Have you ever seen the show “Dangerous Jobs” that appears on the Discovery Channel?
The show profiles some of the world’s most dangerous occupations, such as workers on the Golden Gate Bridge, health care workers fighting the Ebola virus, and gold miners.
Well, perhaps the show can add another job to its roster: child welfare worker.
While many of the jobs featured on “Dangerous Jobs” are dangerous to a worker’s health, the job of a child welfare worker is dangerous because it can cause an employee to do some serious jail time.
Something to consider is whether a caseworker should be held liable if a child in their caseload suffers severe abuse, or even dies.
Critics say no. As a matter of fact, one Associated Press article compared the practice to arresting a police officer for not getting to the scene of a crime fast enough.
What do you think?
In my opinion it’s a catch 22. On one hand, case workers should be held accountable for everything that they do relative to their job description. After all, part of their responsibility is to manage cases, right? In doing so, they should be well-informed and abreast of everything that goes on. And if something bad or suspicious occurs, then they need to take the proper measures to ensure every child is safe.
On the other hand, how realistic is it for such a worker to effectively manage a caseload that is three times the amount they are supposed to have?
Not long ago in New York, a child welfare investigator and supervisor became the center of attention when a child “died after being beaten, drugged and starved to 18 pounds” – half the weight of what a child her age should weigh.
Authorities question whether visits were actually made to the child’s home. Prosecutors think not, however, the investigator and supervisor in question say yes. The situation turns a darker shade of grey when authorities learned records and conversations between the two child welfare workers weren’t entered into the computer system until after she died.
The child welfare workers say there were visits to the home, but the instances weren’t recorded because their overabundant caseloads kept them too busy.
Who do you believe: the prosecution’s theory or the case workers’?
I’m torn.
Part of me sides with the prosecution. I think that there are a lot of negligent case workers who may not be as organized or thorough, therefore they miss signs of danger. I believe that even if a caseworker is incredibly busy, they should be able to jot down a few notes about a particular case – especially if there is a history of abuse. Doing so doesn’t seem as if it would take up too much time.
However, I also understand that every person’s perspective is different. Not everyone is able to juggle multiple tasks in an efficient manner. I have a friend who is a caseworker in Chicago and one of the things she mostly complains about is her heavy caseload. While she is highly organized and gets her reports complete in a relatively timely manner, she often talks about the stress of the job: how she has to go to unsafe neighborhoods and homes, the long hours, the non-existent incentives, and the not-so-great pay. Could these things cause even an organized caseworker to “drop the ball?”
I’m interested to learn what you think. Post a message on the Recorder’s Facebook page or send me an e-mail at the address below.
You can e-mail comments to Shannon Williams at Shannonw@IndyRecorder.com.
