How many maimed people does it take? (a work-related rant, believe it or not).

The BBQ Pit
1

This rant has been brewing for a while. It relates to my job—working with the develpmentally disabled. I work for the state. It would be a bad idea to get too specific about any particular individual, but I want to make some general rants about some of the situations that I have been led to believe are not uncommon in the system where I work (and many other similar systems, I assume). I am not saying that this stuff happens all the time, or is rampant or wide spread, but it definitely has happened more than it should.

First off, I have to say that I am fond of my job, and I am proud of what I do. It doesn’t pay all that well, but I enjoy the people I currently work with, and I think it is rewarding work. At this time, I have no personal beefs about my personal work situation. It’s just some of the incidents and attitudes I’ve witnessed or heard about that piss me off. Hopefully, some of the stuff I complain about here is now being changed (reform is in the air, so I hear) but it still pissed me off that it ever happened in the first place.

When I was training for this job, one of the people training us mentioned that some of the former “clients” (one of the many buzzwords used to refer to the people we work with) could be quite violent. I think the point trying to be made was to be on your guard. One specific individual cited had been known to have maimed (by biting) FIFTY PEOPLE. (Presumably other “clients”.) My first thought was, “Why did it take fifty?” Why the HELL didn’t this violent person get moved, or somehow STOPPED from biting and maiming so many people? How do you think the parents and family members of the people getting bitten felt about this? (“Oh yeah, this person bit your daughter. This person has bitten 49 other people, too.”) What the HELL? Why did it take 50 people? Why was not something done at 2, or 3?

There are many other examples of this, but I won’t be too specific. Many staff members have been harmed by a single, violent person who did not belong in the specific setting that they havd been placed. But, instead of moving this violent person to a more strict and safe environment, where staff and other “clients” are not at as much risk, nothing is done. NOTHING. And the violence and injuries continue. Good grief.

And then there are the parents. Most are dear, sweet people. Some are not. Some don’t want their potentially violent offspring to be medicated in a way that will lessen their threatening, violent behavior. I can sympathize with the parents not wanting their kid “drugged up”, but they need to make a choice: either the kid gets more medication so they can be in a more casual and natural environment without being a threat to others, or they get less medication, and are in a more strict, secure environment. The parents can’t have it all their way. They can’t expect the child to get less meds, be more violent, and then take it out on staff and fellow clients. But apparently, some parents want this. And they want to blame the staff and other clients because they got hurt. And for some reason, the state puts up with it.

I am sick of this innefectual, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” mentality, where clients with no parents or guardians may get kicked around (literally) while clients who are violent and out of control are allowed to continue behaving badly, simply because their parents have some sort of influence.

I hasten to add, I am not currently (nor ever have been, actually) exposed to this attitude personally. I wouldn’t take it. I’d quit.

It pisses me off that it has ever happened, and I guess I needed to get that off my chest.

2

Hmm. That sounds inconsistent. I meant to say that I have not been in a situation where I personally saw someone get beat up and no one did anything. However, I have seen the attitudes, heard the stories—it’s been around me, and it all infuriates me.

3

We worked in Adult Foster Care for a while in Michigan in the 1970s, and you have my complete and utter sympathy. :frowning:

And, ya know, we could handle the Biters, the Kickers, the Temper-Tantrums, the Abandoned Elderly, the Pees-in-his-pants, the Hot-To-Trot-Who-Needs-To-Be-On-Birth-Control-Pills-So-She-Doesn’t-Get-Pregnant…and none of them gave us as much trouble as the social workers.

4

Oops, forgot smilie. :slight_smile:
" :smiley: "
heh

5

I know what you mean. I used to deliver medication to a state nursing home. This particular home has about 15 buildings on its campus, and one of the buildings is surrounded by a tall fence with barbed-wire at the top. Basically, I was told that as long as I had the key and the code to get in, I shouldn’t have any problems. Well, I didn’t have problems, but I never set foot in that place again. I left that building’s meds at another building from then on. (Let’s put it this way, I’m a girl, and I could defend myself, but this building houses between 10 and 15 guys.)

I got inside the building, signed in, and went to the office. I was told to be very careful walking around in this building, because a lot of the kids that are there are violent. (The driver that I was filling in for told me as soon as I got in the building to look for a nurse or security guard.) Well, when I got in the office, no nurse, no security officer. I went into the nurse’s room, where there was a patient sitting there, feet up on the desk, talking on the phone.

I turned around, walked back out, and had to walk all the way to the commons room to find a nurse. While I’m walking to this room, guys walk up to me, and start walking with me. I felt like I was in a remake of the “Bad” video by Michael Jackson. I finally found the nurse, and he followed me to the office. He got the patient out of there, and turned around and admonished me for walking around.

“You should have called first. They didn’t say they were sending a girl to do deliveries.”

“Well, I came in last week with the driver, and you were the one to tell me the procedure to get in here. What’s the problem?”

“You should not have walked in here by yourself. All of these kids are violent offenders: rapists and murderers. And they have jumped people for walking in here.”

:eek: No one told me why those kids were there before. All anyone said was, ‘be careful’. No other words of warning, no background story. Hell, I didn’t care why the kids were there, or that I had to deliver their meds, but at least let me know what I’m getting into before I do it!
Jeez.

Suffice to say, I know how you feel. It just frustrated me to know that I put myself in potential danger just to do my job. Arrgh!

6

DDG and Skerri, tell me about it.

There are some clients that have a history of being dangerous or violent. therefore, staff is reluctant want to work with them. So, what does the state do (or, I should say, have done—I don’t know for sure if they still do this). When they hire new staff, they don’t TELL them the risks of working with these particular people. New staff is like lambs to the slaughter. In some cases, it’s as if the supervisors try to isolate new staff from current staff, who might give the new staff the “heads up” on potentially violent clients. They want new staff to be as ignorant as possible about the true risks. (Sure, I am guessing that some current staff will embellish and tell the worst horror stories. But usually the stories are mostly accurate. And when person after person shows you their scars—come on. You have to know that there is a real problem going on.)

I don’t know if this still is going on—it would be unfair to claim that it is for sure. But it wasn’t too long ago that I got the same treatment myself. Being “balled out” by a supervisor because I didn’t want to give a person (with a LONG and well-documented history of violence) a “chance”. “How do you know that you won’t work well with this person?” I was asked. (Oh sure. And if I don’t “work well” with this person, I’ll most likely get the crap beaten out of me. And no one I’d talked to had “worked well” enough with this person to avoid getting hurt in some way. And you still want me to give them a “chance”? Good grief.

And then there’s the assinine judgments made by the social workers and pencil pushers. Like, no one can have “age inappropriate” treatment. So, there was this 30-something client that loved dolls. Her parents brought her a new doll each time they came to visit. A large doll collection she apparently had. But, one day they were all taken away, to where, nobody knows. The social workers decided that it was not “appropriate” for a 30 year old woman to collect dolls. So all the dolls that her parents bought for her were gone, just like that.

What a load of crap. And there are more stories like that. Don’t get me started.

7

They’re hiring at McDonalds…

:smiley:

8

I can’t be the only one who saw the thread title and thought, “…to change a lightbulb.”

:slight_smile:

9

It’s a horrible situation. And I don’t have any pat answers. I agree that violent people need to be kept away from potential victims. Even if those violent people are developmentally disabled or are mentally ill, whatever.

I’ve seen 'em dumped into the Department of Corrections, and it ain’t a pretty picture there, either.

and, I recall when we sent some one back to prison for biting another resident, a caseworker whined to us “but she was doing so well on the jooooooooooob” (where she was working w/the elderly).

YOu have my sympathy for the situation, when I’m queen of the world, I"ll consult w/you to achieve a perfect balance, eh? deal? (I already have the tiara).

10

yosemitebabe-first off, I have to give you a LOT of credit for what you do. It doesn’t sound easy, I don’t think I could do it, and I admire the hell out of those who do.

I remember you telling the doll story. As a serious doll collector, I hope the parents raised bloody fucking hell until they got the dolls back. Or at least reimbursed.

As for violent clients-and BITING? What about fucking hepititus? Shit!