Listen to thisChallenge
Young people need to try their wings in
various ways in the real world; boring programs without active challenge not
only tend to dull and deaden their sensitivities (as they do ours), but also
lead many of them to find their own excitement, often in ways that have
gotten them into trouble in the past. Camping pioneer L. G. Sharp has
observed in this connection that if we do not fill children's days with
opportunities to do things that are fun, exciting, and good for them, they
will fill their days with activities that are fun, exciting, and not good
for them (or, it might be added, for us). A fundamental programming
responsibility of those who work with youth in such settings is to make
appropriate, constructive, and challenging options available and known to
them.At least for many young people, one essential element in challenge
appears to be risk-taking, as is reflected in the kinds of wilderness and
other adventure-based rehabilitative programs that have been expanding
rapidly in recent years (Bacon & Kimball, 1989). Much progress has been made
in the containment of physical risk in such experiences, without unduly
diluting their excitement-potential, through activity design and standards
for the training and performance of adult leaders. Likewise, ways to manage
liability problems that such activities sometimes entail have begun to
emerge. The Association for Experiential Education is among the groups that
have been in the forefront of efforts in this direction, and at least one
state has, with federal assistance, developed detailed standards for
adventure programs in residential care (New Jersey, 1989).
Participation
The camp milieu is conceived as a
community in which everyone involved has an ownership stake and a role. This
is in contrast to the larger society, where young people frequently feel
unwanted, unneeded, and socially impotent. It is in even starker contrast to
many group care settings, where their role is even more passive: they are
there essentially to have something done to them, to be "treated," rather
than to reach out, to expand their horizons, and to grow. When a setting
emphasizes the latter group of expectations, youth can be empowered
developmentally, but this depends on their having a share in the important
decisions and the core experiences that make a community what it is, thus
making it theirs (Beker, 1989; Levy, in press; B. Thomas, in press; Wells,
in press; Wolins, 1974.) Camp – and other residential settings – provide the
potential for building just such an environment.
Service
The concept of service relates closely to
participation, taking it a step farther. Making the community theirs implies
that they share responsibility for it, for the welfare of all its members,
and for doing the tasks that need to be done to sustain and build it. Such
involvement also tends to build self-esteem. The camp milieu lends itself to
and, in some respects, even requires such activities, both within and in
relation to the larger, surrounding community, which often include work that
is needed to maintain and improve the quality of life.
In many other contemporary residential settings, however, such work expectations for residents are viewed as exploitive, or at least as something to be avoided due to union sensitivities, legal exposure, and the like (Beker & Durkin, 1989). These are real issues that cannot prudently be minimized, and cases of exploitation are not unknown, but neither can we responsibly ignore the importance of providing such service learning opportunities for young people in out-of-home care, where they are particularly important in building feelings of connectedness, as Redl and others have emphasized. Such programs have been described by, among others, Barnes (in press) and Brendtro (1985).
References
Bacon, S. B., & Kimball, R. (1989). The
wilderness challenge model. In R. D. Lyman, S. Prentice-Dunn, & S. Gabel
(Eds.), Residential inpatient treatment of children and adolescents.
New York: Plenum.
Beker, J. (1989). On building community. Child and Youth Care Quarterly, 18(2), 79-80.
Beker, J. and Durkin, R. (1990). The role of work in residential group care programs for children and youth. St Paul, MN: Centre for Youth Development and Research, Univ. of Minnesota.
Brendtro, L.K. (1985). Making care fashionable: Philosophy and procedures of service learning. Child Care Quarterly, 14, 4-13.
Levy, Z. (in press). Eagerly awaiting a home: A response from abroad. Child and Youth Care Quarterly.
New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Youth and Family Services. (1989). Regulatory Module for Children's Residential Facilities that Provide Adventure Activities. Trenton: Author.
Thomas, B. (in press). A response to “eagerly awaiting....” Child and Youth Care Quarterly.
Wells, K. (in press). Eagerly awaiting a home: Severely emotionally disturbed youth, lost in our system of care -a personal reflection. Child and Youth Care Quarterly.
Beker, J. (1991). Back to the future: Effective residential group care and treatment for children and youth and the Fritz Redl legacy. In Morse, W.C. (Ed.) Crisis intervention in residential treatment: The clinical innovations of Fritz Redl. New York: The Haworth Press
