AVOIDING WORKPLACE ASSAULT... CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA

As a way of a preamble. This is not in any way designed to be a lecture on behaviour management. Its just "me", talking from my experience ,"self'" and some little knowledge. 

There were two posts in the social media that grabbed me this week. The first was a post that one of the provinces in South Africa significantly increased the stipend/salary of its child and youth care workers. Then followed typically African comments "happy for you"even though there were some who had received very little and some who had not yet been paid for the last three months.

The second was a post that said that we must create a "therapeutic culture" in our child care facilities. It went on to link such a culture to more effective child and youth care intervention and in the response of young people in care. this post mirrored exactly what I was trying to say in my last blog.

Thing is, both of these posts contain truths that have an impact on the phenomena of workplace assault.

A therapeutic culture and workplace recognition are essential foundations for effective behaviour management which is the focus of this weeks blog.
There were some early research work done into the culture of residential care on the effectiveness of re-claiming  children and young people. First. It was found that CONSISTENCY of approach throughout the facility had, in itself, a positive effect. Notwithstanding the quality of the programme approach, if it was consistently applied by child and youth care workers, the effect was positive for children. We need to come back later to this.

Secondly, no matter what the quality and approach in the  programme, 11% of all the residents will be re-claimed merely because they have an inner resilience to do so. So-called "success" cannot be applied to that 11%. In child and youth care work we have learnt rather to refer to"the reduction of failure".

Thirdly, The more the regimentation in the culture of the facility, the less effective was the intervention..... procedures like "line ups", designated seats in the dining-room, food dished up for you and then just placed before you instead of dishing up for yourself, same "lights out" for everyone.... the list goes on....   

So let 's take these early findings together. One of the early experiences and understanding that I had to "get through", internalise" to the young persons in care was that our approach was individualised  ..... a consistent was the not every one would be treated the same. The consistency was: "different strokes for different folks". We would however explain why one child was not treated the same as the other if we were held to account by the other children, It meant that we all understood, we were there for different reasons, and that each had a need to be treated differently if that was needed for healing. That had to be a consistent.,.... predictable... Behaviour management within a culture of individual treatment reduces the potential  assaultive behaviour.

It means that the facility has to adopt, articulate, and apply a defined therapeutic approach to behaviour management as a credo... a belief. One we all understand and all "buy into". It's a "social contract" into which all , including the children, have to buy into, at the point of admission, and then experiences as a consistency 

Other fairly early research, but which I regard as classic,compared a punitive approach to behaviour management, versus non-punitive approaches. Here's the suprise.... there was found to be no real difference. (Walters. G.C. & Grusec J.E. Punishment. 1977.) This quote, however, is useful. "It is generally believed that harsh corporal punishment, teasing, ridicule, and other attacks on self esteem are bad for children" They then go on to say set out punitive measures that "so call"work. ( withdrawal of privileges. material objects) . 

 In South Africa, the law forbids any for of corporal punishment.....anything painful....and also the withdrawal of some of the so-called privileges (contact with significant others, or material objects.....availability to the news ,food, ...the list goes on.....)  

So where are we? There is clearly a difference between behaviour management and the socialisation of a young person at risk. The principle is that it is better for a child to be pro-social than to be NOT a-social. Its better to contribute to society than to avoid punishment. They conclude: "We would be better off relying as little as possible on punishment as a way of change"(pp 250). My experience is that punishment has only a short term effect. We, in a therapeutic space have to go deeper than "avoid punishment behaviours" (which are soon learnt). We have to consider what the child internalises, learns about the world from what we do and say. and  what contributes to their world view. For me, the thinking of the child should be not so much about what consequences my behaviour has for me, as what consequences my behaviour has for others.

For us to respond as child care workers to the behaviour of young people in a way developmental, requires that we get an "aha" experience in the moment. For me, there were three questions that I found useful, Tom Garfat's question.. "What is the child getting out of this behaviour? " At a fairly simple level.....to be noticed? to take control?,  to take revenge? "I'm not see or heard" "I don't have control over aspects of my life where I should be able to make decisions for myself , "I'm hurting , so you must hurt"....or what?. In a therapeutic space this gives us clues as to what we must do to meet those needs positively

The second question, I found useful. "What is the child learning from my approach to this behaviour ? " It 's then , I think, that we realise:  process is more important that .outcome. Inappropriate, a-social, or anti-social behaviour must stop, BUT, what has the child learnt about the behaviour of adults, and so the world .....soon to be my world? 
Central to behaviour management, then, seems to me to be  understanding the behaviour from the child's point of view. A need for us to enter the child 's world for a moment; to step into the child's shoes and to walk her journey.. to BE the child for a moment.

Then,... responding, not reacting.

I knew I could not remove myself from the effect of a child's behaviour on the personal "me"..... the "me", that is "me".  It was important for me to answer the question "What is this behaviour triggering in me?"and later, in supervision, to try to identify the reason why. Having gotten to its effect on what I was experiencing, it was a huge step in my professionalisation to be able to step out and enter the child's world view for a moment. Then to respond rather than to react. and to respond with knowledge technique, skill, nd self .. driven by values..... values become a central component of bahaviour management and socialisation 

Even so, anti social behaviour happens...   And so now to that otherwise unanswered question in the last number of my blogs..Do you lay charges or do you not lay charges? 

I have personally never laid charges against any young person in m care. I lean toward the concept of restorative justice , which can be undertaken within the facility. or within the justice setting. I'm not sure whether that will satisfy the comments that appear on social media.