Listen to thisUpon first glance at Kiaras Gharabaghi’s article “Three profoundly stupid ideas” (see our August 2010 issue – Eds.), one cannot help but reflect upon his opinions and how they compare to our own experiences. As a team of five staff in a long term residential program, his article provoked a strong reaction. Initially comments such as “Where has this poor man worked?” to “What in the heck is he talking about?” were all thrown out in response. We agree with Kiaras on two levels; first, that these three ideas he refers to are stupid, not to mention archaic. Secondly, that they are still commonly practiced among programs in the field, however there are some exceptions.
In many ways our staffing team felt that this article was only half completed. While it advises people on what not to do based upon the author’s experiences, it fails to offer alternatives to these particular practices. As part of an organization that has moved away from these ideas, we provide examples which we deem best practice. Whether these ideas also become outdated remains to be seen, but we experience more success with our young people using these methods.
The first stupid idea which Kiaras refers to is the use of the behavior contract. As a group, we all recognize that this is not an intervention technique that is used by us on a regular basis. One member of the team pointed out “that I have not at any point asked a young person to sign a behavior contract unless it was the young person's idea to do so.” A contract, like many of our interventions, can be used therapeutically for a young person; however there is a significant risk that those people responsible for holding the young person to this contract will use it as a means of asserting power over the young person. When we use contracts with young people it is simply a means of clarifying expectations regarding behavior. In working with the youth, we look for ways to build trust and to help the youth experience predictable outcomes for their behavior. There are times when contracts can meet this need, but generally we rely on rules, structure, and routines to establish predictability with the young people.
An early bedtime is the second stupid idea to which Kiaras refers to in his article. While this was common practice for our organization at one time, it has been abandoned over the last number of years. Having a bedtime as part of the house expectations is quite useful as it provides a loose component to the routine of the home. However, flexibility is a necessity so that there is an effective therapeutic response to those young people who have issues with bedtime. As youth care workers, we've learned effects of trauma on young people and understand that many instances of abuse have occurred after bedtime in the darkness of a bedroom. Our response to young people’s behavior at bedtime is based on our relationship with them and their individual needs. Most times it involves staff and the young person deriving a plan for bedtime together as a means of decreasing the level of anxiety experienced by the young person. This can look different depending on the young person in question and may involve several steps including using the time beforehand to start preparing for bedtime or allowing the young person to have their room set up in a manner which makes them feel safe. For example, having the door left open or having a night light. It may be as simple as staff spending some time reading or chatting with the young person when they go to bed.
The final stupid idea that Kiaras refers to in his article is the notion of grounding after a young person has been AWOL. Again, this idea is one which our organization abandoned long ago. That is not to say that there are no program expectations regarding curfews or using time off property. It is something that is necessary to provide structure and clarity. As in the previous examples, relationships are the foundation for discussing staying out late or being absent for long periods without contacting staff. In our experience, many young people respond to the idea that staff care about their safety and well being and are willing to show that they value this by at least contacting the home when they are absent or returning when they say they will. Instead of using negative consequences for the young person if they stay out, our program works hard to offer incentives for them to return. Our program encourages all young people to be where they are supposed to be and while we do not ground young people, we make it clear to them that until they fulfill their programming obligations such as completing chores then there will be no “extras” done for them. For example, if a young person skips school and remains in the community during this time they will not receive their allowance or a ride to their friend's until they complete the work they had missed. The only time there is a rigid response to being out in the community without permission is if there is a safety issue such as threats of self harm or other high risk behavior. In this instance there are protocols in place to be followed that the young people are made aware of in advance.
As a staffing group, we recognize that other organizations operate under different philosophies and programming components. We agree that behavioral contracts, early bedtimes, and grounding for breaking curfew are counter-productive. Our goal was to follow up with alternatives to these concepts and recognize that not all organizations are still practicing such ideas. We use a relational model within our program, providing routine with flexibility The underpinning to what we consider best practice is the relationship. Building a meaningful and trusting relationship with young people has allowed us to have more success when intervening with them despite difficulties with some program components. We recognize the need for change and hope that professionals in the area of Child and Youth Care can take something from this article on a practical level and also on a philosophical level, recognizing that we must remain open to new ideas and practice models in an evolving field.
