1 / 10

Inappropriate Mainstream Services

Inappropriate Mainstream Services. Hellman et al 1989. heterosexual bias in treatment and evaluation (including either focussing primarily on sexual orientation when inappropriate or ignoring important factors linked with sexuality),

malloren
Télécharger la présentation

Inappropriate Mainstream Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Inappropriate Mainstream Services

  2. Hellman et al 1989 • heterosexual bias in treatment and evaluation (including either focussing primarily on sexual orientation when inappropriate or ignoring important factors linked with sexuality), • ignorance about lesbian/gay issues and discomfort at approaching matters of sexuality, • ignorance about the inter-relation of homosexuality and alcohol misuse, • lesbians and gays felt discomfort in the mainly heterosexual environment of agencies and were fearful of being viewed as pathological or stereotyped.

  3. Neisen & Sandall (1990) • difficulty in being open about their sexual orientation due to fear of staff/client harassment, • staff telling them it wasn't acceptable to discuss sexual orientation, • some were forced to disclose their sexual orientation, • as soon as their sexuality was known, some were discharged, • some said that after disclosure the treatment they received was different due to an atmosphere of condemnation, • some feared that if their sexual orientation was known about this would receive more emphasis than their chemical dependency, • some services were not happy having their partner attend a family programme.

  4. O’Hanlan (1996) • the majority of detoxification and rehabilitation programmes were insensitive to issues of sexual orientation and did not, generally, encourage its disclosure; • homophobia limits the success of recovery and treatment for lesbian substance abusers (Hall, 1990; de Monteflores, 1986); • failure to acknowledge sexual orientation makes relapse more likely (Cabaj, 1992); • lesbians were more likely to attend treatment services which address lesbian social issues and provide lesbian counsellors (Hall,1986, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994; Morales & Graves, 1983).

  5. Other Issues • Rofes (1989): traditional networks which people use to support recovery: family, church, school, employers, are often closed to LGBs • Hawkins (1976): closet gays attend het-oriented AA groups: detrimental effects as key to sobriety is “open and honest relationship with one’s peers.”

  6. Bridget (1994) • more than half of the 121 respondents never discussed sexual orientation with their clients, • only a handful had had training and supervision in relation to lesbian clients, • the majority had little knowledge about the treatment and evaluation of lesbian alcohol misusers, • 84% felt able to treat lesbian clients, • 67% said they would like training on these issues.

  7. Mainstream Services in Britain • 1991-1992 Alcohol Directory: 120 agencies welcomed LGB people • 1998-1999 Alcohol Directory: 17 agencies make special provision for LGB people • Alcohol Concern, 2002: only 7% of users of 450 alcohol treatment agencies in UK LGB

  8. Specialist/Gay-friendly • DASL • Hungerford Project • Blackpool • Piccadilly Project, Bradford • Others • LGB AAs

  9. Making Services Accessible • Acknowledge problem • Conduct training needs assessment • Homophobia awareness training • Policies, procedures • Specialist worker/provision • Publicise service • Links with local LGBT orgs • Evaluate and monitor

  10. Pros/Cons of separate provision • Is there a need to debate? Need both • Closet LGBs (most vulnerable) not likely to attend separate LGB therefore crucial mainstream accessible, knowledgeable • Specialist provision (could be within LGB org or alcohol treatment agency)

More Related