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.