Social Work with People Practicing Same-Sex ... - ILGA Europe

1. Follow-up model (establishment of centres that can perform social programmes at
the venues frequented by the target group and that are located beyond key social
service provision sites);
2. Mobile model (work at the institutional structures, such as hostels, specialized
residence houses, community centres, hospitals or prisons);
3. Remote model (contacts with people beyond the institutional structures, e.g., in
the streets, shops, bars, near school gates, etc.);
4. Home-based model (home visits to work with people, or provision of home-based
social services) 1 .
Specialists of harm reduction programmes indicate the following models:
1. Street outreach work — in the streets, bars/cafe/clubs, railway stations, “pleshkis“
etc.;
2. Home-based outreach work;
3. Outreach work at the places of temporary stay of the clients — prisons, clinics,
etc. 2
The outreach work modes significantly differ by their content and structure. So, if
classification is based on the elements of outreach team and methods of involvement,
then the following models can be singled out: leadership model, peer education model,
recruiting and supervisory model.
Leadership model: leaders are involved to establish contacts with target group in its
environment. MSM leader is a respected person who serves a role model and the leader's
advice may be the most persuading for other MSM. Leaders influence the development
of opinion in the group. The model components may include visits to the venues
frequented by MSM, observation of communication and, consequently, identification
of a potential leader; establishment of contacts with the leaders directly or through an
intermediary (friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc.); individual assessment of leader's
risk behaviour; provision of basic information to the leader; prevention work of the
leader inside the group 3 .
Peer education model suggests certain stratification inside the group and existence
of certain networks, e.g., MSM from “pleshki“ or clubbers. The model is based on the
establishment of contacts with MSM from each subgroup and study of the structure and
characteristics of each network. Potential peer educators are selected in each group;
they undergo training with the use of a special training programme; their knowledge
is then evaluated. The next stage is outreach work of these peer educators which they
perform within their network. From time to time, the peer educators should bring the
members of their network to the organization for an interview. 4 The peer education
model is rather flexible to the changing needs of the clients and is oriented at different
groups with different needs, but due to the fluctuation of peer educators and their
instable motivation this model cannot be called sustainable.
Recruiting model implies that each MSM is provided an opportunity to fight against
the spread of HIV infection in his community through the involvement of his peers
to participation. The method of involvement of clients in the project is a “coupon“
system of recruiting and training with the use of a “master-apprentice“ principle.
In the beginning one or two MSM are involved in the project. Later on, a thorough
sociological interview is held with each new recruited person (with the remuneration
for participation) and the involved people go through a training programme. Under
this model the MSM masters are bringing other MSM to the interview to the programme
and perform prevention activities among MSM (masters receive 3 coupons to distribute
in their community); also, they receive remuneration for each MSM, who joined the
programme and every 3 months MSM participating in the programme go through a
secondary interview 5 .
Supervisory model appeared in the 1980-s, when self-organizations of injecting drug
users started to actively operate in the Netherlands and soon it expanded to other
deprived groups. Today this model is wide-spread in the European Union countries. The
model components include the selection of supervisors, i.e., competent counsellors
1 Bonito Arthur J., Bohlig E. Michael,
Dennis Michael L., Fairbank John A.,
and Rachal J. Valley. A Comparison
of AIDS Intervention Approaches
for Injection Drug Users: Street
Outreach Versus Drug Treatment
Intake--Are They Hitting the Same
or Different Targets? // Handbook
on Risk of AIDS: Injection Drug
Users and Sexual Partners / ed.
George M. Beschner, Barry S.
Brown. — Westport: Greenwood
Press, 1993. — P. 396-434.
2 Broadhead R. S. Hustlers In
Drug-Related Aids Prevention:
Ethnographers, Outreach Workers,
Injection Drug Users // Addiction
Research & Theory. –2001. — Vol.
9. — No. 6 — P. 545-556.
3 Wiebel W. Wayne. Combining
ethnographic and epidemiologic
methods in targeted AIDS
interventions: the Chicago
model. // Needle Sharing Among
Intravenous Drug Abuse: National
and International Perspect / R. J.
Battjes and R. W. Pickens (Eds.). —
Washington D.C: U.S. Govemment
Printing Office, 1988. — P. 137-
150.
4 Foley Jessica M., Levant Ronald
F. Using Community Outreach to
Promote Integrated Health Care:
A Pilot Project // Professional
Psychology: Research and
Practice. — 2006. — Vol. 37. —
No. 2. — Р. 125–131.
5 Broadhead R. S. Hustlers In
Drug-Related Aids Prevention:
Ethnographers, Outreach Workers,
Injection Drug Users // Addiction
Research & Theory. –2001. — Vol.
9. — No. 6 — P. 545-556.
47