10. serves to further instill a feeling of unworthiness. rejection. and loneliness. Recipients appeared to be relatively uninformed as to how Visitors were assigned to then. Nine did not know how they acquired a Friendly Visitor. three attributed it to a social agency. two had requested a social agency to have a Visitor assigned to then. one stated that a friend made the request. and one said a business acquaintance had 29 obtained the Visitor for her. However. twelve recipients stated that they like the progran. and of the four indicating they do not like it only one gave any reason for this dislike stating that visitations were not regular enough to suit her needs. A table was constructed (see Appendix IV. Question ll) and recipients were asked to check which of four conditions they felt best described their physical health. Six indicated they classified themselves as being in poor health. four indicate fair health. three felt they were in good health while the remaining three indicated poor health. The fact that a majority of these recipients feel that they are in poor health reflects an earlier statement sade in this study to the effect that nursing homes make a greater use of the Friendly Visitor progras than other agencies included in the study. Recipients were asked to list what they felt their Friendly Visitor hadrdono which helped then the most. Their response is shown in Table 11. Table 11 Recipients Opinions of What Helped Most Times Friendlx Visitor helped bl Mentioned .3hst friendly calls 5 Did errands 2 Did Some reading 2 Gives real friendship 2 Did nothing to help 2 1 Provided company A listing of tasks and activities where in assistance might be needed and given was compiled and recipients requested to indicate whether help was not needed. if they were receiving some help in these areas. or whether they needed help but were not receiving it. Table 12 shows recipient re- eponae. Table 12 Listing of Recipient Tasks and Activities “fl Help not Receiving Need help but needed some help not receiving it Advice in buying clothing 15 1 Advise in buying feed 15 1 Assist with household budget 15 1 Assist with house chores l} 3 Help with medication 11 l h Heed te be taken on a outing 1h 1 _ 1 Transportation to a doctor 13 l 2 Transportation to hospital 15 1 Transportation to Social Agency 16 Other 16 Recipients do not appear to feel in great need of assistance in per- torsing their daily tasks and activities. Four recipients did indicate they seeded help with their medication. Three feel they seed help with heueehold chores. three need transportation. and one seeded budget help. None are receiving this type ef aid. Six are receiving come help in other areas. such as. buying clothing. buying food. being taken on an outing. and transportation to the doctor or hospital. CHAPTER I V SUEHARY AND CONCLUSIONS THE PEGBLSM The'probles of this study was twonrold: (1) to determine the need for. and the‘services performed by. the volunteer worker in the role of Friendly Visitor. as seen by the volunteer. the various health.and social welfare agencies engaged in family and child care. 1nd by the recipients of this type of service. in the Greater lensing area. and (2) to gain some knowledge pertainine to the acceptance and/or rejection ef the ‘Friendly Visitor program. WIND BIv?lOYED Due to the scattered geographic distribution and the different roles played by the individuals and agencies involved in this study it was decided that different questionnaires. should be constructed to obtain information on the probles fro- each group and circulated to this. Agencies were selected by the Director of the Volunteer Bureau and the Executive Director ef’the Lansing Community Services Council. Friendly Visitors and recipient were those individuals recorded by the ' volunteer Bureau as being involved in the program. CORCLUSIQ‘IS In so far as the techniques may be valid. the fellowing conclusions 32 sees defensible. 1. Three nursing and/or convalescent hoses are currently using the Friendly Visitor program and the four that are not indicated that they would use Friendly Visitors if’nore were available. One counseling and health agency ends a siniliar response. This indicates that the volun- teer Bureau. that is charged with the responsibility of remitinnerien- taut; and assigning Friendly Visitors to agencies has not been able to nest the existing need for volunteers to work with these agencies is the role of Friendly Visitors. 2. Four agencies that list counseling and referral as the service Iwhich they offer their clients and which are considered to be casework orientated. stated that they were not using Friendly Visiterd nor would they use then if more were available. These agencies appear to feel that either persons working with their program under auspices other than the Friendly Visitor can adequately supplement their service. or they are not aware as to how Friendly Visitors could assist in the service which they offer clients and therefore do not feel the need to use volunteers. 3. Nine of the agencies involved in thestudy. although having been long established in the Greater Lansing area. had not made their total staff aware of the existence of the Eriendly Visitor progras. It is felt that lack of total staff awareness of the Friendly Visitor progral lhas prevented some of these agencies fro- taking part in the progras and ihns caused then to limit beneficial volunteer involvement. h. Responding agencies listed six subjects which they felt should 33 be includbd in the orientation program given to Friendly Visitors. Subjects listed appear to indicate limited knowledge. on the part of the agencies, as to the responsibility of agencies to provide training beyond the limited orientation given volunteers by the Volunteer Bureau. 5. Agencies listed eight dutiec which they felt that Friendly Visitors could perform. All of these duties fall within the defined purpose of the Friendly Visitor program, but Visitors indicated that they are seldom requested to perform these duties. although a substan- tial proportion did atate they wished to do more than Juot visit and several questioned the good they were really doing. Agencies apparent- ly have given Vieitoro little or no instructions as to what they would like to have them do when visiting clients and have not extended agency recognition for the efforta which they have made. 6. There is no regular routine which agencies follow when re- questing Friendly Visitors from the Volunteer Bureau although a policy and standards were established in 1953. In addition. many recipients do not know how or who obtained a Friendly Visitor for than. Both the volunteer Bureau and the agencies have been lax in not following es- tablished procedure. 7. Agencies do not provide Visitors with any form of supervision. The defined purpose of the Friendly Visitor prOgran and the atandarda adopted by the Volunteer Bureau state the agency supervision of volun- teer in a requirement if the volunteer is to be assigned to any agency and is to adequately carry out his assignment. }# 8. The reasons given by agencies for not using Visitors as a part of their program, complete lack of agency supervision and limited agency recognition extended to volunteers indicate a lack of confidence in the use of Visitors by professionally trained agency personal and a large amount of apathy toward the Friendly Visitor program. There appears to be need for the volunteer Bureau and the various health, social welfare, family and child care agencies. to re-cvaluate the Friendly Visitor pro- gram, in light of each agency service. in order to determine how the agencies miznt make positive use of the Friendly Visitor program. 9. Educational and occupational data in regard to the Friendly Visitor indicate that these volunteers are capable of assuming and dischnr ing a reasonable range of duties and responsibilities to agen- cies and recipients. They are also willing to spend several hours per week in carrying out assignments given them. however. Visitors are aware of. and dissatisfied with the lack of agency supervision. 10. Most Friendly Visitors feel that the orientation given then by the Volunteer Bureau adequately trains then to carry out their as- signmcnts. However. agencies do not feel this way as shown by the subjects which they suggested should be added to the orientation pro- gram. The subjects suggested by the agencies that should be included in the orientation appear to be more properly a responsibility of the agencies rather than the Volunteer Bureau. 11. Lack of agency supervision and the non-exictance of a uniform policy in agency request for Friendly Visitors have resulted in faulty 35 record keeping by the Volunteer Bureau as to which agencies are using Friendly Visitors. which volunteers are serving as Visitors. and the identity 0! the names and number of’recipients being served by Friendly Visitors. 12. Friendly Visitors receive at the same time they are giving. This is shown by the number who express that their greatest satis‘action is in the knowlefige ofbeing needed by. and gaining recognition from those persons that they visit. ' 13. Recipients of the Friendly Visitors services are elderly citizens most of whom are past the retirement age. and the majority are widows. The individuals represent the need which the Friendly Visitor program was designed to meet. 1h. Recipients have received relatively limited formal education and have not, for the most part. held jobs that would give them {inane cinl security in their later years. Recipient financial dependency is shown by the number of individuals receiving assistance tron public agencies. These facts. coupled with their advanced age. poor physical health and the type of satisfactions they receive from the Friendly Visitor program, point out their need fer the type of recognition and support which social agencies cannot give within the limits of their defined purpose. Friendly Visitors. appear to be meeting some of these needs, although the program is markedly limited by agency failure to properly train and make the volunteer a part of their "casework approach" and by their apparent apathy toward the pregran. 15. In general. there appears to be a much greater area for service by volunteers through the Friendly Visitor progras than is being met. The Volunteer Bureau has not carried out the policies adopted by the Volunteer Board Advisory Council nor have agencies using Friendly Visitors accorded them agency recognition. Friendly Visitors have not been given agency training to perfOrn specific tasks. They have been given a single session orientation and than assigned to visit without agency supervision and with- out being incorporated into the over-all casework plan for the recipients. This is borne out by the disclosure that a number of recipients do not know has they acquired a Visitor and is further emphasized by the fhilure of agencies to maintain staff contact with Visitors. 16. From data collected by this study it is believed that volunteers. through the Friendly Visitor program. can and should be trained to perform certain specific duties which are at present performed by professionally trained agency personnel, there-by enhancing the productive usage of professionally trained staff. However. it is felt that the Volunteer Bureau and the various health. social welfare. family and child care agen- cies in the Greater Lansing area should agree upon a more closely knit. formally structured manner of recruiting. assigning. and incorporating Friendly Visitors into the agency services which are to be offered to recipients. BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY Cohen. Nathan E.. (ed) TEE CITIZEN VOZUVVVEV. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1960. pp. xvi - 267. Golcord. Joanna C. and Mann. Ruth Z.S..(eds)_§VU Lone VIVw-PAFZVS Ann ADDVVSCVS BY WAVE E. “ICJHTVD. Russell Sage Foundation. New York. 193e.pp vii-345. Community Research Associates. Inc.. A. STVDY 0? K ”FI'SVS T3 F“"IF IFS AID CMIIDPCN';§.IVCHAV CC_:~I_ . r*"VIc.i April. 950. pp. v-167. Coyl e. Grace L.. c?¢1p ""raaT“""“ “VD Dw"ocnarchvntvze. The Woman's Press. New York. l9€-7.pp.vii-278. Kurtz. Russell H.. (ed) "c‘"“m"““s : SOCIA. worn. Social work Yearbeek. American Book-Stratford Iress . Inc.. New fork. 1o 5#.pp. 1-703. Kurtz. Russell 3.. (ed) VSIUVTZTPS IN SCCIAL WCVK. Social We ” Yearbook. National Association of Social We: hers. haw York. 10 3?. pp. 1-732.» mdem. Eduard Ce. ;.-"T‘TV.MT(‘VS CF VCR, ee'I'l'I'IIS IN CC‘N JI‘1H .45]. VICE L?! DO TH“! DO I“? Community Shes;s & Councils of America. Inc.. pp. 5-3.“ QPEnATTNG Pfificfinnnng Q: IAVVING EUVVAF June 6. 1951. pp. 1-2. s~~"“~nw~ nr~n”““"r“u rs“ A”""P*V" unav""mr s vcrrwrr""s. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. fiscember 8. 1933. pp. 1-}. THE LABSI"G JUTUVT”“? EU? ,AU. . News Release to Lansing State Journal. 1955. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. llHUTee :§|"VL 13G. February 16. 1953. pp.l-3. Velunteer Bureau Advisory Board. MINUTVS QELHEVTING. May 10. 195%. pp. 1-2. “I? Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. NIHUVVS FVETING. December 1%. l954.pp.l-}. Volunteer Bureau Advisory Board. MINUTES 9; MEETIVG. Kay 9. 1955. pp.l-3. n'r '- "n? hfivnn‘rfisv 7'70 vkl‘i erT ‘L‘_|_~ R ‘4. hiw A— Lot” Wilso net the nations g: “‘30 zVT’C"‘VhY. A talk given by Mrs. Robert Whitelsw Conference of Social Work. Cleveland. Ohio. June 2. 1953. 5—: {it | AP‘TWW‘ IX ‘ A . ...}-~ \ .sd 'I I'll-IR. _ f‘ 38 Appendix I The enclosei questionnaire is a part of a study being made to assist in the future planning for the ~ iendly Visitor Program in Lansing. A stamped. self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Your individual reply will be rcczcctcd as confiiential ‘information and gill_gg§|be subjecteJ—to public scrutiny or evaluation. Your prompt attention in completing this questionnaire will make possiblu the completion of this part of the study by "arCh 1. 19620 Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely. LOUiB Le Lovett. E09. 1. 2. 3. a. 5. 6. 39 Appendix II COMFIDWNTIAL Community Services Council Lansing, Hichigan February 9. 1962 FFIEflDLY VISITOR PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE Name of Agency Type of Service (a) Offered Financial Counselling Health Nursing Home Other (specifly) Does your Agency use Friendly Visitors? yes no (a) If Yes. how many? (b) If No. why not A 4‘— If available. would your agency use more Friendly Visitors? yes no Please list in order of importance those subjects which yo= feel should be incorporated in the orientation pregram given to Friendly isitore? '1. 2a 3. a. A‘ What duties do you feel that the Friendly Visitor could perform which would be most beneficial to your agency? 1. 2. 3. 1.. Appendix II Cont'ed CONFIDENTIAL Friendly Visitor Program Questionnaire Page 2 7. how does your agency request a Friendly Visitor for your clients? 8. 9. 10. Via written request Via telephone Via personal contact Other (specify) Do all of your workers know about the Friendly Visitor yes no program? Does your agency supervise the Friendly Visitors assigned yes no to your agency clients? (a) If No, who does supervise then? What service does your professional (paid) staff porterm. that you feel could be performed by a Friendly Visitor? #1 Appendix III CGHFIDS"TIAL Community Serviceo Council Lansing, Michigan Frebruary 9. 1952 EfllffiDLY VISITGR PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE ”I R7,. . Name 1. Age 2. Female 3. ”410 #. 8. 9. 10. 11. (optionefi Marital Status: Single Married Widowed Divorced Present Occupation. if any: Ai_ 7 A ___ If not employed. please state lest occupation A Please circle the number corresponding to highest number of years of education you have had: Grade School High School College Degree 12345678 123'» 1231; # .______ Do you feel that you were given adequate training to perform yes no the Friendly Vieitor duties assigned you? Are you satisfied with your Friendly Visitor assignment? yes no If dissatisfied. please number in numerical order of importanceo-l.2,3.etc. lack of supervision 1 Do not like persons that were assigned me I Wish to do more than Just visit Question the good I am really doing Do not feel that I an part of the Agency Feel inadequate to cape with cthere' problems Persons-being visited are too demanding Other (Specify) what has given you the greatest satisfaction in your role as a Friendly Visitor? #2 Appendix III Cont'ed CONFIDEETIAL Friendly Visitor Program Questionnaire Page 2 12. Please list. in order of importance. subjects which you feel should be included 13. Please indicate the number of hours 235 week that you now serve as a Friendly Visitor (a) How many additional hours could you serve. it needed? 1%. In your role as a Friendly Visitor. please check in the appropriate column the frequency with which you hate been asked to perfbrm any of these task. Once Occasionally Frequently (Two to Five Times) (Five or More Times) Assist with household budget Administer medication Advice on purchase of food Advice on purchase of clothing Perform some housekeeping chores ‘_Trannport individual to doctor Transport individual t0 hospital Transport individual to a Social Agency Do some counselling Take individual on an outing Refer individual to Social , Agency !Or help llll’illlllll ‘Other (Specify) Name ‘0. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ’43 Apyendix IV BONFIDENTIAL Community Services Council Lansing. Michigan February 9. 1952 FRISXDLY VISITOR PRJGEAH QUSSTIONJAIRE 1. A33 20171331313 30 Yale (optional)— Narital Status: Single fiarried widowed Divorced Ileasc state last occupation, if any: 49 Please circle the number corresponding to highest number of yeare'c! education you have had: Grade School High School College Degree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 h Please indicate by a check mark which of the following you are receiving: Aid to Dependent Children Cld Age Assistance Social Security Benefits Aid to the Diseblcd Aid to the Blind Company Pension Other (Specify) Did you request the service of a Friendly Visitor? I l yes no Did a caseworker from some social agency request the Friendly yes no Visitor for you? If flo. who requested a Friendly Visitor for you? Friend Church Business Acquaintance Other (Specify) at» Appendix IV Cont'ed CONFIDENTIAL Friendly Visitor Program Questionnaire Page 2 ll. 13. Please check which of the following best describes your health at present: Gooduoible to maintain own home. dress self, prepare own meals do own shopping. Fhir-Cannot maintain own home. but can dress self. prepare own meals. do own shopping. Poor-figonnot maintain own home. cannot prepare own meals, can dress self. can dow own shopping. Very Poor-Cannot maintain own home,canaot prepare own meals. need shelE with dressing. need helg with shopping. What has your Friendly Visitor done that has helped you the most? Please place a check mark in the space which you feel prorerly applies to yourself: Help Receiving Need help Not Needed Some Help But not Eeceiving It w I Assistance with household budget W W Need help with medication -—.-._-" ..—-._..- Advice in buying food Advice in buying clothing , Assistance with house chores Transportation to doctor _h_ Transportation to Hospital kA A Transportation to Social Agenc Need to be taken on outing cher: (Sgecify) COfiFIDEflTIAL Appendix IV Cont'ed Friendly Visitor Program Questionnaire Page 3 14. yes no Why? Do you like the Friendly Visitor Program? 45 Appendix V AGENCIES TAKING PART IN THIS STUD! American Red Cross Beadle Convalescent Home Bogus Nursing Home Capitol City Convalescent Center, Inc. # 1 Capitol City Convaloscent Center. Inc. # 2 Catholic Social Service. Inc. Family Service Agency Fairviev Convalescent Home Greater Lansing Visiting Nurses Association Holt Home. Inc. Ingham County Bureau of Social Aid Ingham County Chapter National Foundation Inghnn County Hospital and Rehabilitation Center Ingham County Society for Crippled Children Lansing Child Guidance Clinic Lansing Senior Citizens Drop-in Center Michigan Nursing Home Association Muscular DystrOphy Association Recovery. Inc. Roselswn Convalescent Home Shady Lawn Nursing Home United Cerebral Palsy Association of Lansing Returned questionnaire Appendix VI AGENCIES REPORTLD TO BE TAKING PART IN THE FRIENDLY VISITOR PROGRAM Beadle Convalescent Home Bogus Nursing Home Capitol City Convalescent Center. Inc.# 1 Capitol City Convalescent Center, Inc.# 2 Catholic Social Service, Inc. Family Service Agency Greater Lansing Visiting nurses Association Ingham County Bureau of Social Aid Roselawn Convalescent Home Shady Lawn Nursing Home Returned questionnaire #7 Vii "'TlTfl‘flfllfiLfijfllMfilfliflilflffliflilflflflfiflfifllfl'ES