Listen to thisAs Child and Youth Care workers we understand relationship. We practice skills of relationship development. Building rapport, engaging in the dance (Krueger, 1999), finding the rhythm (Kruger, 1994; Maier, 1992) are all pieces of Child and Youth Care training and education and are basic skills we develop as we enter into the evolution of our practice.
We support each other throughout our careers to make sure we are engaged in therapeutically appropriate interactions and we constantly check in with self to ensure we are focussed on the needs of other (Garfat, 1993, 2002; Fewster, 1990, 2001). This is essential to effective practice, and appropriate engagement with children, youngsters and families.
But when do we talk about the reality of relationship? Like, for example, the experience of intimacy which occurs when you really offer yourself to this experience which, I believe, is an integral part of effective Child and Youth Care practice.
I knew a program once where the Child and Youth Care workers were not allowed to have contact with youngsters after they were discharged. The staff I spoke with were unable to explain the rationale for this policy. Though they did not understand it, they followed it (not questioning a policy dictated to them by ... they did not know whom); a policy which told them to behave with young people in a way that was incongruent with what they had come to believe about relationships and about Child and Youth Care practice.
How can this be appropriate for youngsters who have experienced such disruption in their development that they were identified as needing residential treatment? Treatment programs which practice Child and Youth Care work from within a relational framework are a place where children grow – blossom really- then are discharged; often because they outgrow the program. They move back home, or on to independence; they engage in relationships differently than they would have without the intervention offered to them by Child and Youth Care workers who positioned themselves as support, guidance, and mentor for a chunk of their adolescence.
Yet, the youth cannot talk to those now significant people. They cannot call and share successes, proud moments, “I got my driver’s licence today.” “I had a baby yesterday.” “I graduated from college; with honours.” Or struggles. “My cat is pregnant and I don’t know what to do with the kittens.” “I have no groceries." “I remember once you talked about a place I could go, I would like the phone number.” “My mother died and I talked to her about that stuff. Now I am very sad.”
Perhaps this is the result of the closure process so finely expressed as part of the therapeutic relationship cycle. Closure is the conclusion; perhaps paralleling discharge. However, if I am arguing that the relationship changes when a youngster transitions out of a program, is there a conclusion to the relationship? Should there be? If this transition from the program is identified and supported then why can’t the relationship transition be supported as well; transitioning into one which is therapeutically appropriate for young people at this new place in their life? This feels more like it fits with a Child and Youth Care approach.
I believe that we need to continue to practice those skills; those basic skills I mentioned at the beginning. Ensuring that we are checking in with self, monitoring the relationship – after all it is still a therapeutic relationship. Changing our relationship does not mean that we have less responsibility in relationship with the young person; it means our relationship is different. Our engagement may be different. Perhaps they are leading from a very different place. The bottom line is that their needs are still paramount.
My question, my concern, my fear is that this closure process needs to be different in reference to the therapeutic relationship developed in residential care. What are we teaching youngsters about relationship if we follow an all or nothing approach to the change and transition that occurs when they move out of living or staying with us for some of their formative developmental time? Can we do this differently? Should we? Why? These are the questions I want us to all ask; always. About relationships, about treatment plans and about what happens after youngsters leave our direct care.
References
Fewster, G. (1990). Being in child care: A journey into self. New York: Haworth Press.
Fewster, G. (2001). Growing together: The personal relationship in Child and Youth Care. Journal of Child and Youth Care,15 (4) 5-16.
Garfat, T. (1993). Never alone: reflections on the presence of self and history in Child and Youth Care work. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 9, 35-43.
Garfat, T. (April, 2002). Everyday events in Child and Youth Care practice. CYC-Net. Available at https://www.cyc-net.org/CYC-Online /cycol-0402-garfat.html
Krueger, M. (1994). Framing Child and Youth Care in moments of rhythm, presence, meaning, and atmosphere. Child and Youth Care Forum, 23(4), 223–229.
Krueger, Mark (1999). Presence as dance in work with youth. Journal of Child and Youth Care , 13(2) 59-72.
Maier, H. (1992). Rhythmicity: A powerful force for experiencing unity and personal connections. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 8, 7–14.
