LEAVING THE PRGGRAMME...CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Robert Stott was easily 72 years of age when he told his story at a Board meeting. He had been in the'" Working Boy's House", so he had been working and earning for the time given. Having to leave, he did have somewhere to go...the parental home. He packed hie suitcase, said his goodbyes. When he got to the gate of the St Goodenough Boy's Home he stopped, stood for a long while. The leaving experience paralysed him with fear overwhelming. He picked up his suitcase and walked back into the Home and into the 'Working Boy's House. "I didn't have the courage to leave", he said. What happened after that he didn't say.

For all, in those early days that might have been done, Robert Stott was totally unprepared for the transition from Boy's Home to out there.
Instituionalisation had robbed him of his confidence to make it independently.

Is Robert Stott's story of roughly 1947 a story of today?

For sure in 1996, St Goodenough Boy's Home had what I called the "silly season". About three weeks before the end of the school year when the boy's had finished writing exams and/ or about to turn 18 and required to leave the Home...all Hell broke loose. Windows broken, graffiti, stones thrown, food riots. Damage to the facility's property was probably the main feature of the "silly season". At first I thought that it had to do with some kind of anger aimed at the Home and it's programme for having to be there institutionally in the first place. Eventually, I got to understand the "silly season" acting out differently. It was driven by the same Robert Stott instituionalisation syndrome of fear and uncertainty at having to leave the safety the "Home". In the "silly season", the thought was t "If I am unmanageable, then the social decision makers will say, "he is not ready to leave. We still have work to do."...and they did.

In the training and education of child and youth care workers today, we learn that at the point of entry, you are planning departure (disengagement and transitioning). Right? The question is: What is the  policy, programme and practice, not only to develop, but also prepare the young person for transitioning? 

There are any number of leaving the programme scenarios. Running down an incomplete list: there are young people who will return to the parents (presumably well- enough reconstructed), there are those who return to the nuclear family (reclaimed) and at 18 years of age there are those who have nowhere to go.

I had pleas from a young person. Her plea was that I take action against a facility which at age 18 applied the so called legal requirement that she be released. Her plan was to stay with her boyfriend, but in a very short period of time he sent her packing. She had nowhere to go, she said. So she bedded down under a bridge. She claimed having to beg and being raped. Her claim was that the facility in the first place should not have released her without a permanency plan and then distanced itself defensively when confronted. 

So, we are back as always to 'What do we do?"and "What are we doing?" There was a saying in the field that young people should be raised to be 100% independent but that young people in need of care  should be developed to be 150% independent as the circumstances when they leave often and most frequently require that. Programmes must then surely address this from the point of entry.

There are policy and programme models to prepare young people for transitioning.

In every-day life-space practice the programme sets out "Never do anything for a young person that they can do themselves and if they can't, then side by side with the young person empower them to do it. One of the policies I remember was that young persons over the age of 14 do their own laundry, including ironing. There are programmes that require young people to budget household expenses and go themselves as an age appropriate group to do the buying. All household expenses were explained in terms of a budget. In the dormitory system this was done as an exercise for breakfast and clothing. The programme also included meal planning and cooking.

Real budgeting is life preparation, so St Goodenough had a project in which young people 16 and over were given a paper budget of R2000. ( in those days...enough) Took public transport and given the names of second hand shops in the town. They were to come back with a list, showing comparisons, of the cost, within budget, of setting up a single room as a living space with the essential items. Using public transport varied. They had to be able to use, with support, as needed, taxi, train, and bus.

In one facility there was a policy, "nothing is given for free...no handouts for personal use" It meant that allowances were adjusted upwards to accomodate the young people's personal expenses. As the programme did get public donations, young people were given a choice of taking value loaded vouchers or cash. They could exchange the vouchers for second hand goods in the stock room. If they chose to buy new at a retail outlet they were required to discuss their purchases with the child and youth care worker and produce receipts.

Phased leaving over time is another model. Phased leaving is usually over three phases, but can be more. The phases are planned  to, over time, allow that the parents, nuclear family or the significant other to whom the young person is to be released to take more and more responsibility and reduce dependency on the programme.

Concern is shown that transitioning through semi-independent and independent living programmes (and living spaces)is a missing programme feature in South African child and youth care. There are some, but it appears that there are either not many or not enough.

In the 1960's Brian Gannon helped young people by giving  financial, social and child care support to transition into their own living places.  He said that he was never disappointed.  At that time 6 months after-care was a legal requirement as a responsibility of the facility. It is no longer legally required of the facility, but the external social service professionals can do it. St Goodenough had a coffee club every two weeks for leavers to attend as a support group if they wanted.

We are told that transitioning practice is thin on the ground. The warning lights are flashing in the social media. It is a call for policy makers, management and practitioners to put heads together for policy and professional implementation. Let not the Robert Stott syndrome prevail.


  









   

SACRIFICES MADE...CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA.

In South Africa, social media abounds with posts and comments which either state outright that child and youth care work involves sacrifice or imply that it does.

 In 1923 The Revd Noel Aldridge recognised that there was a huge need for the care of boys either orphaned, or "pragmatically" orphaned (as he put it), in an area called Wichwood in Johannesburg, as a result of the loss of bread winning fathers in World War 1. At first he took boys into his own home ...the Rectory attached to his church. His pleas convinced the Anglo America Gold Mining Company to donate a flat, disused mine dump . No buildings. Noel Aldridge erected 6 large military tents on the land and took in boys.

 In that same year the great flu epidemic struck South Africa. Boys  had flu. Noel Aldridge gave his blankets to a boy with the flu, got the flu himself and died . It was the ultimate sacrifice.
For St Goodenough Noel Aldridge's ultimate sacrifice became the benchmark. Talk of "what I'm losing by doing this" and the Noel Aldridge story would always be raised to silence complaints. The work of the child and youth care worker was labelled "noble"....a "calling". It was expected . 

 Even now,  The deputy Minister of Social Welfare at the National Association of Child and Youth Care Workers (NACCW) said to child and youth care workers that they should not complain if they don't get paid, or if earn only a stipend.

 Noel Aldridge gave up his life, so what do you give up?..It's an unfair comparison. Organisational management Government policy and good  governance should eliminate at least most of our disadvantages as child and youth care workers
Noel Adridge did have a genuine "calling". But professional specialised knowledge, professionalisation and the career choice to use this, is legitimate reason to do child and youth care work. Being professional is not an add-on to a calling.The calling idea is used as an excuse to justify sacrifices because the calling idea is linked to money.

I was once told by a  Board of Management member "We don't want professionals.- they only want money like soccer players. We just want people who love the children"
But, 'Love is not enough"and professionals should be paid for what they are worth.

It really shouldn't mean sacrifice.

All this goes together with the other sacrifices. TIME... Day shift, night shift, 24/7, long hours - sometimes 12 hour shifts. The effects are not only fatigued brains and bodies, the money and the time issues have an effect on our own family life and our own children. We should never have to sacrifice our own children's parenting and care...but frequently we do. Living -in with our own children has its own particular sacrifices. Seldom, if ever, does management ask about how our own children are.
I once did a workshop presentation, discussion. The responses paralleled the concerns I had about having my own children raised in a residential facility. 

Much of this has, or is, changing as live-out staff and shift systems replace the old "Housemother" thinking. And yet in some places it still lingers on.

Living -in sounds like a bonus, but it has with it, it's own elements of sacrifice, It comes as a realisation , some time later, sometimes too late, that if you have need to change jobs or retire, you have no place to go. Cash salaries are reduced as the live-in accomodation and food are regarded as part of the overall package. This means that pension contributions are low aa are pension pay-outs. 

As I said, all of this can be changed. It doesn't have to be so. 

Now for the unchangeables. These really. I think, go with the territory. Dealing every day with the young people's emotional stress and tensions in the life-space has and does have an effect on our own emotional status This is where proper supervision is essential in child and youth care work. In addition repeated acts of verbal attack take their toll. Its a sacrifice against which employers should build in supportive measures to avoid emotional fatigue otherwise known as burn-out.

There is an up-side to all of this, Somehow the sacrifices can be experienced as worthwhile. Noel Aldridge saved a boy's life with his blankets, We save lives with our knowledge, skills and self - our professionalism.

A young man knocked on my door ,. Tall ...and he said "Mr Lodge. Do you remember me?"  I said "Yes" although I didn't recognise him at all. He came in. "I came to thank you." He said. I'm on my way to the Great Ormand Street Hospital in London to do an internship. I'm becoming a pediatric doctor and then a surgeon. Do you remember one evening you sat on the end of my bed and said "You are one young person I believe can really make it. You can rise above all of this. Well, that was a turning point in my life....from then..... I've come to thank you".

All the sacrifices faded in that moment. Somehow it all seemed worthwhile. Knowing what I know. Given a chance. I would do it all again.





  
  

A NIGHT OF PEER INFLUENCE... CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA

It was to do with on-line, life-space development practice with young people. As a start I suggested the Life-space Interview (LSI), Positive Peer Pressure (PPP), Problem Solving, Problem Ownership, I messages ,the assertive communication style, Natural and Logical Consequences.

That night I didn't sleep well. Round and round in my head I relived incidents of peer influence, both negative and positive It probably started with the workshop opening. I said that what the child and youth care workers were doing was  group residential care - better - group residential development. It means that for the child and  youth care worker, the group, in itself, is a tool for development practice. In proceduralising Positive Peer Pressure (PPP), the difference between PPP and Peer Management had to be made. All this overstimulated neuronal energy......insomnia.

Someone once posted on social media, "I don't understand people  who, head on pillow, just fall asleep. Don't they have anything to think about?"

Came to mind arrival at St Goodenough and the programme's system. It was closer to Peer Management than perhaps I first realised. Three models, or systems of "care for boys" were used all at the same time. The private school model, the military model and the boy scout model. Boys managed boys by having Home Prefects, House Prefects, Platoon Leaders, Sargent Majors. Table Monitors, Dormitory Monitors.

When Masud Hoghughi stayed on a visit, he was unimpressed. "Where are the child and youth care workers?" he asked. "This is a formula for abuse. I want to see your Board Chairperson". He was right. Disturbed young people in that system were given authority to manage disturbed young people. "Where are the child and youth care workers?"

Group peer influence was hardly positive. Boys and Girls Town seemed to get it right. I couldn't.

In insomniac moments, moments were relived.

The mantra ...the repeated chorus was "This is the way we do it at St Goodenough". Child and youth care workers fell easily into the refrain.... the culture. "The boys have their own way of sorting things out"tBut the sorting out was hardly developmentally useful. It was the power of the group, but in this setting, it was negative. 

Long story short. Three boys were identified to the police having stolen petrol from the mini-bus and accidentally set fire to the rear of the mini-bust. It was in any case an insurance claim requirement. A very belligerent group delegation  "We don't do it like that at St Goodenough" The threats of assault were aimed at me. Interesting that the protection of the peers was put ahead of the convenience of their own means of transportation . It had nothing to do with the behaviour of the peers. It had everything to do with my response. The peer influence system was powerful enough to pressurise staff and attempt to pressurise the Director. The pattern of this type of incident was ongoing. 

Another image, another place another time.

Ten year old girl on a three story roof threatening to jump. Peer group at ground level chant "Jump ...Jump...Jump"

Then came the positive peer pressure images. Overtime, different setting , different facility culture. The anonymity of hiding in the crowd peer pressure thing changed dramatically when the same young people were shifted into small group residential settings. The child and youth care role become characteristically one of co-regulation and the orchestration of the group toward positive peer pressure.

The "We don't do it this way at St Goodenough "shifted 180 degrees to be supportive of the positive. The group was now fully a tool in itself toward more appropriate, more coping and more developmentally supportive.

In those  sleepless moments many events swirled Thinking back it all had to do with a deliberately designed and created culture. A designed environment if you like. Key words surfaced. Democratic, co-operative ,supportive, social equality. "We have to live together . We don't really have a choice so we have to make it work for all of us," It was not easy. The child and youth care worker was to, and did, call group meetings (called house meetings) at the drop of a hat. At first, unscheduled group discussions were very frequent, but became less and less frequent. Scheduled meetings were a standardised weekly procedure.

The"Ï feel...when you...because..." formula was found to be useful. This was usually the cue for the child and youth care worker to, what I called "orchestrate"the group. "How can we help each other to do this better?" Newcomers into the programme probably experienced the positive peer pressure the most.

Here's an image that surfaced that night.

What I call "food protests".  The "I don't like i, I wont eat it. It's not like my mother does it, It's not my culture"stories. The verbal protest is not the main issue. but the acting out in the group setting. Images surfaced of food throwing, plates overturned. into the mouth then spat out food, aggressive approaches to staff. "How can you eat this crap?" Quick, quick, group meeting.The group became quite good at exploring with the newcomer, and expressing their own, feelings, thoughts, content, alternative behaviours, support and feedback. Usually the group would kick off with "We don't do it like this at St Goodenough.

Those night time images confirmed:

Peer influence, is powerful. Positive Group Peer Pressure, especially, but not limited to, the more more intimate group residential settings is clearly a valuable if not an essential tool in our child and youth care work.









                               

A DISTURBING INCIDENT...CHILD AND YOUTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA

This blog has never deliberately set out to paint pretty pictures of child and youth care issues and incidents simply to make us look good. South African reality has its fair share of incident and situation in need of confrontation and a call for accountability. We have to come out and admit to good and bad. 

An incident of forced removal hit the social media last week.

With a high practical regard for our culture of rights, especially children's rights and our statutory code of professional ethics, children and families are said to be protected.The video on social media showed the forced removal of a child ( it was said to be in Wellington in the Western Cape?). Surely this is an isolated incident but it disturbed me greatly.

The video showed a contingency of what must have been about 6 uniformed armed police forcibly removing a child from off a mothers lap. Bad publicity for Social Service Professional,..bad publicity for South Africa ,or not, this deserves exposure and comment because in my view, this should never happen again. I viewed it twice in quick succession to be sure of what I saw and heard. The third time, access was not accessible "Content unavailable". Must have been somehow blocked. This happens if someone complains or if the content is of a disturbing nature. Below this is perhaps an anxiety that the visual may possibly go viral. Is it possible that there was fear of the South African Police Department and/or Social Services be portrayed in a poor light? 

The reasons for a young crying girl ( I think) to be forcibly removed from her mother's lap by armed police then accompanied away by two uniformed officials are not known. A screaming outraged mother...all of this raises questions.

The first , I guess, is whether there in hard fact, circumstances which would justify such wrenching force and such a large armed police contingent.    

I got a phone call one night from a mother of a 12 year old boy. She was as equally vociferous in her distress, but for a completely different reason."He's sitting on the window ledge of our flat in Hillbrow, It's 6 stories up. He has just again assaulted me. He always assaults me. He says he will jump. Please come now." I knew I would never find the place           ( before GPS!) My reaction "Call the police" But this video didn't indicate risk. This little girl did not appear to be at risk.

Two comments were made. One was not to judge too quickly as there are experienced situations in which Social Service Professional's presence in a possible drug, or violent situation puts the Social Service Professional at high risk of assault. 

Been there, done that, guns and all !! The video didn't suggest anything like that. Just a mother sitting in a chair outside the back door, child on her lap.

I have been accompanied by a single unarmed police officer on occasion, but not for a forced removal . I can however think of situations in which a child would have to be dragged away in what could be construed as a "raid". We used to have a Child Protection Unit  in the South African Police Department .One youngster was abducted by two young men. The unit took 3 months to find him. e was tracked to a child pornography film studio in the garage of some property. A storm in and grab scenario.

What we all want to know the circumstances around this incident. We want to be informed of the reasoning behind so many uniformed armed police using force to remove the child.

So then, if removal,placement and separation is really necessary, how can it be don differently?

First prize obviously is to avoid he removal, placement and separation. The need to do this is determined by what Anna Freud calls "Irretrievable harm"...harm beyond repair.It is an ethical move only if all other possible interventions have been tried and failed. 

This is where child and youth care workers come in. 

Child and youth care workers work alongside the child in its environment. In the living moments of the child's space. A good, tried and tested model of this is the community based programme known in South Africa as the Isibindi Project. I does just that. Trained, registered, supervised and mentored.child and youth care workers work relationally. Generally if placement is needed the child and youth care worker will use orientation and seek consent . One hopes that force then will be avoided especially if Social Service professionals work as a multi disciplinary team to provide a multi faceted integrated programme.... a carefully planned designed strategy to reclaim the life of the child and as far as possible maintain family preservation and restore some level of good enough, safe care 

It all sounds very idealistic but in the community based Isibindi model, it has proved to work.

Let's sum it all up. The visuals and the audio of the facebook video of a forced removal by police, for me, was very distressing, It looked,sounded and felt like secondary abuse.
As Social Service Professionals we are bound to accountability. We need to know the who, what and why of this incident. We really need to be given enough information to know if this was a protective move in the face of great risk or whether it was a violation of the rights of child and family.
We need to be convinced that there was really, really, no other way.
We need to know what was tried and failed. We need to know if any other approach may have been more professional or appropriate in Professional Social Service practice.

.