Listen to thisContinuing our discussion from last month, the case conference disconnect between the Child and Youth Care practitioner and the other professionals in the room is also affected by the Child and Youth Care reporting formats.
Simply put, we use formats that are designed to make complex ideas and strategies appear trivial and unsophisticated. We regularly use fill-in-the-blank, problem description formats, often arranged in easy-to-use columns and categories that reduce our life space work descriptions to half page sheets. These reports typically have a problem reduction focus rather than a focus on growth and change, consisting of behavioral deficits and describing growth as being able to control the deficit (often implemented externally).
Unfortunately we regularly buy into labeling external control as treatment, even though we know there are few real changes created this way.
The language in these reports are often therapy concepts borrowed from office-based approaches, which describe “neutral space”, artificially constructed environments, not the “natural space” vibrant, life space work that we do. Using words like “client” to describe the people we help, is not congruent with a relational approach. The complex relationships we develop through setting safe limits and boundaries, creating genuine connections and mutual respect in the face of difficult to manage behavior, and living with people day to day is nothing like the safe, sitting in a chair, relationship of the therapy office.
Our reports should detail the theoretical map we are using, the developmental judgments we are making, and the journey (not the destination) that we are on, with all its uncomfortable bumps. Sometimes we need to increase a not so nice behavior (e.g. being loud and demanding) to support the autonomy of a youth who is finally starting to feel safe enough to change and learn. We must stop focusing on surface behaviors: attendance at school, social manners, and “appropriate interactions” rather than attitude and belief shifts. This will reflect a stronger concern about the carry over value of our efforts and aftercare success, rather than supporting adult control and comfort levels.
When I suggest this approach to competent Child and Youth Care practitioners, they worry about this type of reporting not satisfying the funders, the social worker, and the agency administrator. It is really unfortunate that we believe that none of these people are concerned with the skillful use of Child and Youth Care approaches to create useful change in our youth and families.
Perhaps we are more to blame than they are.
