What I’ve Learned, Lesson Two

Lesson Number Two:

It’s Okay To Say No. 

It really really is.  Sometimes NO is enough to jumpstart self-sufficiency.  Sometimes NO is a little time-out.  Sometimes NO is just a little break in the insanity.  But whatever it is, it’s not a Bad Thing. 

NO is about boundaries – physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological.  NO is about respecting your own boundaries, which in turn means you recognize & respect the boundaries of others.  NO is about knowing where you end and someone else begins. 

If you are attached to the outcome of someone else’s problem, you won’t be able to say NO.  If you feel responsible for someone else’s feelings, you won’t be able to say NO.  If you truly believe that the person with whom you are dealing is not capable of managing his/her own business (even with all evidence to the contrary), you won’t be able to say NO.  You will be exploited and scammed, worn out and used, angry and hurt … and burnt out.

NO is your friend.  NO is your partner.  NO is one of the best tools in your toolbox.

"No, I can’t do that."  "No, I won’t do that."  "No, that’s not part of my job, but I can show YOU how to do that for yourself."  "No, I won’t have time to work on that until Tuesday."  "No, that’s not appropriate."  "No, that’s not acceptable."  "No, I won’t give you money."  "No, and don’t speak to me that way again."  It’s a very useful word.  It’s an abuse-stopper.  It’s a pause to reconsider your role.  It’s a definite, firm position.

NO isn’t necessarily the opposite of YES.  "No, I won’t be able to do that for you – but I can help you find someone who might." 

If you can say NO, it means you are clear about what your role is.  It means you can see the bigger picture & where you are in that picture. 

A firm grasp on NO and a willingness to use it makes it harder for scammers, exploiters, and users to make any headway. 

It’s OK to say NO.

What I’ve Learned, Lesson One

I work in Human Services. It used to be called, collectively, Social Work. Nowadays, if you don’t have a degree in Social Work, you’re asking for an ass-whuppin’ if you call yourself a Social Worker. Maybe I can get away with ’social worker’ – small-s, small-w.  Whatever.

I work in Human Services. I manage services (case management, budget management, supervision of counselors) – it’s not neuroscience, it’s not astrophysics, but it does require, um, a ’stable personality’ & a willingness to let go of preconceptions. I’ve learned a lot. And at the risk of boring the crap outta everyone, I’m going to share some of the things I’ve learned.  Because, really, there aren’t enough bloggers yammering on & lecturing about the stuff they think they know.

Lesson Number One: 

Guilt is pointless.

This is important.  I’ll repeat it.  Guilt is pointless.  Guilt does nothing, solves nothing, and contrary to what you might think encourages no one to do good.  Guilt sucks the life right out of you.  So-called Liberal Guilt even more so. If you are doing SOMETHING, and you’ve done the best you can, feel good about it.  Never, ever, ever feel guilty that you ‘haven’t done enough’ – if you’ve done something to improve the world or empower another person to improve their world, you’ve done a lot.

Because what you have to realize is that it’s NEVER ‘enough’.  You’re never going to eradicate global poverty by volunteering at a soup kitchen or clothes closet.  You’re just NOT.  And to convince yourself that you’re a failure and that you’re personally responsible for society’s ills is to set yourself up for pointless, soul-killing guilt and paralyzing depression.  You’ll accomplish fuck all with that.  Get up, do your thing, and keep doing it.  Help one person today get to a better physical/financial/emotional/spiritual space and you have solved society’s ills right there.  Yeah, it’s on the small scale, but that’s the scale that impacts people most directly.  One to one is where it happens.

Pity

Pity and Compassion are not the same.  There is some confusion, I think.  Pity assumes a one-up/one-down relationship.  I despise Pity.  Few things are more disrespectful than Pity.  If I say "I pity you", I offer you nothing but contempt, and I seek only to hold myself above you.  One-up/one-down separates us.

Compassion, though – Compassion joins us together.  Compassion means to simply "feel with" – to be with another in a time of need, to listen without judgement, to exist in the same space.  Compassion respects our frailty and allows us to be where we are, who we are, right now – respecting our differences but demanding nothing.  And Compassion never seeks Power or Authority – there is no one-up/one-down with Compassion.

If you meet someone who seems worthy of your Pity … reconsider.  Offer your Compassion instead.

Scharzeneggar on Child Welfare

Sacramento Bee — Child welfare programs at stake

After federal reviewers flunked California’s child-protection system on several counts last year, focusing especially on problems with its foster-care programs, the state agreed to make improvements or pay tens of millions of dollars in penalties.

Now, the state’s fiscal troubles and the arrival of a new governor could affect efforts to overhaul services for the roughly 175,000 abused and neglected children under state protection — 91,000 of them in foster care.
————-[snip]——————-
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration intends to continue with the centerpiece of the improvement efforts, a program that will regularly give each county extensive data on how well the children in its care are faring, said Larry Bolton, acting head of the Department of Social Services.

Hmmm.

But at the invitation of the federal government, the state may soon scale back its effort in order to save money.
————-[snip]——————-
Bolton said officials also are reviewing the Davis administration’s proposal for an overhaul of the entire child-welfare system and will decide for themselves which parts of it make sense.

The new GOP governor wants to spend $10 million this year and next to help counties come up with their strategies for improving child welfare.

I see.

But at the same time, he is not allocating new money for programs that would help them fix their problems once they figure out what they need to do. And he wants to repeal some new programs that would help the state meet the federal standards for foster care, on the grounds that they would pass along costs to counties without providing funds to implement them.

Here we go.

One program would try to move foster children into permanent homes more quickly by ensuring that social workers ask them if they have any friends or family members who could adopt them. Often, the child welfare system overlooks people who could step in to help.

The governor also has proposed getting rid of a program that would help foster children go to college or vocational school. The stance has puzzled some child advocates, who say such measures will help the state meet federal standards for moving children out of foster care more quickly — and avoid paying federal penalties. In any case, Democratic lawmakers say they are not likely to change the laws, which passed recently with bipartisan support.

"It is one key part of the strategy," said Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who wrote the bill requiring children to be asked about potential adoptive parents, and who also wrote the new strategy for improvements at the county level. "It is also a cost-saver."

Governor Schwartzie’s plan to "take a tougher approach" to welfare recipients who do not find work within two months of receiving cash payments by cutting welfare benefits not only to the parents but to the children of the non-working parents just gives us a broader view of what a compassionate advocate for the children of California he really is.

A nice quote from that second article:

"There is a group within the welfare-to-work population that has severe barriers to employment, and to expect that they will be placed in a job within 60 days is unrealistic," said Jean Stover, vocational assessment supervisor for Sacramento County. "There’s discretion that needs to be made. These are human beings. They are not robots."

Close readers of the article will note that volunteer work meets the work requirement. That’s helpful, in terms of meeting that requirement, but it’s not as helpful as you might think in putting folks on the path to self-sufficiency. Unskilled/low-skilled volunteer work, though useful as an introduction to the world of work, is – in my experience – rarely a stable supplier of job training that leads to a well-paying position. It’s nice. It’s better than nothing at all. But it’s also a sure indicator of what kind of pay the CalWorks employee can expect from the private sector – which is to say, as close to nothing as you can get. Stuffing envelopes and answering phones (work I’ve done myself, so I know whereof I speak) are not job skills upon which one can build a high-wage career.

Not that ALL volunteer work is low-skilled (my agency relies almost exclusively on volunteers to even keep us in business, so I consider volunteerism a high calling), but I think most of us can agree that the majority of volunteer jobs unskilled workers will be low skill jobs, which will only perpetuate the unmarketability of the worker.

I say all this as someone who used volunteer work as an introduction to a new career path. But I already had years of work experience, and good job skills, and that’s what got me hired. I wouldn’t have been there if I wasn’t interested in the field, but interest plus no skills would have left me unemployed.

Po’ folks don’t need to drive

Just to add to the Amen Corner at slacktivist: Laser-guided Red-lining.

Here’s another article on an issue that burns me up. Auto insurers are using customers’ credit ratings as a factor in pricing their insurance. The upshot — poor people pay more than rich people do. (See this earlier post.)

As James Baldwin says, "It’s expensive bein’ poor." And it’s not just auto insurance. More and more, credit rating is being used for all kinds of things other than extending credit. And in every case, what it means is that people with low credit scores (i.e., the poor) are charged more for the same services than people with high credit scores (i.e., the wealthy). This is ass-backwards, unjust, illogical.

Add to that, the requirement in some (all?) states that a driver have insurance in order register one’s car. Insurance is expensive, and getting more so. Increase the expense pointedly for those who already have financial problems, you make it nearly impossible for them to have insurance at all; thus making car ownership an illegal act.

Whoa. I feel really paranoid now. That must be the real reason I stayed away from blogging all this time – the paranoia.

EDIT: I didn’t realize it sounded as though I was advocating uninsured driving. I’m not. I’m just harping upon business & government practices which seem to pointedly affect the poor above and beyond the middle and upper income folks. Requiring proof of liability insurance to register your car seems quite reasonable. But if you can’t afford insurance, you don’t get to register your car. If you don’t register your car, you can’t drive it legally. But if you still need to go to work, and you live in a town that has limited or poor public transportation (the case in much of California, for example), you’re screwed. The poorer you are, the more each fee and requirement hurts, because it’s coming out of your already threadbare pocket – AND your options are so limited, you might be willing to ride the lightning. Here’s a solution that takes us back to Fred’s point: don’t use credit ratings as a factor in auto insurance costs. That would lower insurance costs for many of us and certainly increase the feasability of mandatory auto insurance. As it is, we’re at the mercy of an industry that we cannot simply bypass. The market does not control pricing: whether insurance costs are low or high, we still have to pay.

Sacramento’s Criminal Population, so to speak

The Sacramento Bee — sacbee.com — Typical jail inmate isn’t homeless, survey finds

The article is a report on arrestees in Sacramento and interesting, certainly, for those of us who come into contact with both the homeless population & former inmates. But I thought this was a choice quote:

The relatively low arrest rate for homeless men is not surprising, said Robert Tobin, executive director of Sacramento Cottage Housing.

A recent study of the Sacramento region concluded that the typical homeless person is a 7-year-old white girl, he said.

“There is this whole myth that they’re bums and they’re criminals,” said Tobin, who oversees a transitional housing program.

Poverty, Violence, and what’s in between

Three intriguing posts related to poverty … and some meandering commentary on my part. Fred on the real meaning of ‘credit-worthiness’:

"Credit worthiness" is marketed as a synonym for trustworthiness, but such a thing is not readily quantified. What the ratings actually measure are things like income and assets — wealth, in other words. They also take into account payment histories — whether a person has been overdue with or negligent in making payments. This payment history is, of course, merely a way of restating and reinforcing the prior category of income and assets. Payment history is just one way to inflate the simple question of wealth or poverty into a matter of character.

Jerilyn directs us to a report connecting crime with a lack of affordable housing:

Hagerdorn points out that when New York invested $1 billion in affordable housing in the South Bronx, the murder rate went down.

Atrios comments thusly:

Adequate and stable housing is a precondition for access to the economic system in this country (as is, increasingly, things like an email address). To the extent this kind of research holds up, we may find that using public money to improve the lot of the poor is a more efficient way to reduce crime than the standard deterrence – the potential for long prison sentences.

Stability is key. In my work, what I find is common to most of our clients is an inability to plan for the future due to a lack of stable housing, income, and social support. I call it the ’short horizon’ – you only have enough time/energy/foresight to look at what’s right ahead of you. This is not a universal state – but an oft-true generality.

What we keep in mind is a sort of ‘decision tree’ of which assistance will promote greater stability first; and everything we offer or suggest is meant to be a small step toward great change. More often than not, we deal in the bottom two rungs of Maslow’s Hierarchy: Basic Physiological Survival first (emergency medical treatment, food, shoes, temporary shelter), then Safety & Security (transitional/long-term housing, access to stable income, medical treatment for a chronic condition).

There’s not a lot of time for learning how to ask nicely for what you need when you REALLY REALLY need it. People find an approach that works, and stick with it. Sometimes, that approach is violent or – at the least – antagonistic. If you get a response more quickly with a threat, you learn that’s the most expedient approach to having your needs met. In all honesty, that’s true with all of us – if we get what we want by being obnoxious, we learn to be obnoxious.

Fred talks about Credit Scores used as shorthand for Character. Poor Credit = Poor Character, preemptively limiting access to opportunities.

Jerilyn & Atrios rightfully talk about the connection between stable housing and a reduction in crime.

When only those who can afford the going rate are allowed to have stable access to housing & food, we will see violence in response. People with a relatively stable environment are less likely to lash out in anger – and less likely to make decisions based purely in short-term gain (robbery to support a drug habit, for example) – because they no longer have to rely upon the most expedient (often violent or criminal) approach to meeting their basic needs.

That’s been my experience. Your mileage may vary.

Update on the Three Men from yesterday

Just in case you were wondering …

I’m happy to say, these three did just fine. The Third Man stopped in today to pick up those papers, and it turned out they found the Vital Statistics office easily enough, and though they had to come back downtown today to finish up applying for the state ID, all’s well. I was sort of glad they left their papers – I was able to follow-up on their case.

But on the lighter side …

Some Brownies made up sweet little packages of toiletries for our clients. The troop leader came by with her own two daughters today to deliver them. There weren’t very many of them, but I thought it was just wonderful that she was encouraging in them an interest in community service. The packages: toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, deodorant, pack of tissues, all wrapped in a washcloth.

A client from yesterday stopped off to return the bus tickets we gave him yesterday. Turned out he didn’t need them after all. This never happens – folks hang on to those tickets for later, or sell them for a quick buck.

A client from this morning paid us back for the bus tickets we gave him – he came into a little money later in the day. This almost never happens.

Some days are longer than others

What an odd day. It’s the first of the month (hey! April Fool, everybody!), so business is slow at my agency (many, if not most, government checks come on the First). So, folks get their monthly income, deal with shelter or medications & we don’t see them until the money runs out. Sort of a universal truth among social service agencies.

Anyhoo, it was a slow day. Nice, really, after having started my new job in the middle of the month. It’s been very busy the last couple of weeks, so this morning was a cakewalk. We had no clients at all for the last half hour of the morning shift.

Then, in the afternoon, the energy shifted. Still slow, but a difficult assortment of clients showed up in the last half hour or so of the shift. The most challenging was a trio of gentlemen who were in need of assistance with getting a birth certificate & state ID for one of their group (let’s call him Ricky). Two of the three were developmentally disabled (one mildly to moderately disabled, but able to drive, while Ricky was what you might call severely disabled), the third didn’t seemed overtly disabled in any way, to me, but he said he was illiterate.

The three were relatives – the two who were answering questions were nephews of the third (Ricky) who was in need of the identifying paperwork. The wonderful counselor who helped them did great. He’s experienced and very patient; I’m very glad he was here today, because it did take quite a bit of time to meet with them & coordinate everything (especially since they were, understandably, leery of giving some information & letting go, even briefly, of what ID papers they already had).

I was the one who ended up having a problem. Not while the clients were in the office, of course – I briefly assisted the counselor in getting the paperwork organized, and helped the gentlemen identify where to go first & why. We color-coded the envelopes to help tell them apart, gave them simple driving directions, and gave them address slips with directions to show to a bystander should they get lost.

But after they left (first to the state Vital Statistics office, then to the Department of Motor Vehicles), we realized they’d left all of the rest of their various papers (including information from Social Security) at the counseling station.

I called Ricky’s mother – she’s ill & not able to leave the house, and had already been contacted by the counselor (we’d needed her explanation to help us help her son), so she had some idea of who I was. I told her what happened & said the papers would be safe in my office until someone could come and collect them.

I hung up and just felt so sad, all of a sudden. Invalid mother, severely disabled adult son, both abandoned years before when the father learned his infant son was not ‘perfect’. The only people to help them a disabled nephew older than his uncle and another nephew unable to assist in filling out forms or reading street signs.

Yes, that’s a sad story. But to tell the whole truth, what really upset me was the younger nephew – he seemed okay to me, and I couldn’t fathom how he could manage to grow up in a First World country and not be able to read. Yes, yes – we’ve all heard tell of ‘functionally illiterate adults’ and literacy programs are at every public library … but I simply can’t imagine how a person falls through the cracks so completely.

I wanted to cry for the next hour or so. Then I wanted to kick myself because I really had no idea what the Third Man’s situation is – he says ‘illiterate’ and I think ‘he could read if someone would bother to teach him’ (not a bad thing to think, necessarily, but it doesn’t take into account neurological or developmental issues which may affect his comprehension – and that may be what’s really at issue). In other words, I was jumping to conclusions, and that’s never a good idea.

I’ve been averaging one client a month that really kicks me in the gut, emotionally speaking. This ought to be April’s winner – and it’s only the First.

But I really shouldn’t feel so sad. You see, the optimistic side is this: This family is working together to find solutions. It might take all three of these gentlemen to get one of them to Vital Statistics – but at least they aren’t leaving Ricky to fend for himself. Some folks would, you know.