Leadership Thoughts

Over the past several days I have been reflecting on leadership; locally and nationally. I will start by saying that this may be a hot take, but I do not see people talk about this and it we should be talking about it. 

There are many challenges that come with being a leader. Making tough decisions, navigating complex environments and relationships, and staying true to one's values. This list is not exhaustive, but you can see that leadership is not all that easy. What is not on the list, or any list that I am familiar with, is that a major challenge of leadership is recognizing when your leadership is done and it is time to step down or step back to allow for new leadership. 

The problem, as I see it, is that leaders become more attached to the need for them to be the leader vs. why they actually stepped into leadership. Politicians become more concerned about their re-election over standing up for what's right. They will act against their own constituents in major ways, while trying to appease them in minor ways. Ultimately, they will sit back and watch horrors unfold and not do anything for fear it may anger the loud minority. Local leaders become more concerned with saving their nonprofit and their image and instead adopt a superhero mentality that they are the only ones with the only vision for solving community issues. Passion becomes purpose, but when left unchecked it becomes so infused with the leader that they can no longer see themselves as an agent for change, but rather THE agent for the change they want to see. 

Leadership is hard. It requires tough decisions, political attune, and the ability to manage change, complex environments, and complex relationships, but once a leader gets to the preverbal "there", the hard part of leadership is maintaining one's own awareness of when it is time to let others lead. 

Leaders- do not let yourself become so ingrain when your vision and mission that it becomes about your leadership more than the change you are working towards. Do not become so disconnected from the community you create an echo chamber that reinforces the work without challenging or critique the work. Finally, we must not sacrifice our communities for our own gain. While that goes without saying, when we do not remain critical of our own work and we unconsciously adopt this superhero mindset it is just a matter of time when we become more committed to working on maintaining our leadership than making the impact that called us to leadership.  

Here are some hints that can help you avoid this. 

1. Separate yourself from the work. While it is easy to to get lost in your passion do not let it consume you. Separation allows space for critical self-reflection and eventually envision a leader that is not you.

2. Value diverse perspective. Sure surrounding ourselves with like-minded people feels good, but often leaves us not fully challenging our work. Hear from people who are very critical of the work you are doing and try and learn from them. Avoiding that echo chamber requires having people who will give us the hard truth. 

3. Measure your effectiveness. Leaders step up to change something, but it is easy to get lost in doing good work rather than making the difference that brought you to the work. Learn to effectively measure your effectiveness to know you are truly making the impact. Be willing to shift and change when what you see is not working.  

4. Prepare for your departure. A common theme in social work is that we start with termination in mind. This helps prepare us to start thinking that a relationship with a client is not forever. Who are you mentoring and building up to take your place? What systems do you have in place that will let you know when it is time to step back and let others lead?

5. Hard decisions are a part of leadership. Stepping back and stepping down may be the hardest decisions you make as a leader, but make those decisions when the time comes. 

Communication Fosters Belong

There has been some focus on adding a "B" to DEI, with the "B" standing for belonging. While some feel that inclusion includes belonging, others feel it needs specific attention. I can see the argument on both sides. However, with all the conversation around belonging, there seems to be a missing piece at the organizational level. Communication. 

I see organizations talk about belonging, but there is a lack of communication within many organizations. To help staff feel included and that they belong, there must be communication across all levels of the organization. When front line staff receive information last minute or they have to get information from outside sources, this hinders efforts to foster belonging. I've seen leaders keep information, neglect communicating information, and wait until the last minute to communicate. "Good communication is the bridge between confusion and clarity"- Nate Turner. Leaders need to be intentional about communication and information sharing because it is a foundational strategy to foster belonging. Through communication we increase inclusion and foster belonging; we communicate with those 

To improve communication, organizations need to stop:

🚫 hoarding information, 

🚫 centering knowledge,

🚫 delaying communication,

🚫 forgetting to send things out, 

🚫 neglecting communication. 

If staff are valued, then communicate. 

Do we really want parity?

 

You have heard it before - we need parity for mental health and physical health. There is even federal law that mandates insurances do not impose less favorable benefits for mental health treatment. So why do advocates still say we need parity?

Hot Take: it's not parity people want. 

Yes, people want parity in regard to payment. The United States healthcare industrial complex is big business. It is natural that mental health entrepreneurs, leaders, and providers want a piece of the action. There are many benefits for rates that are par with physical health including a more livable way for providers in the community mental health system and improved sustainability for those working with the most difficult to serve clients. 

What I don't think advocates want are the number of other things that are commonplace in physical health. We hear the horror stories of doctors not getting certain procedures approved by insurance companies and while denials happen in the mental health space it is different. With the increase in value-based care, are mental health providers ready for a reduced rate when their client is not improving? What happens when clients do not improve at the expected rate? When a client is denied hospitalization due to a 30-day readmission, what will the mental health system do? There are even more adverse implications when we talk about SUD treatment.

Parity with physical health could mean more capped sessions or dictated treatment modalities. It could mean manualized treatment and decreased provider autonomy to allow for a more robust response to client need. Parity will require some tradeoffs and those tradeoffs can fundamentally respace how mental health treatment is delivered. 

I don't know every situation and I am not saying parity is not needed. I do think the use of the word parity in advocacy efforts has become more rhetoric than getting at what people actually need. Fundamentally, mental health treatment in this country needs to be valued, funded, and appropriately compensated for what it is. Healthcare in the United States does not work for so many people. We shouldn't base our desire for parity on a system that puts profit over people. We need to question the terms we use and clarify what we mean. 

A Problem with the Profession?

Well, Social Work Month 2023 has come and gone. I had intended to post during the month, even toward the end of the month I thought "Oh I need to post something". Yet here we are. 

I am writing today to share a thought about the social work profession. Maybe not the profession so much as those coming into the profession and a trend I've noticed in my small corner of the world. By no means am I saying this thought is research based or has empirical evidence to support it. 

TW: Unpopular Opinion 

I am sure we have all noticed a trend that people are entering social work to go into private practice. I think it has been gaining traction for the past decade with more and more students saying their goals are to go immediately into private practice post-graduation. Some are even interning in private practice settings. 

I am not trying to bash on private practice, but what I see in this trend is kind of this shift from why people  are entering the profession. We have gone from this outcome focus to a more activity or process focused. Sure there have always been people who enter the profession because they "want to help help people", but we use to hear words about "change" and "justice". Now we hear people say "I want to go into private practice" or "I want to be a therapist". These are things social workers can do, but therapy or private practice is not really an outcome. 

My MSW program application required a purpose paper. I wrote about my desire to work on making organizations just - not organizations that work on social justice issues but organizations that are just in the the way they do business. That is more of an outcome that drives my work. 

I think the difference is subtle, but powerful. Our profession seems to be losing it's foundation and I think this has something to do with it. 

Missed Opportunity for Allyship

I recently applied and was interviewed for an Executive Director job which my career has been leading up to. I did very well in the interview. I was humble, competent, and committed to being honest. During the question, there were a few pointed questions about certain experiences I had not had because I had not had the opportunity to form those experiences. My response was that "everyone has there first day on the job" and I explained how these are skills that can be learned. 

I did not get a second interview. I was never informed that I was not going to get a second interview although I though I did an excellent job in the interview. There was someone I knew as part of the selection committee. This person unofficially let me know that I would not be getting a second interview and kept me updated on the process. 

They eventually selected a candidate. I was never informed that I was not getting a second interview or anything. I even sent a thank you card!

As I reflect on this experience I am angry. I am hurt. I am frustrated. I have worked extra hard my career to prove my abilities to people in power who just have a lot of assumptions about me. I have worked hard to curate a variety of experiences to set me on a track for advancement so I can have a bigger impact. None of that was recognized in my interview. What this person shared with me about my interview was that the committee liked me and wished they had a job for me, but I was "not ready" for the job I was applying for. For the sake of "fairness", this person did not challenge what the committee said. 

After the second round of interviews of two white females, the board chair really advocated for one over the other. The board chair also mentioned that while the candidate he liked lacked some skills, she could learn that and everyone starts somewhere. The person I knew. did not challenge this. He did not even draw a parallel to what I said in my interview that the board chair is now using to help justify his position. 

It is interesting that minorities are held back because they may lack a specific experience, but a white person is given the grace and it is recognized that they can gain the experience. A person with marginalized identities has to be better than good. They almost have to be overqualified to be considered remotely qualified for a position. 

I am not saying that the person who they picked is not qualified or should not have been picked. This has nothing to do with that person. I am trying to figure out - what can be learned here. I think this is a lesson in allyship. The person I know had the opportunity to challenge the other selection committee's thoughts about my abilities, but that person chose not to. Not maliciously - there was a thought to make things "fair" for the other candidates. However, we live in an unfair world and because of my intersecting identifies I am not seen as competitive or equal to white candidates. I could have amazing experience, but that experience is not seen as valuable or equal. My skill set is not the "right" combination or as good as the white candidates. 

If the person I know chose to be an ally, I do not think the outcome would be any different. I do not think I would have been offered a second interview. I do not think I would have been offered the job opportunity. Allyship is not always about changing people's minds or creating opportunities, sometimes it is hyping up someone with marginalized identities when they are not in the room. It can look like challenging thoughts about their skills and experience. There is too little representation at top positions for people to believe that a non-white person can do the job when they don't fit the exact mold. 

Again, while I am significantly disappointed about the experience and feel anger, this is not about the feelings. My feelings are valid and I can feel them. What I am calling attention too is the lack of allyship and why it is important. 

Whenever and always, white people need to be an ally for people with marginalized identities. The system is biased against them. Neutrality or trying to be fair always favors the status quo. 

DEI: Are You Listening?

I am not a DEI expert. I identify as a cisgender, gay, Latino man. In addition to having a bachelor’s and master’s degree in social work, I am a certified diversity professional. These do not make me an expert in DEI. I work in the area of health equity; I provide leadership and resources for behavioral health authorities to address health disparities in their communities. I firmly believe that DEI is a part of and a strategy to effectively address health inequities. 

While I am not an expert, I do actively learn and participate in the DEI space. Something I have noticed in the discourse on DEI, is the emphasis on hiring a more diverse workforce. Yes, we should be doing this. Absolutely. No arguments here. Yet, we don’t talk about an important area of diversity because the people leading the conversation do not readily identify with this segment of the population.

Who are these people who are often excluded from certain positions? It’s the quite people. The introverts. The people who are not loud and boisterous, but soft spoken and contemplative.  The people who may not have the charisma but are still able to lead from a place of authenticity.

There are many talks on introverts in leadership:

Angela Hucles – Why We Need Introverted Leaders

Simon Sinek – How to Leverage Being an Introvert

Carol Stewart – Introverts Make Great Leaders Too

While we are breaking away from the dichotomy of introvert vs. extrovert, a lot of our knowledge still centers around it. Barry Smith has said that ambiverts, those who fall in the middle of introverts and extroverts, make up about 68% of the population. Popular beliefs seems to still hold that if you are not an extrovert than you are an introvert.

So, what does this have to do with DEI?

I’ve heard from interviews that they were looking for someone to “take charge” of a room. That is not my style. I want to observe the room, learn who is there, and listen to what people are saying. “Taking charge” sounds like white supremacy culture and that’s what I want to actively dismantle.

Far too often those traits we are looking for in potential candidates, those traits outside the job description, hinder the potential pool of applicants. Not redefining your beliefs about leadership can curtail view of who can be a leader; it can hinder possibilities. I am not saying that charismatic leaders should be overlooked. Reverse engineering leadership to focus on traits more related to introverts is not the answer. To be clear, if we do not interrogate our beliefs about leadership and expand our views of leadership than we are overlooking quality candidates. 

Soft spoken does not mean weak

A continual critique I receive is that I am quite/soft spoken. It is an odd critique because some people are just naturally boisterous, and others are soft spoken. Concerns have been verbalized about my ability to lead because I am soft spoken and will be perceived as not confident, unknowledgeable, or incompetent. I am also not very talkative; I am an internal processor. So this comes across to some as disinterested or aloof. It amazes me that people would rather have an unknowledgeable, confident person who speaks loud and often than a knowledgeable person who is soft spoken but displays restraint and confidence. I’ve actively worked to reframe my perceived weaknesses as opportunities to quite the room and listen. I choose fewer words because what I say is meaningful and matters. I do not need to be loud or over speak because I am confident in what I am saying.  

I encourage those in the DEI space to become allies to those potential leaders who are introverts and soft spoken. Don’t just listen to the loudest ones in the room. Actively listen to and support those who are overlooked. It’s time to quite the voices of the loudest in the field to make room for those who are not as loud or charismatic – so their voices and perspectives can be heard. DEI, are you listening?

Thoughts on Social Work Licensure

I will preface this with I do have some bias. I am a licensed independent social worker in Ohio with supervisory designation. I have past the BSW and advanced clinical ASWB exam on the first time without studying. I have provided training supervision for several social workers getting their independent licensure exam and have had success in supporting them to pass the ASWB exam. 

----

On Monday I listened to a panel on social work licensure that was sponsored by ACOSA. I had a number of issues with the panel. The majority of participants presented as White. One participant identified as bi-racial (Black and White). The panel also really didn’t give a strong voice of why social work licensure is beneficial with the focus of it being “bad”. Another issue is a sort of picking and choosing what is gatekeeping and what is not. There was an emphasis on how licensing is gatekeeping – which I agree – But there was not recognition that getting a college degree and having to be accepted into a major along with a certain GPA is also gatekeeping. I am not saying that the panelist do not believe that, but fundamentally gatekeeping starts at getting the right degree. From experience, I would add as a social work professional gatekeeping also involves going to the “right school”. I didn’t attend a prestigious social work program. I received by undergrad and graduate degree in social work form the University of Toledo where I was trained in an advanced generalist model. I have the highest social work licensure in my state and regularly give back to the profession. Often, I am not recognized or do not get a platform because I did not graduate from somewhere like Case Western or The Ohio State University. That’s a different topic of a different day, but it seems inauthentic when the “elite” social workers discuss professional gatekeeping when while practicing it themselves.

As I consider licensure, I reflect on the questions “what social work activities need to be licensed”? Obviously, not all of the things social workers do require a license. If social workers did not provide psychotherapy would a license be necessary at all? A point during the panel that was touched on several times was that social work is about relationship building. If social work can be distilled to relationship building, then we do we need a license or even a degree. There are a number of things that social workers are trained in, but if it just comes down to relationship building there are many other professions that can do that.

Maybe it is our social justice orientation that makes us a distinct profession? I choose social work because I wanted to see systems that were just. However, a lens of social justice or even a focus of social justice does not necessarily require a license. Training through an organized curriculum, probably – but a license to practice, I don’t think so.

So, what are the benefits to social work licensure?

• It creates a scope of practice that distinguishes us from other disciplines.  Losing the license would also likely mean losing that scope of practice which may be similar to other professions.
• There is a body to contact (licensure board) when a social worker practices outside of that scope or unethically.
• It creates a requirement for continuing education. While professionals should constantly be learning, I have met more social workers than I care to count that have forgotten to engage in continuing education to complete their continuing education requirement. 
• Finally, it adds legitimacy. Now we can argue about the extent of the legitimacy, but a license at least creates a framework for legitimacy.

The panel discussion seemed to argue two things simultaneously which seemed to weaken both arguments. First there are significant and valid issues with the ASWB licensure test so some are calling for the abolition of that test and some alternative route to licensure. Arguing the invalidity of the test (and it may very well not be a good measure) and establishing an alternative licensure route at the same time seems a bit contradictory. An alternative pathway to licensure may be beneficial, but it brings us back to asking what is the point of licensure and what are we trying to establish with it.

I am willing to engage in more conversation on the issue and I am very open to hearing from other perspectives. These are just my thoughts upon reflecting on Monday's panel discussion. 

Quick Fix to the Opioid Epidemic?

USC Researchers Suggest a Quick Fix for America's Opioid Epidemic

There is no single solution to the opioid epidemic and the solutions are not easy. However, this article shares research suggests a solution: notifying a doctor (medical doctor) when their patient died from an opioid overdose. They found that doctors who received a letter had a quicker rate of reduction in prescribing opioids. They argue it is a simple, quick solution to that can have a long term impact in the fight against the opioid epidemic. The full article is linked above. 

Prepping for 2023

We are getting real close to 2023. I've been reflecting on what I want to do in the new year. I don't like resolutions, maybe that's cliché. I prefer to think in the terms of goals, what do I want to accomplish by when. This is a social work blog so of course the goals should be SMART.

I seem to always have the notion that I want to save money in the new year. While I do have a very small savings started, it seems that I can always find a reason not to save. I've tried those 52 week challenges before and they start off well, but quickly seem unmanageable. One week you put save $15 dollars and the next week you're expected to save $150. I've been searching for a more manageable challenge and I think I found one. Unfortunately I can't give credit to whoever developed it because I don't remember where I saw it. 

This is not the exact version of what I saw because I made this on Word, but it will be my guide to trying to save $1378.00 in 2023. 

Another intention I have had for some time now is to drink more water. While I can say on average I do drink more water than I have had in my younger years, I am not drinking enough water consistently. I purchased this bottle which one of my colleagues refers to as an "accountability bottle".

I have noticed I am able to drink this more consistently by following the guide (which is kind of hard to see in this pic). I have also noticed that when I do not use the bottle I do not drink as much water. So next year I will be more intentional about using the bottle every day to help improve by hydration. I should probably see exactly how much water I should be getting in a day, because this may not be enough, but baby steps for now. 

I will have more goals next year, but I am feeling confident and comfortable with these two areas going into next year. 

Continued Reflections

 It's been a few months since I have posted here. Actually, it has been a lot longer than I thought. In recent months I have found writing and posting content more of a challenge. I have thoughts, but they seem all over the place and I struggle to form something substantial and coherent. As a commitment to myself to keep this blog going I am sharing a few of the Health Equity Reflections that I provided on a weekly basis. 

***

“While individual-level interventions are beneficial, characterizing them as efforts to address social determinants of health conveys a false sense of progress” (Castrucci and Auerbach, 2019). As behavioral health leaders, we have a solid understanding of the multiple factors that contribute to an individual’s overall health. We understand how the social determinants of health affect an individual’s mental health and wellbeing. Things like poverty, violence, and homelessness have a direct impact on an individual's total health. While there has been a trend to try to address the social determinants of health, we must be careful to avoid thinking that addressing an individual’s needs is impacting the social determinants of health. While we need programs like shelters, food pantries, and clothing drives, we also need policies that address the social conditions that create environments that support inequities. Recall the groundwater approach. To address health inequities and the social determinants of health- we need to focus on the environment (policies and structures) and not just programs that focus on addressing individual need. 

***

Change is the only constant in life – Heraclitus. One of the harder aspects of this change is the continual evolution of language. Back in July, we reflected on the term BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color). Another term that some are embracing is ‘people of the global majority’. As with other terms – minority and people of color – understanding the aspect of racial identity becomes dependent on comparing it to another group. These terms are also Americanized and are centered on the American experience. People of the global majority is an inclusive term for all non-white people around the world, but also makes racial identity independent of whiteness. Lim states in his article about the term, “it speaks to an identity that is free from being in lesser-than relation to whiteness”. While it may take some time for people to integrate this term into common use, if it is a term that even becomes widely adopted, we begin to see how we even speak about things changes how we think about things. People of the global majority has a much different connotation than referring to someone as a minority or as a person of color.

***

November 1^st marks the beginning of National Native American Heritage Month. It is interesting that so many people claim Native American ancestry without fully understanding their ancestry. Families across the United States have lore about being descended from an Indian Princess, most often Cherokee. These families’ stories become ingrained, so much so that few people question their authenticity. In this article the author states, “By claiming a royal Cherokee ancestor, white Southerners were legitimating the antiquity of their native-born status as sons or daughters of the South, as well as establishing their determination to defend their rights against an aggressive federal government, as they imagined the Cherokees had done. These may have been self-serving historical delusions, but they have proven to be enduring”. During Native American Heritage Month, we would do better to recognize the land we call Ohio that was once occupied by many different nations, than to assert some false native identity. Wondering what a land acknowledgement is – check here.

International Non-Binary People's Day

 

Greetings folks!

For work I still have the opportunity to write weekly reflections related to health equity. Here is today's reflection. 

July 14 is International Non-Binary People’s Day. This day is intended to raise awareness and celebrate individuals who identify as non-binary. The term “non-binary” is an umbrella term that includes individuals whose gender identify and/or expression does not conform to the socially constructed gender binary. These individuals may identify as being both a man and a woman or their identify may fall outside of these categories. While many transgender people may identify as non-binary, they are not the same. American culture has reinforced that two-gender binary, creating stress and tension for those who may identify as non-binary but choose to not to live as their authentic selves for fear of judgement and repercussion. As we consider ways to create inclusive environments, we must consider how to make them inclusive for all- including non-binary people. This can look like introducing yourself with your pronouns and addressing groups as ‘folks’, ‘pals’, or ‘everyone’ instead of the traditional ‘ladies and gentlemen. Move towards using gender inclusive language in your polices and documents (i.e. use ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’). These small ways can help you become an ally for non-binary people and help you bring about more inclusivity.

A Late Wrap Up for Pride Month

It’s July and Pride Month is over. I intended to write a few posts about Pride Mont, but the month quickly got away from me....and now July seems to be getting away from me. 

An article that came up during June was the Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy Linked to Better MH in Trans Youth. For me, it was exciting to see some research in this area because it has been a concern of mine for some time. I don’t like giving my unfounded opinion on things and from time to time I would find myself in some conversations regarding hormone therapy for youth.  Experts are calling for youth to receive gender-affirming care including gender-affirming hormone therapy if it is the desire of the youth. This is really important information for social workers working with you. Social workers should be advocating for laws and policies that increase access to gender-affirming care. While there is a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, research like this provides evidence for effectiveness rather than leaving things up to opinion.

Back in July of 2021, I shared some writing I had done awhile ago about cyberbullying. This piece really focused on educating social workers on cyberbullying and educating parents on internet safety. Online safety is a major concern for everyone these days- not just youth. Someone found this blog and shared an online guide to for LGBTQ to protect themselves online. Here is the link to the guide: https://www.vpnmentor.com/blog/lgbtq-guide-online-safety/. There is actually a lot of good information in the safety guide that can help a lot of people.

For work, I was able to develop a short learning challenge to encourage behavioral health leaders and providers to learn more about the LGBTQ+ community and the challenges the community faces and how to build inclusivity. The challenge can be found here. You don’t have to wait for June again to learn about LGBTQ+ issues so feel free to use the resource anytime.

Cinco de Mayo

 May the 4th be with you!

Today is the day before many people across the United States take part in Cinco de Mayo, a celebration that began as a Mexican-American holiday. 

If you are unfamiliar with the origins of the celebration and want to know what Cinco de Mayo really means, check out this article by Maria Garcia. 

I don't know Maria, but I want to give her credit for this eloquent article on Cinco de Mayo. 

Social Work & Health Equity

Here is a short piece I wrote for the OACBHA website. Check it out. It's not a long read, but I think it would be worth it. 

 

More Reflections

Health Equity Reflection

You have undoubtedly heard the term The Great Resignation, referring to those who have left or are considering leaving their current employer. However, while the stress is high due to the demand that far surpasses the supply, we have an opportunity to think differently about our workplace cultures. Is it the Great Resignation or the Great Re-Evaluation?  We know the issues in community mental health: low wages, high productivity standards, challenging clients, and historically high turnover. While people re-evaluate what it means to work and what works means to them, organizations need to consider how they align their mission and values with how their employees are treated and not just those seeking services. Health equity isn’t realized through poor organizational culture. As behavioral health leaders, let us help the continuum of care re-evaluate how we create a supportive and inclusive workplace culture.

...

Monday was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day and for some it is difficult to see beyond their own struggles and experiences of oppression. As we reflect on Dr. King’s advocacy for equality for Black Americans, other’s may feel left out or want to remind others of their own oppression whether that is based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or socioeconomic status. Health equity, diversity, and inclusion means all are valued and belong, however it is important that at times we do focus on certain segments of the population and reflect on the institutionalized injustices that have contributed to health inequities. Focusing on one group’s experience is neither bad nor invalidating of another group’s struggle. Some may feel like that work you are doing is “only for those people”, sometimes we must narrow our focus to make progress. This is a marathon, not a sprint.   

...

Finding a solution to any social problem starts with identifying the problem. It can be tempting to decontextualize the problem so much that it becomes separated from the human experience. We can talk about the health inequities in marginalized communities while never taking the time to realize that each community is made up of individual people—human beings with hopes, dreams and unique, lived experiences. An underlying value in a Recovery-Oriented System of Care is a person-centered approach that centers services and supports around the needs, preferences, and strengths of the individual. Once we fully realize our work is about the quality of existence – of every individual – we will find a renewed sense of urgency and motivation to advance health equity. 

...

Stop and reflect for a moment—what is the point of language? It is a vehicle to facilitate communication and develop shared understanding. Yet, we often use language to oppress. I am not talking about words that are outright oppressive, but the collective tendency to not be as accepting or welcoming of non-Standard forms of communication. In Teaching to Transgress, the author frames English as the language of oppressors that wiped out native tongue and is continually used to silence marginalized voices. Individuals tend to be judged when they are not using proper English and are often thought to be unintelligent or not having value to add. Think of the time when someone sent an email with the incorrect tense, used a colloquialism, or spoke up in a meeting and used a more casual tone or non-Standard English. Did you have the same level of respect or engagement as when someone uses English that follows standard tone, diction, and grammar? We understand that language is a vehicle to facilitate communication, but when someone’s written or spoken English is not up to our, individual standard their communication may be viewed as less than even though there is shared understanding. Fighting oppression requires us to challenge ourselves to shift our focus to what people are trying to say rather than how they are communicating. 

...

This Friday we host the Crisis Academy: Crisis Response for LGBTQ+ Populations and what a timely subject matter given the situation in Texas and other states moving towards LGBTQ discriminatory policies. If you are not aware of what is happening in Texas, you can read about it here. Governmental policies, whether they be overtly discriminatory or not, have potential to have significant effects on the mental health and physical safety for the most vulnerable in society. We live in a global society; LGBTQ youth are seeing what is going on in parts of the country and around the world. The 2021 National Survey on LGBT Youth Mental Health found that 42% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, including more than half of transgender and nonbinary youth, 75% of those surveyed reported that they had experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity at least once in their lifetime while half of all LGBTQ youth of color reported discrimination based on their race/ethnicity in the past year. As behavioral health leaders we must continue to learn about the marginalized and center those experiences to inform our policies and practices, but more importantly let us not forget youth in our work – especially those who are most vulnerable – so we can ensure quality and equitable access to care for all Ohioans. If you are not able to join us for tomorrow’s crisis academy, don’t worry – it’s being recorded for later viewing. 

Realizing Values

Values comes up a lot, but (in my opinion) we don't usually give it the attention this subject needs. Social work is a value based profession. Within the NASW Code of Ethics are 6 ethical values: Service, Social Justice, Dignity and Worth of the Person, Importance of Human Relationships, Integrity, and Competence. Other professions have values, organizations have values, and each individual person has their own values. 

This past semester I was able to facilitate a course on leadership for undergraduate students at the University of Toledo and we discussed values. The past few weeks in my supervision group we have talked about values. The topic has come up because sometimes the values of an organization where a social worker is employed do not align with the social worker's values. I think this is something we should all be more aware of as we think through opportunities, do the primary values of the organization align with our own? While a social worker may be trying to do good, there can be constant tension between values and practice. As social workers seek to live out their values in their professional work, it is emotionally taxing to work an environment that doesn't support those values or even undermines them. 

I also feel like values is another area that doesn't get the recognition it should in regards to burnout. While I don't think value misalignment is the signal factor that leads to burnout, it does play a role in burnout. 

It is not always easy to identify your values. We don't talk about them in everyday conversation. You may have some vague idea about what you value, but verbalizing it may be difficult not to mention prioritizing your values. Values can be seen very clearly when we are environments that are conflict our values. You may not realize that you really hold the value of protecting the environment until you are in a workplace that refuses to recycle. Sure you recycle at home and do little things to eliminate waste, but it isn't until you are faced with the conflict do you realize how how the value is. 

We should all be taking time in critical self-reflection to better understand ourselves and our values. Values denote worth. Values drive our behaviors. We make time for what we value. Having a better understanding of this can help us better evaluate and select opportunities that are more aligned with our values. 

So, what are your values? 

Impact

It's New Year's Eve and I have spent some time reflecting on this past year and thinking about what I want to accomplish in 2022. I haven't formalized any goals yet, but I have decided my word for the year.

Impact

This past year has been a significant year for me. I did a number of presentations and trainings. I won a 20 Under 40 Leadership award, and I stated my new role as the Director of Health Equity and Clinical Resources at the Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health Authorities. It's been a busy year for sure, but a very fulfilling one professionally. 

In 2022, I want to be intentional about making an impact. Not to say my previous work hasn't been impactful, but this past year or so I have worked on strengthening my leadership voice and building confidence in myself. In my new role, I get the opportunity to work with Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services Boards across Ohio to work towards advancing behavioral health equity, diversity, and inclusion. I am a leader in Ohio for behavioral health equity and I am setting my intention to make a positive impact in this space. 

I have ideas for goals for this upcoming year, but they are kind of just floating in my head right now. Once I am comfortable enough I will right them down and put them. Last year I put them in my planner so I could refer to them frequently. This year, I have a notebook where I plan to write them down along with some other things I will be tracking. Tracking progress is a great way to stay motivated to reach the goal. Maybe I'll put my goals here so it can kind of help keep me accountable. 

My friend send me this yesterday and I think it's an important reminder as I consider my goals for next year. 

 

Reflections

I follow a few people on LinkedIn who are in the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) space. Sometimes they share some insights that make me stop and think. In November, an insight was shared that I decided to send to my colleagues at work. The CEO liked it so much she asked me to share a weekly reflection that goes out with the organization's updates to the members. These are just short pieces; about a paragraph long. I've been doing it for about 5 weeks now and I thought I would share the ones I've written here. 

Health Equity Reflections 

November Thoughts: Workforce

There has been a growing workforce issue within mental health and substance use disorder treatment; really across all helping professions. Almost daily I hear leaders talk about the number of open positions, the hemorrhaging staff, and the lack of qualified applicants who actually apply for positions. 

The issue is vast and multi-dimensional. Should social workers stay when their mental health is on the line? Can anyone blame a person for taking a better paying job? With the staffing shortage, are is there extra care taken for the workers who are there? 

I was in a meeting today and the issue of workforce came up and people from several different states shared what a large organization can do that may be helpful in addressing the workforce issue. Ideas around tuition reimbursement, loan forgiveness, reducing the stigma around working in mental health, and paid internships (to help build a pipeline). These are not bad ideas, and in the context of the conversation were appropriate. Of course things like better work life balance, psychological safer, equitable pay, opportunities for growth, and professional respect can all help with the workforce issues. 

However, as I was listening to these things, something stood out to me. No one was addressing that our workforce has and continues to lack diversity. I challenged those at the meeting to conceptualize the workforce issue as a DEI issue. Leaders and organizations across the county have a great opportunity to find solutions to an issue (workforce) while also bringing solutions to a long standing problem (lack of diversity). As we think through the workforce issue it is critical that we consider how we create equitable opportunities for those with underrepresented and marginalized identifies. 

Finding ways to fill vacancies is not a helpful or sustainable solutions. Brining a DEI perspective into finding solutions to recruiting and retaining a quality workforce is a win-win for everyone. It's the long game. It is not an easy solutions, but in the end  it is better for organizations, employees, and the people who receive services. 

20 Under 40 Leadership Award

On October 29, 2021, I received the 20 Under 40 Leadership Recognition Award. 

Here is the press release. 

(Toledo, Ohio) Elijah Jones, Manager of Treatment Services at Mental Health & Recovery Services Board of Lucas County, received a 2021 20 Under 40 Leadership Recognition Award on Thursday, October 28 at the 26^th annual 20 Under 40 ceremony.  He was among the 20 selected from a field of 209 nominated candidates.

In his role at MHRSB, Jones monitors over $14 million in mental health and substance use disorder treatment contracts. He is a member of the Lucas County Opioid Coalition and a co-lead for the healing Communities Study to reduce opioid overdoses by 40 percent. In partnership with the Ohio Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services he worked to rapidly distribute hundreds of naloxone kits into high-risk communities.

Jones is an appointed co-chair of the Social Justice Committee of the City of Toledo Human Relations Commission, he recently completed two terms as the Region 1 director of the National Association of Social Workers-Ohio Chapter and actively volunteers with NASW to create opportunities for local social workers to network and develop professionally. He has participated on the Citizens Review Committee for City of Toledo Department of Neighborhoods as it related to homelessness, and he is a regular abstract reviewer for the American Public Health Association. He is a member of both the University of Toledo Opioid Task Force and the Latino Alliance of Northwest Ohio.

In 2020, Jones won the Adult Leadership Diamante Award from the Latin o Alliance of Northwest Ohio. He is a licensed independent social worker with supervisory designation, a licensed independent chemical dependency counselor, a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers and a certified clinical trauma professional. He recently completed requirements to become a certified diversity professional. A leader in social work he provides training supervision for students and has taught courses at both the University of Toledo and St. Louis University.

Jones earned both an under-graduate and Master’s Degree in Social Work from the University of Toledo and is currently a doctorial candidate in educational psychology.

The 20 Under 40 program focuses on individuals in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan under the age of 40 who have distinguished themselves in their career and/or in the community. An independent panel of judges selects the 20 candidates for recognition.  It is intended that the program will further motivate young leaders in our area. Since 1996, 520 young, community leaders have been recognized through the 20 Under 40 program.

Program sponsors include Eastman & Smith; Fifth Third Bank; Plante Moran; The Andersons, Inc.; University of Toledo and Dana Incorporated.  The Toledo Business Journal serves as the media partner, Leadership Toledo serves as the community partner, and Buckeye Broadband as broadcast partner.  Ulrich Pinciotti and THREAD are creative partners.  Community support is provided by EPIC Toledo, Imagination Station, The Toledo Repertoire Theatre, Toledo Alliance for the Performing Arts, Toledo Lucas County Public Library, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Opera, Toledo Zoo, and the Valentine Theatre.