Listen to this
When I was invited to write for the special 25th anniversary 300th edition of CYC-Online , I accepted with gratitude. It was in August of 2016 when I first had the honour of meeting the editorial team of CYC-Online at the 33rd FICE Congress and 2nd CYC World Conference held in Vienna, Austria. This encounter was just one month prior to starting my Master’s degree in Child and Youth Care at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), an institution which had just launched the inaugural year of their MA CYC program. At the time, I was part of a special group of CYC practitioners (about 20 of us or so) who were the first to earn graduate degrees in CYC within the province of Ontario, Canada, where I currently reside and continue to practice. As a passionate CYCP who was ready and willing to consume anything and everything in the global arena of CYC academia, I jumped at the chance to attend an information session held by the CYC-Online editorial team during my time at the conference in Vienna. Since that first encounter, I have been grateful for the ways that my presence as a CYC graduate student have been welcomed with both warmth and with opportunities for mutual growth when differences in perspectives arise.
By 2016, I was already familiar with CYC-Online and had read several of the many, many articles within the journal that have since transformed my practice. One of the most memorable pieces I read early in my career was The Catastrophe of Compliance by Dr. Lorraine E. Fox (1994), which CYC-Online had republished in their 31st issue in August of 2001. I have always appreciated the way CYC-Online redistributes publications that would otherwise remain behind a paywall. If it were not for CYC-Online , I would not have read Dr. Fox’s seminal piece when I did; I was a community college student who had little experience referencing academic work when I first accessed this article back in 2005. Fox’s (1994) critique of points and level systems in group home settings is what set me on my current path of critiquing rigid behavioural practices. My practicum placement that year was in an inter-urban group home setting for teens in Toronto. Dr. Fox’s work, along with the work of Dr. Karen VanderVen (1999), gave me the courage I needed to raise my concerns about the harmful impact of the group home’s points and level system on traumatised teens who were being punished for behaviours that were beyond their control. With the help of a supportive supervisor, along with other passionate CYC students sharing similar concerns, the group home soon ended their compliance-based approach and adopted more relational ways of supporting youth. The power of knowledge dissemination cannot be underestimated, and I am grateful for the dissemination opportunities created by the CYC-Online platform.
It is in the spirit of accessible knowledge that I share my thoughts on the meaning of relational CYC practice from my position as a white, cisgender, and nondisabled CYC practitioner/scholar who continues to learn and reflect. The significance of my social location in this field has only become apparent to me over the past 10 years or so. I am very grateful for the labour of racialized, disabled, and queer activists and scholars, some from within the field of CYC and many from outside the field, who graciously share their insights (and too often their trauma) so that the world can be a better place for future generations of children and youth. I have learned a ton from both the early pioneers of CYC practice and from those who have historically been excluded from defining what relational CYC practice is and can be. What follows is just the tip of the iceberg of the many things I have learned and will continue to learn and reflect on. I hope that readers will find the information helpful, especially the resources cited within. My intent is that reflections like these will spark conversations that continue to inform the development of relational and justice oriented CYC practices.
What is Relational CYC Practice?
As with many fields of practice, CYC continues to transform. Historically, relational CYC practice has been defined and produced through a “dehistoricized and depoliticized” lens of white normativity (Igbu & Baccus, 2018, p. 57). Back when Dr. Fox and Dr. Vanderven were writing their pieces, most CYC journal publications were published in print, which created barriers for CYC practitioners who did not have access to postsecondary institution libraries. Barriers to knowledge acquisition and publication opportunities are but two of the myriad reasons diverse youth worker voices are too often excluded from the CYC literature base, which is one of the reasons why Brian Gannon and Thom Garfat co-founded CYC-Net and CYC-Online in the first place (Gannon, 1999). The field of CYC has come some way in its ability to diversify relational practices over the years, but it has a way to go yet. Even with advancements in online journals and online knowledge dissemination, there is still so much missing from our articulation and practice of child and youth work.
During my time as a CYC college student (first in 1996 and then again from 2005-2007 after a ‘brief’ 9-year hiatus), I cannot recall any readings, courses, nor discussions grounded in critical theory. Critical learning about the lived experiences of young people facing oppression due to race, disability, gender, or 2SLGBTQI+ identities was scant, which is a reality shared by other CYCPs in Ontario (see Igbu & Baccus, 2018; Munroe, 2016).i When discussions about these issues did arise, my privileged identity allowed me the comfort of glossing over the significance of child and youth oppression caused by Eurocentric heterocisnormative supremacy. Because the oppression didn’t affect me personally, I was oblivious to its impact on my work and on the lives of the young people I supported.
The definition of CYC practice I came to know when I started out in the field was written in 1992, published on the CYC-Net website:
Professional Child and Youth Care practice focuses on the infant, child and adolescent, both normal and with special needs, within the context of the family, the community and the life span. The developmental-ecological perspective emphasizes the interaction between persons and the physical and social environments, including cultural and political settings. (CYC-Net, 2017 para. 5)
My education was focused on therapeutic interventions that promoted the “optimal development of children, youth and their families” (CYC-Net, 2017, para. 6), all from the perspective of white and normative colonial values. It took several years for me to see the (now) obvious problems with this definition, only after I began my undergraduate degree in CYC in 2007. But even then, over the 6-year time span it took me to complete my part-time undergraduate studies, I did not find any suitable CYC courses related to issues of social justice. I had to choose electives in the faculties of Sociology, Disability Studies, and Politics in order to learn about the ways oppression operates in society and impacts my work with young people.
As I began learning about anti-oppressive practices, two things began to bother me about the above definition of CYC practice: 1) the comparison of ‘normal’ young people to those with ‘special needs’; and 2) the unproblematized ways the field discussed the ‘optimal’ development of young people. I was not alone in this discomfort. Several courageous conversations were emerging by 2016 when I attended the conference in Vienna, and the need for an updated definition of Child and Youth Care was a topic of discussion broached in the CYC-Online session I attended. In fact, I had emailed the CYC-Net team regarding my concerns about the definition only a few weeks before attending the conference. I was but one of many who had been sharing these concerns. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of my CYC classmates, professors, and other CYC practitioners/writers in the field, the definition of relational CYC practice was soon updated to the following in 2017:
Through a commitment to caring for and about young people, Child and Youth Care practice (CYC) focuses on the developmental needs of young people and families with a commitment to social justice that recognizes oppression due to race, ethnicity, sexual-orientation, gender, disability, and socio-economic status.
Our practice involves the equitable, active, and engaged relationship between individuals to facilitate meaningful change that improves the lives of young people. Child and Youth Care Practitioners engage young people in their daily life spaces to facilitate and support growth and development through the relational interplay between Self and Other.
Child and Youth Care Practitioners value individuals as capable agents of their own desired and positive change (CYC-Net, 2017, para. 1).
This definition of a more relational CYC practice feels good to me. The words ‘normal’ and ‘special needs’ have been removed, and there is a focus on the agency of young people to create their own desired change (I will explain why I feel this is all so important in the sections that follow). Certainly, as our profession continues to grow and learn alongside young people, this definition will continue to transform. But I feel this is a good starting point from which to continue to grow as relational justice-oriented care practitioners.
Relational Justice in Child and Youth Care
I have not heard anyone in the field of CYC refer to our work as “relational justice”, nor do I necessarily feel it should be referred to as such. For the purposes of my discussion, I use this term “relational justice” in reference to two perspectives I have been thinking deeply about in recent months: disability justice and the relational worldview of Indigenous cultures.
Disability Justice
In 2015, a collective of disabled activists and scholars (Sins Invalid, 2020) created a working definition with an in-depth articulation of disability justice that I have found to be integral to the work I do as a CYC practitioner. The authors explained,
A disability justice framework understands that:
The disability justice framework described here gets to the heart of the discomfort I felt with the 1992 definition of CYC that compared ‘normal’ children to those with ‘special needs’. When we understand that “All bodies are unique and essential” and that “All bodies have strengths and needs that must be met”, we begin to understand that no one individual’s needs are more ‘special’ than any other person’s needs. In fact, the term “special needs” is a euphemism that is more often used by parents and practitioners than it is used by young people with disabilities themselves (see Gernsbacher et al., 2016). In their study examining the usefulness of the term ‘special needs’, Gernsbacher and fellow researchers (2016) found that naming disabilities clearly (e.g., “they are blind”), or simply saying the word ‘disability’, were more effective than using the term ‘special needs’ to convey the strengths and value of people with disabilities. The authors of the study further discussed the ways that, despite its original intention, the euphemism ‘special needs’ often offends disabledii people because it stigmatizes, patronizes, and segregates young people with disabilities.
To provide an example of the way euphemisms such as ‘special needs’ are harmful, consider the practice of placing children labelled with ‘special needs’ in segregated special education programs. Across the globe, special education programs are too often constrained by a lack of specialized supports and/or staffing deemed necessary to meet the needs of children with disabilities (Mitchell, 2015; Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth [PACY], 2016). As a result, these programs become understaffed while disabled young people are left with minimal support. This is unnecessary and unjust. Extensive systematic reviews that have compared segregated education programs to inclusive education practices have found that young people with disabilities succeed when they are supported with the same “good teaching” strategies (i.e., individualised, strength based, and relational strategies) that are used to support all children regardless of disability labels (Mitchell, 2015, p. 173). Often, an individualised, strength based, and relational approach naturally eliminates the need for perceived disability-specific strategies.
That said, disabled people do need support workers who understand their unique needs and experiences in order to feel a sense of belonging. Dominant cultures are defined by Eurocentric developmental norms that exclude neurodivergent and developmentally divergent young people. For this reason Deaf students may feel more accepted in segregated schools for the Deaf (Elrich, 2019), just as autistic people may feel more belonging in classrooms with fewer students and low-stimulus spaces designed to meet their physical, emotional, and sensory needs (Mitchell, 2015). This does not mean that oppressive systems of segregation should continue. Rather, it means that society at large needs to do a better job of fostering atmospheres of belonging for all young people.
The comparison of ‘special needs’ to ‘normal’ becomes nonsensical within the context of a CYC practice that is dedicated to supporting all young people with strength-based relational strategies. The comparison is particularly nonsensical when we know that disability is a social construct in many ways. For example, Black and racialized young people are disproportionately labelled with disabilities, not because they have impairments, but because they are victims of enduring racism (Annamma et al., 2013). Additionally, many disabled people do not see themselves as disabled by personal impairment; rather, they see themselves as disabled by the barriers upheld in ableist societies (National Disability Arts Collection & Archive, 2017). Often, disability is understood to be a culture rather than a disability. Deaf young people, for instance, appreciate teachers and support workers who understand that their unique linguistic and cultural ways of being are in need of cultural competence as opposed to normalisation through medical intervention (Elrich, 2019, 2017). And many Autistic people feel the same way (Autistic Collaboration, 2019). A disability justice framework helps us to understand that there is little value (indeed there may be harm) in comparing and segregating young people based on normatively defined abilities and needs.
A disability justice framework further provides us with a lens that extends beyond the confines of bureaucratized human rights frameworks. As the authors of Sins Invalid (2020) explained, human rights legislations tend to only benefit “people who can achieve status, power and access through a legal or rights-based framework” (p.6). For example, here in Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (2018) works diligently to help students with disabilities realise their rights to equitable education, but cannot keep up with a system that repeatedly denies these rights (OHRC, 2018). This is because the litigation process involved in filing human rights complaints against institutions (such as school boards) is rife with legal fees, literacy and language requirements, and self-advocacy skills that are not attainable nor appropriate for many of the marginalised people who are supposed to be protected by human rights frameworks (Sins Invalid, 2020).
Human rights legislations are limited by the environments within which they exist. In societies where ableism and racism are firmly entrenched, human rights legislations can only go so far, particularly when it comes to the more covert forms of discrimination. I, myself, have supported countless autistic and disabled young people, several of whom were Black or racialized, who could not escape a special education system that streams students into segregated courses far below their academic potential. If students or parents were successful at advocating for rights to suitable education, they were most often white. I do, however, remember one determined Black mother who managed to defeat the ableist system and place her autistic child in mainstreamed academic courses, which opened the doors he needed for post secondary access. The efforts of this mother cannot be underestimated, and she should never have had to work this hard to fight for her son’s right to inclusion. Administrators and teachers will often convince caregivers of disabled children (whether they have perceived or real impairments) that segregated classrooms with lower academic demands are the only options for guaranteed high school graduation (Gaymes San Vicente, 2016). This is both wrong, but also sometimes true within our ableist system. The covert nuances of this message to caregivers disqualifies it from being a legitimate human rights complaint.
Human rights legislations cannot always protect young people from a system that refuses to presume their competence (Biklen & Burke, 2006). What is needed are good relational support workers willing to fight systemic oppression during daily momentary encounters. Daily dedication to a justice-oriented CYC practice adds a necessary layer of intention to the important CYC characteristic of “making moments meaningful” (see Garfat et al., 2018).
The Relational Worldview
In the first of ten principles of disability justice, Sins Invalid (2015) emphasised the importance of understanding intersectional experiences of injustice by stating, “Ableism, coupled with white supremacy, supported by capitalism, underscored by heteropatriarchy, has rendered the vast majority of the world ‘invalid’” (para. 1). A justice oriented CYC practice understands the importance of intersectionality by developing relational approaches with intention to dismantle the layered attitudinal and environmental barriers to young people’s education and self-determination. A justice-oriented CYC practice also understands that young people’s goals may or may not align with capitalist or normative idealizations of who is worthy of inclusion (i.e., those who can contribute to the economy through labour) within systems of power (for more on these discussions see Erevelles, 2000, 2011; Roscigno, 2019; Schaber, 2021). For example, many young people with disabilities will rely on others for daily care and assistance their entire lives. People with and without disabilities experience times in their lives when they cannot be fully independent. In fact, full independence for anyone is a myth. We all rely on someone sometimes. Yet, power-driven societies hyper-focus on independence whilst ignoring the communal benefits of interdependence. This last point brings me to my thoughts on CYC practice within the context of the relational worldview.
In her co-authored book, I Will Die on This Hill: Autistic Adults, Autism Parents, and the Children Who Deserve a Better World, Jules Edwards explained that the relational worldview was a concept developed specifically in the 1980s by National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) to protect Indigenous children and families through an Indigenous lens of balance (Ashburn & Edwards, 2023). Edwards, who is an Indigenous mother of Indigenous autistic children, contrasted the relational worldview to the linear colonial worldview – within a relational worldview “people are interdependent, connected to the earth and one another” (p. 42); whereas in a colonial worldview “there is a hierarchy of people. Those at the top have great power, and those at the bottom are convinced they must do more, be better, and work harder in order to climb their way up” (p. 40). It is important to think of the ways in which these two worldviews differ and the impact they have on child development. Within our own field of Child and Youth Care, Martin Brokenleg and Steve Van Bockern (2003) conceptualized the balance of the relational worldview in terms of a “Circle of Courage” with four main components – “the spirit of belonging… the spirit of mastery… the spirit of independence… and the spirit of generosity” (p. 23). Brokenleg and Bockern explained that, in contrast to the European view of child development that views children as independently responsible for their own behaviour or else be “punished into submission” (p. 22), the Circle of Courage sees child development as relational and circular – all components of the circle are interrelated, connected, and dependent on the healthy attachment young people have to their environments and to the adults in their lives. If any components of the circle are compromised, it is the fault of the toxic environment, and not the children themselves. Belonging, respect, and dignity for all children, regardless of ability or behaviour are integral to the Circle of Courage view of development.
The concept of independence looks very different in relational and colonial worldviews. Brokenleg and Bockern’s (2003) definition of independence captures the importance of self-determined agency: “The child’s free will is nurtured by increased responsibility so that the child can say, ‘I have power to make decisions” (p. 23). In the relational worldview, there is no pressure for the child to do things on their own. Independence and responsibility are not the same thing. A nurtured and connected child who gains independence in the relational worldview is trusted with the responsibility to say “no”, to make their needs known, and to rely on others when needed. When thinking about disability, therapeutic goals constructed within a relational world view might look like the following: “Disabled people will be welcomed and integrated into our community, our community will ensure their needs are met, we will learn from one another, we will co-regulate when distressed, and we will live a good life together.” (Ashburn & Edwards, 2023, p. 43). Within a colonial worldview, a goal for disabled children with similar needs might look like this: “This disabled person will become as independent as possible by controlling their emotions on nine out of ten occasions during stressful events” (Ashburn & Edwards, 2023, p. 43). This latter goal has failed young people, not only disabled young people, time and time again. Linear worldviews focus on ‘optimal’ development against standardized norms of neurotypical and typical physical development. When those norms are not met, children are shunned and become angry and resentful for the ways they feel they do not belong (Brokenleg & Bockern, 2003). Connection and attachment are lost, and cycles of distress, fear, anger, and oppression continue. This affects our relationships with all living things on earth.
Pathways Forward
At a recent CYC conference hosted by The Ontario Association of Child and Youth Care Association (OACYC), I attended a workshop called, Longing for Belonging, Nature, and the Relational In-Between (Farrell & Hoag, 2023). Using examples from Indigenous wisdom, the facilitators of the workshop, Tara-Rose and Peter, encouraged participants to reflect on the significance of the relational interconnections we have amongst each other and with the earth, and the impact this has on the development of young people. They emphasized the importance of modelling care for each other and for the earth while embodying this care in our own lives. I felt all kinds of emotions as I reflected on this point; one surprising feeling was the sensation of guilt. I recalled the times I have not been able to model care or empathy for earth in the ways that I aspire to, and the times I have been unable to challenge the system in the ways young people have needed me to. It was in this workshop that I had an epiphany, or perhaps it could more accurately be described as a deep and unsettling question- is it possible to do genuine relational child and youth care in societies that operate within a linear colonial worldview? My initial thought is no, perhaps it is not possible. It makes sense to me that, perhaps, relational practice can only be genuine within societies that hold a relational worldview. So where does this leave most of us?
The removal of narrow and rigid practices, such as points and level systems that are intended to manage young people’s behaviours, is certainly a good start. And I feel we have come a long way. But as youth workers continue to be forced to work within rigid behaviour-change systems of care, we are limited in our ability to change those systems (Niang, 2019). I do not profess to have the answers. All I know is that we need to meaningfully challenge our own personal biases and push the boundaries of normative society in our daily practice as much as possible. We need to meaningfully decolonize our practices both at work and in our personal lives. Indeed, we may fail a bunch of times, but without trying, we accomplish little more than supporting young people to survive in an inaccessible and oppressive world. What I have gained from my learning of disability justice and the relational world view is that we need to work within the system, while advocating for change of the system at the same time. We cannot leave this work to those who are most impacted (Sins Invalid, 2020). New pathways toward relational justice in CYC practice depend on the collective efforts of us all.
i. In the spirit of accessible knowledge dissemination, please contact me directly for copies of any articles I cite that may be locked behind a paywall.
ii. I often use identity-first language (IFL), (e.g., “disabled”)
intentionally to align with the disability pride movement. See,
(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2015) and the #SayTheWord
hashtag on social media (Ogle, 2021).
References
American Psychiatric Association [APA]. (2015). Choosing words for talking about disability. https://www.apa.org/pi/disability/resources/choosing-words
Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
Ashburn, M., & Edwards, J. (2023). I will die on this hill: Autistic adults, autism parents, and the children who deserve a better world. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Autistic Collaboration. (2019, March 2). A communal definition of Autistic ways of being. Autistic Collaboration. https://autcollab.org/projects/a-communal-definition-of-autism/
Biklen, D., & Burke, J. (2006). Presuming Competence. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500540376
Brokenleg, M., & Bockern, S. V. (2003). The Science of Raising Courageous Kids. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 12(1), 22–27.
CYC-Net. (2017). CYC Definitions. https://cyc-net.org/profession/pro-definitions.html
Elrich, S. (2019). Child and Youth Care Practice in the Context of Deaf Communities. In K. Gharabaghi & G. Charles (Eds.), Child and Youth Care across Sectors, Volume 1: Canadian Perspectives. Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Elrich, S. (2017, September 13). Changing how to view people with disabilities [CYC Podcast]. http://www.CYCpodcast.org/e/changing-how-to-view-people-with-disabilities/
Erevelles, N. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00025.x
Erevelles, N. (2011). Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. Palgrave Macmillan.
Farrell, T.-R., & Hoag, P. (2023, October 27). Longing for belonging, nature, and the relational in-between [Conference Proceeding]. https://oacyc.org/awards-conferences/
Fox, L. (1994). The Catastrophe of Compliance. The Journal of Child and Youth Care, 9(1).
Gannon, B. (1999). Editorial: Not where you work but what you do. CYC-Online , 1. https://cyc-net.org/CYC-Online /cycol-0299-editor.html
Garfat, T., Freeman, J., Gharabaghi, K., & Fulcher, L. (2018). Characteristics of a Relational Child and Youth Care Approach Revisited. CYC-Online , 236, 7–47.
Gaymes San Vicente, A. (2016). Marginal at best: A narrative on streaming in public education. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Spring Issue, 115–128. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2016/04/osos123_MarginalAtBest.pdf
Gernsbacher, M. A., Raimond, A. R., Balinghasay, M. T., & Boston, J. S. (2016). “Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(29). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0025-4
Igbu, S., & Baccus, C. (2018). Critical Theoretical Approaches to Intentional Relational Praxis. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, 31(3), 57–71. https://rcycp.com/
Mitchell, D. (2015). Education that Fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special education needs: Second edition. University Of Canterbury. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/psdlitreview_Educationthatfits.pdf
Munroe, T. (2016). From College to University: What I learned navigating the child and youth care curriculum. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, 29(3), 91–100. https://rcycp.com/docs/RCYCP_Vol29-3.pdf
National Disability Arts Collection & Archive (Director). (2017, November 28). Social Model of Disability [YouTube]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24KE__OCKMw
Niang, C. (2019). Applied Behaviour Analysis and Child and Youth Care practice and behaviour change models: Creating a moment of truth within Child and Youth Care practice. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, 32(2), 43–57.
Ogle, E. (2021, October 18). Disability: Let’s say the word. The A11Y Project. https://a11yproject.com/posts/lets-say-the-word-disability/
Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC]. (2018). Policy Accessible Education for Students With Disabilities. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-accessible-education-students-disabilities
Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth [PACY]. (2016). We have something to say: Young people and their families speak out about special needs and change. https://ocaarchives.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/we-have-something-to-say-report-en.pdf
Roscigno, R. (2019). Neuroqueerness as Fugitive Practice: Reading Against the Grain of Applied Behavioral Analysis Scholarship. Educational Studies, 55(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2019.1629929
Schaber, A. (2021). Unconventional. In Sincerely, your autistic child: What people on the autism spectrum wish their parents knew about growing up, acceptance, and identity. Beacon Press. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Sincerely_Your_Autistic_Child.html?id=3Y7wDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Sins Invalid. (2015, September 17). 10 principles of disability justice. Sins Invalid. https://www.sinsinvalid.org/blog/10-principles-of-disability-justice
Sins Invalid. (2020, June 16). What is Disability Justice? Sins Invalid. https://www.sinsinvalid.org/news-1/2020/6/16/what-is-disability-justice
VanderVen, K. (1999). The case against point systems and grading in behavior programs. CYC-Online , 3. https://cyc-net.org/CYC-Online /cycol-0499-karen.html
