See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333164202

Community Social Work Programme Interventions on Nigerian Family Living in

Poverty in Nigeria

Article · May 2019

CITATION READS

1 192

1 author:

Yemisi L. Olaleye
University of Ibadan
43 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adolescents’ Knowledge and Attitude towards Regular Healthcare as a Way of Improving HIV/STD Testing and Treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yemisi L. Olaleye on 17 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Community Social Work Programme Interventions on Nigerian Family Living in Poverty
in Nigeria

By

Yemisi Lydia, Olaleye (PhD)

Department of Social Work
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Oyo State, Nigeria.
E-mail Address:yemisi1957@yahoo.co.u
yl.olaleye@mail.ui.edu.ng
Mobile Phone Number: +2348037139098

Abstract
This paper examined the community social work programme interventions on Nigerian families
living in poverty. Families living in poverty have higher rates of aggression, such as fighting
with their peers or family members. Descriptive survey research design was employed for the
study. The stratified random sampling technique was adopted in selecting the respondents
according to the local government areas. 100 rural-urban women and men from Ibadan North-
West and Iddo Local Government Areas of Oyo State, Nigeria for the study. The findings
revealed that there was significant difference between community social work programmes
intervention on gender (male and female) of family living in poverty. It established that there is
no significant difference, between the community social work programmes intervention and
socio-economic status (high and low) of family living in poverty. The study revealed that there
was significant positive relationship between the community social work programmes
intervention and family living in poverty. It also revealed that there was significant relationship
between educational status of family living in poverty and the community social work
programmes intervention. It was, therefore, recommended that families should be motivated and
encouraged towards participating in community social work programmes. There should be
constant follow-up by the community social workers to see to the implementation of community
social work programmes in order to reduce poverty and increase their standard of living.

Keywords: Community social work, programme, interventions, families living, poverty.

Introduction

Families in poverty have to fulfill their role and responsibility as parents just like any
others. They enjoy pleasures and have aspirations and fears, but in circumstances which are far

1
more difficult than those of most families. The general situation, and the particular circumstances
they find themselves in, put a strain on their families and expose weaknesses much more than is
the case for families who can draw on networks of support, both economic and personal. These
families, like any others, want to protect their families from any kind of harm. They exert
tremendous efforts everyday to protect their families from the violence of the communities, make
sure that their wards go to school, have proper clothing and proper food, are protected from
harm and illness, even when housing conditions are bad, are comfortable when they are bullied,
are assured and loved. Concentrating only on vulnerability when looking at families
experiencing poverty and deprivation, leads often to the view that they constitute a risk to their
communities (Anyanwu, 1997).

It is not families in poverty that constitute a risk to communities, but poverty. To practice
community social work as if families were the risk leads to families staying away from services
to protect themselves from the suffering of losing their families, and from separation from their
communities. Families living in poverty are socially excluded from because they are poor
(Anyanwu, 1997). They also face discrimination, stigma, and judgmental attitudes. Families’
ability to participate in cultural and recreational activities, such as organized sports, is severely
impacted by their circumstances of living in poverty and material deprivation (Stewart et al,
2008). There is a direct negative impact on community’s protection as well as their sense of
belonging.

Interventions are intended to aid clients in alleviating problems impeding their well-
being. The interventions used by community social workers are those programmes that are
identified as potentially helpful on the basis of the community social worker’s ongoing,
assessment of the client (Krist-Ashman, 2007). Social workers work in many different types of
setting, including hospital, mental, health facilities, child welfare centres, guidance clinics,
schools, substance abuse programmes and prisons/correctional facilities. (Conger, Conger,
Lonrenz., & Simon, 2000). Thus, the intervention of community social worker is determined by
the types of issues and needs which clients bring to the community social work setting as well as
the community social worker’s specialization area.

A community social work programme intervention is selected on the basis of the issues,
needs and strengths of the client. These are determined according to psycho-social assessment

2
conducted by the community social worker. In initial meetings with the client, the community
social worker obtain extensive information from the client in order to develop a detailed and
comprehensive understanding of the client (Smelser, & Baltes, 2001). The assessment is used to
develop a treatment plan with the client, in which interventions, action steps and desired
outcomes are specified. A time-frame will be established for each outcome, with a means to
measure the client’s progress towards achieving his/her goals on a regular basis identified.

Kemshal,l (2002) divided community social into three broad practice categories, namely,
macro, mezzo and micro. Macro level community social work is interventions provided on a
large scale that affect entire communities and systems of care. Mezzo community social work
happens on an intermediate scale, involving neighbourhoods, institutions or other smaller groups.
Micro community social work is the most common practice and happens directly with an
individual client or family. Regardless of which level a social worker pursuits, a master in social
work degree strengthens the knowledge of practice and broadens career possibilities. The three
levels of community social work practice at times overlap and influence each other. So, it is
important to understand the distinctions between the approaches

One that deserves increased attention is the community development issue, which
requires skills in community analysis, social planning, community organizing and social action.
Community development requires the ability of it members to foster economic opportunities for
area residents through work on industrial retention, local business development, job training, and
placement. Another role of community practices which for community social workers to help
people to discover their own resources and their own ability to create influence and make
positive change. The importance of this has been underscored by community social workers who
realized that poverty involves a complex set of interactions between personal characteristics and
a community’s resources and opportunities (Jacquemin, 2006). At times the role of community
social workers involve making tough judgments about risk to individuals, at times, they have to
use their ability and influence to protect the victims of poverty from themselves or from others;
examples include situations of domestic violence, child abuse or mental health. (Evans, &
English 2002). In this approach, community practice combines work with individuals and
families with community work.

3
Ojo (2012) categorized poverty into three levels, namely high, middle and low level. People in
high level of poverty include those categories of family who are not in any clear-cut profession
other than begging or being begged for. Their condition may have been caused by medical,
psychological or psycho-social problems. The middle-level poverty are people who are earning
wages but whose total income cannot cover all personal expenses. The low-level poverty stricken
families are the category of people whose income is sufficient to take care of their immediate
family needs but will not leave for them any savings. According to Olaleye (2004), poverty is a
condition of having inadequate money to buy things that are considered necessary and desirable.
Poverty involves the inability to live a decent life with respect to food, shelter, health care,
transportation etc. Poverty can also be absolute, is the inability to afford basic human needs
which includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, healthcare, education, clothing and shelter. It can
also be relative, which refers to lacking a usual or socially accepted level of resources or income
as compared with others within the society. It could also be voluntary that is when it is
considered as a necessary or desirable condition which must be embraced to reach certain
spiritual, moral or intellectual state (Henderson, 2003). The effect of poverty on the people and
nation is so devastating that no serious government can shy away from serious efforts aimed at
alleviating it among its citizenry. Streeten and Surki (1978).

According to Olajide (2004) different types of poverty can be identified on the basis of
criteria such as basic needs, individual circumstances, location and nature of the society. In line
with this assertion, Olaleye and Adekola (2006) identified two major types of poverty in Nigeria.
These are absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is used to describe a situation in
which people barely exist because their income falls below a level necessary to satisfy the basic
necessities of life. It is much easier to recognize and describe the people in absolute poverty.
Relative poverty, on the other hand, is a situation in which individuals are not poor in absolute
terms, but have much less than others by way of income.

Poverty and the challenges associated with family living in poverty have higher rates of
aggression, such as starting fights with their peers (Dilworth, 2006). This might be as a result of
stress and insecurity of constantly moving lack of adequate nutrition, lack of opportunities in
general, lack of opportunities to practice social skills, lack of opportunities to participate in extra-

4
curricular activity, or general increase in levels of frustration over negative situations in which
the family has no control.

Statement of Problem
Based on the foregoing, this study examines the existing relationship between
community social work programme interventions on families living in poverty; it also determine
with which in the gender of the family poverty is higher; and reviews the relationship between
community social work programmes implementation/intervention and educational / socio-
economic status of family living in poverty.
Objective of the Study
The aim of the study is to examine community social work programme interventions on
families living in poverty. The specific objectives are: to determine which gender (male or
female) in the family is highly affected by poverty; examine the relationship between
communities social work programme implementation / interventions on educational status / socio
-economic status of family living in poverty.
Family Stress Model

The ‘family stress model’ (Conger et al, 2000) proposes that the experience of poverty is
one of the more important factors that can put severe strains on spousal relationships, bring about
feelings of depression and increase family dysfunctionality. Family distress causes problems in
the relationship between adults that are, in turn, linked to less effective parenting- a complex
notion that involves insufficient surveillance, lack of control over the child’s behaviour, lack of
warmth and support, inconsistency, and display of aggression or hostility by parents or older
siblings.

Research Hypotheses
Ho1 There is no significant difference between the community social work programme
interventions and genders (male and female) of families living in poverty
Ho2 There is no significant difference between community social work programme
interventions and socio-economic (low and high) status of families living in poverty.

Ho3 There is no significant relationship between the community social work programme
interventions and families living in poverty.

5
Ho4 There is no relationship between educational status and the community social work
programme interventions and families living in poverty.

Methodology

Research Design
The descriptive survey research design was adopted for this study. This was appropriate
to capture the community social work programme interventions on families living in poverty.
The descriptive survey design is once - for - all observation of the variables with a view to
collecting data with which to test the research hypotheses.

Population and Sampling Techniques of the Study

The target audience comprises Non-Governmental Organizations, Community Based
Organizations and other stakeholders in the field of community development and Community
social work and categories of families in Oyo State. Based on the information gathered during
pilot study, the sample for the study was 100 respondents. Multi-stage sampling method was
adopted to select the sample from the entire population. In doing this, Oyo State was stratified
into two constituencies namely; Ibadan North-West LGA and Ido LGA, in Oyo State.
Furthermore, from each stratum, proportionate sampling technique was used to select
respondents for the study. This was done such that the proportion in the sample exactly matched
the proportions in the overall population.

Research Instrument
The research instrument was a self-designed questionnaire tagged “Community Social
Work Programme Interventions on Families Living in Poverty Questionnaire” (CSWPIFLOQ).
The instrument was to derive information from the 100 respondents selected for the study in
order to establish the extent at which the independent variable will influence the dependent
variable. It consists of open and closed end questions developed from the synthesis of related
literature. It is designed to collect information from respondents consisting of three sections A, B
and C measured on a four point likert scale and nominal scale based on the following. Section A:
the demographic characteristics of the respondents made up of eleven items. Section B: made up
of thirty five items to find out the level of participation of respondents in the existing community

6
social work programmes. Section C: which examines the effect of community social work
programmes on the intervention of family living in poverty.

Validity and Reliability of the Study

Prior to its being administered, the questions were scrutinized by experts in community
development, social work, rural and extension services. Based on their comments, some items
were reworded while others were modified to ensure that there were no ambiguities. Cronbach
Alpha and Kuder Richardson (KR21) were used to provide reliability estimate of the instrument.
KR21 was used for items that were dichotomously scored while Cronbach Alpha was used for 3,
4 and 5 point items scales. In order to achieve this, a pilot study was carried out with a sample of
25 subjects in Lagelu LGA of Ibadan. The result of reliability coefficient is r = 0.68. This result
indicates that the instrument used for data collection is reliable.
Analysis of Data
Data collected from the survey were edited and analyzed using t-test and Pearson product
moment correlation statistics to test the hypotheses.

Table 1: Analysis of the Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

S/N Items Variables Frequency %
1 Sex Female 68 68.0
Male 32 32.0
Total 100 100

2 Age 30 - 40yrs 42 42.0

41 - 50yrs 33 33.0
Above 51yrs 25 25.0
Total 100 100
3 Marital Status Single 22 22.0
Married 58 58.0
Separated 7 7.0
Divorced 10 10.0
Widowed 3 3.0
Total 100 100
4 Religion Christianity 35 35.0
Muslim 57 57.0
Traditional 8 8.0
Total 100 100
5 Educational Pry/Koranic 37 37.0
Qualification Secondary 42 42.0
Tertiary 21 21.0
Total 100 100

7
 Table 1 shows that, 68 (68%) of the respondents were females while 32 (32%) were
males. The age bracket of respondents below 30 to 40 years, 41 to 50 years and above 51 years
were analysed as 42%, 33%, 42.8% and 25% respectively. This goes a long way to show that the
majority of the respondent families are between 30-51 years and above.
On the marital status of the respondents, 22 (22%) were single, 58 (58%) were married, 7
(7%) respondents were separated, 10 (10%) were divorced while 3 (3%) were widowed. This
indicated that majority of the respondents are married with children without or with little means
to care for them. The religion of the respondents show that 35 (35%) were Christians, 57 (57%)
were into Muslims and 8 (8%) were traditional believers. On the educational attainment level of
the respondents, 37 (37%) had primary / Koranic education while those secondary school
education were 42 (42%) and tertiary education had 21 (21%) respondents. Majority of the
respondents were literates, this make easy to enlighten the respondents about the community
social work programmes since they know how to read and write.

Test of Hypotheses
Table 2: T-test Result Showing Difference between Community Social Work Programme
Interventions on Gender (Male and Female) and Families Living in Poverty
Variables N X SD Df t-calculated t-critical P-value Remark
Male 60 6.83 1.81 97 3.801 1.987 0.000 Sig
Female 39 8.21 1.67
Sig. –Significant at 0.05 level

Table 2 revealed that the t-calculated (3.801) is greater than value of t-critical (1.987);
hence, the null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is significant
difference between community social work programme interventions and gender (male and
female) and families living in poverty. The mean score of female (8.21) is higher than the mean
score of male (6.83). This indicates that in term of families living in poverty, female are affected
than the male.

8
Table 3: T-test Analysis Showing the Difference between Community Social Work
programme Interventions and Socio-Economic Status (high and low) of Families Living in
Poverty
Variables N X SD Df t-calculated t-critical P-value Remark
High
poverty 45 61.82 12.63
status
Low 98 0.132 1.987 0.896 NS
poverty 55 62. 15 11.89
status
NS-Not significant

Table 3 showed that the t-calculated (0.132) is less than t-critical value (1.987); hence,
the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference community social
work programme interventions and socio-economic status (high and low) of families living in
poverty. However, the mean score of respondents from low families living in poverty status
(61.15) is higher than the mean score of persons from high families living in poverty status.

Table 4: Pearson Moment Correlation Showing the relationship between Community

Social Work Programme Interventions and Families Living in Poverty
Variables X SD N r-calculated r-critical P-value Remark
Community 4.10
social work 1.27 99 0.202 0.195 0.045 Sig.
programmes
intervention
Family living
in poverty 3.19 1.32
Significant at 0.05 level

In table 4, calculated value of r (0.202) is greater than critical value of r(0.195). Hence,
the null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is a significant
relationship between the community social work programme interventions and families living in
poverty. This implies that community social work programmes positively intervened on families
living in poverty.

Table 5: Pearson Moment Correlation Showing the relationship between Educational

Status of Families Living in Poverty and Community Social Work Programme
Interventions
Variables X SD N r-calculated r-critical P-value Remark
Educational
status 3.15 1.26
Community 95 0.203 0.195 0.048 Sig.
social work 2.99 1.39
programmes
intervention
Significant at 0.05 level

9
 Table 5 showed that the r-calculated value of r(0.203) is greater than r-critical value of
r(0.195). Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, there is a
significant relationship between educational status of family living in poverty and the community
social work programme interventions. This implies that educational qualification have great
influence on families living on poverty.

Discussion
Hypothesis one established that there was significant difference between community
social work programme interventions and gender (male and female) and families living in
poverty. The t-calculated (3.801) is greater than value of t-critical (1.987); hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 level of significance. The mean score of female (8.21) is higher
than the mean score of male (6.83). This indicates that in term of families living in poverty,
female are affected than the male. This finding is supported by the study of Oyelami (2009) cited
by Ojo (2012) identified education inequality as poverty laden. This is also in line with the
findings of Jacquemin, (2006) who asserts that poverty involves a complex set of interactions
between personal characteristics and a community’s resources and opportunities.
Hypothesis two revealed that there was no significant difference between community
social work programme interventions and socio-economic status (high and low) of families
living in poverty. The t-calculated (0.132) is less than t-critical value (1.987); hence, the null
hypothesis is accepted. However, the mean score of respondents from low families living in
poverty status (61.15) is higher than the mean score of persons from high family living in
poverty status. This finding is supported by the study of Olaleye and Adekola (2006) who assert
that absolute poverty is used to describe a situation in which people barely exist largely because
their income falls below a level necessary to satisfy the basic necessities of life. The findings
corroborates the study of Ojo (2012) who categorized poverty into three levels namely high,
middle and low level. People in high level of poverty include those categories of families who
are not in any clear-cut profession other than begging or being begged for. Their condition may
have been caused by medical, psychological or psycho-social problems. For the middle-level
poverty, people who earning wages but whose total income cannot cover all personal expenses
for a particular spell of income flow are included in this category. The low-level poverty stricken
families are the category of people whose income is sufficient to take care of their immediate
family needs but will not leave for them any savings.

10
 Hypothesis three confirms that there is a significant positive relationship between the
community social work programme interventions and families living in poverty. Calculated
value of r (0.202) is greater than critical value of r (0.195). Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected
at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that community social work programme positively
intervened on families living in poverty. This is constant with the findings of Stewart et al (2008)
who opined that families living in poverty are socially excluded because they are poor. They also
face discrimination, stigma, and judgmental attitudes. This lack of inclusion can be experienced
in many different ways and has a negative impact on community protection.

Hypothesis four proves that there is a significant relationship between educational status of
family living in poverty and the community social work programme interventions. The r-
calculated value of r(0.203) is greater than r-critical value of r(0.195). Hence, the null hypothesis
is rejected at 0.05 level of significance. This implies that educational qualification have great
influence on families living on poverty. The result is corroborate with the study of Adams (2002)
who cited in Preece (2006) that smaller families and The improved family health as the offshoot
of educatedness and that it contributes to decrease in the likelihood of poverty. Conversely,
poverty reduces the opportunity for educational attainment. The above result supports the finding
of Smelser and Baltes (2001) who stated that the community social worker will obtain extensive
information from the client in order to develop a detailed and comprehensive understanding of
the client. The assessment will be used to develop a treatment plan with the client, in which
interventions, action steps and desired outcomes are specified.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study established that there is need to use community social work programme in
intervening poverty of families. The results of this study indicate that:
i. Demographical variables (gender, educational level and age) influenced the
difference observed in the use of community social work programme interventions on
Nigerian family living in poverty.
A positive significant relationship was reported between relationship between the
community social work programme interventions and families living in poverty.

11
 The problems that families living in poverty facing can be reduce by creating awareness
and enlightenment on community social work programmes and this can be done by involving the
members of the community in the programme
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made to improve
the standard of living of family living in poverty;
i. There should be enlightenment programmes on community social work programmes to
Nigerian family living in poverty. Families also need to see themselves as the chief
architects or major partners of these programmes.
ii. Nigerian family living in poverty should be encouraged to come out and show more
interest in the community social work programmes by participating in the programmes.
Real partnerships should be formed between the programmes and their benefactors
(either governmental or non-governmental).
iii. Families living in poverty should be motivated and sensitized towards community social
work programmes. There should be constant follow-up by the community social workers
to see to the implementation of community social work programmes in order to reduce
poverty and increase their standard of living.
iv. Change agents should use community development approach in mobilising, sensitising
families to participating in community social work programmes in order to reduce their
poverty level and increase their standard of living.
v. Government and change agents should include community social work programme into
their policy used to alleviate / reduce poverty
References

Anyanwu, J. C. 1997. Poverty in Nigeria: Concepts, Measurement and Determinant in Poverty

Alleviation in Nigeria. Paper Presented of the Annual Conference of Nigerian Economic
Society held in Ibadan. Pp 17-25.
Conger, R. D., Conger, G. H., Lonrenz., & Simon, R. L (2000). Child Development. Economic
stress, coercive family process and development problems of adolescents. Child Welfare.
Vol.183, 389-392
Dilworth, T. (2006). Literature Review: Poverty, Homelessness and Teenage Pregnancy.
Retrieved March 9, 2014 from
http://tamarrackcommunity.ca/downloads/vc/SJ_Literature_Review.pdf

Evans, G. W.& English K (2002). The Environment of Poverty: Multiple Stessor Exposure,
Psychological Stress and Socio-emotional Adjustment. Child Development Vol. 73, No.

12
 4, 1238-1248.
Henderson, P. (2003). South African Aids Orphans: Examining assumptions around vulnerability
from the perspective of rural children and youth. Childhood Vol. 13, 303-327.
Jacquemin, M. (2006). Can the language of rights get hold of the complex realities of child
domestic work? The case of Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Childhood. Vol. 13, 389-406.
Kemshall, H. (2002). Risk, Social Policy and Welfare. Open University Press, Buckingham
Krist-Ashman, T. (2007). ‘Understanding Human Behaviour and the Social Environment ed. 8.
Cengage Learning, 2009 CENGAGE NOW series. ISBNO495603740 USA.
Olajide, O. E. 2004. Effectiveness of Micro-Credit as Instrument for Improved Socio-Economic
Conditions of Beneficiaries in Southwestern Nigeria, Department of Adult Education,
University of Ibadan, Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. Pp 54-68
Ojo, R. C. 2012. Universal Basic Education for Equal Education: Any Role for Adult Education?
International Journal of Education and Social Science, Vol. 3, No. 4, 340-356.
Olaleye Y. L. 2004. Evaluation of the Contribution of Co-operative Societies to Poverty
Alleviation in Ibadan, Nigeria. Department of Adult Education. University of Ibadan,
Unpublished PhD Thesis. Pp 94-110
Olaleye, Y. L. and Adekola, G 2006. Impact of co-operative Societies on Poverty Alleviation A
study of three main Co-operative Societies in Ibadan, Nigeria, Education for Today, 6 (1)
109-120.
Preece, J. 2003. Widening Participation of Social Justice: Poverty and Access to Education in
Oduaran A and Bhola, H. S. (eds). The Netherlands, Springer, pp. 17.
Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (ed) (2001). International Encylopaedia of the Social and
Behavioural Sciences. Elsevier. Oxford Science Ltd.
Streeten, P and Burki, S. J. (1978 “Basic Needs: Some Issues” World Development 6, (1) 411-
421
Stewart, M., Ruetta, L., Makiwarinka, K., Veenstra, G., Love, R., & Raphael, D. (2008). “Left
Out: Perspective on Social Exclusion and Inclusion across Income Groups”. Health
Sociology Review, June, 2008.

13
 14

View publication stats