For the life of me, I will never understand why two “professional” case workers, simply refused to intervene. For 8 months they allowed the most unconventional behavior to occur. They allowed lives to be reshaped and destroyed. And although it was not entirely upon them to control: It was their responsibility as case managers to assist, guide, encourage and intervene. These two case managers (Margret Finn and Johnny Garcia of South West Behavioral Services) are detailed in a series of posting titled; Person-Environment: Case Manager Neglect. The series questions the ethical obligation of case managers. And points out the importance of that obligation. From personal experience I can attest that had these two case managers been more ethical and concerned, lives would have turned out better. Instead a chaotic environment imploded, which has ripped into the lives of others (especially mines). For while under their supervision, I was attending ASU, working towards my BSW/MSW. Not one day went by in some of my ASU social work classes, where we were not informed of the importance of Professional ETHICS. A portion of those ethics are specific to client services. And seeming this is the social service industry. It would be expected that case managers strived to provide an environment by which a client (regardless of their crisis) could feel SELF DETERMINED and EMPOWERED. However the opposite is what occurred, regarding me and the two “professional” case managers.
These two case managers have left me to believe that their neglected actions would be the same within the society. From not yelling fire in a theater, to avoiding interning on behave of a child in need. They as case managers are obligated to intervene, in regards to their clients and society in general. If drug activity is among their clients, then they are obligated to intervene. If mental disturbances and crisis management is needed by their clients, they are obligated to intervene. But these two case managers simple sat back and watched as 8 months of torment occurred. Finally they did what should had been done in the first month (11/2012) they provided a separation intervention. Since that intervention, which resulted in homeless again for me, I have expressed my thoughts through conventional grievance, but to no avail. I still express my thoughts on this blog and other social networks (especially Social Worker Blogs) seeming I need to have professionalism validated by others, than the two hypercritics currently still employed. It is so important to me that all citizens express their discontent when dealing with “professional of society”. They must be held accountable, hence is why they have their academic paper work and license to practice social welfare: and I never will.
Last week I came across an interesting article in Bloomberg Businessweek title, ‘GOLDMAN BETS ON CUTTING CRIME’. The article was written by Esme E. Deprez and details the investment interest of Goldman Sachs with the city of Boston. Boston high crime rate and even higher recidivism prompted Goldman Sachs executives to analyze the circumstance and determine if they could effectively administrate Boston’s crime, resulting in a lower recidivism and an empowered prior “criminal” who would be integrated successfully into society! Well Goldman Sachs won the bet. And by winning the bet, executives are considering using the Boston model in other cities across the nation. They also are analyzing utilizing similar strategies for homelessness and social services. In the article, Deprez details the Goldman Sachs investment with a non-profit organization ROCA. ROCA objective for the past 26 years has been to transition young male criminals from the streets into the “legitimate economy”. This is encouraging self-determination and empowering a client. Not what occurred at South West Behavioral Service (yes, a few represent and ruin the majority).
Deprez, E. Esme. (2014). Goldman Bets On Cutting Crime, Bloomberg Businessweek.