Pros
There are very few things as rewarding than literally talking someone off of a bridge. Almost all counselors, supervisors, and managers are the most supportive and kind people you could ever meet. Remote is a great perk in itself.
Cons
It is my understanding from current staff that conditions have not shifted. Therefore, I will try to word my feedback as such.
-
Leadership is far enough removed from the day-to-day that it’s easier for them to believe that a large number of their employees need to improve than it is to recognize the systemic issues driving burnout.
The workload was consistently increased and concerns were completely ignored. At one point after receiving vast amounts of feedback that expectations were too high considering, they decided to audit supervisors to see how they could optimize their time. When asked to instead step in and cover a shift in order to understand the widespread overwhelm, they declined and proceeded to come up with tips for how we could do better.
Chronic overwhelm drastically worsened the mental health of a significant portion of staff. There was more than 1 instance that a coworker confided to me that they themselves were struggling with thoughts of suicide, but they knew they would be reprimanded for missing too much time. Not only was leadership unsympathetic to staff struggles, the understaffing built resentment between staff when shifts went uncovered.
The significant impact of Contact’s practices further put clients at risk as it is impossible to provide competent care for someone in crisis when you yourself are in crisis. I believe they were especially negligent in this regard. Staff is allotted a mere 5 minute break after calls that were serious enough to require rescue. The pressure of my role was the primary cause of my own long term hospitalization.
Further negligence was commonplace in Contact’s practice of applying of each policy rigidly across the board without any nuance. More than once, clients were put at risk due to leadership’s pressure to keep conversations as short as safely possible, even in instances where disabilities impacting communication were present.
FURTHER negligence was present in Contact’s refusal to acknowledge and address an untenable influx in prank conversations. This led to worsening outcomes for clients, dangerous overwhelm of staff including the trauma of being unsure if violent and tragic conversations were real or not, all while treating them as seriously as possible, as well as the building of tension between us and dispatchers, who we rely on to intervene in extreme cases. More than once, a dispatcher and their supervisor refused to help us in a difficult case, leaving us to forever wonder if that caller survived. This is somewhat understandable considering the fact that dispatching emergency services to a home for a prank call can lead to life threatening situations. All of this is especially concerning in the face of chronic understaffing and bullying by leadership.
Leadership was not only unfriendly to those with chronic health conditions, they were actively spiteful. At least 1 supervisor with serious injury to her throat was forced to cover the phone line while another offered to step in; leadership declined. The ill coworker had been outspoken about contact’s strict attendance policies and failure to hire adequate staff to cover lines.
Leadership often takes criticism personally despite saying things like “feedback is a gift, so take it from us with gratitude.” It is generally not only received with frustration, it is almost never implemented.
Power is almost unilateral with a very small handful of leaders making decisions without integrating staff feedback. Further, leadership (from the top down to some management) mismanages their time by regularly flying to conferences and devoting significant amounts of time looking to find ways to pressure staff into “doing better”. One leader is balancing unilateral decision making for the organization while also.
Leadership is well-intentioned but ineffective and inflexible. Since the integration of 988 and allocation of federal funding, their focus has always been on seeking out more funding. This led to a slew of false-start programs that drained the resources and time of already overworked staff, as well as tarnished our reputation in the community.
Processes were often unclear, and rather than review and revise their implementation practices, leadership consistently chose to shift blame to staff. Platforms were changed almost yearly, leaving overworked staff scrambling to learn a new documentation system. Attempts to step up with solutions to serious concerns were met with frustration and accusations of mismanaging what free time staff did have. This created a culture not only of overwhelm, but also of hopelessness in improving the company we loved and it’s practices.
When talks of cuts to federal funding began, leadership not only cut hourly wages for some staff, they preemptively capped overtime that many employees relied on for their financial wellbeing as well as proper staffing for a manageable workload.
Finally, when interns were brought in to support our budding programs with smaller caseloads of appropriate work, leadership was highly critical of necessary absences. Further, they at times prioritized pressuring completion of busy work for interns over the ability to complete field seminar assignments; which is outlined as viable by the universities. This was especially detrimental to our interns who worked and/or had children. Rigid policies for staff are concerning enough, but especially so for those completing important work for free.