Person-Environment: Case Manager Neglect 3

During person to person communication, several dynamics are at work, by which effective communication can result. These same dynamics can also result in ineffective communication. The foremost of these dynamics are transmission and reception. If we are aware of these dynamics, it can enable us to consider what it is we are communication and what it is that the other receives. What the other receive is determined by a cognitive which are a triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1986). In this view the individual, society, and personal factors all come together to facilitate thought, feelings and beliefs. If something stated to me, is ethically wrong (based on my thought of social ethics) it affects my reception of the information and my opinion of the communicator. We each utilize an internal standard to evaluate what others are communicating to us. This internal standard, is self directed and thus statement we find unethical stem from our internal standard, which is derived from an external understanding of what society deems wrong and right.

In Alberta Bandura work, SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY OF MASS COMMUNICATION. Bandura states:
People are not only knowers and performers. They are also self-reactors with a capacity
for self-direction. Effective functioning requires the substitution of self-regulation for external
sanctions and demands. The self-regulation of motivation, affect and action operates partly
through internal standards and evaluative reactions to one’s own behavior (Bandura, 1991a).
The anticipated self-satisfaction gained from fulfilling valued standards and discontent with
substandard performances serve as incentive motivators for action. The motivational effects do
not stem from the standards themselves, but from the evaluative self-investment in activities
and positive and negative reactions to one’s performances

Thus effective communication results from a balanced transmission thoughts received and transmitted. Balanced is obtained, when information received is in accordance with ethics and principles of the receives psyche. This means that the transmitter of information, should take into account, the possible disposition of the receiver. We would think that professionals that administer civic duty, are aware of these factors and attempt to avoid them. But that is not the case, while receiving housing assistance through South West Behavioral Services, I found professionals to be unethical!

I had been approved for housing and was in the process of a meet and greet with my future roommate. The case manager’s Margret Finn and Johnny Garcia briefed me before the meet and greet and then we proceeded to the apartment. Two problems were made apparent to me, regarding the case managers ethics. Mrs. Finn praised my resume and seemed impressed with prior supervision/management skills I had. I was leery, wondering why my resume was of any importance – this was a housing placement not a employment opportunity. Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia then proceed to brief me, violating confidentiality regulations. They briefed me about their encounters with my prospective roommate. Informing me how he had embarrassed them, when he confronted them at their office, due to their neglect regarding their placement decisions. He felt that they kept placing detrimental clients with him, and that those clients behavior were a factor by which the living environment became negative and hostile. They informed me of how they wanted me to be aggressive when we arrive at the apartment and to not let the roommate take advantage of the conversation.

I could not believe that these two professional were actually communicating to me, what they desired of me, in regards to this meet and greet. I could not believe that these two “professionals” divulged personal information to me about another client. Mrs. Finn made the assertion that she would appreciate me being a quasi -attendant / advisor to my prospective roommate. She informed me that since I was studying Social Welfare, it would be great if I could advise/encourage my future roommate to consider going to community college.

It seems that during the nearly 2 years of his housing, he had failed to enroll in college as required by the program, as it pertained to him (client personal development agreement). He only had 3 months left in the program, and she felt that my experience could be affective and hopefully he would enroll before the end of the 3 months: making his case a successful transition. I informed Mrs. Finn, that I consider that employment. Mrs. Finn responded by stating, “Well don’t think of it as employment…” However what Mrs. Finn failed to realize is as a social welfare student, I am required by NASW not to do any attending/advising/counseling unless a licensed supervisor is present.

I can’t believe Mrs. Finn and Mr. Garcia actually placed me in an environment, where by my future career would be jeopardized. This ordeal particularly irritates me, seeming while living in Las Vegas Nevada, my last employer and I had confrontation with the Labor Board. My prior employer was accused of a similar ordeal. Requesting employment, but not considering it employment. The Labor Commission obtain back payment for me, seeming employment is clearly define, when the employer instructs desired assignments. Thus I find Mrs.Finn and Mr. Garcia negligent in their professions as they wrongfully used me to obtain information for them. Mr. Garcia requested similar desires, regarding my second roommate.

For more information regarding employment and non-employment: Read prior post by me, “Who’s Time Is It Anyway?”

https://paulgoree.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/whos-time-is-it-any-way/

https://paulgoree.wordpress.com/?p=218&preview=true

PERSON – ENVIRONMENT and CASE WORKER NEGLECT

Some never realize or maybe simple refuse to recognize the emotional damage they have placed upon another person, with their unethical neglect. And so the victim continue to vents…May he/she continue until they come to some closure of the events as they occurred. Professional case workers are ethical required to attend to the code of ethics of their profession. When this is not done, and life changing events occur (including duress) they have failed their client, organization, community, and themselves as being one to encourage, empower and assist. So if I’m correct Behavioral Health Paraprofessional require a R9-20-204 and an associate’s degree. Behavioral Health Professional require an A.A.C. R9-20-204 and a Bachelor degree. Both should have integrity and recognize the result of their neglected actions. If a program is designed with the Strength Theory basis, why would a professional neglect the Biopsychosocial/Ecological factors of their clients? Why would you place a level 1 client with a level 3 client and not intervene when the collision occurs. The local police department and 911 records document a dysfunctional environment. One client constant telephone complaints to the case workers documents a dysfunctional environment. Then on December 23, 2012 an upset case worker calls the second client (using derogatory language) claiming his discontent with the situation and how he was coming to end the entire ordeal. Yet NO SHOW. How could a professional simple ignore the importance of environment regarding behavioral services?

In Carel Germain and Alex Gitterman’s work, Ecological Perspective. Germain and Giterman detail the person-environment dynamic.

“Person:environment fit is the actual fit between an individual’s or a collective group’s needs, rights, goals, and capacities and the qualities and operations of their physical and social environments within particular cultural and historical contexts. Hence, for the person and environment, the fit might be favorable, minimally adequate, or unfavorable. When it is favorable or even minimally adequate, it represents a state of relative “adaptedness” (Dubos, 1978), which promotes continued development and satisfying social functioning and sustains or enhances the environment. Adaptedness reflects generally positive person:environment exchanges over time. It is never fixed but shifts in accord with shifts in reciprocal exchanges. When exchanges over time are generally negative, development, health, and social functioning might be impaired and the environment could be damaged.”

In Lise Goodmans work, Homelessness as psychological trauma: Broadening perspectives. Goodman explores the possible traumatic symptoms produced from homelessness.

“Typically, the transition from being housed to being homeless lasts days, weeks, months, or even longer. Most people living on the street or in shelters have already spent time living with friends or relatives and may have experienced previous episodes of homelessness (see, e.g., Shinn, Knickman, & Weitzman, 1989, 1991; Sosin, Piliavin, & Westerfelt, 1991). The loss of stable shelter, whether sudden or gradual, may produce symptoms of psychological trauma. Second, among those who are not psychologically traumatized by becoming homeless, the ongoing condition of homelessness—living in shelters with such attendant stressors as the possible loss of safety, predictability, and control—may undermine and finally erode coping capabilities and precipitate symptoms of psychological trauma. Third, if becoming homeless and living in shelters fail to produce psychological trauma, homelessness may exacerbate symptoms of psychological trauma among people who have histories of victimization. For these people, homelessness may constitute a formidable barrier to recovery (Goodman, 1991).”

I think neglect of a client’s person:enviroment assessment and neglect of traumatizing effects of co-habitation of varied personalities and intents is a barrier to recovery. As an individual attempts to forgo the events as they occurred, it becomes nearly impossible to trust the intent of a case worker, who vagrantly neglected an obligated duty of intervention. 9 months of complaints and no intervention in a housing program! And as the victim waits, HUD is still reviewing formal complaints. Maybe the legal system maneuvers more efficiently. Case workers can be sued for neglect and unethical actions. Especially when those unethical action included case workers providing confidential client profile data to another client!!!

The following  video is from Dr. Jeffery Schwartz. Schwartz states, environment has radical influences on how the centers of the brain’s cravings work. By going back to the same spots where drugs, alcohol or pornography was used in the past will significantly increase chances of relapse. In early stages of recovery the brain signals are much more intense so it is very important to not be around these types of environmental ques. Genetic vulnerability is another factor. It is widely know that relatives of alcoholics are much more sensitized to the affects of alcohol even if they are not an alcoholic. By becoming an “impartial spectator” the abuser can understand the influences of environment and genetic vulnerability. It is important to get into supportive environments and communities where they can get help managing these cravings.