Abstract
This article discusses the development of social welfare institutions in post-Soviet Georgia and the role of social work in this development, based on the ecological system perspective. Transactional processes are described to better understand challenges to social welfare reform and to professional social work. Two major fields, child welfare and criminal justice, are discussed in some detail, as they demonstrate constructive collaboration among various stakeholders. Areas for improvement in these and other fields are also considered, as are the challenges facing social work. A need for more active participation of the social work workforce as agents of change is highlighted.
Introduction
History shows that social work practice developed disparately in separate countries and is idiosyncratic to the cultures in those separate countries (Penna et al., 2000). At the same time, it is a global profession with broad, global concerns. These include children separated from their families, refugees, poverty, public health, violence, and disability, among others. Following Penna et al. (2000), these issues may be best studied and addressed from within the ecological context of each country, while placed in a global perspective. Best practices and social interventions should be informed by comparative cross-national research, through the application of an ecological systems perspective (International Association of Schools of Social Work [IASSW], International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW] and International Council on Social Welfare [ICSW], 2012; Penna et al., 2000). This perspective has become a core concept in social work worldwide (Hare, 2004). According to this approach, an individual and his or her multiple environments are viewed as dynamic, interactive systems. Problems of any system cannot be solved without taking into account all the factors that influence the system and its components (Bronfenbrenner, 1986).
Brim (1975) and Bronfenbrenner (1977) identified four levels of ecological components useful in understanding how individual processes are influenced by the hierarchical environmental systems in which they function. These four levels are the micro system (face-to-face or direct contact among the individual, family, peers, church members, social workers, etc.), meso system (interconnections between micro systems, ‘the network of personal settings’, such as the relationship between the person’s peers and the family), exo-system (social structure linkages in which the individual does not have an active role, e.g. local policies, social services), and macro system (the culture in which individuals live, including prevailing values, attitudes and ideologies).
After its collapse in 1991, individual countries of the Soviet Union moved from having a tradition of ‘no social problems’ toward facing major social and economic challenges (IFSW, 2014). These macro-level ‘large scale ecological changes’ from a communist utopian social-economic system to a market-oriented one, from a federated central government to individual national (and potentially democratic) governments, and from collectivist responsibility toward individual responsibility, instigated changes at meso and micro levels, transitioning the individual from a citizen of a ‘super country’ to one of a so-called ‘newly emerged developing country’ with its own transitional social-political-economic system lacking structures conceptually devoted to ‘social welfare’. In Georgia, from the mid-1990s to the present, both social welfare services and the profession of social work have undergone and continue to undergo significant changes.
This article will present these changes using an ecological systems framework, identifying idiosyncratic factors shaping the welfare system and social work workforce development, thus contributing to improved processes in other post-Soviet and non-Soviet ‘transitional’ societies.
Reforms in child welfare and related fields, and their interactions with professional social work
Particularly idiosyncratic for Georgia at the macro level was the extreme political turmoil and civil unrest of the period from 1991 to 2003. Ethnic conflicts both reflected and exacerbated the general socio-economic decline. More than 300,000 people were internally displaced as a consequence of the fighting between Georgia and the separatist regions of South Ossetia and especially Abkhazia in the early 1990s. Sustained military conflicts and corrupt, ineffective political practices impeded societal stability until the Rose Revolution of November 2003, which afforded the opportunity for greater democratization and the introduction of reforms. However, with the Russian–Georgian War of 2008, Georgia saw one-third of its territory occupied by the Russian Federation. Political disorganization and renewed concerns about governmental corruption – despite the acknowledged progress achieved during the middle of the decade – led to the ascendancy of the Georgian Dream, a coalition political party, in 2013.
In the face of deteriorating economic and social conditions, more children were cared for with fewer resources, and fewer options were available to them once they were too old to qualify for residential care. Some international donors tried to improve conditions in these institutions, but these efforts unintentionally reinforced local reliance on residential care (Tobis, 2000).
Within this context, the first social reforms in the county were targeted at the most vulnerable micro system – children in residential institutions. A well-organized deinstitutionalization process of special residential institutions was considered to be the most appropriate solution to assist this most disadvantaged group by all stakeholders, including government ministries, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local advocates, and others.
The deinstitutionalization process was accelerated by the 2001 Law on Foster Care and Adoption. Passage of this law signaled the government’s willingness to assume greater responsibility for the deinstitutionalization process and other child welfare reforms, with the technical assistance of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and international NGOs.
By 2009 the number of institutionalized children declined to 4600, and by 2015 to only 100 – a 98.6 percent reduction from the late Soviet period estimate of over 7000. Also by 2015, the number of state institutions dropped from 46 to just 3 (an almost 94% reduction). There are today roughly 3700 dependent children receiving services across a growing range of alternative care- and community-based settings (Social Service Agency [SSA], 2015).1
These accomplishments resulted from policy-level changes such as the government child welfare action plans and legislation supporting establishment of a host of enhanced operations including alternative care services, ‘gate-keeping’ policy guiding principles (focused on prevention and family-strengthening services), state childcare standards and monitoring mechanisms, a child protection referral system with mandatory reporting, operational Child Care and Guardianship Councils composed of key NGO and government representatives, and a system of professional social work supervision and performance appraisal system, among others (Namicheishvili, 2014; Shatberashvili et al., 2012).
In terms of developing a workforce to support the de-institutionalization process, a non-degree course was provided to 18 people in 1999 by the British international NGO ‘Every Child’. This course provided instruction on normal and abnormal child development, the mechanics of promoting and sustaining foster care and small group home programs, and on legal matters relating on adoption. Workers completing the program were called ‘sotsialuri mushaki’, or ‘social worker’.
In 2000 the Open Society Foundation (OSF) launched the Social Work Fellowship Program. Within the broad goal of creating skilled human capital in the region in general, development of a professionally trained social work workforce was specifically supported by provision of grants enabling students to study at American universities.
In 2004 the first group of American-educated social workers established the Georgian Association of Social Workers (GASW) as a local NGO to support the continued development of the profession within Georgia. In particular, it advocated for the legal and policy infrastructure necessary to extend professional expertise to local social service providers, and to establish a strong educational framework based on recognized professional standards. The GASW also actively contributed to the development of operational procedures and standards integral to the administration and practice of a large child welfare system. Over the subsequent years, GASW published and disseminated a Social Work Code of Ethics (2005), an educational paper on Social Work Professional Terminology (2006), and a set of Social Work Practice Standards (2007) (GASW, 2014).
In close collaboration with international and local stakeholders, including the government of Georgia, GASW participated in policy formulation, instigating reforms that affected the legislative framework supporting new social work establishments in the country. In addition to helping raise the profile of social work within the country, it supported the development of social work education as well as the establishment and enforcement of a professional code of ethics, a key characteristic of the profession (IFSW, 2014).
In 2004 social work was included under the Law of Higher Education as a new interdisciplinary profession, listed among the other professions. In 2006, with support of the European Union (EU), OSF Academic Fellowship Program/Higher Education Support Program, and other international actors, the first social work degree programs were established at Tbilisi State and Ilia State Universities. Also in 2006, social work was granted further official and legal recognition by the Law of Social Assistance (Shatberashvili, 2011), which specifies a social worker as ‘a person specially authorized by custody and guardianship authorities’ (SSA, 2013). At the micro level of practical operations in child welfare services, social workers must adhere to ‘gatekeeping’ principals to restrict intake of children into out-of-home services. The system distinguishes children at high, middle, and low levels of risk for harm. Defined as those victimized or in danger of being victimized, lacking parental care, orphans without guardians, those whose parents are sent for involuntary treatment or who are in the criminal justice system, or those in severely dysfunctional families, only high-risk children are eligible for out-of-home care services. Priority is given to kinship care, then foster care, and finally, to small group homes. The cases of children in state care are reviewed regularly on a six-month basis.
Middle-risk children are provided with family support and rehabilitation services, such as day centers, food assistance, targeted social assistance, a government reintegration benefit, and crisis intervention funding to prevent further family deterioration. Low-risk children and their parents are provided with information about social assistance programs and referred to other services provided by different agencies.
The Georgian child protection referral system obligates every institution and a range of professional and public employees – including schools, medical institutions, country doctors, the SSA, district services, and patrol police – to detect and report actual or threats of violence towards a child. However, the application may be made by any citizen (SSA, 2013).
Disabled children are eligible for early child development programs, rehabilitation programs, provision of supporting equipment, and day centers. Today, these services are extended to over 1800 children. A law on inclusive education (passed in 2005) made public schools available for children with special needs. Today, 3445 students with special education needs – ranging from hearing impairment to autism and cerebral palsy – attend Georgian public schools (Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia [MoES], 2015).
In 2009 the Childcare Unit under the Ministry of Education and Science moved to the SSA under the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA), a reorganized state body responsible for the provision of state social and health protection programs for beneficiaries. The SSA administers a range of social and health protection programs such as state pension; targeted social assistance; universal health insurance; provisions for persons with disabilities, the elderly, people with mental disorders; guardianship and custody of children deprived of care; and so on (SSA, 2013). As a result, functions of state social workers have been extended beyond providing bio-psycho-social assessment for children. Their new responsibilities extend to making decisions regarding the care and guardianship of other vulnerable groups such as the elderly and disabled, including their placement in newly established community organizations and houses, day centers, and institutions (SSA, 2013). Today, approximately 1000 adults receive such services. At the macro level, on 26 December 2013 the Georgian parliament ratified ‘The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’. After ratification, the government adopted a set of legal acts in order to protect the rights of people with disabilities as well as to establish state programs aimed at civil reintegration and social rehabilitation of people from vulnerable groups.
In total, there are 2000 employees of the SSA serving approximately 2.5 million Georgian citizens (approximately 60% of Georgian citizens). Among other workers at the SSA, social workers are considered key players in the ongoing child welfare system reform, which has ensured almost full deinstitutionalization in Georgia and is considered the best practice in the region (Namicheishvili, 2014; Partskhalaladze, 2014). By 2013 there were about 240 statutory child welfare social workers countrywide employed by the SSA (2013).
GASW’s western-educated social workers provided expertise for the SSA to elaborate and pilot almost all key projects such as policy guiding the above-described ‘gatekeeping’ principles, development of social work practice forms, social work supervision and performance appraisal systems, state childcare standards, childcare service monitoring and inspection mechanisms, and so on. In addition, the vast majority of the social work graduates of the local academic programs take up key positions at the SSA, such as head social workers and supervisors.
Criminal justice system reform and expansion of professional social work services
After the Rose Revolution, Georgia embarked upon a comprehensive reformation process with a view to promoting democracy. Fighting corruption and organized crime with its entrenched mentality became a matter of vital importance for the country (Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia (MCLA), 2011). One way by which Georgia sought to achieve these goals was to dramatically expand criminal prosecutions for graft and related corruption based on mandatory custodial sentencing and ‘zero tolerance’ policing (2006–2009). This produced an influx of some thousands of convicted felons into an already outdated and overcrowded penitentiary system. Prison census reached 21,079 persons in 2009, 23,684 in 2010, and 24,114 in 2011. From 2003 (9688 prisoners) to 2011, the number of prisoners increased by 300 percent (Slade et al., 2014). During the first four years of the reform (2006–2009) authorities spent US $182m on building European-quality prisons. However, this did not keep pace with the rise in inmate population. The state committed considerable resources specifically aimed at improving inmates’ conditions and promoting further rehabilitation and re-socialization.
However, in 2012 a prison rape scandal documented in video recordings revealed that the old system of human rights abuse and violence still existed in the penitentiary system. Commenting on the shocking incident, then-President Saakashvili declared that ‘It is not about some isolated cases, but about the failure of the penitentiary system itself’, urging another complete reform in the sphere (RT News, 2012).
The opposition party ‘Georgian Dream’ made prison reform their campaign promise. After being elected to the government in 2012, they initiated a new round of reforms supported by the EU that focused on re-socialization, rehabilitation, and crime prevention. As a consequence, the number of persons employed as social workers increased by 40 and those as probation officers by 50. These improvements were in line with European standards aimed at ensuring humanization of the system and the effective execution of sentences (MCLA, 2014). By 2015, the number of persons placed in the penitentiary system declined to 9716, which is a 49.9 percent reduction from the 19,349 inmates in 2012 at the time of the rape scandal. On the macro and meso levels, massive releases of inmates to alleviate overcrowding drove the need for more community-based and institutional supportive and rehabilitative services, in turn facilitating the opportunity for social work development.
Prison reform at the meso level over the last three years includes the establishment of the Psycho-Social and Rehabilitation Programs (PSRPs) Division of the National Agency for the Execution of Non-Custodial Sentences and Probation. This Division, managed by a professional western-educated social worker, is charged with the initiation and organization of best practices in the rehabilitation of inmates. These include diversion and mediation programs, introduction of risks and needs assessment methodologies, individual sentence planning for the employment of inmates, involvement of probationers in rehabilitation programs, implementation of professional standards in rehabilitation services, retraining of social workers, development of a monitoring and evaluation system, and so on. At the micro level, probationers and prisoners are connected to social services including psycho-rehabilitation, employment, education, vocational training, sport, cultural, and other activities. A social worker is available and provides individual-based case management.
Moreover, a new bylaw reforming social services in the prisons implemented by the Department of Prisons added degreed social workers to the system. In addition, the Penitentiary and Probation Training Center, under the Ministry of Corrections, with the technical support of GASW, provided intensive training on the social worker’s role in the criminal justice system for probation officers, social workers, and social service staff in the country’s penitentiaries. Based on these trainings, social workers and probation officers are now equipped with advanced practice skills including motivational interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, task-centered casework, and others – all of which include an exploration and acknowledgment of the client’s world view as a vital element in their working methods (Hohman, 2012).
Another agency, the Center for Crime Prevention (CCP) of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), established in 2012, plays a central role in reforming the criminal justice system (CCP, 2014). This Center aims to implement projects related to crime prevention, to work with high-risk groups, and to reduce recidivism. There are about 20 professional social workers employed by this agency working on re-socialization and rehabilitation of former prisoners, creating a referral system, providing corresponding assistance, and managing the Diversion and Mediation Program and the Leadership House Program.
Challenges to social welfare reform and to professional social work in Georgia
As the above discussion shows, aggressive reforms and improved service, especially in the fields of criminal justice and child welfare but also in related fields, were both facilitated and promoted by the evolution of professional social work in Georgia. At the same time, development of the profession was itself enabled by governmental and other macro-level policy and program reforms, reflecting a coordinated approach among international, local, and state organizations as well as NGOs. These interacting factors laid the groundwork for a new social welfare system with beneficial manifestations on the macro, exo, meso, and micro levels.
These achievements notwithstanding, it can be seen that they are currently being implemented without a holistic approach and can be characterized as a reactive system aimed at solving existing social problems spontaneously. The reforms are unbalanced and underdeveloped toward different target groups of vulnerable populations, including Roma children, children leaving state care, and migrants, among others. There are gaps in geographic coverage and inconsistencies in the quality of services.
Where government collaboration with local NGOs and experts in the field has been shown to be very critical of the success of child welfare and criminal justice reforms, such engagement has not yet emerged in other domains. Similarly, while Georgia needed to rely upon, and benefitted greatly from, private funding from international NGOs, such funding is grant-dependent and not sustainable in the long term. For example, donor organization support for the role of social workers in crisis situations during the Russian–Georgian War in 2008 was discontinued by 2010 (Shatberashvili, 2011).
Other macro aspects contributing to failed social welfare efforts are connected with the posture of some populist politicians who advocate for social reforms that may not yet be feasible (e.g. comprehensive universal health care, universal access to quality preschool education) in a developing country undergoing industrialization. Similarly, citizens of this post-communist country also require and expect more social welfare services from the government, as they still live with ‘socialist’ views. For instance, research showed that majority of interviewed homeless people (90%) think the government is responsible for their free housing (Sadzaglishvili and Kalandadze, 2015). In addition, the majority of socially and economically disadvantaged people who get targeted social assistance refuse to be employed, as they do not consider themselves stigmatized by getting social assistance. Thus, traditional macro- or exo-system perspectives about social values and societal organization appear to require modification driven by an increasing awareness of post-communist social welfare operations at meso- and micro-system levels, even while improvements are needed at those levels as well.
For example, in the field of child welfare, lack of coordination among social agents (authorized persons of the SSA who deliver information to be registered in the unified database of socially vulnerable families), the SSA social workers, and primary health practitioners resulted in child fatalities including the highly publicized death of an infant (SSA, 2015).
In the field of disability, though ‘the social model of disability’ (in contrast to the old ‘medical model’) is approved on macro and exo levels, implementation of this policy is very challenging. For instance, macro-level changes require use of the new term ‘disabled’ instead of ‘invalid’, although the old classification is still used to designate the disability status of persons being severely, considerably, or mildly impaired. Continued use of this outdated terminology reinforces stereotypical attitudes within the professional community.
Moreover, stigma continues to surround people with disabilities in Georgia, and many families with special needs children tend to keep them at home with little or no exposure to the outside community, even though these children qualify for inclusive education programs. The SSA has a list of about 10,000 children who could qualify as special needs students, a far greater number than those currently attending Georgia’s elementary and high schools (MoES, 2015). The three remaining residential institutions provide care to 100 disabled children, for whom community-based placements are hard to find. A contributing factor identified in a UNICEF study was the negative and pessimistic attitudes toward disabled children’s placement in foster care held by 22 percent of social workers themselves (UNICEF, 2013).
Weak transactions across the macro, exo, meso, and micro systems can also be found in the mental health field. Macro- and exo-level changes such as Georgia’s Law on Psychiatric Care (Law of Georgia on Psychiatric Care, 2006) and the National Health Care Strategy 2011–2015 (MoLHSA, 2011) prompted the deinstitutionalization of patients in large-scale psychiatric institutions and the introduction of a balanced community- and hospital-based mental health system. However, this did not result in increased numbers of social workers in the mental health field at the meso level. GASW research showed that the main mental health professionals are physicians (primarily psychiatrists, but also narcologists and neurologists), nurses, and psychologists/psychotherapists, with the medical model of treatment still prevalent in Georgia (Shekriladze and Chkonia, 2015). Out of 42 interviewed social workers employed in mental health, only four held a social work degree. Direct social work practitioners in mental health settings are mostly involved in bureaucratic duties rather than performing functions such as counseling, crisis intervention, therapy, advocacy, coordination of resources, discharge planning, and so on. They are not provided with professional supervision (Shekriladze and Chkonia, 2015).
One reason for the diminished role of the social worker in mental health is the availability of a large number of unemployed psychologists, psychiatrists, and other health professionals. Social networking of these other professionals assists unemployed colleagues to be hired for social work positions that would otherwise be given to social work professionals. The job description of mental health social workers is very ambiguous and does not require qualified social workers. Somewhat conversely, in mental health as well as other fields with minimal social work presence, many persons without an academic social work degree are hired for ‘social work’ positions mostly in the rural regions due to the lack of a professional workforce (Shatberashvili, 2011).
Accordingly, specialization in clinical social work practice and mental health has not become a priority for academic social work programs. Meanwhile, new Master’s degree programs in ‘Addictology’ and ‘Mental Health’ are established and run by psychologists and psychiatrists, producing allied mental health professionals with titles like ‘social psychiatrists’. As in mental health, there is a need for a specialized training in other social work fields. The role of the social worker is also relatively minimal in the fields of health, substance abuse, school and school linked services, unemployment, homelessness, and refugee resettlement (Shatberashvili, 2011). More discrete training is also needed for social workers, even in fields where they are better established. This is true for the SSA social workers, for example, who are responsible for fulfilling multiple roles, serving all at once children, the elderly and disabled, the mentally ill, and others, while requiring expertise in family conflicts, domestic violence, and other problematic processes.
Today there are more than 200 generalist practice social workers graduated from the local academic (Bachelor and Master’s degree) social work programs, specialized mostly in two concentrations – child welfare and criminal justice. Their ranks are increasing at the rate of about 50 graduates per year. In addition to these and about 20 western-educated social workers, there are more than 300 social work practitioners who have higher education in other disciplines but have been retrained as social workers (Partskhalaladze, 2014). It has been estimated that approximately 334 (60%) are employed by state agencies, while the remainder are employed by non-state (NGO) agencies. While many of the latter work in child protection, a comparatively large sub-group works in substance abuse and others are found in a range of fields from health care to human rights and community mobilization (Partskhalaladze, 2014).2 In general, social workers in the NGO sector consider themselves to be less qualified than state social workers (Shatberashvili, 2011). In the state agencies as well as non-state agencies, social workers mostly play the role of case manager. Roles such as supervisor, mediator, advocate, and broker are also practiced. However, the roles of clinical counselor, social researcher, policy analyst and planner, social activist, program developer and evaluator, educator, facilitator, and community mobilizer are very rarely practiced, and when they are, it is only in the non-statutory sector (Namicheishvili, 2014).
A situational analysis of the social work profession in Georgia done in 2011 revealed that social workers also see themselves more in the role of micro practitioners (90.2%) than as macro practitioners (49.2%), corresponding to their employers’ attitudes (micro practice – 87.5% and macro practice – 37.5%) (Shatberashvili, 2011). However, both social activism (macro practice) and casework (micro practice) are equally important for promotion of social change, problem solving in human relations, and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being (Hare, 2004). Thus, there is still the need for more professional social work human resources. It is the position of the GASW that there is a need for quality social work services, establishing a ‘scope of work’ for the profession, identifying and promoting its role among multidisciplinary teams in mental health, defining other areas of development, and strengthening competence (GASW, 2014). GASW follows the position of Uehara et al. (2013) who observe that social work in the 21st century ‘can and must play a more central, transformative, and collaborative role in society, if the future is to be a bright one for all’ (p. 165). Thus, a qualified social work workforce can continue to play a critical and increasingly effective role in building the social welfare system of Georgia.
Finally, though Bachelor, Master’s, and Doctoral programs are established to prepare professionals in social work, the profession is significantly challenged within academia as it is not seen as a scientific and research field in Georgia. The consequent lack of qualified social work practice and policy researchers, as afforded in the university setting, impedes internal and comparative research, as well as the delineation of best social work practices at micro and macro levels, and the production of adequate professional manpower.
Conclusion
Macro-level reforms in Georgia, including new legislative frameworks, strategies, and action plans as well as the reorganization of major social welfare institutions, evoked exo-systemic exchanges at both the meso and micro levels. On the meso level, new state bodies such as the SSA, the Guardianship and Care Panels, Psycho-Social and Rehabilitation Programs (PSRPs) Division of the National Agency of the Execution of Non-Custodial Sentences and Probation, and others were established and the role of social worker was recognized. Micro-level impacts were thus felt in terms of the availability of more home-based services, safer conditions for children, prisoners, and other vulnerable groups, improved access to welfare benefits, and so on. The two major fields of child welfare and criminal justice were prioritized and well developed in Georgia by the coordination and active participation of international and local state organizations as well as NGOs.
However, lack of holistic thinking and of a robust ecological perspective have contributed to sustained gaps in geographic coverage and inconsistencies in the quality of services, with a number of vulnerable populations still in need of support. The Georgian social welfare system can be characterized as reactive rather than proactive due to the weaknesses of the transactional processes across macro, exo, meso, and micro systems.
There is a need for more active participation of social workers as agents of change at the macro, meso, and micro levels, and in the fields of social research, social development, and policy practice in Georgia, in order to promote an increasingly balanced social welfare system, broader social and economic equality, and the dignity and worth of all the Georgian people.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Kinship and foster care – 1235 children; small group homes only for healthy children – 337 children; day centers – 1089 children; food assistance – 996 children; government reintegration benefit – 442 children; shelters for street connected youth – 123 children; and so on (SSA, 2015).
2. In total, 334 social workers were employed by state agencies (guardianship and care for children, elderly, and people with disability – 240; probation services – 40; crime prevention services and correctional services – 20; correctional settings – 15; mental health services – 14; trafficking and domestic violence – 3; social housing services – 2) and 226 were employed by non-state agencies (child protection – 93; harm reduction – 63; violence – 12; HIV/AIDS – 11; youth work – 10; mental health – 9; violence against women – 9; social protection – 9; human rights – 6; internally displaced persons (IDPs) – 1; palliative care – 1; community mobilization – 2) in 2014.
Author biography
Shorena Sadzaglishvili holds an MSW from Columbia University and a Doctorate in Psychology from the Dr Uznadze Institute of Psychology of Georgian National Academy of Sciences, Tbilisi, Georgia. Her experience includes educational, social, and health program development, implementation, supervision, monitoring, and evaluation as well as teaching and curriculum development. She is the founder of the first MSW program in Georgia in 2007 and the co-founder of the Georgian Association of Social Workers (GASW) in 2004. Currently she is directing both the MSW and PhD programs at Ilia State University. Dr Sadzaglishvili is a board member and senior clinical social work/research consultant at GASW, and author of numerous scientific articles and books on social work and education. She has developed a number of manuals/guidelines in the fields of clinical social work, family and children, program design and evaluation, social work research, and social work practice teaching. She is the recipient of a 2014–2015 Visiting Research Scholar Fulbright Award to New York University (NYU) Silver School of Social Work.
References
| Brim O. (1975) ‘Macro-structural Influences on Child Development and the Need for Childhood Social Indicators’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45: 516–24. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline | |
| Bronfenbrenner U. (1977) ‘Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development’, American Psychologist 32: 513–31. Google Scholar CrossRef | |
| Bronfenbrenner U. (1986) ‘Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: Research Perspectives’, Developmental Psychology 22(6): 723–42. Google Scholar CrossRef | |
| Center for Crime Prevention (CCP) (2014) ‘About Us’. Available online at: http://prevention.gov.ge/page/4/eng (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Georgian Association of Social Workers (GASW) (2014) ‘History’. Available online at: http://gasw.org/index.php/projects/implemented-projects (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Hare I. (2004) ‘Defining Social Work for the 21st Century. The International Federation of Social Workers’ Revised Definition of Social Work’, International Social Work 47: 407–24. Google Scholar Link | |
| Hohman M. (2012) Motivational Interviewing in Social Work Practice. London: Guildford Press. Google Scholar | |
| International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) (2012) ‘The Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development Commitment to Action’. Available online at: http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=60880 (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) (2014) ‘Statement in Support of Social Workers in South Caucasus Region’. Available online at: http://ifsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Statement-of-IFSW-Europe-in-Support-of-Social-Workers-in-South-Caucasus-Region.pdf (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Law of Georgia on Psychiatric Care (2006) ‘Patient’s rights and protection guarantees’. Available online at: http://www.gmhc.ge/en/pdf/Law_of_Georgia_on_Psychiatric_Care_sit.anal-eng.pdf (accessed 23 November 2015). Google Scholar | |
| Ministry of Correction of Georgia (2014) ‘Reforms’. Available online at: http://www.moc.gov.ge/ka/saqmianoba/reformebi (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance of Georgia (MCLA) (2011) ‘Annual Report’. Available online at: http://www.opendata.ge/en/request/1301 (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia (MoES) (2015) ‘Inclusive Education’. Available online at: http://www.inclusion.ge/eng (accessed 23 November 2015). Google Scholar | |
| Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs (MoLHSA) (2011) ‘Georgia: National Health Care Strategy 2011–2015: Access to Quality Health Care’. Available online at: www.mindbank.info/item/2932 (accessed 23 November 2015). Google Scholar | |
| Namicheishvili S. (2014) ‘Effects and Impacts of Research on Participants’, in Summer School: MA in Advanced Development in Social Work (Advances). Paris: University Paris Ouest La Defense Nanterre, unpublished presentation. Google Scholar | |
| Partskhalaladze N. (2014) History of Social Work in Georgia (unpublished internal document). New York: Open Society Foundations. Google Scholar | |
| Penna S., Paylor I., Washington J. (2000) ‘Globalization, Social Exclusion and the Possibilities for Global Social Work and Welfare’, European Journal of Social Work 3(2): 109–22. Google Scholar CrossRef | |
| RT News (2012) ‘Georgia Jail Shock: Rape by Rubber Batons amid “EU-Quality Prison” Sham’, RT News, 19 September. Available online at: http://rt.com/news/georgia-prison-reform-european-standard-510/ (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Sadzaglishvili S., Kalandadze T. (2015) The Pathways to Homelessness in the Post-Soviet Context (unpublished paper). Georgia: Ilia State University. Google Scholar | |
| Shatberashvili N. (2011) ‘Situational Analysis of Social Work’, Report, Georgian Association of Social Workers, Georgia. | |
| Shatberashvili N., Sadzaglishvili S., Gotsiridze T., Demetreashvili N., Namicheishvili S., Cherkezishvili E. (2012) ‘Child Rights Situation Analysis of Children at Risk of Losing Parental Care and Children Who Have Lost Parental Care’, Report, SOS Children’s Village, Georgia. | |
| Shekriladze I., Chkonia E. (2015) ‘Social Work in Mental Health: International Experience and Georgian Reality’, in IFSW European Conference and Social Services Expo, Edinburgh, 6–9 September 2015. Google Scholar | |
| Slade G., Kachkachishvili I., Tsiskarishvili L., Jeiranashvili L., Gobronidze N. (2014) ‘Crime and Excessive Punishment: The Prevalence and Causes of Human Rights Abuse in Georgia’s Prisons’, Report, Open Society Georgian Foundation, Georgia. | |
| Social Service Agency (SSA) (2013) ‘About Us’. Available online at: http://ssa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&;sec_id=14 (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar | |
| Social Service Agency (SSA) (2015) ‘Statistics’. Available online at: http://ssa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&;sec_id=610 (accessed 28 November 2015). Google Scholar | |
| Tobis D. (2000) Moving from Residential Institutions to Community-based Social Services in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington, DC: World Bank. Google Scholar CrossRef | |
| Uehara E., Flynn M., Fong R., Brekke J. (2013) ‘Grand challenges for Social Work differentiating’, Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 4(3): 165–70. Google Scholar CrossRef | |
| UNICEF (2013) ‘Annual Report 2013: Georgia’. Available online at: http://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/files/Georgia_COAR_2013.pdf (accessed 27 December 2014). Google Scholar |
Author biography
Shorena Sadzaglishvili holds an MSW from Columbia University and a Doctorate in Psychology from the Dr Uznadze Institute of Psychology of Georgian National Academy of Sciences, Tbilisi, Georgia. Her experience includes educational, social, and health program development, implementation, supervision, monitoring, and evaluation as well as teaching and curriculum development. She is the founder of the first MSW program in Georgia in 2007 and the co-founder of the Georgian Association of Social Workers (GASW) in 2004. Currently she is directing both the MSW and PhD programs at Ilia State University. Dr Sadzaglishvili is a board member and senior clinical social work/research consultant at GASW, and author of numerous scientific articles and books on social work and education. She has developed a number of manuals/guidelines in the fields of clinical social work, family and children, program design and evaluation, social work research, and social work practice teaching. She is the recipient of a 2014–2015 Visiting Research Scholar Fulbright Award to New York University (NYU) Silver School of Social Work.
