Danielle Keogh will tell you that she is the “Director of Social Work” for “the entire building” (meaning Corrigan MHC). This seemed very doubtful. I somehow doubt Jackie Schofield for example, believes Danielle is her superior. In reality, my understanding was that Danielle reported to Kelly Pavao, a nurse, and Kelly Pavao in turn reported to Jeanne Crespi. (I do not know Ms. Crespi’s occupational identity). That would imply that if Ms. Keogh is the Director of SW of anything, it would be the IPU. In other words, she is the director of a total of two people.

Ms. Keogh was a terrible internship supervisor. Her (non) supervision was actually traumatic. She would not speak with me, the intern, but she did speak behind my back. I wasn’t expecting that. It arrived as a surprise and a moral injury. I wrote the upward evaluation below to try to put some closure on the experience, to try to make sure she did better the next time she served as a supervisor of an intern. (At least hold the required 1 hour weekly meeings!) So I sent this, but it did not provide any closure because I have o reason to believe anyone read it much less took it seriously. This was the beginning of my experience learning that Corrigan “professionals” do not give people the respect of even pro forma replies.

Fri, Dec 27, 2024, 6:41 PM

to kelly.pavao, jeanne.crespi

Hi Kelly and Jeanne,

… I wanted to write you … because I understand Danielle reports to you, and I wanted to share with you some constructive criticism of her as an internship supervisor.  It was a negative experience for me …

The primary problem was that Danielle was supposed to meet with me one hour per week for supervision.  She didn't do that.  She said she was informal about that, and she wanted me to put down an hour of internship on my time sheet each week (at the same time each week) even though we didn't actually meet then.

The second problem was that she seemed overly reactive to any potential conflict.  If there was a disagreement between her and me, she would not discuss it with me. Instead, she would sort-of withdraw and avoid any tense discussion.  Rather than talk directly to me, she would talk to the Simmons liaison, and then she wanted Simmons to come in and play the heavy. 

Third, she said she wanted me to gain practice "doing the actual things that social workers do," and she seemed to take offense when I would do anything different.  But what that meant in practice was, respectfully, that she wanted the intern as someone who worked for free and could be given menial work to do.  

For example, she wanted me to relieve Mel of some of the menial work Mel was supposed to do. Namely, she wanted me to set up primary care appointments for C and for J in preparation for their discharge.  This is problematic first of all because there is no learning involved in setting up doctor's appointments.  It is drudgery, and I have done it for myself the past 40 years and for my kids the past 20 years.  Secondly, it is problematic because, given C and J's personalities, there is very little chance either of them will go to any doctor's appointment set up for them after discharge.  

I am hardly one to refuse doing menial work.  At previous work in this field, I have unplugged toilets, done bed searches, helped patients defecate.  It's part of being a team player.  But with Danielle, it felt exploitative. And it didn't seem possible to process these issues with her.  (You would expect a social worker to want to process things.  But with Danielle, she seemed to think talking about anything difficult was "unprofessional."  If you raised a difficult or emotional issue, she would deem that out-of-bounds as non-professional.  She was more interested in surface politeness than processing real issues.)

Finally, one time, I left, and then, when I was partway down the hallway, I realized I had forgotten my long-sleeve shirt, so I returned to the office. When I entered, Danielle was talking about me to Nicole. This was not surprising to me. It seemed that Danielle talked to Simmons--and to the other social workers--but, for some reason, she was unwilling or unable to speak with me directly.

I respond very well to constructive criticism.  I told Danielle early on that what works for me is "MI sandwiches."  (Praise, criticism, praise).  She frowned at that suggestion, and never implemented it.

Some people think an internship is a right of passage or initiation, where the job of the supervisor is to "be tough" on the intern.  That's the military model, and it used to be the model in medicine and law.  (It's still the model in college fraternities).  Essentially, you need to submit to authority, and only when you have done that enough, then you can be counted as one of the initiated.

My suspicion is that Danielle consciously or unconsciously believes [in that military model].  That is the only way I can understand why she wouldn't have supervision or wouldn't process things, but kept criticizing and requiring I do the most menial work. 

… [Corrigan] was a negative experience overall because of Danielle's supervision. I wasn't respected. I wasn't treated with the dignity any person should receive. I suspect Danielle is doing well in other aspects of her job (I don't know), but this is an area for improvement.

If I have the organizational chart wrong.  (If Danielle does not report to you, Kelly, and then above that to you, Jeanne), please forward this message to who she does report to.  I suggest using an MI sandwich with her. It seems to work with everyone.  I don't want to push her down, but I hope you can use the information here to find a way to build her up and help her be better at this aspect of her job.

Sincerely, 

August Baker