Pros
They look like they've got a lot to offer. They will pay for QASP certifications and other trainings you need, they offer salaried options for techs (aka income stability), higher pay than many ABA places in the area, a full hour lunch break, good benefits, offices are well-organized for the most part, supplies for kids are plentiful, lots of inclusivity for minorities, and yet---I dodged a major bullet. It looks really good on the outside and then you start to understand the in-between-the-lines of the upper-level management. When I started, I felt like I'd hit gold, but it was only fool's gold.
Cons
Communication from one clinic to the other seemed to be terrible. Changes would happen at one clinic and not be implemented at the other. Techs at one clinic would be confused at the other because things were not done the same. It became clear that this was not the fault of the management of one clinic, but the fault of the management implementing these changes for not communicating or managing effectively. Information trickled down to the techs was sparse, untimely, and confusing. There was a period of time when we'd come in and not know who was in charge of what anymore because there was so much stepping down, stepping up, new management being hired, and established management changing clinics. It was an incredibly stressful and confusing time for techs and we were not given the support and clarity we deserved. Some higher ups were wonderful, but the people with any true power held impossible standards. They like to say the feedback they give is beneficial, but many have not learned a very important part of behavior analysis that another BCBA once told me: "it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it." I was disappointed to find the most supportive and helpful people in management were NOT the people creating these standards. I felt a lot of empathy for a few folks in management roles. There was a lot of stepping down from positions in my time there. The people that stepped down and stayed (several stepped down and then quit shortly after) looked miserable. The decline of their own mental health was obvious on their faces, but could say very little about the background activities because they were in management. Their disciplinary process is poorly organized and even more poorly implemented. The physical documents look nice and neat, but if there are follow-ups required, management in charge of those follow-ups often did not conduct these follow-ups (as management, they should be responsible for making sure that gets done). They don't keep a paper trail to confirm these follow-ups happened, so then the tech gets the blame for not improving. For a place specializing in IDD, I found it disappointing to find that the concepts of working with people's individual learning needs did not carry over to the staff. I know paper trails are important, but almost everyone has a reprimand for something that feels more petty more anything. And if you don't, you can list 5 people off the top of your head that do. There was a lot of sympathy passed between the techs about this, but not a lot of true support from management. They say they'll support you til the cows come home, but when it's time to follow through, any true support is nowhere to be found. This comes back around to those impossible standards. Many of the errors that techs were getting dinged with could ALL have been easily solved by improving the administrative part of the techs job by either allowing techs to complete these admin. tasks digitally and/or by allowing more time to complete these tasks. For example, they'll allow 7 minutes to complete an entire session note--while you're still in session with your kid. If you have to complete it later, they expect you to stay after hours. They are forcing techs to sacrifice quality for quantity, but it is treated as a personal flaw when the techs struggle. Before I worked here, I saw there was a review about a high turn-over rate. This feels very true. In my time there, I saw no less than 3 techs start and quit within 3 weeks from their start date. The owner made a very polite, data-driven reply about the turn-over being not as high as the employee claimed. Having worked there, I can confirm that the turn-over rate is not as high as other ABA places around here, but it's not because people love it. It's because they have to stay. See, I mentioned earlier about the company paying for QASP credentialing. In many ways, this is a good thing. Allows growth within the company, growth within the field, and higher pay for these techs. However, it is contingent on staying a certain amount of time after receiving this credential. If you quit before that time is up, the contract states you must payback the money for the QASP credential. I have some personal ethical issues with this practice, but in reality it is probably not an inherently unreasonable practice. But when you have to work there for 3 months before the company will pay for it, take the time to complete the cert, and fulfill this obligation it does mean you're there for a minimum of a year. Looking back at the data from that review with this knowledge makes a lot of sense. They have a lower turn-over rate because people who will openly admit they're miserable working here have no choice but to stay. The nicest, most supportive, and most understanding people here were the most miserable. Every day you come in and everyone around you wants to leave. Techs came in from their lunch breaks talking about spending it crying or coming in looking like they'd been crying, having nightmares about this place, this place taking a huge toll on their mental health, etc.. This field is notorious for drawing people with comorbid mental health things and it was disappointing to find the people in charge were so blatantly neglectful of the well-being of their staff.