Here are some facts and figures I think point to significant problems for the child welfare sector and for CAS in particular:
• There are over 5,000 child protection workers in Ontario (5160)
• The College regulates about 17,000 social workers and social service workers
• In Ontario, only 7% of College-registered social workers are employed by a CAS
• Only 4% of members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers work for a CAS
• Between 30% and 50% of Ontario’s child welfare workers do NOT hold a BSW
• 63% of direct service staff in CASs have a BSW or MSW (in 2012, it was 57%)
• 78% of direct service supervisors have a BSW or MSW (in 2012, it was 75.5%)
• The 2013 OACAS Human Resources survey estimates that 70% of relevant CAS job classifications would qualify for registration with the College (so about 1500 CAS currently employed workers would be unable to register with the College)
• From 2002 to 2014, 41 child welfare employees who did not hold a BSW or MSW submitted equivalency applications to register as social workers; only 16 were successful and 25 were refused.
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/250535/regulation-child-protection-workers-ontario-college-social-workers-and-social-service
Industry self-regulation is the process whereby members of an industry, trade or sector of the economy monitor their own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a third party entity or governmental regulator monitor and enforce those standards.[1] Self-regulation may ease compliance and ownership of standards, but it can also give rise to conflicts of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem to which the public has knowledge, but keep remaining breaches hidden. Another exception would occur in industry sectors with varied membership, such as international brands together with small and medium size companies where the brand owners would have an interest to protect the joint sector reputation by issuing together self-regulation so as to avoid smaller companies with less resources causing damage out of ignorance. Similarly, the reliability of a professional group such as lawyers and journalists could make ethical rules work satisfactorily as a self-regulation if they were a pre-condition for adherence of new members.
An organization can maintain control over the standards to which they are held by successfully self-regulating. If they can keep the public from becoming aware of their internal problems, this also serves in place of a public relations campaign to repair such damage. The cost of setting up an external enforcement mechanism is avoided. If the self-regulation can avoid reputational damage and related risks to all actors in the industry, this would be a powerful incentive for a pro-active self-regulation [without the necessity to assume it is to hide something].
Self-regulating attempts may well fail, due to the inherent conflict of interest in asking any organization to police itself. If the public becomes aware of this failure, an external, independent organization is often given the duty of policing them, sometimes with highly punitive measures taken against the organization. The results can be disastrous, such as a military with no external, independent oversight, which may commit human rights violations against the public. Not all businesses will voluntarily meet best practice standards, leaving some users exposed.
Governments may prefer to allow an industry to regulate itself but maintain a watching brief over the effectiveness of self-regulation and be willing to introduce external regulation if necessary. For example, in the UK, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in 2015 investigated the role of large accountancy firms in relation to tax avoidance and argued that "Government needs to take a more active role in regulating the tax industry, as it evidently cannot be trusted to regulate itself".
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/250535/regulation-child-protection-workers-ontario-college-social-workers-and-social-service
:::
How to Spot a Government Funded Sociopath in 3 Steps.
It helps to know some of the warning signs of sociopaths. Posted Mar 15, 2018.
Whether you’re trying to spot a potential school shooter, a dangerous romantic partner, a total liar at work, a scammer on the internet, or someone pushing a bogus business deal on you, it helps to know some of the warning signs for sociopaths. As I explained in Part 1 of this two-part series, sociopaths can have some hidden and dangerous personality features.
The DSM-5 lists 10 criteria for diagnosing antisocial personality disorder1 (ASPD), but it assumes you have professional training and a lot of information about the individuals. I’m not going to teach you how to diagnose an ASPD or to distinguish them from a sociopath (or psychopath, or con artist).
This post focuses on a few of the hints that they may give you at your first or first few encounters. These hints may help you choose to keep your distance despite how appealing they may seem on the surface. Don't be a target.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201803/how-spot-sociopath-in-3-steps
:::
Psychological deflection is often considered a narcissistic abuse tactic.
Deflection, by definition, is a method of changing the course of an object, an emotion or thought from its original source. Psychological deflection is seen as a narcissistic abuse tactic used to control the mind and emotions of others.
Nevertheless, psychological deflection is not only a narcissistic tool but also a coping mechanism strategy. Individuals who use it seek to mask their own impulses by denying their mistakes and projecting them on the people around them.
Why Psychological Deflection Occurs
We have a natural tendency to be proud of our achievements and share our positive results with others. But when it comes to failure, we usually attribute it to the external factors: the system, the bank, the teacher, the school, the country, etc.
In addition, it is much easier to make a list of other people’s mistakes than to acknowledge our own. This is because our “Ego” develops a self-defense system that prevents us from admitting that we are wrong. Thus, it makes us feel less responsible for the consequences of our actions.
Consequently, this self-defense system has negative effects on the way we perceive the world we live in, including our own image. We will always believe that the causes of our mistakes will never be related to our behavior or actions. As such, the external environment is the one to blame.
We will also over analyse the situation and the people around us to the point where our mind begins to project our flaws on to our surroundings. The most interesting aspect is that, under normal circumstances, we do not dislike or see other people’s flaws. But when the crisis occurs, the same people we once perceived as okay suddenly turn into the source of our misfortune.
Someone Is Always Guilty
Countless studies show that all groups (family, job, friends, etc.) have their own “guilty party“. It’s that one person that everyone blames even though it is not always her/his fault. Once someone becomes the guilty party, practically, the group will attribute all the failures of each member to that one specific person, in order to defend their infallible image.
Blaming is a psychological epidemic, a contagious move that can leave traces in the hearts of the people around us. The blamed person will collect the woes of all members of the group. They will end up to in the point where they will not know when they are wrong and when not. There will be chaos in their soul.
When we blame other people for our mistakes, we consciously or unconsciously use a self-esteem strategy. In other words, we use underestimation and accusations so we can increase our self-confidence, especially when we sense competition.
https://www.learning-mind.com/psychological-deflection/
:::
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/250535/regulation-child-protection-workers-ontario-college-social-workers-and-social-service
No comments:
Post a Comment