How do you interpret this?

Discussion in 'General Parenting' started by klmno, Dec 22, 2011.

  1. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    These are requirements for job to "counsel" at the GH they are propsing difficult child go to:

    To provide direct supervision, case management and individual, group & family counseling to at-risk adolescents in a residential group home for boys. Evening/weekend shifts required. Ideal candidate is competency-based, a strong team player, has worked in residential care and has individual, group & family counseling experience. Substance abuse experience a bonus. 1 year experience working with at-risk youth and bachelor's degree in human services or related field required.

    It's a full time, $30,500/year job and drug screening and good driving record are required, with verficcation. Oddly, there is NO mention of a background check or requirement to certify there have been no incidents of "moral turpitude' like there is to do any work in a school.

    Now, here is one exemption listed in the state's board of counseling requirements- which requires providers of individual, family, subastance abuse, and sexual treatment be licensed individuals. The other exemptions are understandable- religious leades giving spiritual counseling, students working under direct supervision, etc.

    Persons employed as salaried employees or volunteers of the federal government, the Commonwealth, a locality, or of any agency established or funded, in whole or part, by any such governmental entity or of a private, nonprofit organization or agency sponsored or funded, in whole or part, by a community-based citizen group or organization. Any person who renders psychological services, as defined in Chapter 36 (§ 54.1-3600 et seq.) of this title, shall be subject to the requirements of that chapter. Any person who, in addition to the above enumerated employment, engages in an independent private practice shall not be exempt from the requirements for licensure.

    The referenced section listed in that is solely on requirements for a licensed psychologist. There is another section on 'professional counselor" that requires licensure but I'm not sure if the above exemption means anyone working for a gov agency can claim to provide counseling, and give "therapy" without a license. That doesn't quite add up to me.

    How do you interpret it?
  2. TeDo

    TeDo Guest

    I think iI read it the same as you do. If they work for the government, work for a program that receives gov't money, OR work for a non-profit they can provide counseling without a license of any kind. I would also be leery about no mention of a background check or check of "professional" complaints. I agree with your uneasiness.
  3. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    Well, there can be no check of professional complaints if there is no professional board overseeing them to complain to. If they aren't licensed, they aren't overseen by a board. But I don't see how this can be right- even dept of mental health can't have a bunch of unlicensed persons giving therapeutic counseling.

    I tried to call and asked the board directly but I got VM and they say they are now closed until Tues.
  4. TeDo

    TeDo Guest

    Wow. And when are they planning on difficult child going there? I totally agree with you and I would be concerned too.
  5. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    And I just LOVE the fact the the ideal candidate would actually have some previous experience counseling someone.

    DF- are you reading this?
  6. exhausted

    exhausted Active Member

    Beside the licensing issue-read between the lines.....Ok, no really good licenced professional is going to take that job for $30,500 a year. Working nights and weekends? At best a desperate 20 something, which in our residential experience, are the ones that spend the most time with your kid, and do the most damage to your kid and family because they are clueless! Not one 20 something was any good-not enough experience,empathy, frontal cortex, etc...They are the ones that abused my daughter in so many ways. And if they happen to find a later in life person, why isn't that person licensed? Why didn't they take the extra 2 years to intern and get at least a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW)?
  7. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    Yep-I've thought of all those things. But what I'll never understand is why csu people will order this koi then act like they are doing the parent a favor if they finally agree to "allow" the parent to take the kid to a real therapist. Then, whe the kid reoffends and their statistics continue loooking horrible due to recidivism, they cry that they need more moeny- to hire more people like that. I swear, I think this is more of a business/cliqueish system than a gov agency that is truly focused on getting these kids turned around.

    They have 4-5 open positions like this listed. First let me say, that's probably the rush to get kids in there- so they can get money in hand and actually hire someone, but they are claiming they have this already to provide to these kids. They don't. Secondly, they also advertise below these job listings that IF a person shows exceptionally ability after one year of employment there, the supervision that is required to gain licensure might be available. Well, then what kind of supervision are the employees getting before hand? And I don't know about the MH prof, but in my prof (which is also overseen by a licensing board), the 'required supervision' must be done by someone who is already licensed. So IOW, this place doesn't have squat. I'm seriously wondering if the people overseeing the fed funding to this place know that.
  8. exhausted

    exhausted Active Member

    You can bet on that! What these systems (including schools, which I am all to familiar with) want to do is perpetuate what they already do despite the fact that the results don't support what they do. They are run by people who are too affraid, or lack innovativeness to take a leap into a different world. The way things have always been is expensive. The state programs and schools, are top heavy. They are also liability heavy-so insurance costs are high. The kind of supervision needed doesn't happen because the licensed people are too busy trying to get money to keep the sh**thank you(self censor!) program going. Many are burnt out and leave the hands- on to undertrained people.

    I read recently a judge, back east, started a new program because he got tired of dealing with the same kids over and over and sending them to "one way" street programs where they just get worse. He has like 99% success. Kids stay with their families and have huge accountability-tracking, in home services. They all were novel to me-not your run of the mill stuff. It took someone who was not in the residential or mental health field to say, "I know these kids can succeed and this is what they need". He runs the program on a dime and no public funds! I so want to know more but have to find the article again. I think it was in Psychology Today I believe.

    Some day I will have time to build such a fascility and to advocate for these kids. Ours are lucky Klmno-they have us. However, most have noone. Several of the girls at the DBT place were on an adoption list at age 16!! One begged me to adopt her. They need real advocates and real programs. Hang in there! Sending you vibes that lawyer, PO,and transition lady grow brains and get what you need for your boy!
  9. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    thank you! I don't know if my son is lucky or not though- I can't fathom being able to get out of the system if I was in his shoes.

    If you find out exactly where that judge is please let me know. I'm looking to move.
  10. buddy

    buddy New Member

    klmno, you son IS so lucky to have you. The amount of time and energy, even when you know he might not even be able to appreciate it much, is wow, so unselfish and the very definition of a really good mother. So many programs and therapeutic ideas sound good on paper but if they are not funded correctly it takes a magic person who is not in it for the money or IS young but happens to be one of the gifted ones meant to be in this field. Not many of those out there. I would never hang my hat on that happening. It is infuriating that these kids are being used as political pawns.

    I was thinking about difficult child's response to not getting out earlier. Pretty mature reaction, I suppose though, you become resigned to some things there after a while. I just feel like you do, there has to be a way to get this out to the public and have them care. This kid had issues, yes, did he deserve that charge that threw the whole schedule off, clearly not. Why does the system, when they practically admitted it was all bogus, defend itself by sticking to the consequences for the kids? Just to make their program look like it is responding appropriately and doesn't have problems? So a whole group of kids gets life changing consequences and the program just takes a hard line to look like they are only doing what they have to do. uggg makes me sick.
  11. confuzzled

    confuzzled Member

    i can tell you what i get out of that job description.....

    a "counselor" is really just a resident babysitter that will make sure the residents dont run the show.

    and a strong team player?

    someone who will do plenty of restraints and keep their mouth shut.

    but i'm a bit cranky tonight.
  12. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    I'm still not convinced that they can advertise or sell themselves as an agency who does individual, group, family counseling, and psycho-educational counseling without having a single licensed MH prof, of any sort- no Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), psychiatric, or psychiatrist, or even a licensed professional counselor, which this state has as an option, just becuase they work for the gov. It just doesn't add up. Court appointment attnys have to be licensed attnys, as an example, and I can see where they could do behavior stuff but I'm thinking it's worth a call to find out for sure.
  13. DDD

    DDD Well-Known Member

    I've given a fair amount of thought to this post, klmno, and I acknowledge up front that I may be wrong on this. on the other hand I "think" I may be correct. While it is disappointing to see that the support offered is not the professional support you feel (rightly) is needed...I don't believe that you can anticipate gov't funding will provide quality support. No matter what the job description or lack of qualifications, I think it is what it is.

    Keep your eye on the goal. Explore the cost and availability of quality mental health care that you can provide for your son. Yeah, I remember that you are paying them now but I know what Medicaid provides around here for regular clients. difficult child#2 had Medicaid and the psychiatrist's and tdocs were overworked and underpaid...and often not the sharpest pins in the pack. husband and I dug ourselves into a financial hole because of many difficult child needs for too many years but quality professional help took a huge chunk of change.

    In the long run I think it's in your best interests to not confront the system. The relationship is already rocky and Department of Juvenile Justice personnel can't really alter "what is". Working in tandem (as much as possible) likely will increase difficult child's chances for a successful future with his Mom. Hugs DDD
  14. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    I would if it was my choice. difficult child's 'treatment', of any sort, is no longer my choice. I think that's where you are missing the point. In your previous experiences, a PO showed up, waved, then went away until next time. You could take your difficult child to any therapist or do whatever you wanted. It doesn't work that way here, and it definitely isn't going to work that way for my difficult child until he's out of this system. I wish you could see that this is an entirely different mindset here then what you have experienced in the past, difficult child's required level of supervision is different, and his hx is different, and it isn't me that 'caused' this approach by csu- this is the methodology used here for juvenile delinquents.

    I have nothing to lose by being a parent letting others in the system know the parent's perspective- especially when it's the parent that has been the 'victim' of the kid's worst offenses. They KNOW this methodology isn't working but they aren't getting anywhere at the rate they are going. The recidivism rate in this state is pathetic- especially being a state that wasts no time getting kids committed to Department of Juvenile Justice. This situation isn't to change things for difficult child- I can't change things for him. I have started looking into different methodologies used for delinquency and believe I have a right to advocate for change in this state. I'm sorry if others here can't be supportive of that.
  15. DDD

    DDD Well-Known Member

    Hmm...I as afraid that you would interpret as criticism of you. It wasn't and isn't. What I'm suggesting is you explore supplemental help that is to your liking (and needs) to see if that is "allowed". No matter how the system is set up I can't imagine that they can deny supplemental services. My suggestion was in hopes that you and difficult child could feel comfortable with his emotional growth so that reunification would be more possible. Fyi...if I were anti klmno I wouldn't respond to the posts, lol. Hugs DDD
  16. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    I didn't take it as you being against me or trying to be critical. It just seems like there's a disconnect between what I'm/difficult child is being faced with and what you are visualizing as the situation- and I'm presuming that's because of your previous experience with csu. I'm thinking your previous experience is nothing like what we are dealing with here, in this state's juvie csu and at this time frame.

    And I'm sure that all the complicated mess with my son doesn't always get conveyed as simply as I wish I could put it across.

    If difficult child goes to the group home, they 'might allow' me to take him to family therapy, out-pateient while he's there. That doesn't change their goal of getting him to independent living.

    If he comes home, they most likely will order in-home 'family therapy' by someone who isn't even a therapist and i won't be able to change that or take him anywhere else for further MH treatment. Now while that doesn't sound harmful to a person who's difficult child has not become aggressive with them, I have felt the blunt of the blows, in more ways then one, and this approach makes difficult child more likely to reoffend, not less. They have told me he won't even get a MH evaluation unless THEY decide he needs one, whether he comes home or not. I had no idea they can do that but difficult child is still considered in the custody of Department of Juvenile Justice as long as he's on parole. So if they order a mentor to 'talk with difficult child about dv issues' and I want to take difficult child to a DV licensed therapist, too bad. difficult child gets the mentor and that's it and I of course, reap the consequences when it doesn't work and difficult child gets reincarcerated. This is where it ties into the point i was trying to make in the thread in the WC- there is a HUGE difference between a specialist evaling a person and then a court just montioring the success in that program's recommended treatment VS people in csu deciding what is needed, providing the minimum, dictating the treatment instead of going by a prof's or specialist's recommendations, not allowing more to be provided by the parent, etc.

    These issues are one thing- me wanting, and feeling the need, to advocate for change in the juvy system is a different issue. It amazes me that more parents, in general, aren't speaking up about this.

    I keep finding myself trying to explain it but you don't come back and appear to respond with an effort to understand what is going on with us or acknowledge anything other than my PTSD or efforts to get better for my son- not your experience or preconceived notions- but in our lives, so I do find that part a little less than supportive sometimes.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2011