Liliana Sousa

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS

WHEN INTERVENING WITH MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

Which strengths exist in the personal social networks of members of multi-problem

poor families? This is a crucial question at a time when a substantial amount of
data demonstrates the protector effect of social ties and the harmful effect of their
insufficiency in aspects such as well-being, personal development and social adjustment.
In addition, recent research has demonstrated that professionals are no longer the only
providers of solutions for the problems of families and individuals in need.
Therefore, personal networks must be involved so that intervention is based on the
competences and strengths of the family, its members and the social networks of these
elements.
With the aim of analyzing the strengths which exist in the personal social networks of
members of multi-problem poor families, a sample of 100 members of these families was
surveyed, using a structured interview, based on Sluzki (La red social: frontera de la
practica sistemica, Gedisa, Barcelona, 1996). The main results of this exploratory study
suggest that: strong family ties constitute a resource to be taken into account; friends and
neighbours are a resource that needs to be activated; the members of these families need to
develop more reciprocal relationships within their personal network; emotional support is
an open door towards the activation of other forms of support; it is necessary to give
special attention to two sub-groups (women and the elderly).
Keywords

personal networks; multi-problem families; network intervention

Introduction
The ways in which people relate to those around them is vitally important to the
quality of their lives. If we are to make a positive difference to the circumstances of
multi-problem poor families, it is essential to understand the ways in which they
relate to and are inter-dependent with the significant people in their personal
networks. Personal networks are stable but evolving relationships constituted by
family members, friends and acquaintances, work and study connections, and
relationships that evolve out of participation in formal and informal organizations
(Sluzki, 2000).
Journal of Social Work Practice Vol. 19, No. 2, July 2005, pp. 163179
ISSN 0265-0533 print/ISSN 1465-3885 online 2005 GAPS
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/02650530500144766

164

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Over recent decades, there has been an increasing interest in conceptualizing

human behaviour in the context of large family and social systems (Imber-Black,
1988; Colapinto, 1995; Sluzki, 1996, 2000). The personal network has the unique
quality of being both centred on the individual and focused on relational systems. It is
individual-centred because it is always based on a particular informant; and it is ecosystemic since it includes as a minimal unit of analysis the meaningful social
environment as a whole.
Furthermore, recent developments have indicated that professionals are no longer
the only providers of solutions; so informal personal networks must also be involved,
requiring new competences from professionals. Instead of prescriptive expertise,
mobilizing skills are called for (Seikkula et al., 2003). Therefore, it becomes
extremely important to gain a better understanding of the strengths of personal
networks in order to use them as keys to solutions.
This topic gains particular importance regarding multi-problem poor families
since they represent a particular case regarding personal networks; informal networks
tend to be unstable since members of these families often lack the necessary social
skills for maintaining relationships (Macdonald et al., 1998). Moreover, since they are
characterized by the presence of a chain of problems affecting an indeterminate
number of members, and social agencies are almost always organized in accordance
with areas of intervention, the formal personal networks of these families are
characterized by interaction with a multiplicity of practitioners and social agencies.
Thus, this exploratory study focuses on strengths in personal networks of
members of multi-problem poor families. The data was collected through a structured
interview based on the model of Sluzki (1996), which included the following
variables, divided into two main dimensions: structural size, density, composition,
dispersion, reciprocity and frequency of contacts; and functional relational
proximity and contents (emotional support, guidance, social regulation, instrumental
assistance, financial assistance, access to new contacts, social company and
professional help).

Personal networks of multi-problem poor family members

The personal network is a network centred on a specific individual, which includes
two types of relationships: informal, involving individuals with personal affinities, in a
non-institutional context; and formal, comprising a set of individuals with the same
function within an institutional framework.
Sluzki (1996) argues that the concept of personal network was developed and
refined in cumulative, but disordered forms by a series of authors, among whom stand
out: Kurt Lewin (1952) (field theory); Jacob Moreno (1951) (sociogram); John
Barnes (1954, 1972) (first used the concept to study a small community); Elizabeth
Bott (1957) (demonstrated how morphological characteristics of networks could be
related to marital role segregation); and Erich Lindeman (1979) (studied the
importance of personal social network on the co-determination of a crisis event
effect).
Over recent decades, the network approach has begun to emerge as a potentially
useful theoretical model for the analysis and description of complex social systems and

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

interactions, as well as for intervention. A substantial and growing body of data is

showing both the protective effect of social ties and the detrimental effect of
insufficient ties on health and well-being (e.g. Schoenbach et al., 1986; Erickson,
1984).
Personal social networks play a fundamental role in any persons life, their
main functions being: to protect the individual from stress related to environment
pressure; to attenuate, prevent or even collaborate in the treatment of physical
diseases and emotional disorders; to offer support in some life events and in social
integration; to promote well-being; it is one of the main keys of the individual
experience of identity, contributing to self-recognition (Sluzki, 1996, 2000; Speck &
Attneave, 1973). In this context, personal networks of multi-problem poor families
can play an important role mainly due to the specific characteristics of these types of
families.
Multi-problem families are characterized by the presence of severe symptoms
affecting an indeterminate number of members. However, individual symptoms play a
minor role when compared to family symptoms namely, the tendency towards
chaos and disorganization (Linares, 1997). Incorrectly, multi-problem families have
consistently been connected to poverty and low socio-economic status. Actually lowincome families constitute a more visible group and an important core, but a family
matching the definition can be found in any social, cultural and economic context.
Research has given little attention to personal networks of multi-problem poor
families despite the widespread intervention programmes based on this model.
Nevertheless, there is some research focusing on personal networks of low-income,
depressed and excluded families, or rather, focusing on individuals experiencing
problems with a high incidence among members of multi-problem poor families, such
as: mental health, psychosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism.
Briefly, some characteristics of personal social networks of multi-problem poor
families are portrayed. Typically they are homogeneous, closed, and unstable and tend
to be dominated by often critical, unsupportive relatives. They do not provide the
kind of tangible aid, advice and guidance, or social and emotional support that parents
often call on, to help with parenting. The personal networks tend to be dominated by
relatives who are critical, rather than supportive, interactions may be frequent but not
very helpful. The members of their social networks in general share and reinforce the
neglectful parenting norms and behaviour. Macdonald et al. (1998) argue that
members of these families often lack the necessary social skills to maintain
relationships, already weak linkages tend to break down, leaving family members
isolated and lonely.

Networking approach with multi-problem poor families

Network intervention was originated in the United States of America in the late1960s, especially through the work of Ross Speck and Carolyn Attneave (1973), with
implications for both social and mental health care. Network therapy flourished
during the 1970s when therapists developed a wider repertoire for collaborating in
building, supporting, and restoring caring personal communities (Seikkula et al.,
2003). Network intervention originally meant mobilizing full-scale network meetings

165

166

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

around crisis situations, but over time this orientation became a problem, since
meetings could involve 3050 people and therapists experienced difficulty in learning
how to take charge of network meetings. Additionally, some network therapists
became critical of the method, particularly concerning the strong emotions generated
during and after the meetings (Garrison, 1981). In the late 1980s, Imber-Black (1988)
offered a pioneering model for understanding the familys multiple relationships with
formal support systems.
Although traditional network interventions have decreased, the central ideas of
network bonds around clients have been used and developed. Network therapy
crossed over to Europe during the late 1980s, when the basic idea that various clusters
of people are important factors in a clients life provided the opportunity to integrate
the work of different authorities in the same crisis situation. Professional work began
to take place collaboratively instead of each expert working separately with the client
according to the principles of his/her profession. Such development occurred in
Portugal especially with low-income families.
Practitioners have been more ready to accept the idea of networking amongst
themselves, than to invite people from the clients personal networks (Hespanha et al.,
2000; Cerqueira et al., 2003; Seikkula et al., 2003). The latter course posed a greater
challenge to conventional expertise, but the urgent need for additional problemsolving resources encouraged experts to take steps in this direction. This meant a
considerable challenge to the concept of expertise. It is no longer the professional
alone who holds the solutions. New competences were required from the
professionals: instead of prescriptive expertise, mobilization skills were called for
(Seikkula et al., 2003). The clients network is no more an object for intervention, but
rather an irreplaceable resource for proceeding.
Multi-problem poor families have been defined and conceptualized essentially
based on their incompetence: isolated families (Powell & Monahan, 1969) whose
separation from extended family and community is underlined; excluded families
(Thierney, 1976) who are highlighted as detached from institutional and social
contexts; under-organized families (Aponte, 1976) whose structural dysfunctional
aspects are pointed out; anti-social families (Voiland, 1962) where recurrent episodes
of deviant behaviours are noted; and disengaged families (Minuchin et al., 1967).
As a consequence, the involvement with social agencies tends to be affected by
two main problems: substitution and fragmentation, which both result in the increase
in families incompetence. In particular, professionals have the tendency to try to
substitute parents an especially difficult task since parents and children share deep
and lasting relationships. Additionally, the multiplication of social agencies involved
increases the difficulty of bringing together the different strands of the process, since
each agency protects its services from interference from the others, thus
fragmentation is promoted. As a result the dilution of the family process in the
social services (Colapinto, 1995) is promoted. For example, the focus of family
activities shifts from interpersonal dynamics to interaction with social workers. As a
result, intervention generates feelings of incompetence in the family and incites
defensive and secretive feelings (Doherty & Beaton, 2000). Principally, this attitude
takes responsibility away from the families and complicates the emergence and
activation of family competences (Ausloos, 1996). In consequence, the relevance of

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

building intervention on the strengths of personal networks emerges when intervening

with multi-problem poor families.

Objectives
This exploratory study aims at gaining a better understanding of the strengths of
multi-problem poor families personal networks in order to use them as keys to
solutions. This research was carried out in Portugal, where these goals gain a special
meaning because social agencies and health services are poorly articulated. In our
country, assistance to families in need is provided by public and private organizations
(these are usually financed by the State). Recently some efforts have been made to
improve articulation and partnership, mainly by creating multi-disciplinary teams
involving professionals from various institutions, but other steps need to be taken, in
particular, the involvement of families and their personal networks. It thus becomes
relevant to study and analyze the potential of the informal networks, so that the
professionals may incorporate more fully the target population in the intervention.

Method
This exploratory study is based on the perceptions of the actors in their personal
networks. It was decided to study the personal social networks of the heads of the
households of multi-problem poor families because the personal social network
(where the focal point is an individual) is the most operational, the one that has been
most thoroughly explored, not only as an instrument of analysis but also of
intervention. In addition it has the unique quality of centring on the individual and
simultaneously on the relational system (Sluzki, 2000; Erickson, 1984); the head of
the household is the family member that functions as the connecting link to the social
services.
Data was gathered through structured interviews based on Sluzki (1996) with a
view to obtaining a picture of the personal network as perceived by the subjects. As
this study constitutes an exploratory approach, this method was selected on account of
its capacity to discover new directions in the search for deeper understanding of the
topic. The subjects were asked to:
Please identify people around you that have helped you during the last six
months. Think about your family, friends, workmates, school, church, and
neighbour; you may also receive support from a particular organization as well.
Table 1 describes the interview and each of the variables. The sample comprises
100 heads of multi-problem poor households, previously identified and characterized
by social workers. They were contacted by the social workers and agreed to
participate; researchers went to their home to administer the questionnaire.
Respondents were identified by gender, age, household type, and professional
status. The age mean of the sample is 49.2, ranging from 19 to 89 (standarddeviation: 18.1), and females represent 72% of the total subjects. The professional

167

168

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

TABLE 1 Description of the interview and variables
question

variable

definition

dimension 1. structure basic morphological characteristics of the network

list the names of all the most important people

size

to you during the last six months

identify each personal sector (family, friends,

total number of people

listed by the subject

composition

neighbours, workmates or social services)

proportion of the
network members that
are placed in each sector

who knows who in the network?

density

connection between the

members, beyond the
focal person; in a
network containing n
people there are n(n21)/
2 possible linkages

specify the geographical distance between your

dispersion

residence and the residence of each member of

accessibility of network
members

your network (1 living in the same house; 2

living in the same neighbourhood; 3 living in
the same city or village; 4 living up to 50 km
away; 5 living more than 50 km away)
who asks you for support? (1 never, 2 rarely,

reciprocity

if the focal person fulfils

3 sometimes, 4 frequently, 5 always); and,

the same or equivalent

what level of support is given by you? (1 none;

functions in the network

2 little, 3 moderate, 4 much, 5 very much)

specify the frequency of contacts with each

frequency of

accessibility of network

member of the network (1 every day; 2 more

contacts

members

than once a week; 3 weekly; 4 some times per

month; 5 some times per year)
dimension 2. functions contents available and performed by the network
specify the level of support received from each

relational

member in each of the following eight* areas (0

proximity

non-supportive; 1 low; 2 low medium; 3

content

medium-high; 4 high)

all support in all sectors

contents or functions
assured by the network

* Areas of support: Emotional support any action that functions to assist the focal person in
meeting his/her personal goals or in dealing with the demands of any particular situation. Guidance
provision of information or supervision on how to achieve a certain goal or complete a particular
task. Social regulation any interactions that function to remind and re-affirm the focal persons
responsibilities and roles, avoiding deviations from social expectancies. Instrumental assistance
any action in forms of material assistance. Financial assistance any action in the form of money
assistance. Access to new contacts any interactions that functions to assist the focal person to get
in touch with new people. Social company any relationship that involves carrying out joint
activities. Professional support based on technical/expert support services.

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

situation category reveals: 31% retired; 31% employed; 23% unemployed; 15%
housewives. Dominant types of families are: nuclear families (33%), and large families
(29%). The others are: elderly (living alone or with other elderly) 19%; single
parent 16%; single adult 3%.

Results
Size
The overall mean size of the sample is 6.2 ranging from 0 to 23 (standard-deviation:
4.3). According to Erickson (1984), the average size expected of an effective personal
network of an adult is usually around six members. Consistent with this formulation
the variable was organized into three categories: small size (05) 50%, medium
size (611) 42% and large size (1323) 8%. Results suggest a low percentage
of large size networks and a higher percentage of small and medium size networks.
Sluzki (1996) deems that the medium size personal networks are the most
effective. A minimum size network is less effective in high stress situations, because
the members tend to move away (can not handle any more) or to overload. On the
other hand, an extended network can be inactive since each member supposes that
someone else has already provided help to the person in need.
Network size was compared by gender and age through the calculation of
expected versus observed frequencies. Data suggests that female networks are
significantly smaller; regarding age, no significant statistical differences were found.

Composition
Sluzki (1996) indicates that a personal network centred in one or two sectors
(quadrants) is less effective and flexible, generating fewer options than larger
compositions. In order to understand the personal networks of the sample the number
of sectors with members was calculated as follows: 0 sectors 2%; one sector
15%; two sectors 42%; three sectors 26%; four sectors 13%; five sectors
2%. Thus, networks present a tendency to include two or three sectors, and less
frequently, networks with four or five sectors. The networks of the members of the
sample are centred essentially on a reduced number of quadrants.
It is important to point out that in relation to the professionals quadrant, only
39% of the elements of the sample identified an element in this quadrant. This
reference is relevant because all these subjects and their families have frequent contact
with various professionals.
No significant statistical differences were found in gender and age. The
comparison according to the professional status suggests that the unemployed have
fewer sectors (one or two sectors) in their network than the employed (two or three
sectors), which is understandable since having a job facilitates new acquaintances.
It is also important to study the weight of each sector in the personal networks;
table 2 shows the mean weight of each sector for the sample. The family is the main
group, followed by friends, neighbours and, at the bottom, workmates and social
services.

169

170

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

TABLE 2 Mean weight of each sector in the personal social networks

distribution

mean

minimum

0.49

maximum

standard deviation

weight of each sector (mean)

family

0.3

friends

0.24

0.3

neighbours

0.15

0.2

workmates

0.05

0.8

0.1

social services

0.09

0.5

0.1

All means are different for p,0.01, except the pair workmates versus social services.

Density
Density was calculated using the formula: n(n21)/2. Sluzki (1996) considered that a
medium density (fragmented) promotes the network efficacy; this type of network is
organized in sub-groups that know each other, but do not know the other sub-group.
A high level of density (cohesive) means that all the members know each other which
facilitates conformity among the members and promotes passivity. A low level of
density (dispersed) reduces the efficacy of the network because the members do not
have contact amongst themselves; this network is characterized by the absence of links
between the members, their only linkage being the focal person.
The results of density were: cohesive (0.661) 77%; fragmented (0.330.66)
15%; dispersed (00.33) 8%. The personal networks of the sample show a
high level of cohesion. Density was measured according to gender and no statistically
significant differences were found. The comparison between the age groups showed
that density increases with age, so older people have networks with higher levels of
cohesion (statistically different for p,0.05, LSD Test).

Dispersion
Dispersion indicates the geographical distance between each member and the focal
person; accessibility affects the networks sensibility to individual variations and its
capacity to provide prompt and effective support in a crisis. When the distance
between the focal person and the members of his/her network is high, the personal
network reveals less sensitivity to the subject variations, so the reaction to a crisis is
slower. Results show that, in general, members are close enough to be aware of the
focal persons needs; neighbours are the members living closest, followed by family,
friends, social services and workmates. Dispersion is not affected by gender or
network size, but varies with age; the elderly show less geographical distance than the
active age group (3664 years) (statistically different for p,0.05, LSD Test).

Relational proximity
The level of relational proximity represents the mean of all types of support in all
sectors (table 3). The sample presents a rather low level of relational proximity; the

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

TABLE 3 Level of relational proximity (means and correlations)

mean

min

max

standard

1.0

deviation
1. global

1.4

0.2

3.1

0.6

2. family

1.5

0.7

0.12

3. friends

1.4

3.2

0.8

20.29

1.0

0.57

1.00

4. neighbours

1.0

2.2

0.6

0.24

0.86*

0.07

1.0

5. workmates

1.1

2.3

0.8

20.97*

0.10

0.42

20.05

1.00

6. social services

1.4

3.1

0.7

20.78*

0.37

0.82*

20.01

0.86*

* Significant for p,0.05.

global rate is 1.4 (on a scale ranging from 0 to 4) which can be interpreted as low or
low-medium support. Family constitutes the main support sector followed by friends,
social services, workmates and neighbours.
Regarding professionals, although they are one of the sectors with less weight in
the social networks studied, their level of relational proximity is identical to the
friends sector (1.4), friends being the second quadrant with the most weight in the
studied networks.
Correlations (table 3) show that the global level of relational proximity is
negatively related to workmates and social services relational proximity. The data
seems to indicate that the subjects with less support from the most frequent support
sources (family and friends) tend to develop closer relations with co-workers and
professionals.
The relational proximity of the family and neighbours is positive and significantly
correlated. The support of the social services and friends is positively and significantly
correlated, indicating that the people with more relational proximity with friends also
have more proximity with the social services. The relational proximity with coworkers and social services is correlated, also, in a positive and significant manner.
Comparison by gender shows that the global level of relational proximity is
higher in women and statistically significant (p,0.05). Regarding age, the global
relational proximity is lower in the older group (6589 years) and significantly
different from a statistical (p,0.05) point of view. This difference is mainly explained
by the relational proximity with friends, which is significantly lower for that group.
Size is also related with relational proximity, so the large size group reveals less
relational proximity.

Contents
Regarding functions assured by the network, table 4 shows that emotional support is
the most accomplished function. On the contrary, access to new contacts and
professional support are the least undertaken. In general, all contents are highly
correlated, meaning that higher support in one area denotes higher support in the
others. But there is one exception: professional support is only positive and
significantly correlated to access to new contacts and social regulation.

171

172

mean

min

max

standard

deviation
1. emotional

2.9

0.7

0.8

1.00

2. financial

1.1

1.1

0.35*

1.00

3. instrumental

1.2

0.9

0.34*

0.35*

1.0

4. professional

0.5

3.3

0.7

0.17

0.15

0.15

1.0

5. guidance

1.8

1.1

0.54*

0.39*

0.22

0.16

1.0

6. new contacts

0.9

1.0

0.31*

0.34*

0.29*

0.39*

0.44*

1.0

7. company

1.8

0.9

0.46*

0.30*

0.41*

0.38*

0.27*

1.0

8. regulation

1.1

0.9

0.36*

0.24

0.20

0.55*

0.40*

0.27*

* Significant for p,0.05.

20.02
0.30*

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

TABLE 4 Personal networks contents (means and correlations)

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

Contents according to gender were compared through means (LSD Test;

p,0.05). In general, women receive more support, but the support is significantly
higher (p,0.05) only in three areas: emotional, guidance and social regulation. The
comparison of means by age category suggests that the older group receives less
support in the various areas, and the difference is statistically significant in four:
financial, guidance, access to new contacts and social regulation. The small size
networks show a higher level of support in the different areas; however, this
difference is significant only in three areas: instrumental, access to new contacts and
professional support.
Then support content versus sector was calculated. Family is the main support
sector, occupying the leading position in six of the eight contents considered. The two
exceptions are professional support and access to new contacts, which are both led by
the professional sector.

Reciprocity
The level of reciprocity is low, only evident in 50% of the cases. Reciprocity is not
related to size or gender. Concerning age, the older group has a low level of
reciprocity, significantly different from the others.

Frequency of contacts
Regarding the frequency of contacts, results suggest a mean of 2.1, which can be
estimated as, at least, weekly contact. Contact frequency does not vary with gender
or size. Older people show a higher frequency in contacts with friends, and a lower
frequency with social services (statistically significant differences).

Strengths and constraints of multi-problem poor family members

personal networks
Family ties an unexpected resource (or maybe not)
The family emerges as the main sector of support for the heads of households of multiproblem poor families. However, these findings can be interpreted either from a positive
or a negative perspective. A negative perspective suggests that members of these families
lack the necessary social skills to maintain relationships and therefore, tend to maintain
their networks centred on the family (Macdonald et al., 1998). This is reinforced by the
data which shows that the levels of relational proximity in the networks of the
interviewed are low. The levels of relational proximity with the family are equally
low although they constitute the sector where the relational proximity is highest. A
positive perspective shows that family is the sector with which individuals have high
levels of relational proximity, which is consistent with what happens in most families
in the Portuguese context. Additionally, the family is the main source of support in
six of the eight areas studied: financial, instrumental, emotional, counselling, social
regulation, and company. These findings show that family members have a strong
emotional bond and make efforts to be supportive, despite the probable lack of
personal, financial and/or supportive resources (Linares, 1997).

173

174

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Friends a resource to be activated

Friends emerge as a second sector of support in the personal networks of multiproblem poor families members. Several perspectives could be associated with these
results: the dramatic contours of problems lived by these families probably drive
dynamism into the community (Linares, 1997); the friends, equally, tend to be
members of dysfunctional families and/or they live in precarious situations, and,
therefore, they do not constitute a new contribution. In no circumstance does the
presence of a second sector permit a diversification of the resources in the network,
which is most important in the case of these networks which are very cohesive and
family centred. Yet, friendship requires more maintenance for exchange support,
constrained as friends are by norms of reciprocity. Thus, the low levels of reciprocity
of the sample can be a threat to the maintenance and deepening of these
relationships. The relational proximity with friends is correlated in a positive and
statistically significant way with the support proceeding from the social services, thus
friends are revealed as an important link with the formal support services.

Emotional support an open door to other forms of support

Emotional support is the prevalent function, revealing (at least) a medium level of
intimacy. Furthermore, high levels of support in one area are positively correlated to
the availability of other types of support. Emotional support is widely offered within
the personal networks of the subjects, which means the accessibility of a person with
whom one can discuss problems and share feelings. Guidance, meaning support in the
form of advice and information, is also available on a medium scale. On the other
hand, instrumental support and access to new contacts are less available, revealing a
constraint, since in poor families instrumental support represents an important need
due to the lack of means to access elementary resources for daily life, and the contact
with new and different networks provides an important element to learn new skills
and ways to interact with others. Consequently, members of the network already
providing emotional support should be mobilized in order to make available other
forms of support.

Low levels of reciprocity

The low levels of reciprocity constitute a weakness in the personal networks studied.
Exchanges based on reciprocity have the tendency to develop long-term relationships;
in contrast, market-oriented exchanges or the exchanging of benefits and services
realized on the basis of a bureaucratic norm do not imply the obligation of future
repayment. The primary social exchange is socialization (small talk, brief visits), then
other different forms of reciprocity may take place: help with domestic work such as
exchange of benefits. Since multi-problem poor families have low social skills, they
are limited in socialization, and should learn to improve these competences.
Furthermore, it is important to understand what type of competences focal persons
have and how they could repay the received support. However, a positive perspective
can, again, be established: as members are already responding, even if at a low level,
perhaps they can be mobilized to increase that level.

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

Two special sub-groups: women and elderly

Women reveal smaller, but more supportive, networks. So, fewer members provide
higher levels of relational proximity, especially concerning emotional support,
guidance and social regulation. The importance of women in informal personal
networks is well documented in national and international research (such as,
Hespanha et al., 2000; Minuchin et al., 1998), emphasizing their role as mediators in
contacts with social services.
Older people have personal networks characterized by: lower relational
proximity, especially due to lack of friends, more cohesion, less geographical
distance and lower reciprocity. Old age is inevitably accompanied by a progressive
loss of the supportive ties through death or distancing by migration or relocation.
Additionally, old age carries with it an exponential progression of physical
weaknesses. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult for the older individuals
to carry on those tasks of network maintenance (Sluzki, 2000). Elderly members
of the sample reported to receive poorer support than the other subjects in the
following areas: economic support, guidance, access to new contacts and social
regulation.

The practitioners role in social networks

Multi-problem poor families have frequent contacts with various professionals. The
members of the families who constitute our sample are the heads of households, who
function normally as the connecting link with the institutions. In these circumstances,
it was expected that the professionals would form a relevant sector in the social
networks of the interviewed. However, it was verified that only 39% of those
interviewed had indicated members in their networks belonging to the professional
sector. We can still observe that the interviewed with less support on the part of the
family tend to reveal a greater relational proximity with professionals. This result can
be interpreted in two ways: when there is less support from the family, the subjects
tend to look for support in the other sectors, and professionals are available; or when
some member of a family gets involved with the professionals, the dilution of the
family process in the social systems tends to occur (Colapinto, 1995). In this second
circumstance, the professionals will have to consider their actions, for they are
substituting the family in their functions, instead of helping them to assume
responsibility in their own process.
Although the professionals are not frequently mentioned, they are the second
sector with most relational proximity. When professionals become significant enough
to the subjects that they can be considered members of their social network, they
establish a close relationship. However, the subjects interviewed consider that
instrumental and economic support on the part of the professionals is low.
The support given by professionals appears correlated in a significant (and
positive) way with access to new contacts and social regulation. The fact that the
professionals are the connecting link with new people and systems is fundamental for
individuals whose social networks tend to be cohesive and family centred. Social
regulation is an equally important function for members of families who move away
from social norms and, therefore, are at greater risk of exclusion.

175

176

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Implications for practice

Fostering reciprocity between subjects and network elements
To maintain social relations it is essential to know how to be reciprocal. The sample
members tend to be less reciprocal, which can occur for two reasons: subjects are not
solicited; or if solicited, they are unable to respond. The non-maintenance of
reciprocity can dismantle the relationship or make it asymmetrical, which could upset
the subjects.
Thus the focal person in the network will have to be capable of identifying: how
he/she can be reciprocal, what he/she can give, what he/she would like to be able to
give. At the same time, it is important to explore the perceptions of the members of
the personal network. Where could the focal person be reciprocal and does not make
the effort to be so? What support do they need and would they like to receive from
this person?

Activating the functionality of the network

The levels of relational proximity are low, emotional support being the most
outstanding. Emotional support is correlated in a positive and significant way with the
other types of support; thus, emotional support could be a starting-point for the
activation of other types of support. The functionality of the network still demands
the promotion of instrumental support and access to new contacts; instrumental
support because these families live in a situation of need and access to new contacts
because it allows a greater openness to other forms of social relationships and, also, to
jobs, health and other social goods. The professionals appear as the sector which most
permits access to new contacts, thus they will be able to use this functionality to
include new members in the network.

Making use of the potential of family ties

Multi-problem poor families are mostly seen as incapable and dysfunctional, but at
the same time they have positive aspects and competences, mainly relational
proximity, influenced to a large extent by emotional support. Family is the source of
the most important support in all areas and the most multifarious. In practice, these
ties should be valued and not rejected, despite these families not being competent in
action.

Rethinking the role of the professionals

In the networks studied, the informal networks have more weight than the formal
ones. In a networking intervention the principle objective is to endow the network
with competences so that it can progress on its own. Thus, a question must be
discussed: should the professionals get involved in the network so that they become
effective members, even if only for a limited period of time, or should they remain
peripheral? The work carried out does not allow us to answer this question, but it
raises some topics for reflection: a major involvement of professionals may lead the

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

members of the network to delegate to the professional their main responsibilities,

and therefore, to have difficulties in making the network assume leadership of the
process.
According to Sharry (2001), the functioning of a network concerning the
facilitator/practitioner should follow a process of encouraging group-centred
interaction, alternating between facilitator-centred and network-centred. When
facilitator-centred, the group members look to the facilitator for leadership and to
directly guide the group. This generally occurs when there is a high dependence on
the facilitator for guidance and orientation. When group-centred interactions
dominate the group process, the members interact directly with each other, rather
than in turns via the facilitator. There may be times in which the facilitator-centred
group process is appropriate and indeed desirable. However, if the full power of
group dynamics is to be activated, the group members must move to a point where
they interact directly with one another and assume co-leadership of the group process.
Thus, facilitators have a responsibility to encourage group-centred interactions and
decentre themselves from the group process.

Final remarks
Successful interventions with families experiencing many problems require the
delivery of a broad range of concrete, supportive community services from multiple
sources and a combination of individual, family and group methods. The most
successful interventions with multi-problem poor families include family members
and appeal to informal and formal networks rather than focusing only on the client
(Minuchin et al., 1998; Imber-Black, 1988). When described in relational terms, a
persons problems are not his or hers alone. This revitalizes the sense of community
and provides discursive options that centralize our relational engagement.
The main strengths of the personal networks studied are: family ties constitute an
important resource; friends are a resource to be activated; emotional support is an
open door to other forms of support. So, the strengths of personal networks can be
used as a key for solutions so that the existing personal network of heads of
households of multi-problem poor families may widen, become more flexible and
more functional. Furthermore, the purpose of the networking approach is to render a
system flexible enough to be capable of dealing effectively with its own crises. In
order to do this, the practitioners are catalysts, agents of change, who in the long run
will not remain within the system in crisis.
Briefly, it is important to underline the main limitations of this research: the
methodology used is a static approach, which dimmed the evolving features of
personal networks; only the personal networks of the heads of households have been
studied. It is important to analyse the personal networks of the various members of
the family in order to understand how they relate and complement each other.
In terms of research perspectives, it is important to use a methodology which
combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies to allow the extension of the
characteristics of relationships and to deepen the study of the role of the social
networks in these families, from the clients point of view.

177

178

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Daniela Figueiredo, Susana Pires, Carla Eusebio and
Margarida Cerqueira for their participation in data collection and data analysis. This
study was funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (39644/SOC/
2001).

References
Aponte, H. (1976) Under organization in the poor family, in Family Therapy: Theory and
Practice, ed. P. Guerin, Gardner Press, New York, pp. 432448.
Ausloos, G. (1996) A competencia das famlias, Climepsi Editores, Lisboa.
Cerqueira, M., Pires, S., Figueiredo, D., Matos, A. & Sousa, L. (2003) Os problemas
das famlias multiproblematicas, Revista Servico Social & Sociedade, vol. 76,
pp. 143164.
Colapinto, J. (1995) Dilution of family process in social services: implications for
treatment of neglectful families, Family Process, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 5974.
Doherty, W. & Beaton, J. (2000) Family therapists, community and civic renewal,
Family Process, vol. 39, pp. 149161.
Erickson, G. (1984) A framework and themes for social network intervention, Family
Process, vol. 23, pp. 187198.
Garrison, J. (1981) Clinical construction of action social network, International Journal of
Family Therapy, vol. 3, pp. 258267.
Hespanha, P., Monteiro, A., Ferreira, A., Rodrigues, F., Nunes, M., Hespanha, M., Van
Den Hoven, R. & Portugal, S. (2000) Entre o Estado e o Mercado, Quarteto Editora,
Coimbra.
Imber-Black, E. (1988) Families and Larger Systems: A Family Therapists Guide Through the
Labyrinth, The Guilford Press, New York.
Linares, J. (1997) Modelo sistemico y famlia multiproblematica, in La intervencion
sistemica en los servicios sociales ante la familia multiproblematica, eds M. Coletti &
J. Linares, Paidos, Barcelona, pp. 2344.
Macdonald, E., Jackson, H., Hayes, R., Bagloni, A. & Madden, C. (1998) Social skill as a
determinant of social networks and perceived social support in schizophrenia,
Schizofrenia Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 275286.
Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J. & Minuchin, S. (1998) Working with Families of the Poor, The
Guilford Press, New York.
Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B., Rosman, B. & Schumer, F. (1967) Families of
the Slums, Basic Books, New York.
Powell, M. & Monahan, J. (1969) Reaching the reject through multifamily group
therapy, International Journal of Groups Psychotherapy, vol. 19, pp. 118.
Schoenbach, V., Kalan, B., Friedman, L. & Kleinbach, D. (1986) Social ties and
mortality in Evans County, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 123, pp. 577591.
Seikkula, J., Arnkil, T. & Erikson, E. (2003) Postmodern society and social networks:
open and anticipation dialogues in network meetings, Family Process, vol. 42,
pp. 185203.
Sharry, J. (2001) Solution-focused Groupwork, Sage, London.
Sluzki, C. (1996) La red social: frontera de la practica sistemica, Gedisa, Barcelona.

BUILDING ON PERSONAL NETWORKS: MULTIPROBLEM POOR FAMILIES

Sluzki, C. (2000) Social network and the elderly, Family Process, vol. 39, no. 3,
pp. 271284.
Speck, R. & Attneave, C. (1973) Family Networks, Pantheon, New York.
Thierney, L. (1976) Excluded Families, Columbia University Press, New York.
Voiland, A. (1962) Family Casework Diagnosis, Columbia University Press, New York.
Liliana Sousa is Auxiliary Professor at the University of Aveiro. Address: Health
Sciences Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal. [email:
Lilianax@cs.ua.pt]

179