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.
No comments:
Post a Comment