By the book

Brian Gannon

I love police TV shows where one cop says to another “Looks like we have a 327 going down here,” and his colleague says “Or maybe it’s a 915!” This is a language which is transparent to the ordinary man or woman walking along the street – no constable is going to come up to John Smith and say “We suspect you of a 327” or “We want to protect you from a 915.” The codewords for crimes and the circumstances in which policemen may operate in one way or another is all part of their training and their special knowledge gained from working on the force – but it is transparent to the man-on-the-street.

The same is true in Child and Youth Care practice. We would never say to a child: “In terms of Clause 4, para. 3 (i) and (ii) of the Child Care Act we are now providing you with a nutritious breakfast. Or “by virtue of the authority of the chairman of the executive committee of this program acting in loco parentis and delegated to me, I have to tell you that you may not go to town this evening.” All the laws, regulations and procedures which govern our work with children and youth should also be transparent to them insofar as we are relating to them as young people in our care.

What is important is what children and youth experience.

Chris Beedell, in talking of our responsibility to provide young people with real experience of care, comfort and control, emphasises that

"Real experience” is not an empty phrase here. It implies that the child feels the experience as caring, comforting and/or controlling. Also, probably, that he does so most intensively when these experiences are not so much “provided” as given by the worker because of his or her feeling response to the situation child and worker are in.

Our Minimum Standards are helpful here, for they offer not only a set of expectations of care workers, but tangible and built-in quality checks from the point of view of the young person. For example, the standard regarding emotional and social care reads: “Young people receive emotional and social care which enables quality interactions with adults and peers, and which promotes positive sustained relationships at school, and with families, significant others, and friends.”

The relevant standard then goes on to detail the outcomes of this standard for young people, namely that the young people confirm that:

a. they are encouraged to identify and express emotions appropriately

b. they are taught effective, positive ways to express and manage emotions and relate to others

c. They have opportunities for positive interaction

d. they experience interactions with service providers as positive and respectful

e. service providers model healthy, effective ways to express emotions

f. They are encouraged and assisted to restore, maintain and enhance relationships with family and significant others

g. They are encouraged to build, and maintain appropriate relationships with friends and service providers

h. Service providers support them in coping when relationships break down

i. Service providers support them in coping with the impact of having contact or not having contact with family and/or significant others

j. They receive adequate information on routines (such as meal times, wake-up and bed-time) in a manner which facilitates their understanding and cooperation, and they are assisted to participate within routines in a way which supports their individual development

k. They receive, own and can wear appropriate clothing for their age and activities

In other words, it is not so important that staff are told that the young people should receive emotional and social care ... but that the kids feel this to be so and experience it in reality. The point is that Child and Youth Care workers do not provide care because it is specified in Standard number R4K, outcomes (a) to (k), but because they choose to share their time and their skills with children and youth who will benefit from their attention, their guidance and their affection. Ticking off a checklist from our point of view is of no value if, ultimately, the kids don’t feel safe, respected, understood, loved and cared for.

As we work at defining Child and Youth Care work, with all of its structures, laws, procedures, curriculum, employment issues, timetables and frameworks ... we realise that all of these “big words” are meaningless and sterile if, at heart, Child and Youth Care is not a coming together of adults and young people in generous, hopeful, risky relationships in which trust can be rebuilt, better things can be tried, sins can be forgiven, futures can be built ... (fill in your own ideas here) ... and from which youngsters may walk away back to their families and homes and lives with a bit more self-knowledge, understanding, resilience ... (do your own stuff here again) ...

By definition, we are working with young people who have lost faith and who expect the worst from life. They have reacted with despair or anger, and have given up on themselves and others. By the time they get to the next stage in their lives we would like to have proved their expectations wrong, and to have shown them something different and the merest possibility that things can be better. And we don’t do this with 327s or 915s or theories or procedures. These things must be in the background. What helps is human engagement. Whatever the size, budget or turnover of your programme, the real unit of Child and Youth Care work, and by which we will ultimately be valued, is what Al Trieschman called the gleam in the eye as we reach out and one life touches another. And if that didn’t happen in your place today, I don’t care how many teeth were cleaned, how many breakfasts were provided, how much money was donated – it was all for nothing.