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.
Here's an interesting question:
		Do you think that residential care organisations should have a clear 
		policy on child discipline?
		
		Here is some context: Should organisations who care for children have a 
		policy that advises staff on the approach adopted by the organisation 
		with regards to how to discipline children? It seems that most 
		policies focus on what actions are poor practice or prohibited 
		practices, but very few policies outline the approach that staff should 
		adopt. One concern is that a policy cannot detail every possible 
		scenario that staff should have to deal with, and that it may therefore 
		actually inhibit staff or child care workers from making use of their 
		own resources, their skills and intuition, their ability to respond in 
		the moment, and so forth. My argument is that the purpose of a 
		policy can be to formalise an approach and to commit the organisation to 
		such an approach. Some may prefer the term behaviour management, 
		or behavioural interventions, etc. I believe that from a 
		managerial perspective, an organisation should provide employees with a 
		balanced set of policies, that both prohibit bad practices, as well as 
		outline and encourage good practice. I think we fail miserably 
		when we tell child care workers to adopt a "developmental strength-based 
		approach" to working with children, but as organisations and management 
		we fail to model a developmental, strength-based approach when 
		working with staff. 
		
		What are your thoughts? Pro or con for a policy on child 
		discipline?
		
		Werner
		...
Hello Werner, yes I most certainly do!
		
		Dawne MacKay-Chiddenton
		...
		
		If I were to guess you are new to Child Care.
		
		There are some base consequences for certain actions that all child care 
		workers follow. Most are NOT written. Ie: if a child misuses a toy the 
		following would be ….no toy for x days/hours, limited use, or toy gone. 
		This is the principle that follows any person working with a child. 
		Whether their own child or someone else’s child under that person's care. 
		We as child care workers try to best stay within the natural 
		consequences rule. If you break it you don’t get to play with it 
		anymore. You will need to work and get another.
		
		There are gray areas for special populations. Trauma informed care.
		
		
		When a person hears bad, real bad, news and breaks something what more 
		of a consequence should be placed on that person? Or what if there was 
		an accident. If I go to the store and break something should I morally 
		go pay for it? Why doesn’t everyone? Gray area.
		
		There is gray within the black and white. That is where the worker comes 
		in. You want to live black and white but with special populations there 
		are ALWAYS two sides (some times three) that must be looked at. Then 
		that worker decides whether black or white should be used or if grey is 
		the best.
		
		Enjoy the grey. Embrace the grey,
		Donna Wilson
		...
		
		Hi Werner,
		
		I believe that a policy on discipline should be firmly embedded in a 
		clear statement of philosophy regarding the treatment of children. Your 
		point about integrating the organization’s approach to children and 
		staff is well taken. From a relational perspective the traditional ‘book 
		of rules’ is a complete anachronism. The challenge is to create 
		approaches that promote self-responsibility (i.e. discipline from the 
		inside-out) and this can only be achieved where staff and kids are 
		expected to operate from the same set of principles and values. 
		Many years ago I dismantled the ‘rule book’ in a ‘correctional’ program 
		for young offenders and replaced it with an emphasis on ‘personal 
		boundaries’. The training strategies involved both staff and residents. 
		After two or three weeks of confusion this intervention began to pay 
		remarkable dividends – a dramatic decrease in acting out behaviour, 
		reduced stress reported by staff members and a major shift in the 
		quality of relationships. The most notable outcome was the change in the 
		overall interactional climate within the unit. The golden rule was that 
		the invasion of personal boundaries by both staff and residents would 
		not be tolerated. We still had to be clear about what consequences would 
		apply for boundary violations but, more often than not, these were 
		resolved within the context of the relationship in question. Of course 
		there were still some specific consequences for specific behaviours but, 
		after three months, the list of these non-negotiable rules had been 
		reduced by over eighty percent. I’m offering this as an example rather 
		than a definitive suggestion. I should add that, in response to this 
		initiative, the organization had to revamp its thinking about the way it 
		went about its business.
		
		Best wishes,
		Gerry Fewster
		...
Here is what I think on the matter. The child discipline policy is not a 
		bad idea. It’s actually an innovative way of dealing with child behavior 
		challenges. However, I believe that Child and Youth Care Workers need to 
		realize that difficult behaviors of children are of diverse nature and 
		that there can never be a tool box approach to dealing with challenging 
		behaviors. Behavior management involves a lot of child care complexities 
		like the use of oneself as a tool, promotion of self-discipline and 
		responsibility on the part of the individual, creation of rapport and 
		making use of basic principles of Child and Youth Care work, to name but 
		a few. In addition, given the varying degrees of inappropriate 
		behaviors, it becomes somewhat hard to think that a policy on 
		child discipline will be “the answer”. Self-awareness on the part of the Child and Youth Care worker plays a huge part in effectively managing behavior. The Child and Youth Care field is “relational in nature” and I think that sound relationships 
		with children also play a huge role. Child discipline, I think, is a 
		philosophy, a way of life that calls for child care professionals to 
		change themselves from within and most importantly, respond to child 
		care complexities in the “moment, and in the child’s life space”. It’s 
		easy to have a policy but if these basic human elements and principles 
		are absent, I am afraid we might end where we started...
		
		Best wishes,
		Vincent Hlabangana
		…
		
		Dear Werner,
		
		My first question to you would have to be, what do you mean by 
		"discipline"? As a manager of a residential child care establishment in 
		Austria (EU) I would suggest that in my opinion it does not actually 
		need a complete set of policies as such.
		
		Much more important are mission statement and guiding principles of your 
		work. Our childcare is based on the principles of social paedagogy and 
		has also strong elements of therapy. We want to provide a safe place for 
		children and young people in which they can overcome the traumata they 
		have suffered in their young lives and develop their potential. It goes 
		without saying that this place has be free from violence and that staff 
		have to be able to understand the children’s behaviours and deal with 
		them professionally and empathically.
		
		We work with the theoretical backgrounds and in the tradition of people 
		like Marshall B Rosenberg (Non-violent Communication), Haim Omer (new 
		Authority), Janusz Korzcak, Bruno Bettelheim, Winnicott and many others. 
		A framework of "discipline" can be found in our basic house or group 
		rules, which have been created in a process of negotiation between young 
		people and staff. These are very basic and outline how we want to live 
		and work together. They are not set in stone or static but develop over 
		time. We do not use punishment or penalties, but consequences to 
		unwanted behaviours, which are very carefully measured, time limited and 
		always explained to the child, so they can understand and learn from 
		them. Much more importantly we give praise for prosocial behaviours, 
		work on the children’s sense of self-worth and achievement.
		
		There are a lot of excellent models out there that we can all learn 
		from. One of my favourites in this context is the "Circle of Courage" by 
		Martin Brokenleg and Larry Brendtro, which I would highly recommend.
		
Manfred Humer
		...
A slow starter I only just noticed this interesting question and 
		responses to your question. I notice a golden thread in all the 
		responses and this answers many of the challenges that are being faced 
		in Child and Youth care centres today in South Africa. We need to go 
		back and define the role of a CYCC and the role of Child and Youth care 
		workers. From my point of view many CYCWs have a distorted understanding 
		of their role as that of being substitute parents of children and 
		therefore expect children to behave in a manner that is familiar to 
		them. Once children behave otherwise that child is foreign to them, 
		hence the need then for guidance on managing behaviour. As stated in 
		many of the responses that our work is relational. One teacher in Child 
		and Youth care, Jack Phelan, once said that you must expect “blood” on 
		the floor at a CYCC, this means that we must expect things to go wrong 
		and that a manual how to respond is not always the answer.
		
		What I also see in your question is that CYCWs do not really want to 
		respond to challenging behaviour as they seem scared of what might 
		happen. This comes down to organisational structure as to how behaviour 
		was responded to in the past and who was responsible to ensure “good” 
		behaviour of children. I am aware that in the past when things go wrong 
		the social worker must respond. The staff working in the lifespace of 
		the children never had to respond to challenging behaviour and many 
		CYCCs expect staff to respond effectively to children. A 
		structured manual will think for staff and that will take away the 
		creativity and the implementation of knowledge by staff. I will agree 
		with a guideline on discipline and not a manual. This will also give 
		staff the answer that “things do not work and this child must be removed 
		or moved”. I also support the notion that responding to 
		challenging behaviour is embedded in the vision and mission of any CYCC 
		and the culture that is adopted. Does the staff feel supported and 
		proper supervision is provided, mistakes are used as learning 
		opportunities and staff are not judged when they make mistakes. 
		
		
		Regards
		Alfred Harris