Introduction to Fabio Bonaccina
Fabio Bonaccina is the President of Fondazione Stefania and director of one of its main services. He has long been engaged in designing services for people with disabilities, with a strong focus on inclusion and community-based approaches.
About Fondazione Stefania
Fondazione Stefania was established in 2006 from the earlier Associazione Stefania (founded in 1971) and provides services for people with disabilities, promoting autonomy and active participation within the community.
Interview with Fabio Bonaccina
How did you experience the Covid period and how did you organize yourselves?
The experience of Covid was an important experience in the sense that, beyond the trauma it caused, the isolation and so on, it was also very stimulating in the sense that, beyond the initial impact of extreme impasse, fear and so on, we rolled up our sleeves and certainly the group of operators together with the organization activated themselves according to the needs that were there. The first need was to continue responding to the needs of people with disabilities, therefore not risking keeping them isolated at home with their families. So we took action, as many schools across Italy did, activating digital-type activities. Fortunately many of the people enrolled in our services had a computer; for some we provided an iPad and we started a whole series of workshop activities at a digital level. From March 9 to July 2 we were completely closed in 2020 and within a month and a half we managed to remodel almost 100% of the activities we had within the Monday cycle. This was thanks to a great ability on the part of the operators to reorganize and to think about activities that could also be carried out digitally. So reading stories, small craft workshops, plenary moments, discussions about how people were feeling emotionally, emotional management, sensations. And from the families there was a great ability to adapt to the use of digital tools. Even some operators who were not very skilled in these tools put themselves into play and we certainly compensated in part for the lack of the center being open. With some more particular situations that had more specific needs we also carried out home-based activities. Not exactly inside the house, but some of our operators had dogs, so with the possibility of going out with the dogs we carried out activities in the park with the dogs, so we were also able to involve, from a more physical and practical point of view, some people who had different needs and for whom staying at home would have been heavy and difficult. Then within the foundation we managed to maintain a presence, so the management was still open inside the day center and we guaranteed a sort of osmosis between inside and outside with those who were at home, so we organized ourselves in this way.
Did this experience leave something in your way of working?
Certainly what remained is this idea that the center is a point of reference, so the physical structure is a point of reference, a base from which to do things, but it can become something more: the experience of home-based activities, of activities carried out in the territory during that period, and of digitalization told us that the center is a base from which to carry out activities outside the center. This allowed us to concretely experience a transition we had already imagined, that of social inclusion, meaning that we had to occupy the territory more, also in terms of the possibility of inclusion of people with disabilities, making the reality known and making it increasingly an active part of the territory, both through awareness and through the idea that people with disabilities can become a resource for the territory. This basic concept is what has now allowed us to develop services outward.
How did you organize internally during the emergency?
From an organizational point of view during Covid we structured a decision-making system: already in April 2020 we created an internal Covid committee composed of management and some operators from the center, dealing with everything related to Covid safety. During the closure we held online meetings and we organized and planned the reopening, which then took place in July 2020, relatively early compared to other centers that postponed to September. This was clearly made possible by the great work of this committee, which monitored all aspects. We then built a responsibility agreement with the ATS for reopening; on July 3 this agreement was drafted, submitted to ATS, shared with families, and little by little we reopened and reactivated all activities.
What impact did it have on your team?
Certainly during Covid there was strong cohesion and hidden resources emerged, especially in the ability to activate in response to need. Then, returning to daily routine, after three or four years, the usual human dynamics and difficulties re-emerged. After a phase of strong activation there was a return to the typical challenging dynamics of work relationships. However, a strong willingness to question ourselves and rethink services has remained. Based also on new regulations and the stimuli that emerged during Covid, we are currently doing significant work to reorganize services, moving much less toward assistance and much more toward self-determination, inclusion and life communities.
Did you feel you were doing something beyond your role during Covid?
As I said before, we found capabilities we perhaps did not even recognize in ourselves, a fairly quick reactivity and unity of intent: we were all focused on the goal of keeping people with disabilities as little isolated as possible, since that situation made them even more vulnerable than before. There was a real mobilization to guarantee, using perhaps a slightly pompous term, a kind of “democratic care”: giving them the possibility, despite the situation, to still be considered, supported in their well-being, and to pursue that well-being that everyone seeks. So we found alternative means compared to what had previously been the usual way.
What about youth participation and volunteering?
Being an organization that provides structured services, the use of volunteers is somewhat limited because we must meet standards. Some volunteers are present, mainly during evening or weekend outings, and there are specific services managed by volunteers. On this we are also working. I would not say that Covid increased this sensitivity—very little, in fact. There is no direct post-Covid increase in engagement, but there is a general effort. We are trying, also through a volunteer coordinator, to encourage and motivate involvement. However, we are experiencing a broader crisis, not specifically linked to young people but to society as a whole, where care and attention toward people in need is more difficult than in the past. This applies also to our profession: beyond issues such as low pay or lack of social recognition, there is a general difficulty in embracing care work. There is a broader issue connected to the fact that work is no longer seen as a value. The relationship with work and its product has changed: in the past people identified with their work much more, whereas now this attachment is weaker. The fragmentation and professionalization of work have not helped, especially in care work, where professional categories can make it harder to address the person as a whole. So there is a general sense of crisis. At the same time, we are evolving: new workers are more focused on relationships with colleagues and personal well-being, but this often translates less into collective well-being. Organizations need to take responsibility for this aspect, which requires a lot of energy but is necessary.
What are the main lessons you take from Covid?
So the three main things are that the center is no longer just a place but a process that promotes the person’s power of choice. In the past we focused on activities inside the center; now the center becomes the place where processes are created that allow people to go out, to choose, and to engage with the territory. Another aspect is the involvement of families: before, they delegated much more, whereas during Covid they became more actively involved. This allowed us to better understand people’s needs, also in relation to family dynamics, and led us to think about greater involvement of families in activities. Finally, the aspect of inclusion pushed us to work more on the territory, removing both physical and digital barriers. This led to projects like “Tutto Incluso,” with a real design approach. The consequence of Covid for us was to invest more in projects like Mentore, with more personalized support in entering the territory. It is not enough to accompany a person: we must create opportunities within the territory. And opportunities are created by making people known and showing that people with disabilities can be a resource. Otherwise, you risk becoming a “tourist of inclusion”: you go, you see what others do, but you are not truly part of it. That is why collaborating with associations means participating also in the organization of activities—for example, at a local festival, not just attending but taking roles in organizing it. People with disabilities can serve tables, work behind counters, within their abilities, but with an active role both in organizing and carrying out activities.
