and reach thousands of daily visitors
Since it's founding in 1997, the CYC-Net discussion group has been asked thousands of questions. These questions often generate many replies from people in all spheres of the Child and Youth Care profession and contain personal experiences, viewpoints, as well as recommended resources.
Below are some of the threads of discussions on varying Child and Youth Care related topics.
Questions and Responses have been reproduced verbatim.
Listen to thisHello all!
I was wondering if anyone has references to solid research regarding the
pros and cons of having mixed age groups in group care – e.g.,
information about having, for example, 7 year olds and 15 year olds in
the same program.
I know this is common in, for example, foster care, but is there any
research of which people are aware?
Thom Garfat
...
Hi Thom
This was an issue here in Manitoba 15 years ago or
so. There were a few co-ed group care programs with older female youth
and younger boys. As I recall, Karl Gompf was contracted to review the
literature and prepare a report for the province. As far as I know ,
there is one remaining co-ed mixed age group program here currently, the
others changed to single gender programs.
Dawne MacKay-Chiddenton
Winnipeg, MB.
...
Hi Thom,
This is more anecdotal than research but the work that we did with the group-a voice of reason who came in to teach the social work students at the Robert Gordon University bears out the merits of working with a mixed age group.
The age range was from 13 to 27 at one point and people did raise an eyebrow or two but we utilised good lifespace practice to promote group identity and had the benefit of a residential at Columba 1400 that really brought us all together.
Many people who have been part of the group continue to be in contact and make themselves available for other pieces of work. The youngest member of the group Alex has just been part of a group of young people who have won the Young Scot of Year Award. I have attached links to Columba 1400 and Alex talking about his award.
Finally, Alex and I are about to do a piece of
research looking at what worked for him during his group care and post
care experience. It goes under the title of 'Serendipity and Risk in the
Lives of Marginalized Young People' and will be delivered in Canterbury,
England in June.
http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/conferences-events/docs/2014/Call-for-Papers-Social-Justice-Conference.pdf
http://www.columba1400.com/
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/young-scots-2014-group-fighting-3407703
Peace
Jeremy Millar
...
I took over as Principal of a Residential facility. The discipline,
damage and disruption that came out of the cottages where children were
grouped together according to age drove staff nuts. We tried a more
disciplined approach. We tried incentives, we tried everything possible
that we found in the literature.
Finally, management made a decision to mix the residents across the age
span. However, we kept it gender specific.
There was a lot of resistance from the residents as well as from the
front line staff.
Our education officer kept a record of findings which is somewhere on
the campus. I started writing it up but never completed it.
From my recollection I know the following changes were significant:
1. Less disruptions and petty bickering
2. Less damage to property
3. Fewer complaints and reports of horseplay
4. Actions that had to be disciplined tapered off.
5. Interpersonal relationships improved.
6. Residents haggled less about chores because they could
see why a three year old cannot be held accountable to sweep the floors.
7. The older residents developed a sense of responsibility
and active engagement.
Our thinking at the time was to make the campus environment more family
like and family friendly. However we were aware that the residents were
not family. We knew that many of them were relationship reluctant. Our
visualization/conceptualization was the five years olds could see where
they were going to when the watched the interaction of the 15 year olds.
The 15 year olds could see where they had come from as they observed the
five year olds. One unintended consequence was that a mentoring culture
emerged. They were helping and supporting each other. Front line workers
were less stressed and flummoxed. One thing we had to be aware of was
bullying and exploiting younger residents. Was some of it at first but
the mentoring culture became institutionalized. The residential facility
operated like that until my resignation seven years later. The new
leadership reverted to the age graduated grouping model. I have just
visited there a year ago and the place looks a mess. The taking care of
it for the next generation was no longer evident. Before there was a
tangible, visual model of generational living. When I talked to the
residents, they were just annoyed with children of their same age having
the same problems and have the same limited solution strategies.
Michael Gaffley
...
I guess one good example of the benefits of a mixed
age group is the CYC-Net Discussion group! All contributions are given
equal weight and heard respectfully, and very often the wisest responses
(and the best questions) seem to come from the least experienced voices.
In the group care context, though, as facilities have become smaller and
more focused on particular groups, there is probably less opportunity
these days for working with mixed ages. This is a shame because, as
contributors have pointed out, there can be great richness of mutual
learning in a diverse group.
In my experience the bigger challenge is not so much in mixing
age-groups as in mixing groups of different levels of social and
emotional development, which may not be the same thing at all. The
critical factors seem to me the skill and confidence of the staff both
in working with such diversity and in enabling those of different levels
and stages to communicate with each other, but also the quality of
leadership and supervision available to them – as Gene says.
Adrian Ward
...
A good amount of thought should go into how to
structure and stratify the living arrangement for a residential program.
Another way to do this was using 3 variables – which we did for
many years in a boys program that ranged from 7 years old to 18+ years
old. Age, physical size, and social maturity level were considered when
placing these youngsters into 3 living units. The youngest unit ranged
in age from 7 yrs to 11 years old. The next unit ranged from 10 years
old to 15 years old. And the oldest unit ranged in age from 14 to 18
years old. So, a socially mature younger youth may have been place with
older youth, and a somewhat older youth needing to learn skills to
co-live with that age group may spend a short time with younger youth to
prepare living with youth of similar age.
But we never solely relied or believed that these 7 variables would be
resolved or taken care of by the this social living arrangement:
1. Less disruptions and petty bickering
2. Less damage to property
3. Fewer complaints and reports of horseplay
4. Actions that had to be disciplined tapered off.
5. Interpersonal relationships improved.
6. Residents haggled less about chores because they could
see why a three year old cannot be held accountable to sweep the floors.
7. The older residents developed a sense of responsibility
and active engagement.
No matter what the most ideal living arrangement is set up, the above
can or can not happen. It really has more to do with what child and
youth workers are in place and what they are doing – interaction wise
with the kids. Disruptions, petty bickering, less property damage and so
on has more to do with staff interaction and meeting the needs of youth
than the living arraignment. Are the staff well, trained, are they
compassionate, and are they receiving good supervision from supervisors?
Do staff understand the age group they are working with and how to meet
their needs? Are they part of planning and developing the program
structure and implementing it? Are staff working normal and reasonable
shifts? We never let anyone work over certain amount of overtime per
week – to help them prevent burn out and frustrations. We wanted
staff well rested and content before starting their most demanding
work. Do they believe in the program? Is good youth supervision going on
by the counselors? Is the staff competent? Are the kids well taken care
of?
Once that happens, I believe almost any structure will work.
Gene Cavaliere
