Listen to thisThe second in a series on ideas, good and not-so-good, which have influenced our practice.
Remembered is the much-parodied welcome to the institution of old: “You keep your nose clean, and we’ll get along just fine.” A friendly greeting, riddled with menace; its converse (“you don’t keep your nose clean, ...”) ready to pounce out at you.
There are many “principles” which have been propounded in our game which are based on this basic threat. They fall into the “eminently sensible” category of interventions. “If you lay out clear behavioural expectations for kids they feel contained and safe and they will repay this with ...” (with what?! Obedience, compliance ... not sure about those things for becoming, developing, growing, next-generation autonomous and experienced adults). And even less so with hurt, anxious, short-changed un-nurtured kids.
We talked in the last article in this series of “ideas” about consequences, and the fact that initially the idea of “consequences” was interesting and innovative, but that it was too soon hijacked by the behavioural right. The word “contracting” was very much part of the consequences thing: we got kids to agree that if they didn't tidy their room on Tuesday they would not be allowed out over the weekend ... or something like that. This was a contract, and what it said essentially was “if you keep your nose clean ...” It sounded better, but it was still part of the external control/consequence routine. When kids screwed up we decided that we were going to have to “re-contract” with them, remember? Ah, the euphemisms!
I myself ran with the idea of contracting ... but never with the so-called “contracting” which entered into such “deals” with kids. My conception of contracts, as part of the original pre-admission routine, was to lay out what each party had to offer and what each party might expect from the commitment we were both entering into. Also, we might have said something like: “If you come into our program some of the stuff we should be talking about and dealing with is ...” so that there was no pretending or false promises about the work we had to do together. It was the opposite of the seductive welcome which suggested that: “you are going to find this place an extremely pleasant and comforting place” ... which was as misleading as the “threat” with which we started this piece.
What raised all this for me was the recent discussion on CYC-Net about whether or not we should lay charges against residents in our programs who have stolen or destroyed something or been guilty of assault. On the “yes, charge them” side have been those who plead some aspect of the “real world” scenario. These kids are going to live in the real world so they must get used to the idea that in the real world charges will be laid. Or, even though they are residents, our program prides itself on reflecting the realities of the real world.
These are plausible arguments. For kids in the real world, we must agree that as they learn and grow and pass through the normal developmental stages and become socialized, they should increasingly be exposed to society’s ordinary expectations and sanctions. When my eighteen-year-old son (who has been taught the rules of the road and learned how to drive a motor-car and has demonstrated his ability to earn a driver’s licence) is caught speeding or driving recklessly or under the influence of alcohol and as a consequence is heavily fined or has his licence revoked – that’s what one might expect in the real world. One would have no argument with that.
However, kids who have, for certain reasons, been admitted to residential programs, are generally not from the real world. Kids are admitted to programs like ours very much as a last resort. People (parents, relations, neighbours, teachers, clergy, police, welfare agencies, etc.) have long been aware that they are in difficulty and have tried over the years to understand the circumstances and have offered supportive and remedial interventions – and these have not worked. These kids have not been managing in the real world. They have, usually by court order, been removed from wherever they are and have ended up in the hands of Child and Youth Care workers ... and this is where, conceptually, we often get into muddy waters, and where a whole bunch of questions arise ...
Like: So what are we Child and Youth Care workers going to do that hadn’t been tried before? Are we simply going to be tougher about imposing our will on the kids, or are we better able, by sheer force of size and numbers, to gang up on the kids? Will we have them under 24/7 surveillance from which there is no escape, or do we have other tricks up our sleeves to get them to do what we want them to do? Do we have better access to medication so that we can dope them into submission?
Our programs have the reputation of being great places to keep out of (oh, let’s be honest, one of the great themes of children's books and films is “saving” kids from foster homes and group homes and juvenile halls) so what do we really hope to do with all these kids who are screwing up in the real world?
The short (and over-simplified) answer is this: we plan and facilitate (together with all concerned – kids, family, staff team, community agencies) whatever experiences, opportunities, activities, thinking, learning, skill-building, development and test-driving might be helpful to bring the young person to the point where he can dip his toes back into the icy waters of the real world, with better hope and better chance of coping adequately with his daily life tasks. Just that.
Our emphasis is on providing the soil and nutriments for growth and differentiation, not for limiting and stopping anything. The gardening analogy is helpful in that our aim is to be able once again to plant the youngster out into whatever part of the garden is suitable for him, remembering that some plants love sun while others don't, some enjoy acidic soil while others don't, some need lots of water, others don’t.
What we are doing in this process, to use the concept developed by Beedell, is to identify and attend to “fragile learning points” – a good image which needs no more help from me. The idea is that during this intervention period we are not saying “do this or else!” We are not saying “we demand that you perform as a fully-grown and healthy plant.” And we are not saying “if you falter during this period, or repeat any of your former errors, or fail to behave like a normal rhododendron, it’s the compost heap for you.”
So, to switch back quickly from analogy to Child and Youth Care, when we are all busy with the complex task of rebuilding whatever is necessary for the relaunch of our troubled kid, we do not charge him in a court of law for doing the very thing for which we have admitted him and for which we have assembled this whole team and plan ...
Unless, of course, we are in the final stages of pre-discharge test-driving of the youth’s new learning and skills, and therefore justifiably expecting more socialized behaviour – which brings us to one of the central principles of all Child and Youth Care work. We are talking here developmentally. We normally consider aspects of development whenever we are confronted by “performance” issues with children and youth, and we remember that development is chronological, physical, emotional, cognitive, moral, and so on. We ask questions like is this young person able to carry out this task with adequate skill, understanding and will? Otherwise we should not expect it.
But programs (whether educational, treatment or rehabilitative) are also developmental. We don’t place a young person in a rehabilitative program today and expect immediate success. The classic welcome with which we started this piece suggests someone who expects full compliance from Day One. Our contract will say that starting today (yes, that’s OK) we will be working together on this target/need/issue/skill, whatever, and the process will develop over time. We may expect to see incremental progress during the program, and to see success (however we may define “success") as the program nears the end of its course.
This kind of “contract” implies mutuality, of planning, input, expectation and responsibility on the part of both “sides”. I have heard it said: “We are providing you with a place to stay, a warm bed and regular food and in return we expect gratitude, manners and good behaviour.” This kind of “deal” is mean and unworthy of our field – and two hundred years out of date. Today we know better than that, (a) with regard to relationships, commitment, attachment, communication and the accountability which suggests that the “house” we are building with a youth is one we will be living in ourselves; and (b) with regard to the technical knowledge and skills around understanding, healing, motivating, and educating those who are entrusted to us.
There are those in our world who say that we should try children as adults. But members of the “hang 'em high” brigade (who probably don’t much like kids anyway) do not know of these qualities of Child and Youth Care work, and do not have much of a capacity for waiting. We do.
