I have recently been on a day long course that was supposed to equip me with skills and techniques for dealing with aggressive and potentially violent individuals. Needless to say, none of these skills involved learning how to keep a chav in a headlock until the police arrive, that is the type of skills that would be useful. No, these skills are more of a touchy-feely variety, they try not to lessen the self-esteem of the perpetrator, you get the idea. Basically, they are of no use to you once a violent person decides to beat you to a pulp. Today, I will have an opportunity to put some of this newly acquired wisdom into practice.
It’s around noon and the food delivery has just arrived at the Refuge day centre for pseudo-homeless young people. The centre is relatively quiet this lunch time, there are only five or six service users here. One of whom is Terry, a tall well built lad of about twenty, with a serious rage problem as I am about to discover.
Terry isn’t all bad as many of these young people aren’t. At first glance you would dismiss him as a complete yob, and up to a point you would be right. However, Terry has an aptitude for cookery and is amazing in a kitchen at rustling up very nutritious meals with limited ingredients. He has a passion for fish and in particular Caribbean recipes. However, a first glance at Terry and you wouldn’t have him down as a skilled Afro-Caribbean cook, for a start he is white, and dresses in the type of clobber you would more associate with pies, chips and other junk foods. It’s a pity the state couldn’t develop an education system to ensure that the likes of Terry utilised their aptitudes as opposed to turning to a life of crime from a young age, which Terry has.
Terry isn’t too fond of the few rules that we have and was recently banned for a month for openly drinking alcohol in the centre. Today, he decides to eat his lunch in the common room where eating is prohibited and only drinks are allowed. I remind Terry of the rule and he blatantly ignores me and stands in the centre of the common room eating. After about twenty seconds I remind Terry again but this time inform him that if he doesn’t abide by the rules he may find himself banned again for a month. Terry doesn’t like authority or rules (like so many of our youth), and he feels the need to rebel instantly. He becomes very verbally abusive telling me to “f*ck off and leave me alone”. I follow him into the kitchen/dining area.
“Terry there is no need to talk to me like that I am simply reminding you of the rule regarding no food in the lounge, it’s the same for everyone.”
Terry starts to get very agitated and is pacing up and down the kitchen. I stand with my back against the wall awaiting his response. He tells me:
“I told you to f*ck off, get out of the kitchen for your own sake, I’m warning you.”
I am pretty frightened but decide not to capitulate as it would be sending out the wrong message to the service users that the staff will take all kinds of abuse. I stand with my back to the wall and ignore his request.
Terry becomes extremely angry and I can see there is an avalanche of rage accumulating within him. He throws his sandwich at me and screams, not shouts, at me as well as other members of staff:
“Get the fuck out of here. I’ve already told you to go. You better for your own sake.”
I stand my ground and don’t budge. I also look him in the eye as his threats escalate. Very bad move, I obviously wasn’t listening on the course. He flips out and flings some more food about the kitchen.
“I’m going to f*cking kill you! Outside now! If you don’t come outside I’m going to come back at closing time with a crowbar and I am going to seriously mess you up! You f*cking c**t!”
Judging by the look in his eyes and the people holding him back I take his threats very seriously. I decide to put one of the guidelines from the course in to practice:
“Also, since violent impulses are often momentary and fleeting, it can be useful to have furniture between yourself and the service user.”
Instead of placing furniture between me and Terry, I opt instead for a thick wall and a locked door. I am now hiding in the office and Matt one of our male volunteers keeps me company.
Terry is in the kitchen still screaming about what he will do to me when I come out. I can hear dishes being smashed. Agnes and a few female volunteers are trying to calm him down. Whilst holed up in the office, apart from shitting myself, I muse on some of the possible techniques from my recent course I could have used to defuse the situation with Terry. Here is a list of some of them:
“If possible you should be firm, assertive, but fair.”
I tried that one, that’s what kicked him off.
“Let the service user know that you recognise how they are feeling.”
“Terry I recognise that you are in a state of rage, please don’t hit me.”
“Encourage the person to express verbally their feelings.” He is continuing to do that at this moment. I can hear him telling the other staff that he feels I deserve a beating and he will be the one to deliver it. Is now the time for me to leave the office and ask him to express his feelings or should I wait?
“Use the person’s first name as frequently as possible. If the client is projecting their anger against others (e.g. social workers, authority figures) do all you can to let them see you as an individual rather than a role, Tell them who you are. Disclose minor personal details.” If only I had remembered that one as his rage escalated, I could have told him a light hearted anecdote about myself or asked him, “Did you know my favourite animals are ducks, what about yourself?”
“It can be useful to let the person know the effect they are having on you.”
In case you weren’t aware those are my teeth that you just knocked out and are you aware that you are kicking me in the face. Just thought I would let you know, in case you hadn’t realised.
“Avoid physical contact, at least until the incident is over.” I’m glad I remembered that one as I was going to try to hug him whilst he was threatening to bash my head in with a crowbar.
“Avoid sudden sharp movements”. There goes running away.
"If you are going to take physical action (e.g. stand up, walk away, leave the room etc.) let the person know what you are going to do before you do it. In this way you avoid your actions being interpreted as hostile." It is disturbing to think there are people who can construe walking away from a situation as a hostile act.
After a half hour or so Terry calms down and Agnes comes in to the office to see how I am.
“You ok? He has calmed down now.”
“I am a bit shook up I thought he might have grabbed a knife or something he was that enraged. I take it he will be barred for that. It does state in our rules that threats of violence or actual violence will lead to people being barred. I don’t feel I should be the one that issues him with the ban either after what I’ve just been through with him it could kick him off again.”
Verbal threats around here constitute a month’s ban and actual violence a lifetime ban. However, I feel that even threats of violence should lead to a lifetime ban, as it is very difficult to work with people that have physically threatened you in the past. Besides, threats of violence are a form of intimidation and there should be a zero tolerance policy on this.
“Well, whatever you feel is necessary, he does have a problem with male authority on account of his violent father. He is sorry so maybe we should just give him a warning, but if you feel he should barred then go ahead and do so,” states Agnes.
“According to the rules we should be banning him for a month, and if the rules made sense he would be out of here permanently for this behaviour.”
I have just decided that I am going to leave this place within the next two months, as I really don’t feel safe working here. What’s more is that Agnes should be sticking strictly to the centre’s policies and issuing this lad with a ban. By not doing so she is putting her staff at risk of violent, threatening and aggressive behaviour.
Terry gets a month ban and I have to push for Agnes to be the one to issue it as I feel that being the one just threatened I should have the support of management. If I hadn’t been determined and outspoken Agnes would have been happy to have just asked him not to do it again.
Agnes is like so many adults in today’s society that excuse or fail to confront the anti social behaviour of our problem youth and young adults. People of Agnes’s temperament and outlook pervade the education and care system and the youth offending sector. Is it any wonder then that crime amongst young people is spiralling and the behaviour in many of our secondary schools is out of control?
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Saturday, 11 April 2009
The Right to be Morbidly Obese
I've just finished another shift where the deodorant can assault took place. One of the things I've observed here is that two of the girls, Rachel,17, and Sammie, 14, appear to be getting larger by the week. These girls are extremely over weight, unhealthily so. The younger behemoth is so fat that you can barely see her eyes as they are ensconsced behind a layer of chips and turkey twizzlers disguised as a face.
Now, how did Sammie and her lardy chum, Rachel, become morbidly rotund? It's simple, by eating whatever they want, which at the end of the day is provided for by the care home. They also get driven everywhere and refuse to walk anywhere that takes more than five minutes. It is easy to see on first glance, that in the area of physical health these two girls are simply not being cared for, unless being allowed to metamorphose in to Jabba the hut is a a new care therapy I'm not accustomed to.
One evening, I watched Sammie, who is about 5'5 and about 16 stone, and expanding by the day, eat a large fish and chips supper bought for her by staff. An hour later she was shouting and swearing that she wanted ice cream. In order to placate the child and so have an easier shift, the duty manager drove her to a shop where Sammie was bought a ten box of Magnum ice creams or something identical. I watched in horror and disgust as she was allowed to eat one after the other. It kept the little elephant quiet though, which meant she wouldnt be abusing staff or in the office ripping up files, as she does, which leads me to believe that the purpose of the Magnums suited the staff's needs rather than the child's. However, worse neglect was to come.
An hour or two after Sammie had gorged herself on a week's recommended intake of saturated fat in one sitting, she went outside to have a smoke. A few seconds later she was joined in the yard with the shift leader and another member of staff, as well as Rachel, who had torn herself away from channel hopping and gorging for a well deserved nicotine break. I was so appaled and shocked at what I was seeing that I later confronted the shift leader.
"Lucy, I'm a bit shocked that you openly allow a 14 year old girl to smoke on the grounds of the home and smoke with her. Another thing that confuses me is that despite their serious weight problems both Sammie and Rachel are allowed to eat what they want. Do you not try to control what they eat? Give them choice, of course, but limit it to healthy food with the occasional indulgence," I comment.
"Well Winston, we can only encourage the girls to eat healthily, but they have the right to choose their own meals we can't dictate what they eat. With the smoking issue, if we were to try to stop Sammie from smoking she would simply go somewhere else and do it so we would rather she did it here in a controlled environment where we know she is safe," stated Lucy, obviously believing her own waffle.
Why cant they dictate to them that they cant have the right to eat themselves in to an unhealthy state? They are children. How is it a 'controlled environment' and 'safe', if you don't try to control their actions to keep them safe? I wonder if Sammie or Rachel were to want to smoke a crack pipe in the house or have under-age illegal sex would this too be tolerated on the grounds that at least they are doing it in the house. It baffles me that some people view allowing a child to be self destructive as a from of 'care', without even trying to enforce any boundaries.
Anway back to today's shift. Just before I left, I asked Spencer, one of the full time support workers, how was it that the girl's social workers didn't question the unhealthy state of the two girls. After all, social services regularly visit the home to see the girls.
"It's simple Winston, what happens is that the management here re-write the girls weekly care logs to make it appear that they are eating healthily. This company get a lot of money to keep these kids and they make sure that everything looks as it should on paper."
It costs about 2,500 quid a week to keep a child in care. I got the information here about half way down the page in italics. Click the link
"Then Spencer, the social workers must be choosing to turn a blind eye because there is no way that any one could believe that those two delinquent hippos are being nourished on mung beans and spinach."
Anyway, even within the company that house Rachel and Sammie there are some good homes, not many though, with effective managers and staff that really care and give the children consistent and fair boundaries. It is my view that it is difficult for good care homes to flourish within the care system, in that, it leans towards allowing the child to dictate the agenda. There has been a profound and disproportionate shift in power away from adult forms of authority to "empowerment", the sector buzz word for allowing youngsers do and behave as they wish. The fruits of this philosophy are also to be seen in the schools and on the streets of the country and affect all classes and backgrounds to some degree.
Now, how did Sammie and her lardy chum, Rachel, become morbidly rotund? It's simple, by eating whatever they want, which at the end of the day is provided for by the care home. They also get driven everywhere and refuse to walk anywhere that takes more than five minutes. It is easy to see on first glance, that in the area of physical health these two girls are simply not being cared for, unless being allowed to metamorphose in to Jabba the hut is a a new care therapy I'm not accustomed to.
One evening, I watched Sammie, who is about 5'5 and about 16 stone, and expanding by the day, eat a large fish and chips supper bought for her by staff. An hour later she was shouting and swearing that she wanted ice cream. In order to placate the child and so have an easier shift, the duty manager drove her to a shop where Sammie was bought a ten box of Magnum ice creams or something identical. I watched in horror and disgust as she was allowed to eat one after the other. It kept the little elephant quiet though, which meant she wouldnt be abusing staff or in the office ripping up files, as she does, which leads me to believe that the purpose of the Magnums suited the staff's needs rather than the child's. However, worse neglect was to come.
An hour or two after Sammie had gorged herself on a week's recommended intake of saturated fat in one sitting, she went outside to have a smoke. A few seconds later she was joined in the yard with the shift leader and another member of staff, as well as Rachel, who had torn herself away from channel hopping and gorging for a well deserved nicotine break. I was so appaled and shocked at what I was seeing that I later confronted the shift leader.
"Lucy, I'm a bit shocked that you openly allow a 14 year old girl to smoke on the grounds of the home and smoke with her. Another thing that confuses me is that despite their serious weight problems both Sammie and Rachel are allowed to eat what they want. Do you not try to control what they eat? Give them choice, of course, but limit it to healthy food with the occasional indulgence," I comment.
"Well Winston, we can only encourage the girls to eat healthily, but they have the right to choose their own meals we can't dictate what they eat. With the smoking issue, if we were to try to stop Sammie from smoking she would simply go somewhere else and do it so we would rather she did it here in a controlled environment where we know she is safe," stated Lucy, obviously believing her own waffle.
Why cant they dictate to them that they cant have the right to eat themselves in to an unhealthy state? They are children. How is it a 'controlled environment' and 'safe', if you don't try to control their actions to keep them safe? I wonder if Sammie or Rachel were to want to smoke a crack pipe in the house or have under-age illegal sex would this too be tolerated on the grounds that at least they are doing it in the house. It baffles me that some people view allowing a child to be self destructive as a from of 'care', without even trying to enforce any boundaries.
Anway back to today's shift. Just before I left, I asked Spencer, one of the full time support workers, how was it that the girl's social workers didn't question the unhealthy state of the two girls. After all, social services regularly visit the home to see the girls.
"It's simple Winston, what happens is that the management here re-write the girls weekly care logs to make it appear that they are eating healthily. This company get a lot of money to keep these kids and they make sure that everything looks as it should on paper."
It costs about 2,500 quid a week to keep a child in care. I got the information here about half way down the page in italics. Click the link
"Then Spencer, the social workers must be choosing to turn a blind eye because there is no way that any one could believe that those two delinquent hippos are being nourished on mung beans and spinach."
Anyway, even within the company that house Rachel and Sammie there are some good homes, not many though, with effective managers and staff that really care and give the children consistent and fair boundaries. It is my view that it is difficult for good care homes to flourish within the care system, in that, it leans towards allowing the child to dictate the agenda. There has been a profound and disproportionate shift in power away from adult forms of authority to "empowerment", the sector buzz word for allowing youngsers do and behave as they wish. The fruits of this philosophy are also to be seen in the schools and on the streets of the country and affect all classes and backgrounds to some degree.
Friday, 3 April 2009
The Deadly Case of Assault with a Can of Deodorant
Once again we read of another father kicked and beaten to death by feral youths. What is more shocking though is the fact that the man, who was under siege in his own home, and his neighbours rang the police six times for help only to be told that they were too busy.
Some people might say fair enough the police only have so many resources and with the crumbling moral fibre of the country they can't be at every incident. However, from the perspective of someone working with kids in care I am absolutely shocked at how often police resources are wasted dealing with trivial squabbles.
A few weeks ago I was working at a care home. Two girls of gargantuan proportions, due to being allowed eat unhealthy food all day and being chauffeur driven to where ever they want to go, were having a massive fracas over which of them consisted of more lard than the other. Needless to say they didn't discuss the issue in a civilsed manner and before long the situation looked like it would turn violent. Thankfully it didn't. The energy they used screaming at each other was about all the exercise they could handle for the day. However, the younger of the two picked up a can of deodourant and threw it at the larger gargantua slightly brushing her arm.
The 'victim' of this pernicious attack then phoned the police claiming she was assaulted by her 13 year old housemate. Now, seeing as the 'victim', let's call her Rachel, she is aged 17, has been arrested and charged with making false allegations in the past and has a host of other convictions then perhaps plod will use their discretion and politely ignore the allegation seeing as it's a trivial matter. No such luck.
I had just got in to bed at 0100, having been at work since ten that morning, when up arrived the old bill to take witness statements from my colleague, myself and also from the 'victim'. All of this took almost two hours. I told the constable that as far as I could see the can hadn't actually hit Rachel. The officer informed me that the throwing of the can itself is an offence.
"Well officer, I think this is such a waste of the police's time and resources. Surely there could be better things the police could be doing than becoming embroiled in a teenage squabble where no one was hurt," I stated.
"I agree entirely with you Winston, however once that call is made and logged on our computer system we have to respond. We don't have a choice. We are not able to use discretion. Even if we are too busy with real crimes, the type most people think we exist to deal with, we will still at some stage have to deal with the allegation and bring it to a conclusion, 'detect' it in the jargon of the police force, I mean service."
After almost two hours of witness statements and interviewing the 'victim', the police left. They would have to return to interview the perpetrator in the morning as they had to get off to deal with other matters, I hope of a more serious nature. Now, these two officers were the only police officers on call within an area that consisted of several small towns comprising almost 20,000 people.
The police definitely didnt want to be there dealing with this idiotic issue but due to the bureaucratic stranglehold they operate under they had no choice. Do our politicians that place these impediments in the way of the police not get it? All people, whether they be on the left or right, want a police force that protects the law abiding and the vulnerable. As I got in to bed at 0315, I had to be up at 0800 to work again, I couldn't help but imagine some old lady, who perhaps had just been burgaled and even assualted, on the phone to the police only to be told they are too busy, whilst at the same time the only available officers in the area are up to their necks in the minutiae of the Deadly Case of Assault with a Can of Deodorant.
Some people might say fair enough the police only have so many resources and with the crumbling moral fibre of the country they can't be at every incident. However, from the perspective of someone working with kids in care I am absolutely shocked at how often police resources are wasted dealing with trivial squabbles.
A few weeks ago I was working at a care home. Two girls of gargantuan proportions, due to being allowed eat unhealthy food all day and being chauffeur driven to where ever they want to go, were having a massive fracas over which of them consisted of more lard than the other. Needless to say they didn't discuss the issue in a civilsed manner and before long the situation looked like it would turn violent. Thankfully it didn't. The energy they used screaming at each other was about all the exercise they could handle for the day. However, the younger of the two picked up a can of deodourant and threw it at the larger gargantua slightly brushing her arm.
The 'victim' of this pernicious attack then phoned the police claiming she was assaulted by her 13 year old housemate. Now, seeing as the 'victim', let's call her Rachel, she is aged 17, has been arrested and charged with making false allegations in the past and has a host of other convictions then perhaps plod will use their discretion and politely ignore the allegation seeing as it's a trivial matter. No such luck.
I had just got in to bed at 0100, having been at work since ten that morning, when up arrived the old bill to take witness statements from my colleague, myself and also from the 'victim'. All of this took almost two hours. I told the constable that as far as I could see the can hadn't actually hit Rachel. The officer informed me that the throwing of the can itself is an offence.
"Well officer, I think this is such a waste of the police's time and resources. Surely there could be better things the police could be doing than becoming embroiled in a teenage squabble where no one was hurt," I stated.
"I agree entirely with you Winston, however once that call is made and logged on our computer system we have to respond. We don't have a choice. We are not able to use discretion. Even if we are too busy with real crimes, the type most people think we exist to deal with, we will still at some stage have to deal with the allegation and bring it to a conclusion, 'detect' it in the jargon of the police force, I mean service."
After almost two hours of witness statements and interviewing the 'victim', the police left. They would have to return to interview the perpetrator in the morning as they had to get off to deal with other matters, I hope of a more serious nature. Now, these two officers were the only police officers on call within an area that consisted of several small towns comprising almost 20,000 people.
The police definitely didnt want to be there dealing with this idiotic issue but due to the bureaucratic stranglehold they operate under they had no choice. Do our politicians that place these impediments in the way of the police not get it? All people, whether they be on the left or right, want a police force that protects the law abiding and the vulnerable. As I got in to bed at 0315, I had to be up at 0800 to work again, I couldn't help but imagine some old lady, who perhaps had just been burgaled and even assualted, on the phone to the police only to be told they are too busy, whilst at the same time the only available officers in the area are up to their necks in the minutiae of the Deadly Case of Assault with a Can of Deodorant.
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Couldn't Care Less
I got away from the Refuge for a few shifts in various children's care homes and supported housing units for 16-25 year olds over the last few days. At one care home I had to accompany a 13 year old boy to a special school for behavioural problems where just himself and one other boy attend. They have been deemed not ready to attend your average comprehensive. Personally, they would fit right in at the comprehensive I used to work at and many others that I know of. They swore at the teacher and the teaching assistant and made sexually suggestive remarks to them and invaded their body space. They threw things across the class. They fought, surfed the internet, played music on their phones and worked only if it suited them and for short periods of time.
However, what amazed me the most is that all of their negative behaviour was ignored by the teaching staff. I on the other hand didn't ignore it. I challenged it. I informed Benson, the young lad I was supporting, that it was wholly inappropriate to ask certain questions and swear and be rude to the staff. He just ignored me. More worryingly was the reaction of the staff. When I admonished the young lad for calling the teacher a "fucking bitch", the teacher responded by defending him stating "Oh he doesnt mean it." I told her that's not the point he shouldn't be speaking to adults like that. The teacher looked at me like I was from another planet. I was later told that they don't focus on the negative behaviour of the students as this just feeds in to it. This is called 'disengagement', I call it a euphemism for ignoring a problem. The reason it's ignored is because adults no longer have any real authority.
The classroom had a sign informing the students that they would never be put down which included a crude cartoon of a stern, cold, emotionless, authoritative teacher waving his finger at a vulnerable puppy eyed adolescent.
At lunch time myself and another support worker accompanied the two boys in to the town centre for lunch. Whilst walking around the town the fruits of the trendy educational style they are being subjected to was on display. They intimidated old ladies by being overly familiar with them as they walked past. They purposely spat on shop windows and cars and called people names as they passed by. The other worker more senior than myself ignored most of this. I take it she was successfully "disengaging" so as not to "feed in" to their behaviour.
Now, I know these two young lads sound detestable, their behaviour certainly was, but I have seen and worked with a lot lot worse. They had some redeemable qualities. Benson can be generous and is actually quite intelligent, he is a good reader, well above average ability for his age. However, the school and the care home are failing to give him consistent boundaries by not punishing him with consequences for his negative behaviour. He needs to learn right from wrong. Why have these concepts become unfashionable? Is it the legacy of post-modernism and cultural relativism? Whatever the reason, it is failing the likes of Benson. If this lad were disciplined and taught right from wrong he could go far despite his awful background.
How would I start to discipline him? Well, for a start I would take away the playstation and TV in his room and not just before he goes to bed. I would then inform him that the usual scenario where staff drive and finance him and his hooded partners in care to the cinema, bowling alley, games arcades and fast food outlets will depend on a very high compliance rate with acceptable standards of good behaviour. I would completly ban "incentives", a fancy word for what is commonly known as a bribe where the young person gets a monetary reward for things like getting up, showering, brushing one's teeth, going to school on time etc. etc. Instead, I would inform them of what they will lose when they swear at their teachers and call old ladies names and committ petty crimes.
The reason I would be strict is to help Benson develop a sense of right and wrong. Surely this is a laudable aim and should be one of the components of caring for a child and sending him or her out in to the world a responsible and relatively well developed young person? In some homes this does happen, not all the care homes are failing their children, but unfortunately from what I've seen many are. More will be revealed.
However, what amazed me the most is that all of their negative behaviour was ignored by the teaching staff. I on the other hand didn't ignore it. I challenged it. I informed Benson, the young lad I was supporting, that it was wholly inappropriate to ask certain questions and swear and be rude to the staff. He just ignored me. More worryingly was the reaction of the staff. When I admonished the young lad for calling the teacher a "fucking bitch", the teacher responded by defending him stating "Oh he doesnt mean it." I told her that's not the point he shouldn't be speaking to adults like that. The teacher looked at me like I was from another planet. I was later told that they don't focus on the negative behaviour of the students as this just feeds in to it. This is called 'disengagement', I call it a euphemism for ignoring a problem. The reason it's ignored is because adults no longer have any real authority.
The classroom had a sign informing the students that they would never be put down which included a crude cartoon of a stern, cold, emotionless, authoritative teacher waving his finger at a vulnerable puppy eyed adolescent.
At lunch time myself and another support worker accompanied the two boys in to the town centre for lunch. Whilst walking around the town the fruits of the trendy educational style they are being subjected to was on display. They intimidated old ladies by being overly familiar with them as they walked past. They purposely spat on shop windows and cars and called people names as they passed by. The other worker more senior than myself ignored most of this. I take it she was successfully "disengaging" so as not to "feed in" to their behaviour.
Now, I know these two young lads sound detestable, their behaviour certainly was, but I have seen and worked with a lot lot worse. They had some redeemable qualities. Benson can be generous and is actually quite intelligent, he is a good reader, well above average ability for his age. However, the school and the care home are failing to give him consistent boundaries by not punishing him with consequences for his negative behaviour. He needs to learn right from wrong. Why have these concepts become unfashionable? Is it the legacy of post-modernism and cultural relativism? Whatever the reason, it is failing the likes of Benson. If this lad were disciplined and taught right from wrong he could go far despite his awful background.
How would I start to discipline him? Well, for a start I would take away the playstation and TV in his room and not just before he goes to bed. I would then inform him that the usual scenario where staff drive and finance him and his hooded partners in care to the cinema, bowling alley, games arcades and fast food outlets will depend on a very high compliance rate with acceptable standards of good behaviour. I would completly ban "incentives", a fancy word for what is commonly known as a bribe where the young person gets a monetary reward for things like getting up, showering, brushing one's teeth, going to school on time etc. etc. Instead, I would inform them of what they will lose when they swear at their teachers and call old ladies names and committ petty crimes.
The reason I would be strict is to help Benson develop a sense of right and wrong. Surely this is a laudable aim and should be one of the components of caring for a child and sending him or her out in to the world a responsible and relatively well developed young person? In some homes this does happen, not all the care homes are failing their children, but unfortunately from what I've seen many are. More will be revealed.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Crisis Funds
Each service user at the Refuge has access to the “crisis fund”. It’s up to the discretion of the project worker and the manager to define if the service user is facing a crisis.
One of the few astute and sensible project workers, Alice, has informed me that Arthur, one of the few heroin addicts that use our service, was recently taken out and bought a microwave for his newly acquired social housing flat he had obtained from the state. He asked to be able to keep the receipt in case there was anything wrong with it and he had to return it. I reckon that Arthur returned that microwave and the only thing that would have been wrong with it would be that it didn’t come with a free bag of smack. How did the nice Christian ladies not see through this very obvious manipulation?
Now, I would hate to be judgmental and stereotype those in the smack community as conniving, shrewd and manipulative when it comes to feeding their addiction, but I am going to do so, because to put it plainly, it’s the truth.
In fact, the junkie that would simply manipulate you or con you is a cut above those that would physically separate you from your worldly possessions with a dagger or blunt instrument. I’d rather be duped than struck about the head with a crowbar or any other class of weapon.
After hearing of Arthur’s acquiring of a microwave, I couldn’t help but put myself in the mind of a heroin addict. I mused upon the possible crises that could compose the daily life of an urban junkie. Now, put yourself in the mind of a smack- head. Which of these two scenarios is more likely to be a crisis in your daily existence? Choose (a) or (b):
(a) “Bugger, I don’t have a microwave to heat up that Marks and Spencer gourmet vegetarian moussaka I got at the refuge today.”
(b) “Oh my God, the withdrawals have kicked in and I am sitting here alone in my flat, craving, sweating, shaking, shivering and shitting in my pants. God forgive me, but I would mug my own granny for a hit right now. If only there was some other way I could get the money…A ha! I could always apply to the crisis fund.”
Anyone who knows anything about heroin addiction should know that it is very unlikely that (a) would ever be a crisis for an opiate addict of limited income.
Mealtime for the opiate classes is a rather haphazard and at times infrequent occurrence, so issues such as food temperature and the means by which you heat your meal tend not to be on your list of priorities.
When most people hear the word crisis it evokes images of a dramatic nature. Perhaps a stock market crash, a run on a bank, a harvest failing in an impoverished country leaving millions facing crisis, but never in a million years would any reasonable person judge a heroin addict’s lack of a microwave oven a crisis. Then again reasonable people rarely tend to work at the Refuge.
After this incident, Alice informed me that lots of other service users started to apply to the crisis fund for microwaves. Tony, our resident pot dealer and not shy of a few quid, got one on the grounds that he didn’t know how to cook or use a conventional cooker despite having one in his council flat. As Alice put it, “Well why didn’t we teach him how to use his cooker and to cook a few basic things instead of buying him a bloody microwave, I thought we were supposed to be empowering them?”
Is it any wonder so many people feel they are owed a living when you have charities and the government dishing out luxuries. Why work when you can blag it or claim it?
One of the few astute and sensible project workers, Alice, has informed me that Arthur, one of the few heroin addicts that use our service, was recently taken out and bought a microwave for his newly acquired social housing flat he had obtained from the state. He asked to be able to keep the receipt in case there was anything wrong with it and he had to return it. I reckon that Arthur returned that microwave and the only thing that would have been wrong with it would be that it didn’t come with a free bag of smack. How did the nice Christian ladies not see through this very obvious manipulation?
Now, I would hate to be judgmental and stereotype those in the smack community as conniving, shrewd and manipulative when it comes to feeding their addiction, but I am going to do so, because to put it plainly, it’s the truth.
In fact, the junkie that would simply manipulate you or con you is a cut above those that would physically separate you from your worldly possessions with a dagger or blunt instrument. I’d rather be duped than struck about the head with a crowbar or any other class of weapon.
After hearing of Arthur’s acquiring of a microwave, I couldn’t help but put myself in the mind of a heroin addict. I mused upon the possible crises that could compose the daily life of an urban junkie. Now, put yourself in the mind of a smack- head. Which of these two scenarios is more likely to be a crisis in your daily existence? Choose (a) or (b):
(a) “Bugger, I don’t have a microwave to heat up that Marks and Spencer gourmet vegetarian moussaka I got at the refuge today.”
(b) “Oh my God, the withdrawals have kicked in and I am sitting here alone in my flat, craving, sweating, shaking, shivering and shitting in my pants. God forgive me, but I would mug my own granny for a hit right now. If only there was some other way I could get the money…A ha! I could always apply to the crisis fund.”
Anyone who knows anything about heroin addiction should know that it is very unlikely that (a) would ever be a crisis for an opiate addict of limited income.
Mealtime for the opiate classes is a rather haphazard and at times infrequent occurrence, so issues such as food temperature and the means by which you heat your meal tend not to be on your list of priorities.
When most people hear the word crisis it evokes images of a dramatic nature. Perhaps a stock market crash, a run on a bank, a harvest failing in an impoverished country leaving millions facing crisis, but never in a million years would any reasonable person judge a heroin addict’s lack of a microwave oven a crisis. Then again reasonable people rarely tend to work at the Refuge.
After this incident, Alice informed me that lots of other service users started to apply to the crisis fund for microwaves. Tony, our resident pot dealer and not shy of a few quid, got one on the grounds that he didn’t know how to cook or use a conventional cooker despite having one in his council flat. As Alice put it, “Well why didn’t we teach him how to use his cooker and to cook a few basic things instead of buying him a bloody microwave, I thought we were supposed to be empowering them?”
Is it any wonder so many people feel they are owed a living when you have charities and the government dishing out luxuries. Why work when you can blag it or claim it?
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Quality Advice
Meanwhile, back at the Refuge Day Centre for layabouts, things are not looking hopeful, in terms of me staying here for long, or in relation to any of the sloths that use here doing anything constructive.
The Refuge has a very nice brochure that outlines our service to potential clients. They usually pick it up in some of the other advice or layabout centres around the city for young people. All the different agencies and advice centres distribute each other’s brochures and recycle each other’s clients. Our service users are well versed in the different services they can avail of throughout the city.
After we close our doors at 17.00, should they need an evening meal after a full day of gorging on luxury donations, our clients can get one in another day centre that gives them a hot meal at 50p. And from what the clients tell me its top-notch grub.
Anyway, if you read one of our brochures you would think that we are offering a very valuable service to the youth of the town. In fact our aims are quite laudable:
“we aim to empower socially excluded and disadvantaged young people aged 16-25…we are committed to doing this in accordance with our equal opportunities policy…we believe in empowering young people to take responsibility for themselves and believe we can achieve this through offering them support to live fulfilled productive lives”
Who could argue with that? It all sounds very reasonable to me. However, to the more discerning eye the brochure reveals another aspect of our service. Whilst there may be clear and laudable aims the brochure fails to highlight how exactly these aims are to be achieved. We are big on ends, but short on means.
The brochure makes some reference to advice and signposting, a fancy word for telling someone the location of state agencies from which they can receive benefits or accommodation. However, there already exists several services doing just this throughout the city, most of them funded by the taxpayer (more on this later) so we are not offering anything innovative.
In order to assess if we are achieving our aims one needs to assess the quality of advice and who is delivering it.
The advice itself must be sought, we are strongly discouraged from stating our opinions of what we feel they should be doing. If we were to do that we would be accused of having an agenda and trying to impose our values on the clients i.e being "judgemental", the cardinal sin in the various social services in the UK. Under no circumstances are we to say things like:
“Jesus, are you bloody well stoned again at 11 in the morning? You should be out seeking work! That’s why you get JOBSEEKER’S ALLOWANCE not stoned at the day centre allowance.” or “For feck’s sake, are you pregnant again? Do you realise it’s the rest of society that will have to pay and cater for this your third child, would you not think of going on the pill or perhaps sleeping with someone with a job?”
This type of advice, i.e good advice, the kind your Granny or Granddad would give isn’t valued at the Refuge. It is definitely not “client centred” as Agnes emphasises. If you were bold and brazen enough to adopt such a blunt and common sense based approach then you may well get to use some of the techniques you were taught on the course for defusing aggressive and potentially violent situations, either that or a Wayne or Waynetta would leave the imprint of a few sovereign rings in your forehead at the very least.
We are instructed to give advice solely pertaining to accommodation, benefits, substance misuse services, educational programmes and other young people’s services unless asked otherwise by the client. In other words, the only unsolicited advice we can give pertains to what else they can get for free and from where. This is an apt definition of the “client centred” ethos promulgated by Agnes and the nice old lady brigade. Basically, we only advise them on any other issues if and when they seek it. They rarely do and if they were to ask me I doubt they would value my counsel.
The advice dispensers, sages, volunteers, keyworkers call them what you will, may be broken down into several different categories:
1. The Unemployed and disillusioned.
These volunteers have been without work for some time mostly out of choice or because they have become completely disillusioned with the rat race i.e they cant handle the real world either. That’s why they have time to volunteer on a weekday when most people are at work. Some of them just look like older ex service users who were allowed back to visit for a day. Several of them also have drug or alcohol abuse problems, so they could probably give good advice on where to score or the cheapest types of strong lager available from particular off licences. But to be fair they don’t. The type of advice they could potentially offer is definitely “client centred” and would probably be the most sought after. They are also experts on “entitlements” as they themselves are living off the state. I will give them some credit, in that they initially volunteered to do something to try and help others and that is a noble motive. On the other hand before they can help anyone else they need to get their own lives together. They are hiding from reality in the same way as the residents. They are the blind leading the clueless, a recipe for disaster.
2. Nice old Christian ladies
A part of me feels very bad for having a laugh at the expense of this cohort. They are a well-intentioned lot, full of kindness and warmth and extreme naivety, which prevents them becoming the slightest bit cynical or critical of the service users. They live their lives according to the moral code of their faith and can be found most Sundays at their local churches. A few of them are on the committee that oversee the running of the project. Although they want to help people what invariably happens is that they do the exact opposite. They often mistake help with giving people what they want. As a result crafty drug addicts often manipulate them (see next week's blog post). They feel the young people should have a say in decision making despite the fact that the collective outcome of all past decisions by the clients has led to them sitting around stoned all day in a decrepit disused church. Decision-making isn’t their forte. (Involvement in decision-making is even more pronounced in the government-funded sector. All will be revealed later)
Anyway, I'm off on holidays for a week so I will fill you in on more lunacy when I get back. I'm going to be doing a few shifts at a Supported Housing unit for 16-25 year olds. As you the taxpayer are funding the waste in this sector, to the tune of hundreds of milllions annually, I am sure you will be interested in the multitude of ways your money is being flushed down the toilet on pandering to feckless and idle young people.
The Refuge has a very nice brochure that outlines our service to potential clients. They usually pick it up in some of the other advice or layabout centres around the city for young people. All the different agencies and advice centres distribute each other’s brochures and recycle each other’s clients. Our service users are well versed in the different services they can avail of throughout the city.
After we close our doors at 17.00, should they need an evening meal after a full day of gorging on luxury donations, our clients can get one in another day centre that gives them a hot meal at 50p. And from what the clients tell me its top-notch grub.
Anyway, if you read one of our brochures you would think that we are offering a very valuable service to the youth of the town. In fact our aims are quite laudable:
“we aim to empower socially excluded and disadvantaged young people aged 16-25…we are committed to doing this in accordance with our equal opportunities policy…we believe in empowering young people to take responsibility for themselves and believe we can achieve this through offering them support to live fulfilled productive lives”
Who could argue with that? It all sounds very reasonable to me. However, to the more discerning eye the brochure reveals another aspect of our service. Whilst there may be clear and laudable aims the brochure fails to highlight how exactly these aims are to be achieved. We are big on ends, but short on means.
The brochure makes some reference to advice and signposting, a fancy word for telling someone the location of state agencies from which they can receive benefits or accommodation. However, there already exists several services doing just this throughout the city, most of them funded by the taxpayer (more on this later) so we are not offering anything innovative.
In order to assess if we are achieving our aims one needs to assess the quality of advice and who is delivering it.
The advice itself must be sought, we are strongly discouraged from stating our opinions of what we feel they should be doing. If we were to do that we would be accused of having an agenda and trying to impose our values on the clients i.e being "judgemental", the cardinal sin in the various social services in the UK. Under no circumstances are we to say things like:
“Jesus, are you bloody well stoned again at 11 in the morning? You should be out seeking work! That’s why you get JOBSEEKER’S ALLOWANCE not stoned at the day centre allowance.” or “For feck’s sake, are you pregnant again? Do you realise it’s the rest of society that will have to pay and cater for this your third child, would you not think of going on the pill or perhaps sleeping with someone with a job?”
This type of advice, i.e good advice, the kind your Granny or Granddad would give isn’t valued at the Refuge. It is definitely not “client centred” as Agnes emphasises. If you were bold and brazen enough to adopt such a blunt and common sense based approach then you may well get to use some of the techniques you were taught on the course for defusing aggressive and potentially violent situations, either that or a Wayne or Waynetta would leave the imprint of a few sovereign rings in your forehead at the very least.
We are instructed to give advice solely pertaining to accommodation, benefits, substance misuse services, educational programmes and other young people’s services unless asked otherwise by the client. In other words, the only unsolicited advice we can give pertains to what else they can get for free and from where. This is an apt definition of the “client centred” ethos promulgated by Agnes and the nice old lady brigade. Basically, we only advise them on any other issues if and when they seek it. They rarely do and if they were to ask me I doubt they would value my counsel.
The advice dispensers, sages, volunteers, keyworkers call them what you will, may be broken down into several different categories:
1. The Unemployed and disillusioned.
These volunteers have been without work for some time mostly out of choice or because they have become completely disillusioned with the rat race i.e they cant handle the real world either. That’s why they have time to volunteer on a weekday when most people are at work. Some of them just look like older ex service users who were allowed back to visit for a day. Several of them also have drug or alcohol abuse problems, so they could probably give good advice on where to score or the cheapest types of strong lager available from particular off licences. But to be fair they don’t. The type of advice they could potentially offer is definitely “client centred” and would probably be the most sought after. They are also experts on “entitlements” as they themselves are living off the state. I will give them some credit, in that they initially volunteered to do something to try and help others and that is a noble motive. On the other hand before they can help anyone else they need to get their own lives together. They are hiding from reality in the same way as the residents. They are the blind leading the clueless, a recipe for disaster.
2. Nice old Christian ladies
A part of me feels very bad for having a laugh at the expense of this cohort. They are a well-intentioned lot, full of kindness and warmth and extreme naivety, which prevents them becoming the slightest bit cynical or critical of the service users. They live their lives according to the moral code of their faith and can be found most Sundays at their local churches. A few of them are on the committee that oversee the running of the project. Although they want to help people what invariably happens is that they do the exact opposite. They often mistake help with giving people what they want. As a result crafty drug addicts often manipulate them (see next week's blog post). They feel the young people should have a say in decision making despite the fact that the collective outcome of all past decisions by the clients has led to them sitting around stoned all day in a decrepit disused church. Decision-making isn’t their forte. (Involvement in decision-making is even more pronounced in the government-funded sector. All will be revealed later)
Anyway, I'm off on holidays for a week so I will fill you in on more lunacy when I get back. I'm going to be doing a few shifts at a Supported Housing unit for 16-25 year olds. As you the taxpayer are funding the waste in this sector, to the tune of hundreds of milllions annually, I am sure you will be interested in the multitude of ways your money is being flushed down the toilet on pandering to feckless and idle young people.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Social dis-services at it again
First, there was baby P, then this week we read of a foster family in Wales who had a teenager placed in their care who was a convicted sex offender. Social services failed to inform the foster parents of the boy's past and he then went on to sexually assault their daughter and sodomise their young son.
Now, most people are shocked that something like this has happened and there are alarmed headlines in the newspapers. After all, social services are supposed to protect children, not leave them in harm's way.
However, personally, I'm not at all shocked by this disclosure. Horrified and incensed yes, but surprised no. I come across incompetence and risk taking all the time in the social care sector.
Last week, I did a shift at another children's care home. One of my colleagues was transfered in from another home a few streets away. This was because one of the residents in her home, a 17 year old boy, had been threatening her all day whilst she was locked in the office waiting for the police to arrive. The experience had badly shaken her. Although used to threats and intimidation it was particularly severe that day and she feared the boy in question was likely to strike her.
Now, this boy, almost 18, had a history of sexually abusing young girls including pre-pubescent children. Social services were aware of this, but none the less they needed to find him somewhere to live. The care home they found for him was in a residential street with many families with young girls. My colleague informed me that after he had arrived, the private company that ran the care home warned the staff, that under no circumstances were they to inform any of the neighbours of the boy's history of sexual offending. To do so could lead to dismissal or a disciplinary hearing. Over the coming weeks, the staff watched him trying to lure young girls back to the house, powerless to do anything about it for fear of losing their jobs.
So, you see now why when I read of gross incompetence by social services or any other public sector body I'm not in the least bit surprised. I've been experiencing it for years.
Now, most people are shocked that something like this has happened and there are alarmed headlines in the newspapers. After all, social services are supposed to protect children, not leave them in harm's way.
However, personally, I'm not at all shocked by this disclosure. Horrified and incensed yes, but surprised no. I come across incompetence and risk taking all the time in the social care sector.
Last week, I did a shift at another children's care home. One of my colleagues was transfered in from another home a few streets away. This was because one of the residents in her home, a 17 year old boy, had been threatening her all day whilst she was locked in the office waiting for the police to arrive. The experience had badly shaken her. Although used to threats and intimidation it was particularly severe that day and she feared the boy in question was likely to strike her.
Now, this boy, almost 18, had a history of sexually abusing young girls including pre-pubescent children. Social services were aware of this, but none the less they needed to find him somewhere to live. The care home they found for him was in a residential street with many families with young girls. My colleague informed me that after he had arrived, the private company that ran the care home warned the staff, that under no circumstances were they to inform any of the neighbours of the boy's history of sexual offending. To do so could lead to dismissal or a disciplinary hearing. Over the coming weeks, the staff watched him trying to lure young girls back to the house, powerless to do anything about it for fear of losing their jobs.
So, you see now why when I read of gross incompetence by social services or any other public sector body I'm not in the least bit surprised. I've been experiencing it for years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
