[xx-20] One Final Indignity

Had they just let me go in peace, you would not be receiving this email. Instead, here's a screaming and on fire example of what your agency does to people.

I want you to keep in mind, the supervisor who actually deserves the position only wrote some of this. The lines I'll isolate were from one who, in two weeks, decided to take what might have been a straight-forward and mundane evaluation, and geared it towards the exact opposite of the feedback I've received my entire tenure at this organization. We allow this. We let people with an axe to grind target and tear people down.

" Nicholas has come up with a system that seems to works well for him and he is able to turn in assessments timely however, it has been found to leave out important information in 311s which at times can misrepresent a child's current safety level. He utilizes his peers, and his supervisor when he has questions and in most cases comes to his staffings prepared and with a plan for his assessments. Nicholas is a quick learner and catches on to any changes fast. He can recognize when a Child and Family Team Meeting would be beneficial. Nicholas always reaches out to his supervisor when he has questions or needs to problem solve and should continue to do so. Nicholas came up with a form on his own to ensure that he always asks for all of the information needed the first time he meets with the families he works with. Nicholas is proficient in use of MaGIK and KidTraks, Salesforce, and completes safety and risk assessments timely to assist in his job duties. "

 " however, it has been found to leave out important information in 311s which at times can misrepresent a child's current safety level. "

I have never once heard this from Rachael, my direct supervisor for over a year.

"Nicholas works cooperatively with children, parents, and stakeholders. Nicholas understands the purpose of Child and Family Team Meeting process. He has been has been using team meetings as a decision making tool with families more often and sees the benefit in this. In this reporting period, Nicholas has had 12 CFTM with none in June.

Nicholas has been heard on multiple occasions speaking negatively in meetings and in the office regarding his job. This has had a direct effect on office morale and impacts the team. Nicholas complained that he is "generally underutilized" and runs out of work to do. When it was recommended he help assist other family case managers who are busy, Nicholas reported he has done this often in the past, but would not be doing so moving forward, as he does not get paid more or rewarded for this."

" Nicholas has been heard on multiple occasions speaking negatively in meetings and in the office regarding his job. "

This one is rich, because there isn't a single person in the office who doesn't levy criticism about their job. What makes mine negative? Any quotes? Any reason to believe it's more or less than any gripe shared by the next person? Absolutely not.

" This has had a direct effect on office morale and impacts the team."

This has never been discussed with me, nor brought to me, nor do I believe they have any care whatsoever about the morale, as people wouldn't so often discuss with me how low they are feeling due to the significant failures in their leadership to respond appropriately.

" Nicholas reported he has done this often in the past, but would not be doing so moving forward, as he does not get paid more or rewarded for this."

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my words. I literally have the email where I said I would continue to work to the best of my ability and to put me where I'm needed while I continued to work. My email to Natalie follows:

" I figure I’d just say that I feel like you’ve been given the short end of the stick getting burnt-out Nick passed to you at the tail end of my growing frustration in working here. To be sure, while I’m here, I’ll be as good as I can be and continue to help where I can. I’m better when I’m busy and don’t have too much time to think too deeply about the things no one cares to fix.

If there’s members on the team struggling with something, I’ll go out with them, write something up, or make the calls. I don’t let my feelings get in the way of my spite and pretense to do well. I wrote 25 other people’s 311s in 2 days before I went on vacation a couple weeks ago. Generally, I’m being severely under-utilized."

Customer Service/Engagement/Communication:

Nicholas responds to phone calls and emails timely. If he is unable to answer a question, he requests assistance and responds timely. Nicholas has inquired as to what community connections would be appropriate for families in an effort to prevent recidivism. As an assessment worker Nicholas has encountered resistant clients. At times, clients have not allowed him to enter the home or have been verbally aggressive in person and on phone calls. In most cases he has maintained professionalism when interacting with them. Nicholas takes time to explain how DCS processes work when meeting with families and takes time to listen to them. He is able to advocate for a client’s needs. He is able to address situations timely.

Nicholas has displayed increased resentment working for the Department of Child Services. He has expressed this in emails to central office participants, during trainings (Mentor Training), during supervision with his supervisor, in safety staffings as well as in the office. Additionally, he uses a lot of inappropriate language when articulating his frustrations with the agency. Nicholas is often heard speaking negatively about his job, local office and practices and procedures conducted by the state. Nicholas participates in email exchanges that are argumentative and insubordinate to direction. Recently, Nicholas was proivded direction on an assessment. He then emailed a representative from HARSHA misrepresenting the departments position and the direction he was given. This caused confusion for the representative. There was a better way that Nicholas could have communicated the information to the representative, in a professional manner.  

" Nicholas has displayed increased resentment working for the Department of Child Services. He has expressed this in emails to central office participants, during trainings (Mentor Training), during supervision with his supervisor, in safety staffings as well as in the office."

It's the exact same level of resentment I have for the lack of responsibility and pettiness that I feel I've even previously discussed with you. Again, no examples. No discussion at the time about noticeable changes to my disposition. Just matter-of-factly throwing me under the bus, as though my grievances haven't been boringly and meticulously shopped all over the agency for someone to finally bother caring.

" Nicholas is often heard speaking negatively about his job, local office and practices and procedures conducted by the state."

You know those "open" environments and desire for necessary changes you're always encouraging? Yeah, that's a problem around here. Don't voice criticism or concern, ever. Don't bother to improve. It'll be in your evaluation if you don't swallow the ever-dumping-on and arbitrary or disorganized nature of many of your duties.

" He then emailed a representative from HARSHA misrepresenting the departments position and the direction he was given. This caused confusion for the representative. There was a better way that Nicholas could have communicated the information to the representative, in a professional manner."

The "better way" that's presented here is them wanting to pretend I was told more than what I was told. Literally, several times on several occasions over several days was I told "Dad needs to figure it out" with regard to his large, violent, and threatening to kill him son. We threw up are arms and Natalie literally smirked and laughed at the prospect of sending this child home and us waiting for the police to call. This kid told me in no uncertain terms 3 different ways that he was worried he would kill his father or someone they lived with for literally any reason that might set him off. I'm overusing literally, but I feel like I don't know how to more explicitly express the gravity, because I often feel as though I couldn't make these things up.

" Nicholas continues to refine his abilities to identify underlying needs and strengths with families and uses Child and Family Team Meetings when appropriate. Nicholas is prepared for supervision with management and asks for assistance when needed. Nicholas at times has failed to observe safety issues and the need for DCS intervention. Nicholas has been found leaving out allegations on 310s and important information in his 311, which misrepresents the current safety level of children. Nicholas has been given feedback to ensure he is covering all areas, but he presents as resistant and argumentative to FCMS direction."

" Nicholas at times has failed to observe safety issues and the need for DCS intervention. Nicholas has been found leaving out allegations on 310s and important information in his 311, which misrepresents the current safety level of children. Nicholas has been given feedback to ensure he is covering all areas, but he presents as resistant and argumentative to FCMS direction"

Again, never once have I heard this from my actual direct supervisor. Natalie created a primer of "allegations" on one of my reports which were a hodgepodge of things she utilizes to create damning narratives regarding families and the assumptions she layers on top of the reports. If I told you an adult lived in a garage, is that a safety issue? To Natalie it is. I guess people aren't allowed to live in garages because obviously they're smoking meth in them? I don't know. My inability to occupy her fantasy realm of condemnation led to me, after almost 2 years, miraculously losing the ability to recognize what endangers a child.

" Nicholas has been very vocal within the recent weeks about his dislike for working for DCS. Nicholas continues to discusss this with coworkers, management, in meetings, and via emails. Nicholas has made significant and serious allegations against he department, but when asked to provide examples or proof for the department to investigate, Nicholas was unable to produce such.:"

This is just a straight lie. Office gossip about things, egregious things, other employees have done, and not even me shopping these stories around, is not me making "significant and serious allegations." If I wanted to do that, I'd file a formal complaint and provide evidence. I explained this to Amanda and Natalie, and it manifests as, "No no Nick, you made allegations and couldn't back them up." Well, I didn't. As such, I didn't provide evidence for allegations I didn't make. I can't believe they really had the balls to even put this in here.

The email exchange regarding this follows:

Hello Nick,

It is my understanding that you are aware of PI’s where the information contained in the report has been fabricated, as well as cases where you think we have taken children based on their race.

Please provide me a list of the PI’s in which the information was fabricated and cases where children were removed because of their race by COB tomorrow.

I will need to look into these allegations and address them if necessary.

Thank you,

Amanda VanLeeuwen

Me:
 I don't physically have a P.I., or series of revisions upon further scrutiny, where I can demonstrate that someone has lied. If someone has overheard gossip or taken things I've said in a misunderstood way, I would suspect this has prompted this request. I can definitively say an employee implicated in lying on a P.I., per said gossip, has lied to me about something perhaps less serious, but a lie no less, when it came to the input of contact notes.

If I needed to make an "official" allegation, I believe we have the means of reporting misconduct. As far as removals based on race, I think that's a statistical story that we haphazardly discussed around the time the data team was going to be put into place.

I appreciate your willingness to look into these things though, even if I don't think I'll be able to help.  

"Nicholas initiates his assessments timely. He makes appropriate service referrals when needed. He is able to engage all parties and ensures that he solicites all information needed to make an infomed decision on whether a family needs DCS intervention or not. Nicholas has been found to leave out important information in 311s which at times can misrepresent a child's current safety level. Nicholas has also been found to not address all allegations in 311s."

"Nicholas has been found to leave out important information in 311s which at times can misrepresent a child's current safety level. Nicholas has also been found to not address all allegations in 311s."

Can you tell as quickly as I can which lines were written by my actual supervisor, and which swoop in to temper the real story?

"Nicholas attended the Mentor Training. However, he was not approved to be a Mentor due to Nicholas' behavior during the training. Nicholas typed multiple inappropriate messages in the chatroom during the training. Due to Nicholas' current view on the department of child services, it is not recommended he mentor new family case managers at this time."

I relayed that I was essentially ignored in trying to complete the Forensic Interview Training by someone they put up to "teach us" about how to be a good mentor. I also typed what follows, though you might want to read through it at the end:

"There's a habit in this "professional" world of claiming the discussion should be "strengths based." What this is is a disingenuous way to keep the discussion from becoming a pile-on of any individual negative experience. You don't name names, because we're "The State," not the collection of individual actions that represent us. You don't want to get "too philosophical" or it will detract from learning the coping narrative and the reiteration of concepts that, god help you, need to be pretty obvious if we're going to rely on you to be a teacher or leader of any kind.

What exhausts me about this world is not the angry parents, the trauma relayed, nor the internal bickering or arbitrary policy changes to adjust to. It's the deliberate methodical insistence that nothing real ever be talked about. The professional "moving right along '' crowd look for others who,very much acknowledge and respect what you might have to say, but assure you, in their years of experience, talking explicitly and drilling down on examples is no way to change things for the better.

Encouragement is important. You don't want to be beaten up in service to anything you're doing. That's not what I'm criticizing. I'm criticizing the avoidance of more immediate and explicit consequences for people who don't exhibit our best definition of the "core values." I don't feel empathized with, no matter how many lunches I go out on. I don't feel my concerns are respected. Is that just inconvenient and therefore unimportant? I don't trust people tasked with the things we are to do any better of a job of exhibiting empathy and respect for clients than they do for me.

This is unfortunate, because I reiterate, I think most people most of the time really do want to do a good job. I think they care, in some form or another. We fail, hard, at not just training, but reflecting on why or what actual meaningful contributions to the field will look like. If I don't bring this appeal to an "experienced worker training" on how we train new workers, I don't know where would be more appropriate. I know I can get an email or phone call pulling me aside to check on my mental state might be the instinct of someone carrying on about my welfare, but again, the mechanism for helping would feel personally gratifying, maybe, to that person, but do nothing for me, nor speak to the issue I'm raising.

Translate that to our clients. "I care about the children!" " I want to teach everyone how to save the world!" Great, what does mom and dad think of your follow-up with the service provider? You didn't? What got mindlessly signed by your supervisor on a P.I. that's now eating hours/weeks of time in a discussion where no one can use the word "lie?" You insist you're not biased but have a habit of opening cases on Black families? How's a few hours on a Tuesday going to root out the heart of that problem? Are we even trying? Are we willing to? If not, admit we're not, and accept the "standard" as resolving to the desperate mean dictated by our budget or social/emotional competence.

I stress, I understand, to some degree, why we operate like this, trying to fit so many people under one umbrella and perhaps being tasked with genuinely more than anyone should. At the same time, it never gets better without a more exacting discussion as to why. It doesn't get better without embodied long-term standards set by people who can be retained on the back of more than their idealism or cronyism. I don't need to insist on any *extra* pessimism that our numbers don't already reflect.

I want the best for these kids, their families, the agency, and myself. I watch every day as parts of me either die in service to keep coping or get inflamed with no means of redress. I watch people skirt responsibility. I watch us literally steal children, which is as foreign of a thought I believed could be reasonably considered even in my naive estimation of our behavior. I think the agency takes advantage of your good will, competence, and spirit and asks you to lord your psychological wins over everything worth condemning.

When I'm working, I'll be the best I can, train the best I can, and contribute at the level I've set for myself. I in no way confuse this for what DCS has failed to expect from itself. And, again, as much as I genuinely might like or respect you personally, in no way do I really believe what you bring to the table is valued for what it's worth or is of the consequence it could be. It's like watching Hall-of-Fame players get chewed out by an overzealous little league coach, where what's at stake is considerably more dire than the loss of a game."

" There was an incident recently when Nicholas emailed the Regional Services Coordinator, Jason Nelson, questioning the new Services Standards for Family Preservation which rolled out in this reporting period. The questions that Nicholas asked were not perceived as strength based and were taken as accusatory. "

How does this state differentiate "accusatory" from "critical." I challenge you to watch that video with anyone of experience, and if they don't have at least the basic same questions I had, I'll eat my shoe.

" The email correspondance was perceived to be contrary to the core values of DCS. Although Nicholas reports he did not mean the conversation to be perceived that way, Nicholas needs to respect the chain of command and ask questons in a strength based manner if he wants to learn more about the programs being implemented within DCS."

Here's another explicitly denoted lie. The agency has not proven itself interested in any measure of genuine accountability to knowledge transfer. They want the buzzwords and 1984 double-speak for "trainings." They want you to swallow what they've said even if it doesn't answer the question. They want to downplay or ignore because the truth makes them look incredibly irresponsible, malicious, and selfish which certainly doesn't jive with "But I care so much for children!"

As well, another thing that was not brought up as a problem of anysort at the time, with Jason or otherwise. The exchange with Jason will be attached to the email as it is lengthier. (10 minutes)

" Nicholas has presented as unprofessional and argumentative on multiple occasions."

Here, Natalie is upset that I quoted her saying "Dad needs to figure it out" and we had a petty email exchange that flirted with discovering as "unprofessional" as she felt my email was, her words didn't indicate her grasp of the concept was much better than mine, and I wasn't afraid to say so.

" Nicholas must ensure he is practicing DCS core values. There have been recent events of Nicholas being unprofessional and speaking negatively about the agency with providers, coworkers, management, trainors and other members with DCS. "

She's going for broke on the last sentiment to drive home her displeasure of me. I suspect if you ask Rachael about these lines, she'll explain how frequently, well in spite in my feelings, I persistently sacrifice my time and sanity to empower, assist, and impart anything I possibly can to the otherwise raging dumpster fire that constitutes what the leadership has done to that office. My opinion has never been a secret, and for the entirety of my time at the office, my work has never been in serious question.

" Nicholas reports he does not mean to present as unprofessional or disrespectful, but the manner in which hecommunicates in emails often comes across as argumentative and insubordinate."

If my leadership is willing lie about me, create narratives to enhance their agenda towards families, turn deaf, dumb, and blind to the idea of the remotest criticism, and then smile and laugh thinking the small horror of their world is going to reflect on me in a meaningful way, then yes, I'm insubordinate. I actually care. I actually speak. I actually take the time to do the work, ask the questions, and demonstrate the paper trail of ignored questions and empty catchphrases. I try to enlist. I try to view the cup as both half full and empty and respect what that means for the practical reality.

But what do I matter, right? Who cares if I, and every other remotely experienced person got fired, quit, or transitioned within the last year or two? I must just be aggrieved and like to make things up, or something. You know what they don't know? The people with 2 or 3 months on the job longer than me are desperate to leave too. And you know why they don't know? Because they don't care. Their "open door policy" is an invitation to get your report to look like mine.

I feel incredibly bad for the families that pass through our doors. I suppose entropy is the law of the universe though, so this stuff is going to win, and I need to be in the business of coping, because I'm not going to find anyone interested in what it takes to fix it.

And, truly, I don't know if this kind of thing is just routine, but you won't know how incredibly hurtful and ridiculous this feels until you go through and survey the hundreds of families I've worked with about how I operate. Question every school social worker. Tell me what the majority of my coworkers say about me (at least, who's left since I started). You tell me, even in your own interactions with me if you think this kind of thing doesn't testify to the immense sin we're condoning and why it's no secret why people don't want to leave, but absolutely have to if they're going to retain their sanity and sense of self-worth. It's not the clients or the situations that are too difficult, we're the problem. Or, I guess you are, as I've nothing left to give.

[853] Lock & Keeed

I messed up. I glanced at work emails as I started to wind down for the day, The Favourite paused and waiting. I recently switched supervisors, so I get revisions on submitted reports. Some things she said were reasonable, a good portion were not. I felt the need to correct what were obvious missteps in her perspective. As with most things I write in a “professional” setting, it was polite, but to the detailed point. I suspect a few more emails like that, and I’ll be reprimanded for insubordination.

After writing the email, I return to the movie, bed, and cuddling. I discovered my jaw clenched. I spent the better portion of the day in 90 degree weather, loading my truck with skids and pulling saplings. The sun beat down, I was sweating profusely. I got a little dizzy and wobbly hauling a heavy chain and hopping in and out of my truck. Never once did I clench my jaw.

The quick and superficial way would be to say “I hate my job.” I don’t. My job is incredibly easy. Talk to people, ask questions, fill out paperwork, and drive around the state. After a while, even if you’ve never heard or dealt with something before, you’ve heard and dealt with something similar. People are easy. They speak in predictable ways. They fuck up in similar fashion. If you’re paying attention, they all succumb to some underlying driving passion to fuck things up.

The problems of our poor or dumb clients are the simplest. Of course they’re maybe selling drugs, smoking a lot, or have one of a dozen things that would threaten the safety of their children going on. That’s built into the definitions of being dumb, in poverty, or both. The problems of our organization are legion, if not mythologies for our incredibly punitive behavior in the past, reinvigorated in each instant someone longs for the old days and wants to target you. The problems of the leadership are to play deaf, dumb, and blind to their complicity.

As such, you get an organization that isn’t very organized. You get individuals who concoct personal narratives about how much they care or love their job. Everything wrong gets swept under the blanket in the house they’ve built for themselves. Criticism is met with indifference. Change is impossible unless mindlessly dictated. No one is responsible. They have lines to sign and reports to approve, but they don’t have to be responsible, they have to whitewash their culpability.

This is what makes me clench my jaw. The spirit is not to inform and grow and drive towards a common aim. The spirit is to condemn, criticize, and target when you talk too much or find an opinion. The spirit isn’t to evolve to meet the needs, it’s to maintain the edifice and pageantry of “helping,” while aggressively enlisting the desperate and naive to carry out the whims of people unfamiliar with and uninterested in the job.

I’m so fucking tired of bitching about this place. I’m so fucking tired of wishing for an environment that makes sense. I’m tired of trying to expect from the world a degree of coherence that exists between me and like a dozen people. I’m tired of being driven mad in the middle of the night and dreading the next day. I’m tired of my heart and stomach retching respectively because I know it's not going to end and not going to get better.

I don’t even “just want a new job.” I want the same thing I always have. I want “security.” I want the freedom to read all day, without a second thought of the next bill. I want to get a week’s worth of land development done in a week, instead of when I can fit it on the weekends. I want to talk to people who respect what I’ve learned and how I operate, because it lends itself to all of us improving. I want to never have to clench my jaw again, because I’ve built an apparatus to work within that doesn’t fail for anything but good and/or wholly unknowable reasons.

I know why I’m failing at work. It’s the same reason the country flirts with fascism. The whole of our collective psyche is so devoid of personal responsibility, we’re merely mimicking the “boss” and “employee” dynamics like Trump plays “president.” No one is in charge of themselves, so they’re certainly not going to take charges from you about all it is they aren’t doing. They can’t listen, because they’re safe inside their own heads and assess, reciting the scripts that act as disinfectant for naughty expectations they might otherwise hold for themselves. There’s no direction. There’s no purpose. We’re all playing along, until you aren’t, and then you’re the enemy.

I’ve spent entirely too much time as the enemy. I never really wanted to fight to begin with. I wanted things to make sense. I argued religion not because I had a real opinion of religious people, but because the ones I spoke to were so incredibly full of shit, I saw the cascading consequences. I study philosophy or psychology to try and get a handle on how to navigate the world when people are gripped by varying degrees of bullshit. I try to figure out what spells I’m under that do not serve the “real” I’m always on about. This is a mechanism I can engage when I’m breaking down and losing myself to adrenaline, and it’s certainly something at play when it’s my job to parse out details in the story of a family’s life and whether or not children are safe.

Somewhere, I ask myself if I asked for this. I imagine a sort of “reincarnation room.” After you die, you return to this room (indeed, it’s the only “real” room) and just like in a video game, you select your character. You can program metrics, increase stats in something after you’ve leveled up during your life. You go in handicapped by things you royally fucked up. I wonder if I somehow landed on this being the best negotiation of my past lives up until this point. You don’t get to program a life without pain or sacrifice, but if you don’t hit the sweet spot, you’ll never get to ...the end?

Does it always have to be a fight? I remember my mom alleging this against me. With me, it was always a fight. She, completely devoid of introspection about the cause of the fight, and me, a child, were a solid recipe for a constant fight. Why would you trust an organization like DCS without a capacity to introspect? Why would you trust it if it behaved like a child? Why would you want it used as an aggressive tool to instill fear and punish or embarrass? What kind of sick fucks *enjoy* embedding themselves in people’s drama, and then pawn off their salivating on their resolve in the care of children? Do you want a cop itchy to shoot? Do you want a judge who loves punishment? It’s no wonder people treat us like law enforcement when we can fuck up your life in ways worse than they can.

I’m really trying. I’m trying not to spend on anything but gas and food. I’m trying to focus on my dozen projects that might cost gas and concrete. I’m trying to remember there’s a big bad world out there of potential directions that have nothing to do with this mid-sized county in a mid-sized state of over-sized individuals. I have so much to be grateful for. My world is always, excessively slowly, coming together. I continue to narrowly avoid catastrophic injury.

I just get 5 daily doses of being burned out and dragging my burned out corpse into burned out houses, reciting the same lines, piecing together things that we should never have allowed to become broken. I find myself explaining just how often it is we can’t do something as opposed to what we actually can or might one day. It’s embarrassing. It’s exhausting. It’s planting myself in the heart of an existential crisis about what to do for which I came up with solid answers many years ago; burn it down, take it over, or leave. It’s too disorganized to take over. Legitimately, the field changes every month or two, and you can’t keep the remotely useful players even on the board. I’m plotting to leave, in the abysmal job market. I still demand satisfaction, and something will need to burn. That tends to happen when I least plan or expect it to, so I’ll pay close attention to the times my jaw isn’t clenched, and something in me recognizes an opportunity.

[852] Thoughtfull-of-Shit

The more I think, the more I get into trouble. I use thinking as a tool to enable my behavior. “Thinking” is used as a catch-all for any passing phrase or feeling that whirls through your head. “I hate you!” You thought. “I was just trying to help!” You thought. “I'm good, you're bad, this, that, or the other thing is to blame!” You assert as matter-of-factually as you ever have. You were sincere in your thought. You believed in what you were saying.

It took me a long time to not associate “my thoughts” as “me.” I think a great many terrible things regularly. I think inappropriate things. I think in ways that you might associate with a form of mental Tourette's or something. I learned that I have no control over that. I learned there is a different between being at the whims and mercy of the feelings those thought patterns might produce, and how I actually feel, or don't, when I break something down and look at the pieces.

When I think, I attempt to open doors into a perspective I cannot otherwise access with the fluidity I would prefer in my daily life. I rarely feel “zen” in the middle of spinning out on the implications of existing in the perpetually shitty work environments I feel mostly compelled into. All of my knee-jerk judgmental and unpalatable turns of phrase are significantly more likely as I'm going about my day, than when I choose to discuss the details of someone's look or damage here. When I really think, it's a deliberate stab at getting somewhere and search for the next course of action. Whether that's to go for a walk, do an errand, or burn down an organization are what remain in limbo.

I hold zero regard for people in power. I think you are powerful when you respect what you can do and push that to its limits. If you lord your power over someone, you are weak. If you take advantage of people, you are weak. If you pretend that something is out of your control that perhaps your literal job description gives you control of, you are weak. As a weak person, and your role requires you to be powerful or a leader, you damage literally everyone and everything you touch. The consequences of your actions cannot be understated. You set a bad pace, and the people who don't like to run believe they never have to.

It causes me an indescribable rage when I see someone fail at being a leader. It is your job. You “earned” it, maybe. People come to you. Where do you get off letting them down? Where do you get off not learning about how to improve? How do you forgo exercising the discernment to respect reasonable criticism from lunatic rants? (I don't know if you've seen comments on Governor pages about mask requirements, but Jesus could the crazies make themselves any louder?) I get even more angry when I appeal to be the leader. I get angry when I set an unimpeachable example and prove what I'm talking about. I get angry when people continually fall in line with my good advice and can demonstrably show how they have improved after time with me.

What else are you supposed to do besides get angry? My organization tears me down, blows up my teams, and disrespects my supervisors that know and do the best. Shouldn't I be angry? Shouldn't I do everything in my power to destroy an organization that does that? Doesn't it become an increasing moral imperative when that organization is tasked with ensuring the safety of children? It's right in the fucking name!

My time is well spent pulling saplings, tearing down a shed, or giving deliberate meaningful feedback to new people on how to better engage with families. Why, if I'm part of an organization which recites ad nauseam their “core values” as being empathy, respect, professionalism, and genuineness can’t I squeeze out a drop in service to the things they cite as their own ongoing issues? I'm genuinely fucking pissed that we respect ourselves and power so little that we blind ourselves to the requisite empathy in evaluating reasonable criticism about what constitutes our practiced professionalism.

Just a quick story. In my first 6 months, the process for how we get medical records changed. We used to send a release with just the child's name, and the various doctor's offices would send us a four line summary of the child's last visit. If there were deeper health concerns, we'd request the whole history to be mailed. Well, this overwhelmed the one person they had in charge of getting those records, so they changed it. Now, they gave us 5 different fax numbers to send the releases, which all would be forwarded to a records keeping company who would send us packets of a child's medical history 3 weeks after the assessment closed. For weeks, I attempted to talk to each office manager about returning to a system that would provide us useful information in a timely manner, and nobody could assert a plan beyond “Send it to CIOX!” A year and a half later, I discover per a supervisor mentioning it, that we don't need releases if there's an open investigation, per State law, and that they were supposed to be sending us the information all along anyway. On top of that, someone got around to respecting the necessity and importance of up-to-date medical information in a timely manner, and worked out that one of our secretaries could just be granted access to the system with the records, but they still want the release.

If that situation isn't indicative of why things like “change takes time” or “the problems with big government” should infuriate the fuck out of you, I don't know what is. A half hour phone-tag session with anyone of authority and any basic bitch first dipshit of a fucking thought could have come to the conclusion that one mother fucker in the DCS office who's, not only entitled to the records, but going to be asking for them for presumably the end of time could have fixed that situation, and it took a year and a half.

And while you're spending an hour debating the boxes that should or shouldn't be checked on the form, and getting conflicting information from the medical records department verses another medical records department, you're not spending hours talking to families, responding to things timely, or feeling like you have a handle on the job as a whole. You're not formalizing the process, able to conjure together tangible metrics of success, nor willing to acknowledge the depth of your irresponsibility and depravity and how it lends itself to the overall failure of your organization. You thought it was just a hiccup with a form? Kids allergies are on those records. Mom's lie about taking the kid to the doctor for a life-threatening condition are on those records.

You deserve better. You deserve to have better examples to live by. You deserve the opportunity to lead better, and it's your responsibility to assert and speak to what that looks like. When I think about that, it brings me back to what I can actually do after I'm done writing or complaining. I can always speak. I can always hold myself to a standard that will carry into the next thing I do. I can always give an actual example of what those “core values” are supposed to speak to. It matters. It matters for the next kid who's going to get fucked because, while management was trying to build a case against an employee by overwhelming him, a kid was getting fucked in the ass. You think I'm angry? What consequences lie ahead for that kid the rest of his life? (I literally could not make this shit up)

I think I don't know what to do. I know what I could do, like leave, try to ignore it, or kick and scream until they help me burn a bridge. I don't know if you know this, but the job market isn't great. My bills are small, but not nonexistent. I can't effectively do my job when my mind is swarmed by feelings of injustice and rage. I can't help myself, let alone a child, when I don't trust what I'd be plugging them into even if they required our intervention. I can't be an infinite buffer either.

I hope this shit pisses you off and you're talking about it too. I hope you're using what power you have to sure up the edges of the shit sandwich that seems to dominate our modern conceptions of leadership and responsibility. It all matters and everything is always at stake.

[xx-19] On Reasons DCS Is Not Your Friend

This is an exchange I had with an apparent big-wig at the agency (who I didn't realize who he was, oh no! ::eye roll::) that they want to have a special meeting with me to talk about our "core values" about. A law changed or new protocol for who we're paying to "service" our families is going to be implemented, and they encouraged questions about what a 15 minute primer video was telling us. My direct supervisor thought nothing of it and just said she hopes I don't lose my shit and go out on bad terms. Bold is me.

How much are we going to paying in "per diem" verses what we are paying in billable hours today?

That depends on several variables. The idea with Family Pres is that we’re moving to a more intensive approach to service delivery for these families to not only prevent removals when we can, but more quickly and efficiently move the case to closure and the family to life after DCS.

I know what the idea is, but I don't know to the degree it's an informed idea, and unfortunately this doesn't answer the question.

What happens to individual therapists or smaller outfits that DCS trusts and works with that might not have the ability to address every concern a family may have even while they are really good at doing what it is they are currently doing?

All of our community-based providers are still available for other case types. For IA’s and in-home CHINS cases, you will need to select one of the contracted Family Pres providers. For existing cases, they can continue with their current services but after June 1 the law requires us to utilize this new service.

So a case worker retains their small outlet, puts in a FPS person anyway, and that doesn't immediately conflict with one of the opening training slides that it's supposed to simplify a seemingly complicated process? I got feedback from a small therapist who said she would not even be able to bid to be allowed to be a vendor unless she hired an unsustainable amount of people to provide for services she currently doesn't.

How do you construct "better measure the impact" of each provider's work? Are there surveys? Are they self-reporting? Are we starting an auditing leg? What are we comparing their metrics to to denote that it is "better?"

We’ll be able to gather a number of different data points such as intensity, model effectiveness, etc. More importantly we’ll be able to see which providers are investing the time and resources in each case and track the outcomes of those cases (removal/closure/extension).

I don't understand this. What constitutes "intensity" and "model effectiveness?" I'm still confused as to what makes an FPS referral a better equipped to track what we're doing. Do they have better software? Training in data collection? We don't know already when we're removing, closing, or extending a case? If we can't open a case unless their is a substantiation of abuse or neglect, what is meant by a referral must be made to FPS in any in-home CHINS or IA even if there is not a substantiation?

If a case exists that is either a in-home CHINS or IA, a FPS referral is required to be issued according to the new law.

​I understand there is a new law. I think the slide was confused in its phrasing, because a case is predicated on a substantiation. Unless the law has changed something to do with the circumstances and an FPS referral is to be put in anyway.

How do we ensure providers are documenting their evidence-based model any better than we currently are? Is there a roadmap for each model that we can follow along? Is it predicated on individual perception of progress or perhaps family testimony?

Central Office will help monitor the delivery of EBM’s through regular audits but providers are also required to document required fidelity measures in their monthly report as well as maintaining their certifications to provide those models with the model owners themselves.

This is the "who," but not the "how." The company I was working for was required to document as well, and whatever they were documenting was not accurately reflecting what they provided. Them being pressed on how to justify their billing would have gone a long way to help families and kept money out of bilking hands.

Concrete assistance must be paid by the provider "when necessary" like a heat bill in the winter to prevent removal. Who's determining when it is necessary?

You, your supervisor and the Family Team.

The video says the team decides, otherwise a removal would be necessary. If the provider controls the purse, is it hard to imagine they'll get creative in arguing for how the child doesn't need removed? How does this not incentivize providers to hang on to cash by insisting families move, access shelters, or under and falsely report?

Many of our partner agencies have long-standing relationships with the State and for their agencies to remain solvent, most wish to continue those relationships. Again, we will be able track a variety of data points, including when and how concrete assistance is being utilized.

Why would DCS cede that decision making process with the allocation of funds for families they likely have more familiarity and history with and no financial incentive to downplay?

If you or your supervisor identify a need that requires the use of concrete assistance funds, it is the expectation that (within reason) would occur. You are still the manager of the case and if you run into concerns like these, please report them to me immediately.

I suppose the practical reality of this will play out one way or another. Some of our long-standing agencies do a consistently "meh" to "terrible" job as it is and still get paid. I don't know what they've done, nor gather from the collective coworker conscience that they deserve even more money.

A good portion of this video describes our job. If we're asking providers to identify safety concerns more comprehensively than we are currently, and to call the hotline if they are unable to get a hold of someone at the office, are we not just adding an unnecessary barrier to addressing the concern ourselves and acting in a timely and organized manner with regard to our caseloads?

Well, we’re not. Providers understand their mandate and responsibility to report any concerns. If a safety concern is identified by the provider, they are required to report that immediately by phone. This does not necessarily mean that a new report will be generated, but rather the information was communicated to someone at the county immediately.

Why are we shifting the burden and removing the impetus to develop ongoing relationships with our families?

I’m unsure how you arrived at this conclusion.

If we're not understanding our mandate to ensure the safety of children, why are we believing providers are doing any better or trusting we have the capacity to recognize when they are doing so? As an assessor, the amount of new reports that get generated because we fumble around with pretty straight-forward means of accounting for what we already know does not give me reason to believe new reports won't get generated. I arrive at the conclusion that we are shifting the burden because instead of paying case managers to case manage, it sounds like we're mandating fledgling to tolerable service providers get paid more to do what were explicit descriptions of my/our job.

Is there anything consolidating providers speaks to that could not be better accounted for by better organizing and distributing work loads at the individual county level?

I’m not really sure about you mean by this question, but one of the ideas behind Family Preservation is streamlining service delivery. We know from years of feedback from families that multiple providers increases confusion and duplication of those services. ​

Things I've proposed are the making of unannounced home visits by assessors with less on their active case load, the distribution of menial paperwork tasks to designated people, the auto-filling of paperwork ready to print, and concurrent database search-ability to free up hours that can be spent with families or traveling.

Ok

Feedback from families will tell you perfectly inadequate case managers were their favorite or that someone who worked tirelessly to keep a family together hates them and did a terrible job. If you're going to solicit feedback, you need to ensure that those families weren't just being handled by a disorganized case manager, aren't reporting from areas with a lack of services to begin with, aren't experiences a mental or practical barrier that would keep them communicating with those providers, and were being properly referred in the first place. If you're basing the idea of changing the law solely on "families thought this was confusing," that seems incredibly short in its analysis of why they may say that. My questions suggests that if you better train and equip case managers, by actually organizing what the expectations are, better oversight, and things we apparently can't take for granted and have lost even the conception of, you don't need to redirect money to someone else to do a worse job.

As someone who has filled out "monthly reports" as a visit supervisor, I can tell you I was encouraged to use catch-all language that suggested they had trained me to do this comprehensive level of engagement I was in no way trained to do. As well, it was never expected I should learn or ask how to get to the level required to properly address the needs, and I was reprimanded for raising my concern for our inadequate standards. We still contract with that agency, leading me to believe our oversight is exactly zero, yet we plan to shift the responsibility even further to service providers?

I’ve attached a helpful document that we utilize to help FCM’s understand what they should be seeing in monthly reports as well as what we should be including in our referrals to providers. It’s unfortunate that you have this perception, but I’m hopeful when you review monthly reports submitted to you on your cases that you are mindful that case plan goals are being addressed and examples of progress/lack there of are being documented.

I'm in assessment, I'm just relaying my first-hand, albeit anecdotal, knowledge of a company that bragged about its increasing access to drug-riddled families and their willingness to hire anyone to send into anyone’s home to collect.

Cases should be referred for 6 months, ensuring the provider a paycheck even if the family only needs 3 months of an I.A. or something as specific as a payment one month in times of crisis?

We will rely on our Child and Family Teams in concert of course with our partner agencies and relevant participants to be familiar enough with the clients and their progress to understand when decisions about the direction of each case need to be made.

It said 6 months was required. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. If that 6 month period conflicts with the wisdom of the team, who wins?

Parent enters detox, kid is with healthy grandma environment, but don't close the referral, because provider is now incentivized to tell grandma kid needs their lowest cost already hourly-budgeted service or some broad family planning and monitoring. As long as there's a kid anywhere at any level of DCS, I bet they're going to have an identified need, real or otherwise, that keeps the referral open, no?

I would point you to a few of the answers above. If partner agencies “game” the system that would negatively affect their ability to receive future referrals and contracts with the State.

In theory it would, but I don't know how it does currently, and I certainly don't know how it would when they squeeze out smaller outlets and we become dependent on them to an even further degree.

Make sure new kids are added to the referral, because who knows the kind of expensive baby-specific specialists it will need that the per diem needs to make sure it accounts for! Generational abuse means we can keep them on the hook for life!

I’m not sure this really needs a response, I would direct you to our Practice Model and your supervisor if concerns like this become an issue. I hope this is helpful!

I'm inferring the direction I've watched places like Centerstone go in handing out flyers with 36 different services they provide arranged like a bad power point, and when you drill down, they're lucky to have 2 therapists with availability that doesn't stretch 3 to 5 months out. Now, one of those 2 therapists is going to call themselves or certify themselves as also a specialist at something like "moms coping with treating a baby with withdrawal" and insist they need to be involved at their specialized rate.

[851] Exception To The Rule

You'll do well to take this blog with a grain of salt, then a few more grains of salt, and then a shot of tequila, because I'm an hour past a bottle of wine, and I don't drink regularly anymore.

The theme for this paragraph is insecurity. I think I've mostly lost a concept of this. I remember having no confidence in my looks. I still get indignant to condescension for sure. But, at bottom, I have such an overwhelming “fuck you” kind of impulse, I don't really care. When pressed, I will find my own way, do my own thing, or have you calling my mental gymnastics and poor attempt at accounting for your solid point about my being evidence I don't have a prayer.

Why, ever, would you listen to something I say? It's the same reason you have music you enjoy or lines in books. Some shit I said resonated. I am not “the truth” by virtue of the bravado or intensity by which I say something. If I say, “That goofy looking 5 bitch” you should know, by naked context, I'm probably being a cunt. How on Earth could you reasonably invest in my sentiment, emotionally or otherwise? If that kind of thing fucks you up, is the problem that I said it, (yeah, maybe, but) or that you haven't worked out what it's speaking to you in how you feel?

I can promise you, and I don't make promises lightly, I don't feel as bad as you. My feelings are reserved for things that matter to me. If you remove yourself from that space, well, fuck, what the fuck am I supposed to do about it? I'm invested in your mind, your contribution, your sense of self extremely independent of me or what you feel about me. Maybe this is hard to understand, but I'm not looking to play you like an instrument. I don't want the script of “what girls like” or “signs of a super best friend.”

I will not just fail you at doing this, but I will attack that you'd even want me to. You will never, I mean never, get along or feel comfortable with me, if you want me to treat you like anything but the exception to the rule. You are in my orbit, and I'm in yours. Call yourself an asteroid instead of a planet, and I'll send you off to wander space. (Like, legit, you can tell I'm still drunk).

I'm not an overtly feeling person (news?). I hate things. I have sentimental overflows of lovey-doviness when I'm tipsy. But, by and large, I'm just watching. I'm just thinking. My sentiments are a bad analysis of one idiot at any one point in time, maybe underfed, maybe tired, maybe with a chip on his shoulder. God help you if you've couched a sense of yourself in that. We are never closer than when my words are perhaps window dressing on your fantastic Christmas extravaganza. Don't take me more seriously than you take yourself, and maybe take yourself less seriously.

I feel like I need to write blogs like this intermittently because, while it's not lost on me, not everyone is really in on it, but people don't like me. They really, really, don't like me. And they don't like me for all of the easy things like my mouth and what it says, or throwaway sentiments regarding arrogance. But, the deep down reason to not like me is when I immediately recognize where you're vulnerable, and then attacking it. It's a legitimate reason to suspect a person should not be in your circle.

Maybe you don't like your look. Maybe you're inarticulate. Maybe you've had a series of real traumas and life-altering experiences. I'll find it. I'll poke it. I want you to break the power it has over you like I try to break, or have broken, the things that have fucked with me. I hated my mom, and now am ambivalent. I hate condescension, but I'm not getting fired over it. I had no confidence or can routinely joke about a receding hairline or a fat ass. Those are not the things on my mind if I turn on what I am and pursue what I want.

It's not hard for me to point out the obvious. Maybe it's obvious you're fat as fuck. You know you're fat as fuck. That's not interesting. That's not meaningful. If you linger on that, you're selling both of us short. But that's what people do. They say, “YOU SAID THE OBVIOUS!” and hate you. Or they wish you didn't notice. I have a habit of noticing. I have a habit of exploring the darkest implications. I have a habit of looking down on the mythology you create about doing so or why. I might create a place that couches your being into something I better understand or can work with that could be just as obvious to you if you let it.

I want the exceptions to the rule. I want the contrary evidence. I want the choice to dismiss the pain and the feelings and to do something better. I want it from myself, and therefore I want it from you. I have to regularly drag it out of myself in writing and throwing myself at things which I find difficult and frequently hurt me. Whatever you do to do the same I hope is less dramatic, but no less required. I won't suffer you thinking less of yourself than I think of myself. I regard myself for the reasons I write about and for the things I create and work on. Think or say anything you want about my place in life, if it's shit, you'll get the standard “fuck you” and I'll continue doing my thing. Grant yourself the same capacity.

[850] Still Unwritten

Good help is hard to find, they say. It's a common enough theme to permeate every industry. I don't know if you've searched for a job lately, but you'd be amazed how many require you to show up on time, reliably keep track of what it is you're in charge of, or communicate. There's only so much by way of labor that is capable, responsible, or remotely accountable. The way society makes up for this leaves us with reason to be concerned.

Say there are too few doctors. What do you do? If it's your job to “find more doctors” the solution becomes an extension of your most fantastic marketing scheme. If you're a little more holistic, you might bother to advocate for people eating better and exercising more. If you're looking for a shortcut, maybe you start to understand the function of a doctor in a broader way, and allow for those functions to get couched under doctor-adjacent titles or through newly-minted certification processes. If you were the Big Box Store of doctors, you'd hire everyone that came in, call them doctor, fire the ones who kill, not merely maim, the patients, and keep a flood of bodies coming in to meet the demands of being big.

I'm all over the place in the last few days. I thought I was going to start a new job that doesn't appear to be panning out. I'm figuring out how best to time my leaving of my current one. I'm ruminating on the daily failures. I'm making cheeky appeals to Craigslist gig-makers and psychologically preparing myself for the idea of not having a consistent paycheck; it's a place I used to sort of revel in that now feels foreign.

I think about what I contribute to my jobs, and thus life in general. I think about the things I've done for which I got no reward. I think about the perspective I've garnered that made me more or less capable. I think about the standard I try to maintain in my work and how that gets interrupted when I'm overwhelmed by an environment that's comfortable sleeping in shit-filled beds. I think about how I have literally never lived nor worked in an environment that runs by even half of the examples I've set that would constitute “working hard” or “being responsible.”

The only place in which who I am or what I stand for seems to exist is right here. I write about it. I live on the land “it would be so cool to have!” in those empty conversations from years ago. I've escaped the statistic where half or more of my money is going to rent. I can account for a $400 emergency. I build on the foundation that is vitally important to understand, preserve, and defend. My attitude and sense of morality is embodied in my work ethic and how I prioritize my time.

I've never wanted to be a doctor. I don't like people. The more I learn about people, I like them even less. I don't like that they have the world and pretend otherwise. I don't like that they talk out of their ass. I don't like that they let children get raped because they're too busy covering their own ass or holding a meeting about nothing or the 4 reworded words on a policy no one reads nor conforms to. (I can't make this shit up.) The truth about me being a doctor would have everything to do with my ego regarding my intelligence, not that I just care so much and want to help.

I genuinely believe it's a foreign concept to people to admit that to themselves. Most things you don't want to be or do. Most people you don't care about. Most things you spend your time on have absolutely nothing to do with who you “really” are or how you orient yourself in the world. We're victims of circumstance to a heavy degree, and we eek out seeds of joy in a forest of bullshit. That's not the interesting or worthwhile thing to keep pointing out. In fact, it's the cliché for people who smoke, eat, or drink too much.

Once you admit you don't give a shit, you can start to explore, or even just see if not barely recognize, what you do care about. Your world begins to change, not unlike the things people say when their child is born. (And guess what, they say all those bullshit sentiments, and proceed to fail miserably.) The failure is not the point or the interesting thing. The initial epiphany, moment of honesty, is. There are things that are significantly vulnerable, more vulnerable than you, that are worthy of protecting. You have the power to not just enable the creation of sensitive and worthwhile things, but the obligation to protect them. If you are not worthy of this task, it's a degree of catastrophe there aren't enough words for, and the likelihood of death becomes incredibly high.

I was regarded as a “perfectionist” the other day. I've never called myself as such, and I think the organized chaos of my living environments or approach to a dozen projects would refute it. At the same time, I think that sense of order that I'm after is probably what the observer was picking up. If I want someone fired for lying on paperwork that besmirches a child-mother as a drug user, when she's a victim, is that “perfect” of me? If I have a few different avenues I think a space may evolve into, and attempt to organize an initial idea to account for those, it's not that my idea for the space is perfect, it's that there are variables that feel more or less pertinent to the situation.

What's a perfect work environment? How do you codify something like that? Well, you start with that same epiphany that parent about to fail their newborn has. You recognize the responsibility, and you denote the veins required to work its arms. I don't care if you're building, cutting someone open, or being a paper pusher. The reason it's lost on the culture at large, and the reason I started this talking about how hard it is to find good help, is because we do not recognize our responsibility. We don't use our voices responsibly. We don't act right. We don't hold each other accountable. And we not-so-slowly chip away at our ability to recognize what's really at stake. In my job, it's the life of a child, and we fail miserably. I have to believe if we're willing to be this shitty, your clerk, office environment, or manual labor gig is as well.

The “look around” method of attempting to prove something isn't to be preferred, but is anyone paid what they're worth? Are we getting better at being civil online or recognizing when the news is actually a troll or propaganda? Are we bothering to measure or study or track...anything...besides the story of environmental decline? Are any of my 30 year old friends truly in that much more stable of a place than when they were 22? Have we started circulating billionaire money into better schools? Or, is Kanye West running for president? You know, to succeed Trump. How dangerous of a cartoon are you going to put up with living in?

I was reading old blogs and finding a sentiment that, whatever I'm doing with my time, it's going to arguably be better than having it get sucked away by those who have zero regard for my values or the changes I wish to see in the world. If I get smarter reading a book every day, so therefore the world gets smarter and maybe I can translate it into bigger consequences. My environment doesn't just fail to inspire confidence, it attacks my sense of self and being. Let's recall, me getting a “normal” job was me hitting rock bottom. I've been at my worst for at least 2 years, and have meagerly parlayed that into the floor I was hoping to establish years ago in having the basics on the land paid in advance. I need a different selection pressure and to better focus my funds and attention.

As long as your practical “I don't care” impulse is there, you need to maintain an angry vigilance and standard for whatever circles you occupy in life. Do I care about raped up children? Yes, in a removed sense that isn't the one doing the raping. But I work in the office that's supposed to prevent such things, and we actually help it happen, and no one gets fired, and then we set our eyes on someone else in danger and find a way to make their life worse. All the while we repeat how much we care and bemoan the stress, like you can just behave that way and not be the fat self-satisfied yet insecure power monger that constitutes the look and feel of my office. You holding standards where you are works its way into standards being held elsewhere. If you don't believe that, but can viscerally feel the impact of there being basically no standard, you're one more that the privileged few of us have to build into how we structure society.

I won't break. I'll bitch through hundreds of blogs, but I won't break. I will throw the truth in your face until the day I die. The truth is sticky. It's not true because I say it. It's true because it doesn't go away. It's true because the consequences exist independent of our feelings or opinions. It's true because you think about it when you don't want to and your response to it isn't accountable or sacrificial enough. I need to sacrifice the “security” of this paycheck and find new people to talk to, industries to explore, or just ways to use my time that I've been neglecting. I need to find the path forward, always, because what's in place is broken and does not care.