The main question is. . do I think I was the norm in knowingly selecting a career that didn't pay for the amount of education, but helped disenfranchised people?
I believe that a minimum of 75% of social workers or teachers who remain in the profession for over 3 years do it because of their deep commitment to helping others, rather than to "make money!"
In the office where I worked, we had 18 social workers. 15 had a masters degree in social work, education, or psychology. Two were married to business executives, one was an heiress receiving a sizeable annuity from oil and an annuity from her great grand father's fortune (Mudd family fortune). One was the wife of a fairly successful writer, three were first generation latina who each had seen their parents work in the strawberry fields and had siblings who were disabled. The others were married to contractors, or not single. Two were a lesbian couple. Two others were married to a teacher and another social worker in a different field.
NONE Of these people HAD to settle for the lower pay in social work. . .they did because they found it MET something to them, and to the families they worked with.
And, yes, I have seen waste, and inefficencies, and abuse of the system by those who were being served. . .but not the ones you would think would take advantage of the system!
One example: For a child to qualify for developmental disability services, there were very strict guidelines. . .one of which was an IQ below 70. However, some children with "light" autism have a much higher IQ, and still may qualify IF their light autism creates enough difficulties in their life (and their family's life) that they need extensive help to function or to stay safe.
One of those child was a lovely little girl. . .actually quite bright. She had to go through the qualification process for entitlement 3 times, before she was finally accepted. . .because the family took a private attorney. The father was a surgeon. The mother was a surgical nurse. She was an only child.
As soon as the qualification was over, we received a three page letter with their "demands!"
Not only did they want "respite" (a few hours each week of basically babysitting, so the parents can have some relief from their care giving duty), and transportation to and from school, and a 1:1 aide in school, and Easter Seal Summer camp. . .but also these "services!"
A 1:1 aide to drive the child to a location 45 miles away from her home to attend equestrian therapy, once a week. And cover of the cost of the equestrian therapy.
A 1:1 aide to drive the child to her "therapeutic dance lessons" once a week, and payment for those lessons
A 1:1 aide to drive the child and assist her during swimming lessons twice a week
A 1:1 aide to drive the child to music therapy classes and assist the music teacher. . . fully paid also
two 48 hours of "out of home respite" each month into a "weekend" respite camp.
Now, these demands were obviously excessive. . .why should a child, just because it is disabled, have EVERY "wants" paid for? Why should that child have access to all those "niceties" fully paid for by tax payers, while most any other child may have had to select ONE of those "niceties" paid for by his/her parent?
Why, because this set of parent had the money to hire an attorney. . .that simple!
In the other hand, a mother of 4, with two of her children severely disabled, was brought to tears when I announced to her that she would receive 10 hours of respite each month, so that she could do something with her two healthy children, while her disabled chidren would be kept safe in their home!
Yes, there are excesses! And it doesn't come from the poor!
Entitled people bring their entitled attitude in EVERYTHING!. . .and their demands are MUCH higher than anyone else!
