"IT TAKES A VILLAGE"...CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA

A direct quote taken from social media last week. "If parents were allowed to smack their children 15 years ago, would we have stabbings by 15 year olds today?" It followed a number of posts blaming the removal of wooden spoon, slipper, ruler, cane, or strap from schools, criminal justice, child rearing and child and youth care practice. The posts all implied, or said outright that the removal of corporal punishment was responsible, the root cause of young people's misdemeanours today. Especially, they said, incidents of assaultive behaviours against each other and adult authority figures.

This could be one of those "connect the dots" blogs.

Way back and deep in the apartheid era, the secondary school I attended was called the "school for the son's of gentlemen". It was ruled by the cane. Boys caned boys. As did teachers, the deputy Headmaster and the Headmaster. Hat not parallel to the ground ...2 cuts. Hands in trouser pockets...2 cuts. Smoking... 6 cuts and expulsion.

Four years later I taught at that same school. Prefects were no longer allowed to cane boys. The Headmaster and the deputy had that right. Prefects and teachers had the right to "send"  boys to the Head with a note. The same rules applied. He was a very busy man. Staff meeting after staff meeting the headmaster complained that it was always the same boys whose names were recorded in the punishment book.. The boys kept their own records.They boastfully cut marks into their rulers to show the number of strokes they had had.

As a university student I had to find holiday employment to help fund my studies. For four years I managed to get employment at a book and stationery retail shop. The retailer had an arrangement with African township schools. Books and stationery were sold directly to the pupils from stockrooms at the schools. Year one. Teachers walked always around with cane in hand, frequently lashing out at pupils ( boys and girls) for whatever reason. Next year. Cane no longer allowed, the teachers all carried rulers. Following year. Rulers disallowed. Teachers carried pencil length sticks. .... a vestige, a bit remaining enough to be a symbol of authority, position and control. They held onto a little of what they and the young people knew. It was very clear that the teachers had no training in any other way to discipline young people. Scary.

In those same years, Brian Gannon was a child and youth care worker, then called "Junior Housemaster"  at the St Goodenough Home for Boys. There were 6 "Houses" His, - ironically called "Beaton"House. He was studying for a Master's degree in psychology. The apartheid, colonial culture of raising and control of boys was the applied practice. I called it "the whip and whistle" system. It followed the culture of the day. Apartheid was held in control by fear, especially fear of pain. This Home for boys held as good the  white middle class private school practice of military styled regimentation and extensive use of the cane. Boys would bite the edges of their blankets to "íron" their made beds then sleep outside to pass the "white glove" Headmaster's inspection. Brian Gannon believed the system didn't work. So, he challenged the Headmaster. Strangely, the Headmaster agreed to an experiment at Beaton. No whip, no whistles, no bells, no sirens, no bugle calls, no cane, no threats. In three months Beaton fell apart. From unflushed toilets to scruffy uniforms and worse. Brian Gannon said "Here's the proof. The system of the cane and the strict external controlling practices do not work. The young people have internalised nothing. See, take away the external fear thing and they don't function or cope".  The Headmaster and the staff said "There, see - there's the proof. The system works" 
I was privy, able to have access, to the staff meeting minutes of that time. The staff insisted that Brian Gannon... "must go!. He must be removed". But Brian and the Headmaster had somehow bonded. He stayed but so did the old control system. Aside, from this, the idea of a child and youth care workers support Association was born.

In the early 80's, it was Brian Gannon who urged me to problem shoot an ailing facility. On arrival, I knocked on the big Victorian door. Opened by a lady in pink pom-pom slippers, large green plastic curlers in her hair and a wide carved leather strap in her hand. The strap was called "Sister Sarah" and so inscribed. Here the strap as child and young person control was applied because the bible says it should be so. 
"He that spareth the rod, hates his son"( Proverbs 13: 24). and "Do not hold back discipline from the child. Although you beat him with the rod, he will not die.You shall beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from Sheol".( Proverbs 23: 13-14.) That same morning I heard loud cries from the girl's dormitory. A girl had wet her bed and not rinsed her sheets. She was beaten with a kweperlat (quince stick).. Despite all of this the children and young people ran out of control.  Words used were "unmanageable, running amok". A year before, this system was applied. It was missionary based teachings hardened into a sect. When that was removed by the Welfare Department , Sister Sarah and the kweperlat attempted to restore order without success.

The Child and youth care worker walked in on a boys dormitory incident. A 14 year old new-comer stood naked at the end of his bed. A senior boy, feather duster in hand  used it to excite the youngsters genitals. The others awaited arousal and ejaculation. Reported as a critical incident , the initiator said that it was initiation. 'It happened to me and now it is my turn". Turning tho the child"and youth care worker, he said "And you. You you're out of here. And so it was. The child and youth care locked himself in his room for 4 days and then disappeared over night.

Last dot to join.

Only a few years back in the North West Province. It was a semi-rural community - based child and youth care work project.  The Tswana speaking village has an active tribal authority system. We learnt that the child rearing practices in this village for young peoples misdemeanors started with family gatherings and "lectures". Failing this, sometimes the police were called. The police acted as mediators in an attempt to restore justice and equanimity. Failing this, They arranged  a  "kgotla" at the tribal offices. Here a much wider group of significant people will gather . the youth is the centre of the discussion and everyone has a chance to speak. The idea is essentially that of restorative justice and changed behaviour. They say it works.

"It takes a village to raise a child ?"  "It happened to me. Now its my turn."
   
.

    

















   

COMPETITION, COMPASSION,CARING....CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA

It was all about being the best,smartest,fastest, most skilled, excelling at schoolwork,getting the highest awards being recognised for leadership. Over 300 trophies, awards, blazer badges, stripes, strips and ties. All designed to hold up the young person as an achiever. There was a huge emphasis on sport,and academics.The first above others. The winner.

It lost most of the young people in the programme. 

It had to go. The trophies gradually handed over to a school.

Child and youth care is developmental, We focus on  growth. Here you were to here you are. Here I was to here I am.

One of the trophies had been donated in the 60's"  . It was called the the "Headmaster's Trophy" subsequently renamed to become the "Directors Cup".  Pure silver, large and heavily insured because of it's asset value alone.. The only trophy to live in the safe. The idea was to take the list of all the other trophy winners and find that one boy with the most and most widely spread awards. The winner of the winners so to say.

It took close on three years to shift the competition culture. It was  painful. Even the writer of the long history of the "St Goodenough Home for Boys" came to visit, manuscript in hand. "I'm stopping this history at your arrival here.              St Goodenough is no longer. You are the iconoclast extraordinary, You change tradition just for the sake of destroying the traditional !" 

Something had to replace competition as the dominant, if not the only motivation for individual growth. In that year the Director's Cup had to become the icon for a different focus, a different value and set of values for which to be recognised and acknowledged.

The 17year old Mpho had about 20% cerebral palsy. At his age he was about to transition from the residential programme. A place had been secured for him in a residential setting for young persons with his kind of challenges. Slurred in speech, awkward in movement....otherwise labelled as "disabled". 

It was a never to be forgotten moment in my child and youth care experience. 

It was a "house meeting" called and held because two very young boys had run. They ran from......to... the buildings and grounds  of a neighbouring school closed for the weekend. My approach was to "watch and see". Sure enough they drifted back, but their message had to be explored It was to do with group relationships in the house linked with their having been severely emotionally abused before entering the programme. These two little ones were telling their story. The before and now story. The group discussion was suddenly interrupted by Mpho. It was a deep repeated series of loud wails. A tearless cry. A primal set of howls from deep within his gut.

I had a flash back to the howl of my beloved spaniel at the very moment of getting the injection which was to end her life.

He left the table, lay on the couch and wailed until he had gathered himself. On his return he said "Why? Why? Why are these things? Why do we hurt each other? Why do we have to hurt inside ? What are we going to do?"

Oh my word! I weep while writing.

Mpho was the voice of awareness, generosity, the value driven voice of the culture that had to be the revised St Goodenough. He was the bridge. The next time he cried, but silently, was when he was presented with the Director's Cup at the leaver's function. It was the move from human competition to human compassion. Somewhere within, Mpho knew. 

We were left with Mpho's question. "What must we do?". From competition to compassion. From compassion to active caring.

Another time, another space.

It was evening and bedding down time, heading toward final "lights out".  Laundry had to be prepared and individually laundry bagged. The laundry insisted that shirts had to unbuttoned. I called "Leslie, come and unbutton your shirts". 
Voice from the dormitory... "You do it. You're paid to care for me!". There it was. layed bare. Caring is a matter of reward. Given the power you can demand others to serve you. It came in a kind of flash. The Mpho question. "What must we do?" Another shift... From cared for ...to caring for.".

That little incident has always stayed with me because it got me going on another child and youth care value driven journey. This I would hesitantly call "radical".  Can we design/create a child and youth care model that moves us from the idea of "cared for"  to "caring for"?

Further inspiration came from two other sources - even now. On googling "radical care"  got an article about radical care for the elderly. ( radical geriatric care). An elder person made a piece of land available upon which elderly people could build for themselves little cottages. They did this on the understanding that they would care care for e dedicated to each other. Hmmmmm sounds like the South Africa culture of U'Buntu. Mpho would have fitted well into this community of active caring for...

If the elderly can create an active, primarily "caring for" rather than a "cared for" environment, and make it a reality, then so can we in Child and Youth Care.

Radical geriatric care - now for radical Child and Youth Care.

This idea of "How can we help you?". is not really new. The Peer Support Approach is a "How can we help each other to do this?" approach. I'm not talking about Peer Management, but the idea that with child and youth care worker support, young people can be brought together to answer just that question. See, Mpho gave brain birth to the 'How can we help each other" idea in me. He however didn't have the  empowerment to move from compassion to active caring on his own. 

That's where we as child and youth care workers come in. After all, we all know that generosity has to do with experiencing and actively giving care.

It went viral last week. A 10year old boy saw a homeless waste picker pushing his heavy trolley up a hill. He asked his mom to stop the car so that he could help push together with the waste collector. Comment complemented the boy's parents for the boy's values in action.

Rdical as it may sound, I am convinced that we can shift the Leslie "cared for"to the Mpho compassion, and the Mpho compassion to the 10year old caring for in action.

It is what we do. 





  

THE LIVE-IN...LIVE-OUT DEBATE......CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA.

From 1982 to 1996 as a child and youth care worker and from then to 2006 as a clergy person I lived on the premises of the workplace. We used to say "Living above the cafe". It was part of the package.  The contract was "the accommodation goes with the job. The job goes with the accommodation."..Leave the one, you leave the other. The benefit of this to the employer started as a creeping realisation. Then in the child and youth care setting exploded into dispute. Outcome?... Living -out .was a non-negotiable.

It wasn't only the well being of me and my family that raised the debate but, for me, it came also the possibility that the best interests of the child were not served by being contracted live-ins.

Lets start with the so-called "staff benefit.'Firstly the financial implications. It looks very attractive at first. But when accommodation is part of the packaged deal, the cash portion of the child and youth care worker/manager/director's monthly income is considerably reduced....small. Because the accommodation and meals are calculated to have "value" This is often calculated at least roughly close to the going cost of renting similar accommodation in the market place. The big staff benefit debate for me, started when the South African Revenue Service ( SARS) taxed me on a calculated then-called, "value" to me. The cash portion of my package took yet another knock.

Having a reduced cash salary has many disadvantages for a child and youth care practitioner. The pension contribution was calculated as a percentage of the cash portion. It means, and here I talk from very real, present day financial struggles. It's obvious, the smaller the contribution the smaller the on retirement pension.

One of the compensating ideas in the mind of live-in staff and certainly in the church was the driving motivation to acquire your own residence , initially to rent and then to have somewhere to go if the wheels came off the child and youth care job. And where do you go when you are on leave? I saw some child and youth care workers lock themselves in their flatlets when obliged to take leave. So you explore the surrounding marketplace only to find that the bank will calculate the bond amount granted based on the cash portion of your income. For my 5 years in East London, as plan B, I bought a caravan. 

It was when the tax thing, the bond thing and the pension thing hit home that I realised the other, further benefits to the employer.

When budgeting, most organisations have to calculate what the call "cost to company" If the accommodation has been paid for as building costs, this can be kept quite low especially if meals are provided from the central kitchen. Same for everyone, no overtime costs, no "on call costs". I started to see my cash component as something more like a retainer than a salary. A type of forced overtime.

Now the non-financial issues. A cost to staff is seen to be a reduced experience of "normalisation". At a discernment interview I was put on my backfoot by the question "Why have you spent most of your life in institutions?" I tried to defend myself but found it hard to do. I tried calling it "community living", "living in community","group communal living". The discernment interviewer was unimpressed.  The suggestion was that I had become reliant on institutional life. At very worst, a risk of institionalisation. I did want a life that was normal. For me and my family, to live in my own house, socialise in the broader world, cook my own choice of food my way 

The live-in idea goes a long way back. There is a sneaky possibility that the Bowlby Attachment Theory may have influenced the child care models of care. You know. Children develop multiple connectedness by having made an attachment to one essential primary figure. He suggested,....the mother. So we had "housemothers" live-in alternative mothers, alternative parenting. Rutter 1972 however reassessed the maternal deprivation theory. He found that children and young person's connecting behaviours with others in the ever widening social spectrum will happen even if there are 5 and more primary connection figures. So, the live-out, shift system had for itself a theoretical basis to happen.

Yet the question is pervasive. Do children and young people get benefit in their best interests by having live-in child and youth care workers 24/7?  I know of no published research on this. Maybe there is, but I've not seen it. I have to rely on experience to attempt some kind of assessment of the positives of live-in child and youth care practitioners for children and young people in shorter term residential programmes. I must say that in the latter years when there were both live-in and live-out staff there was always tension between the two. Can't help but wonder why.

There was a time with live-in staff only when I called it "Alice in Wonderland". It happened as a result of a particular incident involving one boy, I applied a  perfectly logical consequence firmly based on an outcome as would be in the real world.Then came the delegations. "We don't do it like that here". Here we just ..........". And the in-here at that time was corporal punishment or transfer. Suddenly it became apparent that there was an out-there and an "in- here".

I wonder if this helps explain something of that tension referred to.

The live-outs always suggested that the live-ins were somehow protected from the real out-there and created an in-here culture, Put bluntly they said they were out of touch. shielded and to some extent protected. Hmmm a formula for tension.

The live-in staff said that shift staff know nothing of the tiredness, the fatigue of the reality of child and youth care and so, they were shielded, protected.

Live-out staff said they brought into the residential lifespace of children and young people, a richness that comes from living shoulder to shoulder exposed to the noise and life, colour, buzz of the township, city, neighbourhood, They said that they and the young people in care benefited from that. That the rub-off effect of living out contributed to help young people to be more coping and more appropriate.....not "Alice in Wonderland " kids.

So was the debate. So I see and hear is yet the debate.

Bring on the research.!!!!