NO 1824
Jen’s Place
Jen’s Place has created a philosophy of practice that not only has met the therapeutic needs of the residents in the program but the needs of the staff who work with them. At Jen’s Place we strive to reduce the use of control required over the youth’s behaviours. Control based strategies tend to be reactive and punitive when the behaviour challenges the status quo. The use of control and restrictions will often lead to rebellion, resentment and the creation of environments that are not conducive to therapeutic programming and relationships. We need to question whose needs are met by the use of control.
There are many barriers that maintain the continuum of ‘control.’ We have found that these include;
Youth typically oppose external structures of control and will rebel as a normal part of development. Youth involved in abusive situations tend to respond to the use of control as a threat or ‘adversarial situation’ (Mann-Feder, 2003) and will use the fight or flight response in order to attempt to regain control of their environment.
Unqualified, inexperienced or professionals from different disciplines may view youth behaviours as extreme and deviant when, developmentally and situational, they are not. Staff are forced to deal with their own ‘fear, anger, helplessness and frustration’ (Brendtro, 2004). Staff become concerned that a failure to maintain control over the environment is a reflection of inadequacies and/or competencies in their skills.
When we take control of actions and limit choices,
we minimize any consequence of those choices which is typically viewed
as successful programming versus viewing the experiencing of consequence
as a therapeutic learning opportunity.
There is a view of the ‘magical door’ of care. We often expect that once
a youth is involved in a residential setting, they will conform to the
rules of that setting. When they don’t, it is assumed that the
nonconformity is by choice and that restriction and consequences will
teach responsibility and self control.
In our residential setting, we avoid the use of control as a method of behaviour management and use the following techniques and approaches to program planning:
Qualified staff — Full-time staff must hold a diploma or degree as Child & Youth Workers.
Use a variety of therapeutic treatment modalities
including;
— Cognitive-behavioural
— Strength-based
— Developmental- ecological
Reframe and analyze the powerful interaction between staff and youth
Focus on the need, not the behaviour
Provide choices
Provide information at every step of intervention
Invite participation in all decisions
Avoid lecturing
Allow for mistakes
Disengage from all power struggles
Avoid imposed consequences — use creativity
Support natural consequences
Focus on strengths & positives
Strength based behaviour management instead of flaw-focused.
Authoritative style of ‘parenting’
Unconditional support
Hands-off interventions
The most obvious outcome of the program’s framework is the almost complete eradication of physical aggression within the home. To date 33% of our residents had been physically restrained in other placements. We have had 0 restraints in a 39-month period. Non-aggressive incidents currently account for 100% of our serious occurrences. 100% of our current full-time staff that have previous experience in residential care state that they prefer the approach used by Jen’s Place as against approaches used other residential agencies where they have worked.
We believe that we should not be afraid of relationships with the youth; but rather, we should walk alongside or behind them instead of in front of them. We are not afraid to give them the control of their decisions and to be educated by them. We let them express joy as well as disappointment, and let them know that we will stick up for them if they are being treated unfairly and that we are not always right nor do we know exactly how they feel.
As part of developing relationships with the youth, we were forced to consider how our language can have a negative impact on therapeutic rapport. We have found the following to be effective elements to consider when communicating with the youth in our care:
Constantly critique the use of group home jargon and slang, keeping it at a minimum
Avoid complex ‘professional’ language in conversations; use common terms
Communicate with youth at their level — their vocabulary
Encourage reflection of negative phrases/words used by youth/staff
Communication includes creative verbal, non-verbal, visual and written forms
Teach and be aware of alternative ways that youth communicate with us
Advocate with collateral’s and resources to communicate the way the youth can learn and be expressive
At Jen’s Place labels are carefully deconstructed and only used in a clinical sense, not as a descriptor for behaviour or performance. The outcome of this approach is demonstrated by the close relationships developed between staff and residents. Clear communication and understanding each others’ language has lessened unnecessary disagreements and arguments. We believe that an environment which invites open and clear communication rejects punitive climates overall. In the end, youth are able to see staff as people and be open to relationship building.
It is important to consider all youth as individuals, their own experiences and their own interpretation of experiences, their interactions with and impact of various environmental factors, their level of crisis, maturity, developmental stage, strengths and learning style. There is a need to understand normative adolescent development and behaviour while not assuming that chronological age and develop- mental age are always the same. We need to increase skills, sense of belonging, connectedness, and reduce social isolation and detachment. Goals are achieved much more successfully through participation, compromise and cooperation (Krueger, 2004). Each youth understands that he or she is an individual and that there is dignity in that. Ultimately, the youth have a sense of ownership and have a foundation of good decision-making.
We have found that the following elements have had a positive impact on youth behaviour:
Immediately reject the notion that the youth must fit the program
Consider stages of development, experience, crisis, etc. in planning
Regular weekly review of program planning with staff team including therapist, psychologist, school coordinators, etc.
Have a primary worker who is proficient on meeting the child’s needs
Focusing on building real relationships
Devote time for youth to make connections between their community and their support systems
Involve the youth in all planning, at a level they are comfortable with
Focus always remains on building on strengths
Planning is success- orientated
Individual and group recreational and life skills activities
Individual time with staff
Always be cognizant of who’s needs are being met
Children in care are deeply affected by the environment in which they live. Jen’s Place is the environment that is responsible for the fostering and enhancement of individual developmental aspects. Many of the youth’s behaviours are seen to be extreme and deviant when developmentally and situationally they are not. Jen’s Place believes it is very important for staff and caregivers of these youth to normalize their lives and offer them as many protective factors as possible in order to reduce the damaging impact that differentness can have on their growth and development. In four-and-a-half years of operating, Jen’s Place has taken some of the most challenging children and used this approach very successfully. The key is too keep up with it, and not expect a change immediately. Supervisors need to support staff in the same way as staff support kids. Allow for mistakes. Before long, this approach becomes the culture of the program. New residents cannot create the chaos as existing residents understand and support the program as well. 80% of our kids have been with us for longer than any other placement they have had. 100% of our full-time staff prefer this approach to others they have experienced. When program staff are happy, the program becomes a great living environment — and that’s what we want for our kids!
JENNIFER FOSTER and MICHELLE BROOKS
Foster, J. and Brooks, M. (2009). Jen's Place.
Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 22 Number 1 ,
pp.59-61
References
Krueger, M. (2004). Organizational tenets and actions. CYC-Online
, 70.
[Retrieved from
https://www.cyc-net.org/CYC-Online
/cycol-1104-organizational.html] Originally
printed in (1990) In Krueger, M. and Powell, N. (Eds.) Choices in caring.
Washington DC: Child Welfare Leaugue of America, pp.5–9.
Mann-Feder, V. (2003). Relatedness and control. Relational Child and Youth
Care Practice, 16(3), 10–14.
Jennifer Foster BA CYC (Cert.) BSW, RSW is the Director of Service at Jen’s
Place in Alliston, Ontario.
Michele Brooks M.S.W.
