Site Updates

Regular readers of this blog and visitors to the InterNetwork for Youth will notice that July updates have not yet taken place, and the blog is becoming a bit sporadic. My apologies, but it is a temporary situation brought about by a bit of an excessive workload and some approaching deadlines. I will pick up regular blog entries starting again in about a week, but, at this point it makes more sense to simply delay site updates until August.

Thank you for your patience.

Supporting Romeo & Juliet

Hey all you crazy 14 year olds in Indiana, go out and start having wild and reckless sex! It’s legal now – even with adults. And you grown ups, find yourself a hot little teen and go nuts. No holds barred, its party time!

At least, that’s what you’d think from listening to some media reports of a new law that took effect on July 1st. As with many media reports, what is true may not be entirely accurate.

Public Law 216 is an attempt to modify some of the unintended consequences of increasing legal reactions to sex with minors, such as those that imprisoned Genarlow Wilson who has been discussed previously in this blog. It is one variation of a type of law enacted in many states, known collectively as “Romeo and Juliet” laws; the intention being to stop treating consensual sex between members of roughly the same age group as a criminal and sexual offense. These laws usually have a lower age for peer sex consent, and an age range that is covered. The specific ages vary from state to state, with Indiana’s stipulations being no younger than 14, and no greater than a 4 year age difference. Thus, a 14 year old could have consensual sex with an 18 year old (or 15 with 19, or 16 with 20, or 17 with 21). That is what has lead to the media’s interpretation that adult sex with minors has been legalized.

Look, all of us can quibble with some of the specifics of some of the laws, but on balance the InterNetwork for Youth supports the Romeo and Juliet concept. There is nothing in these laws that excuse non-consensual sex, nor is there anything in them that promotes sexual activity. They simply are an attempt to stop criminalizing the normal, healthy sex drives of adolescents. Turning an entire generation into potential sex offenders with criminal records that will follow them the rest of their lives seems to me to be a far greater harm than any potential downsides of the Romeo and Juliet laws.

Choose to Act

I came across something I wrote for a monthly tip column back in 1999. It still seemed like pretty good advice, so I've reprinted it below:

So, I’m standing in line at a Starbuck’s one morning. I’m not saying that the guy behind the counter was a natural born jerk - maybe he was just having a bad day. In any case, he was flipping such a negative attitude that people in line began to bond with each other, sharing incredulous looks and rolling their eyes. All except the guy in front of me. He just waited patiently in line, smiling at people and seeming to enjoy himself. He gets up to the counter and promptly begins to receive his personal ration of the dude’s attitude, and yet he just keeps smiling, seems to enjoy talking with the guy - and drops a quarter in the tip jar!

A few minutes later we end up at the creamer counter together, and I feel compelled to comment.

"I don’t know how you did that." I said.

"Did what?"

"Remained so pleasant as you dealt with that guy!"

"Well," he smiled, "why should I let other people’s bad moods dictate how I’m going to act?"

I have to admit, that made sense to me. Maybe one of the reasons that there’s so much negativity in the world is that we all go around reacting to each other. In a world like that, the negative is bound to rule. It also got me thinking about how we tend to work with young people.

Let’s be honest. Young people aren’t exactly at a high point in their lives when they come into our programs. As much as we may care about them, and even be able to see beyond their behaviors to the good qualities that they have, the fact is that they can often be obnoxious and offensive. Our work with them is filled with frustration, pain - and sometimes fear. What do you think their experience of us is going to be if we are reacting to them? And, what is our experience going to be? Bottom line, if we react we won’t be very helpful, and we won’t enjoy our work very much.

The key to effective youth work, and the ability to enjoy it, is to train yourself to respond instead of reacting. Just as the guy at Starbuck’s did; he chose to act independent of the stimulus he was getting. And he enjoyed his visit, whereas nobody else in line did.

So here’s this month’s tip. Make up your mind - before you even go into work - how you’re going to experience the day, and how you’re going to act. Then, no matter how you may be tempted to react, choose to act instead. I guarantee that you’ll have a much better day, and you’ll be far more helpful to the young people that you work with.

Hidden Exploitation

Apologies for the lack of a blog entry yesterday. Everyone has a sick day, and yesterday was mine. I will also be off line on Monday, as it is my partner's birthday and we’ll be spending the day at the beach.

So, with all my travels and sick days I’ve gotten a bit behind in my emails. As I’m catching up, I start reading a thread on one of the lists I’m subscribed to. It caught my interest because the original message was asking for information about hiring peer leaders. As people responded with their experiences, one response caught my attention:

“Teenagers have been some of my best workers...they don't cost as much and they know the community.”

Here we have an example of one of my biggest pet peeves; a well-intentioned advocate for young people who, without even realizing it, is exploiting young people. If you think I’m being too harsh, let’s change the population and read this again:

“Illegal immigrants have been some of my best workers...they don't cost as much and they know the community.”

Or …

“African-Americans have been some of my best workers...they don't cost as much and they know the community.”

Does that make the exploitation a bit more obvious? Basically we’re saying; I want to hire ‘these people’ because they bring something of value to me that I can’t get anywhere else (they know the population). And, while I benefit from this special skill, I get to pay them less than I would pay somebody else doing the same job!’

That’s why things like this are a pet peeve of mine. I’m sure whoever wrote this is an advocate for young people, and is creating opportunities for young people to be involved. Yet, at the same time and without even realizing it, they are part of the exploitation and discounting of young people that they are seeking to change.

The Good Part of the Bad Trip

First, a bit of housekeeping. You may have noticed that there haven’t been any July updates to the website yet. Finishing the library article and updating the site was the plan for last Sunday. If you read yesterday’s blog, you know that I was traveling on Sunday instead. I will be getting to the updates as I grab time here and there over the next few days. Those next few days, however, do not include tomorrow. As it is Independence Day -- a day I traditionally sleep in to be rested enough for some serious grilling in the evening -- there will be no blog entry. I’ll be back on Thursday.

Now, for the good part of my trip.

As revealed in earlier entries, I had traveled to Raleigh, North Carolina to present Youth Development: A Winning Hand at Haven House Services (you’ll find their web link on the North Carolina page of the Youth Program Directory). What I haven’t revealed -- at least, not as much as it deserves -- is how impressed I am with both the program and the people who work there. Of course, that may seem like a bit of a redundancy, as programs generally are the people. But, redundancy or not, this is one good combination of people and programs.

I don’t usually highlight programs in my blog, mostly because I don’t want to create some sort of de facto ‘rating system’ where not mentioning a program I visit means that I disapprove. However, I’m mentioning Haven House Services -- specifically the Runaway and Homeless Youth services offered by Haven House -- because they are doing some very unique things in the area of Youth Development that may be worth your time to look into.

For example, Program Director Matt Schnars has developed an innovative supervision tool to keep Youth Development in the forefront of his staff’s interactions with young people. Along with focusing on standard supervision concerns, staff is asked to speak to their efforts toward integrating protective factors into their interactions with young people. There is also a very creative boxing program that is focused less on sparring, and more on the physical and mental discipline required by boxers. Called Second Round, the program is a co-ed example of Youth Development in action. I was honored to have the opportunity to witness the program in operation, and can only say that this is a model program that deserves to be better known.

My point in sharing all of this is to let you know that there is a great resource out there for you to contact. If you are looking to share ideas and information with a RHY program that is on the cutting edge of Youth Development creativity, contact Matt Schnars at mschnars@havenhousenc.org . Tell him Jerry sent you ;-)

Lessons from a Bad Trip

Please indulge my tale of woe, because I really do have a point.

I just got back from a bad trip. I traveled to Raleigh, North Carolina to present Youth Development for Haven House Services. Don’t get me wrong -- that’s not the bad part. In fact, my trip to Haven House was wonderful, and I’ll be telling you more about that part of the trip tomorrow. The bad part was the return odyssey home.

It began with a delayed flight out of Raleigh that got me to Charlotte, North Carolina at about 6:30 in the evening. I had a really tight connection to catch a direct flight back to Portland that would get me in at about 10:00 PM on Saturday, so I was listening very closely when the flight attendant was making gate announcements. My first clue should have been when she announced my flight number, paused, and then went on to the next flight without saying anything. My second clue should have been when I asked the flight attendant for gate information; she said she’d get back to me and then never returned or talked to me again.

It was the third clue that finally got me worried. That was when I got off the plane and looked at the departure board to see no flights to Portland listed. I went up to the nearest gate and asked them to check my flight. Only then was I told that my flight was cancelled and I’d have to go to the ‘Special Services’ desk.

I arrived at the Special Services desk to stand in a long line waiting to see only two Special Services agents. I was in that line for (I’m not kidding, I timed it), 2 hours and 55 minutes before I got to spend the next 25 minutes dealing with the agent and trying to find a way home. When I left the desk I had a $10.00 food voucher (with only a few minutes left before the restaurants started closing; and just try to find food in the Charlotte airport for under 10 bucks!), a flight to Los Angeles leaving at 7:40 AM on Sunday, and another flight out of LA to Portland leaving at 6:45 PM Sunday evening. Not only was it going to be a long trip home, but it looked like I was going to be spending the night at the Charlotte airport.

I went to the gate I’d be using in the morning, found a rack of 4 chairs that didn’t have arms, and bedded myself down for the evening. I was just drifting off to sleep when a security guard wheeled up on a Segway to tell me that the airport concourses close overnight and I’d have to leave. That meant I had to spend the night out past security where there was little more than a hard, cold, and dirty floor to lay down on. I decided to stay up all night.

The story has a little bit of good news. When I got to LA I was able to get on standby for an earlier flight, and I made it back to Portland dirty, tired, and a bit cranky, but only 17 hours later than planned. Of course, there were many irritations in that 17 hours, such as having to repeatedly go through security after I had purchased $3.00 bottles of water, which I would then have to discard (I think I did this about 3 times) -- and, if I wanted to, I could lament the unpleasantness of my journey in far greater detail. But, as I said earlier, this story has a point.

For all the unpleasantness, there were also some good things that happened brought about by something we humans seem to do when we share experiences. We bond, and in bonding we make the hard times a little less hard for each other. I was not the only one whose travel plans were screwed up, and as I interacted with all the other people who were having a hard time I established some really enjoyable -- if temporary -- relationships.

My first acquaintances were the two teachers from Newberg, Oregon, who I later ended up having dinner with as we got to the restaurant just before it closed. We then met a young man trying to get to a party in Detroit. We’d hold his place in line as we sent him out seeking information in other parts of the airport. A woman trying to get to Nashville with her two little children commiserated with us as she struggled to keep her children from going bonkers, and we were later joined by a young woman from Longview whose husband was trying to get help at another service desk. She was in constant phone contact with him and we’d exchange what we were learning about the situation with what he was finding out. She was also dealing with her concerned mother who kept making crazy flight arrangements over the internet to the tune of 13oo bucks and up. We even discussed the possibility of renting a van and doing a road trip back to Portland, as a rumor was circulating that we wouldn't be getting a flight out until Monday or later.

Overnight in the airport I spent some time with the ex-marine who had just been discharged and was trying to get home; the lady from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who tried to rescue a lost kitten wandering around the airport; and the Hispanic gentleman, also headed to Portland, who apparently had the same bladder as I do, as we kept running into each other on the way to or from the restroom. As it turned out, he and I both made it on the standby flight to Portland out of LA the next morning. We were giving each other high-five’s in two languages as they let us onto the aircraft at the last minute.

My final temporary friend was the women I sat next to on the last leg of my journey. She was scared to fly and clutched her stuffed animal the entire trip. Helping to reassure her that we’d be safe may have been the universe’s reason for delaying me to that flight.

None of us knew each other. It’s likely we’ll never meet again and, if we spent more time together, it’s unclear whether we’d have anything in common or even like each other. But for the short period of time that we were thrown together in a bad situation, we were friends and formed a tight support system -- in some cases without ever even knowing each other’s name.

And here’s the point. Do we not see this exact same behavior with youth on the streets? Do we not see them forming tight bonds with people they’ve only just met and know little about? And do we not tend to pathologize that behavior, treating it as another ‘issue’ that the young person needs to deal with? Yet the fact is that this behavior, the tendency to quickly bond and form relationships with strangers who are in similar circumstances, is just like so many other behaviors that we tend to pathologize in street youth. It is a normal, rational, and predictable human response. Put yourself in their situation and you will do the same thing. The proof can be seen in my trip home.

I’m not saying that youth we meet on the streets don’t have issues to work through. We all do. What I’m saying is that they are probably far healthier than we tend to give them credit for, and that many of the behaviors we see as ‘problems’ are really quite normal human responses. We’d be far more helpful to them if we didn’t pathologize the behaviors we’d exhibit if we were in their shoes.

To Understand, Interact

This will be my last entry this week. Thursday I am winging my way to Raleigh, North Carolina, and Friday I’ll be presenting Youth Development: A Winning Hand to Haven House Services ( http://www.havenhousenc.org ). I’ll be back with a new entry on Monday, July 2nd.

Driving into work today I was listening to a talk show while thinking about the upcoming presentation in Raleigh. I realized that what I teach -- working with young people -- is really somewhat of a rare occurrence. The talk show was focused on some new survey about America’s youth (I didn’t catch the actually survey -- it’s only a 10 minute drive to work), and the adults were lamenting how little they understand about young people and the choices and decisions they make. At one point, one of the adults made the statement: “I don’t really have any opportunity to interact with young people”.

I found this to be a very insightful statement, and probably one of the main reasons for whatever problems exist between young people and adults. We don’t interact. Much of the adult population has little or no real contact with young people. Those that do are generally in a role of authority; teachers, parents, counselors, case workers. Rarely do you see situations where young people and adults are colleagues, equals, peers. It’s no wonder we can relate -- there’s no basis for us to try.

Of course, I still find it strange that adults have difficulty understanding young people -- we all used to be one. Somehow we forget what being young was like when we age, which is a real shame. I might also point out that our lack of interaction is under adult control -- we could be creating opportunities for ourselves to interact with young people, we just don’t seem to do so very often. Maybe if we did, we wouldn’t so often lament the fact that we just don’t understand young people today …

A Little Reminder

I just returned from Seattle where I attended my partner’s graduation from Bastyr University, the Leadership Institute of Seattle, with a Masters in Applied Behavioral Science. Also with me watching her graduate were our son and daughter, our niece, and 3 very close friends who had been major supporters of Julia’s as she achieved this milestone. The faculty was all there, of course, as were hundreds of family and friends who were supporters of all the other graduates.

One of the speakers acknowledged the fact that this was a milestone for all of us. While it is the graduates receiving the degree, every family member and friend has a hand in that achievement. We were the ones who struggled with them, supported them, encouraged them, and laid the foundation upon which they now stand to receive their degree. And it was true – I know the group that came to watch Julia graduate often worked as hard as she did in pursuit of this goal.

This realization made me once again remember something that I all too often forget. The young men and women we work with in the foster care system, the juvenile justice system, the runaway and homeless youth system, and all those other ‘systems’ we place young people in, often are trying to achieve their milestones without the support of friends and family. Sure, those of us in the field who work with them try to provide support and encouragement, but on many levels we are unable to do so. We represent the ‘faculty’ in their journey. We are the teachers and the assessors – the ‘pass-ers’ and ‘fail-ers’. In fact, in many cases we are trying to distance them from those who serve as their friends and family, as we see many of them as ‘bad influences’.

So, my experience yesterday put another little reminder note into my head. Remember that the Youth Development Protective Factor of ‘Caring/supportive Relationships’ is not limited to the paid staff and volunteers within our programs. We can only do so much in the way of giving them the support and encouragement they need. We must also pay attention to their friends and family – for if we can’t strengthen that support system, we are sending them into the world missing a critical foundation for success.

Therapeutic Bubbology

NOTE: There will be no entries tomorrow (Friday) or Monday, as I am taking a long weekend for a family celebration. I’ll be back on Tuesday. In the meantime, I thought I’d share a brief article I wrote a few years back. Enjoy!

Whether I’m doing outreach/streetwork, counseling in an office setting, or simply sitting in traffic in my car, it is a rare moment indeed that I am without a supply of bubbles. That’s right -- bubbles, the liquid soap-like kind that you blow through a wand. They’ve been standard equipment in every program I’ve run since I discovered their therapeutic qualities.

Just what qualities might those be, you ask? Well, for one thing -- they’re stress-relieving. Blowing bubbles has an amazing calming effect that can really help put things into perspective. Former smokers have pointed out that watching the bubbles is quite similar to the thought-producing effects they used to get from watching the smoke curl off of their cigarettes. And in terms of making contact with young people, sit on a street corner blowing bubbles and it’s nearly guaranteed that they’ll make contact with you! That’s why bubbles always have a place in my outreach/streetwork packs. Some of the best conversations I’ve had with youth -- both on the streets and in an office -- have been over a jar of bubbles.

But I’m not kidding when I say that they can be used therapeutically. If you’re dealing with someone who is extremely upset -- reach for the bubbles. It seems to be an almost unconscious human response to blow bubbles if they are available. Once a person starts blowing bubbles they are, by the very act, taking deep breaths and exhaling slowly. Isn’t this exactly what we are taught in crisis intervention to help someone calm down? Yet how successful are you telling someone who is upset to take deep, regular breaths? Often, our instructions simply upset them more. But hand them a jar of bubbles and they begin to follow those instructions without being instructed. What more could you ask for?

Over the years I’ve become quite a connoisseur of bubbles, so I’ll leave you with some tips to help get you started.

What kind of bubbles should you use? The short answer is that any kind will do, but there is a brand that I recommend over others. That brand is Pustefix -- made in Germany but easily available in better toy stores everywhere. They are a bit more expensive than other brands, but the bubbles are more colorful, lighter, and longer lasting then any other brand I’ve tried. These qualities are especially important if you’re going to be using them outdoors. You can visit the Pustefix web site by following the link below (it will appear in German, but they have an ‘English’ link). While you’re there, check out the Bubble-Art section!

http://www.pustefix.de/

If price is a factor, you can get other types of bubbles much more cheaply -- the cheapest being those that you make yourself out of dish soap. 1 part Joy or Dawn to 8 parts water works really well! For stronger, longer-lasting bubbles, add 1 tablespoon of glycerin, available in any drugstore. Bubble solution will improve with age, so allow the mixture to sit in an open container for a day or so before use. But be careful about trying to save a few cents, Bubbles that don’t last, or leave a wet, soapy mess in your lap, may be stress-inducing as opposed to stress relieving.

Always buy containers that have the wand attached to the cap. Having to fish for the wand with your finger is messy and unpleasant. The best size container is the 2 ounce size -- large enough for a good supply of bubble mix, small enough to be easily carried -- and easily given away without too great of a loss. I like to keep a nice supply of 2-ounce containers handy (which I sometimes put my own labels on), and a bulk container of Pustefix to refill them.

Also strongly recommended are the ‘Little Kids’ brand no-spill bubble tumblers ( http://www.littlekidsinc.com ). They come in both large and mini sizes. I keep a large one on my desk and a mini in my car. You can use the wand without opening the top, and they really don’t spill. I’ve turned mine upside-down without incident!

So, enjoy your bubbles. And remember -- they’re not just for playtime anymore.

Profitable Parenthood?

Have you heard about this? There’s a new program starting up in New York City that will pay parents for … well … parenting.

Targeting poor families, the program offers cash rewards for fulfilling parental responsibilities. Taking your kid to the dentist earns you 100 bucks; getting them a library card is worth 50 bucks; attending a parent-teacher conference puts 25 bucks in your pocket.

The pilot program is privately funded and is looking to enroll about 13,000 low income families. It is based on anti-poverty experiments that have been conducted in developing countries using a concept called “Conditional Cash Transfers” – the conditions usually tied to behaviors intended to reduce poverty. In the New York experiment, it is strongly focused on educational goals for children, paying parents for responsible behaviors that foster a child’s education.

I’m not 100% certain what I think of this program yet. Certainly, if the funds are private dollars, experiment away, I guess. Of course, the likelihood that this will evolve to a publicly funded program encourages me to look at it a bit more closely. And, when I do, a few warning flags go up.

No doubt the intention is good, but regular readers of this blog are aware that my advocacy for or against things is based not only on intention, but also on consequences – particularly unintended consequences. I think this project is fertile ground for the unintended.

In my Online Library is an article called Carrot Pro’s and Con’s. You can begin there to see some of my concerns with incentives in general. But beyond the pitfalls of incentives, think about the premise of this program. We are basically financially rewarding parents for neglectful parenting. We could end up seeing parents in one part of our nation criminally charged for being neglectful, while parents in New York qualify for cash transfers for the same behavior. It is even possible that being eligible for such transfers creates incentives for having children for parents who should not be having children – making the condition of children in poverty worse rather than better.

And how will this affect the dynamics between parent and child? Certainly I’d support anything that increases the likelihood that a parent will begin to take an active interest in their child’s education and provide the support, guidance, and attention necessary to encourage the child to become more engaged. But does putting a financial incentive accomplish that, or does it simply add more friction between parent and child? A parent who is being neglectful is unlikely to turn loving when cash is involved. A possibility is that the child will be seen now as a cash machine, and ‘encouragement’ from the parent will more closely resemble coercion.

A practical concern is how would such a program be monitored? 13,000 families receiving nickel and dime cash transfers for sporadic events are a logistics nightmare in terms of accountability. Unless an army of case workers is hired to monitor each family and verify the veracity of their activities, you can expect massive fraud resulting in cash transfers with no corresponding benefit to the children.

Granted, I have listed here only the possible pitfalls, but that last pitfall is a big one. I’m not sure we can even verify if the program is working. And if it doesn’t work, it won’t be a benign effort – it may actually make conditions worse.

Language - Part 2

Street Kids, street youth, homeless youth -- does it really matter what label we use? Yes, it not only matters -- it governs our response. Language is a reflection of how we think about things, and our thoughts govern our actions. Are the young people in your program manipulative or resourceful, aggressive or assertive, resistant or independent? The language you use to describe their behavior will directly impact how you think about and provide service.

Whenever common language is agreed upon, we should identify the possible ramifications of that language and be willing to live with them. As a field, I don’t believe we’ve ever really thought about the effects of labeling the population as ‘homeless’ youth. If we ever did that exercise, we might not like the consequences of our choice. While there may be more, what follows are the Big 3 in my mind.

1) Self-screening effects

Bottom line, many of the young people who could benefit from RHY programs simply do not self-identify as homeless. This is particularly true in minority communities, but is also the case with some young people who are ‘couch-surfing’ or living out of motels or some other form of ‘housing’. It is also the case with young people who connect the label ‘homeless’ with adult homeless populations and don’t see themselves as being the ‘skid row’ type. Whatever the reason for their rejection of the label, a program identity that reduces a young person’s willingness to engage is violating the first law of outreach. Our choice to identify as a ‘homeless’ service may be cutting off access for some of the young people who need us.

2) Impact on services

We provide services to meet needs. How we view those needs directly impacts how we provide services. If youth are homeless, the solution is to get them a home -- thus the heavy focus on ‘roof-based’ services within the RHY field. I’m not saying that shelter/housing is a bad thing, or even an unnecessary thing. I’m only saying that it’s probably not the most important thing in terms of transitioning young people off of the streets. It is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Anyone who has ever been involved in RHY housing services should be able to tell you that simply putting young people in a place where there is a roof over their head does not mean that they are now ‘off of the streets’. That condition takes place as a result of conceptual and developmental changes, not changes in address.

Yet we are often so focused on the provision of housing that we fail to provide the housing in a manner that promotes conceptual and developmental changes. Instead, we see young people bombing out of our housing services, and we blame them. We see young people who refuse to enter our housing services in the first place, and we blame them. What we never seem to blame is the fact that we are approaching complex psycho-emotional issues of young people struggling to find their place in our world as simple economic issues of homelessness -- driven to a large degree by the language we use.

3) Blowback on young people

‘Blowback’ is a term that recognizes that for every action there is a reaction. It refers to unintended consequences resulting from intended actions. Labeling youth as ‘homeless’ was an intentional choice that made it made it easier to seek funding by joining existing funding efforts targeting ‘homeless’ populations. It also made it easier to bring young people out of the shadows at a time when talking about issues such as sexual abuse, prostitution, drugs, and other ‘taboo’ topics was … well … taboo. But that choice was not without some blowback, and points 1 & 2 above could be considered part of that blowback. A more concerning part, however, can be seen in the public’s reaction to ‘homeless’ youth when the young people fail to live up to the public’s image of ‘homelessness’.

Let’s face it; a homeless youth is cute. They are a sad child in need of love and a warm hearth and meal. They need a place to clean their innocent, dirty faces, and to be safe from the cruel world that has left them without a pillow to rest their head on at night. That’s the sub-conscious image conjured up when we speak of homeless youth to an uninformed public.

Then they see the young people our programs are serving. Foul-mouthed, armed, drug affected little criminals who are shoving all of society’s foibles and failures right back in its face. Hey! Where’s that cute little homeless kid you’ve been telling us about? This kid scares me. He/she’s a danger to our community. This is a law enforcement issue, not a social service issue. Let’s get those kids somewhere where we don’t have to see them!

And, once again, we blame the youth -- not because of who they are, but because they are not who we want them to be, driven in part by the language we’ve used to represent them. The further they fall from the public’s image of ‘homelessness’ (and, by the way, the more in need of our services they are), the less likely there will be public support for appropriate services to meet their needs.

Conclusion:

I’m not saying that we can fix all the problems with serving RHY populations by simply renaming them -- and I’m not altogether sure what would be a better label -- but I am saying that there are concerns with the ‘homeless’ label that are not being discussed or addressed within the field as far as I can tell. Opening the discussion would seem to be a good first step.

Language - Part 1

The odd thing about American culture is how often we miss the point. An example can be seen in our language regarding runaway and homeless youth.

I use the term ‘runaway and homeless youth’ because that is the accepted terminology for young people who spend some or all of their time disconnected from adult supports and interacting with an alternative ‘street’ culture. Federal programs for this population are referred to in short hand as ‘RHY’ programs. The problem, however, is that with this population we are not dealing with an issue of homelessness.

I’ve made this point before (see Monday, April 16, 2007; Homeless Youth Summit - Part One); the streets aren’t under your feet, they’re under your scalp. Sure, many youth acculturated to the streets spend some or all of their time without a home. However, having a place to live (an apartment, flop, shelter, motel room, being ‘housed’ by someone) does not necessarily mean that you are ‘off the streets’. And the issues of mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, and economics are unlikely to be the primary reason why you are ‘on the streets’ -- though these are the issues that characterize other homeless populations. Labeling youth as ‘homeless’ often alienates youth we may be trying to reach, as many may not self-identify as ‘homeless’ and will screen themselves out of our services, and the services themselves may be less effective with a focus on a problem that is not the real issue.

But, as I said, I’ve talked about this before. However, I can’t remind myself of it often enough, as the ‘culture’ of services for street-acculturated youth is so heavily dominated by the language of and focus on homelessness. That was something I noticed today when I was scanning news articles related to the population.

I searched 3 terms; street kids, street youth, and homeless youth. Based on the first 10 articles to come up related to each of these terms, I noticed that with street kids and street youth - terms that speak more to the culture than an issue of ‘homelessness’ - 70% of the articles were from Canada, the United Kingdom, and (of all places) Fiji - only 30% originated in the United States. But when the search term changed to homeless youth, 90% of the articles originated in the USA.

There seems to be a difference in the language that we use here in the United States. Tomorrow I’ll talk a bit more about some potential ramifications of this language.

Careful What You Teach

She’s suspended, missing her graduation, and she’s getting a lot of flak. Personally, I see her as someone willing to put herself on the line for her convictions. If only we had more people like her in this world.

I’m talking about Savannah Larson, a 13-year-old 8th grader at Monticello Middle School in Longview, Washington. After she sang at an end-of-year concert (the audience of which included students, teachers, and parents) she ended by thanking her choir teacher Connie Noakes for everything she had taught her. She then went into a rant of obscenities and profane language -- shocking and offending just about everyone in the audience, and resulting in her suspension, her inability to attend her graduation, and the above mentioned flak.

If you are unfamiliar with this case you may wonder why I’m painting a foul-mouth teenager who publicly offended people as a hero of sorts, so some background information is required. According to Ms. Larson, her choir teacher, Ms. Noakes, routinely uses abusive language in her classroom. Every word Ms. Larson spewed at the concert was a repeat of the words Ms. Noakes spewed at the students. Ms. Larson had tried other routes. She and her mother had complained “several times” to the school administration, but nothing was ever done. Now Ms. Larson was graduating. She could have just let it go, and allowed the next group of 8th graders to put up with the choir teacher’s unique communication style. Or she could do something about it. She could demonstrate in public what the students experience in private -- risking suspension, missing her own graduation, and public ridicule in the process. She, in my opinion bravely and honorably, chose the latter.

One wonders why behavior that is apparently OK in the classroom is not OK at a public concert. Never-the-less, something is being done now. An investigation is finally underway -- an investigation that would not be underway if it wasn’t for Savannah Larson.

Update on Genarlow Wilson

In my entry titled “A True Travesty” on March 29, 2007, I related the case of Genarlow Wilson, a 17 year old high school senior serving a 10 year prison sentence for consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and classmate. Now 21, Mr. Wison has been in prison for the past 28 months. However, there has been some recent good news … sort of.

A judge has voided his sentence, but it is not yet time to celebrate. He remains in jail pending an appeal by the Georgia State Attorney General.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker argues that the 10 year sentence is valid, that the judge has no authority to reduce or modify a sentence imposed by trail court, and that there is a plea deal on the table that would reduce the sentence to 5 years and remove Mr. Wilson from the sex offender roles.

The judge who threw out Mr. Wilson's ten-year sentence amended the charges to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month term, plus credit for time served, and no registration as a sex offender. Even this charge and sentence sounds harsh for consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 15 year old, but at least it would get Mr. Wilson out of prison and off of the sex offender registries. All that stands between Mr. Wilson and freedom at this point is the Georgia State Attorney General.

NOTE: Tomorrow I am out of town attending a service learning training, so there will be no Thursday blog entry. I’ll be back online on Friday!

Thirsty?

13 year old Middle School student Kyleray Katherman attends the Oregon Coast Technology School located at the North Bend Middle School in North Bend, Oregon. It seems that the school had a problem with students sneaking Vodka into the school in water bottles. So, how does the school respond? I’ve talked about this before -- they responded with the standard knee jerk adult response to youth issues: ban something.

In this case they banned water bottles. Young people drinking alcohol in school? Easy solution: ban water bottles -- problem solved.

Except that I seriously doubt that the problem is really solved, or even addressed. However, an entirely new problem has been discovered.

In an assignment for an English class, of all things, Mr. Katherman decided to conduct water tests within the school. He tested 5 water sources; 4 drinking fountains and 1 toilet. As his tests revealed, if students want to drink clean water at Mr. Katherman’s school, their best bet is to drink out of the toilet.

(I love this part) Mr. Katherman presented his findings to the School Board with a PowerPoint Presentation, and recommended that they either lift the ban on water bottles (my note: and maybe address the real problem?) or install water coolers.

Some plumbing has been replaced at the drinking fountains, and all were given a thorough cleaning by custodians. Some teachers are also providing water in their classrooms -- but so far there are no water coolers and the ban on bottled water remains in place.

A Question of Sensitivity

Here’s a question that came up at one of my “Communicating with Young People” presentations:

Question:

“What’s the best way to approach sensitive issues, such as sexual abuse or rape?”

My response:

This has always been a difficult aspect of working with young people, particularly for those who are new to the field. It can be an extremely uncomfortable experience to sit with an adolescent -- perhaps as young as 12 or 13 -- and discuss very grown-up issues such as sexual abuse, prostitution, or rape, or even less weighty but equally sensitive issues such as hygiene. It is a natural instinct to want to soften the issue by speaking indirectly, or peppering the conversation with kind euphemisms. The reality, however, is that doing so is really an act of protecting ourselves, not the young person we are working with.

You should always remember why you are having the conversation in the first place. The reason is that the sensitive issue you are discussing is a part of the young person’s experience. It may be unfortunate that they have had such experiences, but -- bottom line -- they have. When we talk to them about these issues we are not discussing some abstract concept, we are discussing their lives. By speaking indirectly or using euphemisms, we end up communicating two messages that we may not intend.

The first message is that what has happened to them is so horrible that we can’t even discuss it. The likely result is that we leave them feeling tainted, damaged, and shamed. That’s not our intention; we want to make things better. But these issues are now a part of them. If we can’t even talk about it, what does that say about them?

The second message has to do with what it says about us. When we demonstrate that we can’t even say the words, we inadvertently communicate that we can’t handle the reality of their lives. Young people will quickly pick up on this, and begin to ‘protect’ us by not sharing the parts of their lives that we’ve shown an inability to deal with. Instead of becoming a resource and support, we slowly become a burden -- someone who they need to take care of by being careful about what they will share.

Sometimes our response adds anger to the list of emotions that they are dealing with. We once had a streetwork team dealing with a recent rape victim. The team accompanied her to the hospital and waited with her for a rape advocate to arrive. The whole time they were with her, one of the workers kept euphemistically referring to the rape as ‘the incident’ -- were you injured during the incident, did anyone witness the incident? Finally, the young women lashed out in anger, shouting – “Dammit! I didn’t have ‘an incident.’ I was raped!”

I am not suggesting that you callously use the most graphic terminology available to you. I am suggesting, however, that you confront these issues in a direct, straightforward manner. Remember that you’re not talking about anything that they haven’t lived. If you communicate that you can’t even say the words, you are unlikely to be seen as someone who can help.

For related information, read the article “Tough Talk” in my Online Library (link above).

No Comment

Yep, no comment today, tomorrow, or Friday. I’m on my way to present Youth Development: A Winning Hand in Auburn, Washington – so the blogging must give way to facilitating (and travel) the rest of this week. Look for more Youth Advocate Online on Monday, June 11th.

The Scorpion in Foster Care

“Youth exiting the foster care system face one of the highest rates of homelessness, with more than half of street youth flowing from the foster care system.”

This isn’t news, I’ve talked about this before. I’ve pointed out that the United States foster care system is the source of around 40% of the youth we see on the streets, according to the studies I’ve looked at. Of course, what’s different in this quote is the percentage. Instead of 40%, this quote claims that more than half of street youth originate in the foster care system. Why the difference? Maybe it's because I’m talking about a different country.

This quote is from a Canadian paper discussing homeless issues in Vancouver, British Columbia. I haven’t read the documentation to see if the percentage is accurate, so I can’t confirm that an even greater number of foster care youth end up homeless in Canada. It really doesn’t matter, though. If the figure is at all accurate, then the conclusion has to be that there are serious problems with foster care in both nations.

I could list the visible problems with foster care in either nation, but I’m more of a “disease” kind of guy. Okay, that sounds creepy, but what I’m trying to say is that we far too often focus on symptoms, and then we are left scratching our heads wondering why nothing changes. The insufficient reimbursement, the poor screening (a recent study in California found that only 47% of caregivers were properly assessed), the lack of adequate training, support, and oversight – these are all symptoms, and I fear that even if we were to wave a magic wand and fix all of these symptoms (though I don’t advise holding your breath on that one), we’d simply discover new symptoms and still have foster care failing for a large percentage of young people.

So, what’s the disease? I don’t know, but I have a theory. It came to me when I was thinking about that old fable of the scorpion and the turtle. In case you haven’t heard it, the story goes that a scorpion asked a turtle if he could ride on the turtle's back to get across a pond. The turtle said; “No. You’re a scorpion. You’ll sting me and I’ll die.” The scorpion replied; “If I do that, I’ll drown, so you don’t have to worry that I’ll sting you.” That made sense to the turtle, so he let the scorpion onto his back and proceeded to cross the pond.

About halfway across, the scorpion stung the turtle. Shocked, and with his dying breath, the turtle asked; “Why would you do such a thing? Now we’re both going to die!” The scorpion’s last words as he sank into the water were; “I couldn’t help it … I’m a scorpion.”

I’m not calling the foster care system a scorpion. I’m just pointing out that things can only be their nature. The nature of the foster care system – the entire concept upon which the system is based – is temporary care for young people. By its nature, foster care is instability and inconsistency – the two things that are absolutely guaranteed to work against a young person’s healthy development.

Explore any facet of child welfare systems and you will quickly learn that the over-riding mandate is safety. I am not advocating against safety, I am only saying that if safety results in a lack of stability and consistency, we really aren’t making a young person safe – we are simply delaying the risks.

Don't Act, Take Action

Surfing around the web looking for articles related to youth homelessness, I came across an account of a group of students who spent 8 hours on the streets pretending to be homeless. Titled Nowhere to Go: Students talk about night of homelessness, the article detailed how the experience was (in the words of one) “the worst 8 hours of my life” and how another “broke down and cried”.

This is not the first time I’ve heard of things like this. Periodically, groups of young people in Portland do the same thing. When I ran programs, I would sometimes receive requests from such groups for permission to ‘experience’ drop in or shelter services (requests that I always denied).

I have such mixed emotions in response to these groups. On the one hand I admire the passion and intention, but I can’t help feeling that it’s misguided. Youth on the streets need assistance; they don’t need more youth on the streets pretending to be them. And, while I understand the goal is to give the participants greater understanding, I think it’s a goal that is both unachievable and unnecessary. It’s unachievable because it is impossible to duplicate the socio-economic condition. Every young person pretending to be homeless knows that they are not. This will end in a few hours, and they go back to the safety and security of their homes. That reality makes it impossible for them to truly experience homelessness, as the true impact of homelessness is not about where you are, it’s about the options you don’t have. And then there’s the psycho-emotional component that is also impossible to duplicate. Unless you can find a way to put them on the streets within a context of abuse, neglect and adult betrayal, they won’t really understand anyway.

Besides, as I said, the whole thing is unnecessary. Does someone really need to pretend to be homeless for a few hours to grasp the concept that being homeless sucks? I have been fortunate in my life to never have lived in a war zone like the people of Iraq are currently experiencing. Yet I can honestly say that I don’t feel a need to live in Baghdad for 8 hours to understand that they are suffering, need help, and that I would not wish to live that way.

Youth who are truly homeless and surviving on the streets have so many needs that I can’t help thinking the world would be better if these compassionate young people had used their 8 hours helping, rather than imitating.

LGBTQ Resource

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. An advocate for runaway and homeless youth has to be an advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. To ignore that segment of the population is to ignore up to 40% of the young people you meet on the streets. That’s why I was so pleased to come across a new resource available through the National Runaway Switchboard.

“Being Out, Being Safe" is a new brochure designed to explain the realities facing LGBTQ teens, offer tips for youth and adults on how to become an ally of LGBTQ youth, point to resources where LGBTQ teens can find additional services and support, and present related statistics. You can view the brochure here:

http://www.1800runaway.org/pub_mat/documents/LGBTQ.pdf

More on Boredom or Bars

Yesterday I came out against jailing kids for skipping school, opting instead to advocate for looking at the school system and determining why it is failing to engage young people. I was prompted by an article in the Seattle Weekly highlighting how truancy is being dealt with in Washington State as a result of that state’s Becca Bill. Lest I be accused of hiding facts, however, I feel it only fair to mention something else that was in the article: since the establishment of the Becca Bill, King County (including Seattle) has seen its juvenile arrest rate drop by nearly a third.

Does that change my position? I’m going to have to go with “no”.

Lets leave aside for a moment how much fun we can have with statistics. I would need to see more conclusive data than a line in a newspaper article before I accept the veracity of the assertion. And, in any case, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. There is any number of factors that could contribute to a drop in juvenile arrest rates. Has there been a significant change in the population base? Have funding cuts reprioritized police focus? Are King County’s young people simply behaving better? These are the things I would want to look at before I bow at the alter of the Becca Bill.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s say I looked at every possible angle, and the result of my investigation is that the drop in juvenile arrests is unequivocally due to the truancy enforcement of the Becca Bill. Surely that would change my position, yes?

Uh … no.

If something is wrong, it’s wrong. It doesn’t become right because it has a desired effect. The Soviet Union had one of the lowest crime rates in the world. The streets of their cities were safe to walk any time of the day or night. All it took was a complete suppression of human liberty and a totalitarian police state. But, hey, the crime rate plummeted.

Young people have developmental needs. When we fail to meet those needs, we see things like delinquency and juvenile crime. When the systems we have in place to meet those needs are failing, we should fix the systems. Incarcerating young people may … may … reduce juvenile crime (at least temporarily, until we’ve bred a new generation of institutionalized youth), but it certainly doesn’t do much to aid a young person’s healthy development.

Boredom or Bars

Why is it that our response to everything is to throw people in jail? It would be one thing if it worked, but I’ve talked in previous entries about the blowback we’re beginning to see on the streets (see Tuesday, May 15th – Homegrown Gang). Am I the only one who sees the irony of living in a country that claims to be the bastion of freedom and liberty, yet we have a higher percentage of our population in jail than any other country – and remember, that includes countries like Iran and China. In fact, it is estimated that there are 9 million incarcerated individuals on this planet. Over 2 million of them – 22% -- are in the United States.

I started thinking about this when reading an article in the Seattle Weekly. It was about the response to truancy as dictated by Washington State’s Becca Bill. Passed in response to a public outcry after the murder of Rebecca Hedman, a 13-year-old runaway who was beaten to death in Spokane, the bill was designed to give parents and the courts more ‘control’ over disobedient, runaway, and at-risk children. Seeing truancy as a predictor of future problems, lawmakers decided to extend the bill to cover truancy.

The article focused on a 15-year-old male and his friends. Described by counselors as a “nice, smart boy with good intentions”, he is also described as having incompetent parents. His father is in Chicago with little involvement, and his mother is said to ‘typically’ have ‘no idea where he is or what he is doing’. He finds school ‘boring’ – so he often skips with his friends and runs wild in the streets – if your definition of ‘wild’ is spending the day at a downtown game store playing Dance Dance Revolution.

So, let me get this straight. Here we have a smart, basically good kid. His parents don’t parent, and his only option is a boring, unchallenging school system that is failing to engage him or meet his needs. How should we respond to this? Hmmm … lets see … how ‘bout we put him in jail?

After the school filed a mandatory truancy petition, police officers came to his home, handcuffed him, put him in a squad car and drove him to a juvenile detention facility. He donned the required green jumpsuit and was marched past violent offenders to a cell upstairs. And there he sat, incarcerated with youth who have hurt, robbed, and stolen from people for the high crime of skipping school. It reminds me of Arlo Guthrie in Alice’s Restaurant, sitting on the Group-W bench telling the murders that his crime was littering.

Look, I am not against addressing truancy. I just think that maybe we should address the real cause of truancy – a school system that is failing our youth – rather than giving our young people a choice between mind-numbing boredom or incarceration.

Cooper's Challenge

Last Saturday morning I’m waking up listening to the Satellite Sisters on the radio. It so happens that they’re interviewing Anderson Cooper. One of the questions they ask is; of all the stories you’ve covered around the world, which was personally the most difficult for you?

Cooper names Katrina, and one of the reasons he cites was how physically and emotionally challenging it was. You see, Cooper explains, with most stories there’s a hotel and a restaurant waiting for you at the end of the day. You can get a good meal, a shower, and have a place to sit, reflect, and regroup. You can have a good night’s sleep before you have to go out and face the horror of whatever story you’re covering once again.
Katrina, on the other hand, was a “360 degree experience”. There was no “retreat” – it was 24 hours a day, living in a car, no hotel to rest your head or restaurant to get a good meal.

I don’t want to diminish Cooper’s experience in any way. I’m sure it was hard for him for those few weeks. But, as the son of a Vanderbilt, and a successful man in his own right, I have to think that his experience sat on a foundation of knowledge that his situation was temporary and by choice. He knew there was a way out, and at any moment he could have decided to go anywhere in the world, have his good meal, find a safe, warm bed.

If this experience was impactful on him, imagine how it is for street youth. Their’s too is a “360 experience” – no retreat to go to, no relaxing meal at the end of the day. But for them, there is also no safety net. They can’t just decide that they are done and take off to cover a different story. For them, the story is their life, and to maintain even this level of “life” requires acculturating to a world of violence, drugs, and sex trade.

If a wealthy adult finds dipping his toe in this pool challenging, imagine what its like for an adolescent who is drowning in that same pool.

Remembrance

Monday is Memorial Day, which means you’ll have to go three days without my wit and wisdom, as I’m taking the day off. Hopefully, many of you are, as well -- so perhaps I won’t be missed.

Of course, Memorial Day also means remembrance of those who have died in service to the United States. While honoring that service, I can’t help but also remember the impact of war on young people. From loss of life, to loss of family, to lose of innocence and security, to loss of economic opportunity, war impacts a nation’s youth more than any other single group. This is why war should never be ‘opted’ for -- it is a last resort; a no-other-choice circumstance; an exception, not a rule.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a pacifist. If there is a need to fight, we fight. I just believe that a true need to fight is an extremely rare circumstance, and I don’t believe there is ever justification for the initiation of force. Believing that as I do, I was somewhat jolted by a statement I heard on the radio.

It is almost Rose Festival time here in Portland; an annual event that lasts for weeks. In preparation, a Rose Festival representative was being interviewed on a morning talk show and was describing an opportunity for veterans to march in the big Rose Festival parade. In making the point that it was open to all war veterans, she said in a casual, almost off-hand manner; “it doesn’t matter what war”.

It doesn’t matter what war. No point in being specific, it would be too hard – the list is too long. From the Cold War, to Korea, to Vietnam, to Libya, to Lebanon, to Granada, to Panama, to the Persian Gulf, to Somalia, to the Balkans, to Haiti, to Afghanistan, to the Persian Gulf again – just to name a few – the United States has been in virtually a constant state of war since the day I was born, with the majority of those wars undeclared as required by the Constitution.

The Rose Festival representative was right. It doesn’t matter what war in terms of honoring the service of those who fought – but it matters a great deal, particularly to our nation’s youth, that there is so much service to honor.

A Question of Priorities

Every once in a while I get slapped upside the head with evidence of how screwed up our priorities are. That’s what happened this morning.

I’m probably just sensitive to the issue because I’m knee deep in writing a grant proposal for street outreach funding. It’s taking weeks out of my life as I labor over the best way to present years of work by hundreds of paid staff and volunteers in a manner persuasive enough to convince the grant reviewers to award $100,000.00 out of the $8,400,000.00 available nation-wide. Programs lucky enough to win this national competition will be able to keep offering the most challenging of services to most in need and difficult to reach population on a budget that can be generously described as a shoe string.

Yet the big news in Portland this morning is that we won a lottery. I have to confess, I’m not a huge sports fan – so I don’t know that much about basketball. I do know that our local team, the Trailblazers, has had a few rough years, and that against long odds they just won first pick in a draft lottery – meaning they’re going to get to bring some big time player to Portland. The pick hasn’t been made yet, but everyone is all excited about who it may be. Predictions of what a great year is ahead for the team are sucking up all the media air time. And, based on these predictions of a great season, the Trailblazers ticket office just announced that yesterday – in less than 23 hours – they made over $2,500,000.00 in advance ticket sales.

Look, I don’t begrudge people their basketball. I just get frustrated when people tell me there’s no money to significantly impact the lives of runaway and homeless youth, and then I see the community cough up in a single day 25 times the amount of money I’m begging for, and nearly 30% of all the money available for street outreach for the entire nation for the entire year. It just makes me question our priorities a bit.

RHY and Sex Trade

When I started in the runaway and homeless youth field – and when many RHY services were first developed – youth involved in the sex trade was a huge concern. Of course, back then the issue wasn’t “youth involved in the sex trade” – the issue was juvenile prostitution. In fact, many services were developed specifically in response to this issue. Early regional and national conferences were organized around issues related to prostitution. Here in Portland, the original service system for street youth was called Project LUCK, and it was a community-wide response to homeless young people prostituting themselves on the streets.

And that’s the way it was back then. The issue was visible and in a community’s face. Young people were standing on street corners getting into cars and turning tricks in such an obvious way that you would have to have been blind not to see it (though, admittedly, many communities managed that feat). That was in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s; before cell phones, the internet, and a host of other changes. Today, youth involved in the sex trade looks very different than it used to, and even the language has changed. We don’t hear much about juvenile prostitution anymore – but it’s a mistake to believe that young people aren’t using sex as barter. The issue has not gone away, it’s simply wearing a new look.

IMHO (just testing your netlingo abilities – IMHO means In My Humble Opinion), RHY services have not kept up with these changes. The number of services around the nation that specifically address youth involved in the sex trade can be counted on your fingers, and the vast majority of RHY services appear to me to be unprepared in dealing with this segment of the population. Because we don’t see visible populations getting in and out of cars with anywhere near the regularity that we used to, we fall into an out of sight, out of mind response that leaves our programs unable to adequately respond. Many programs I’ve worked with are of the belief that they simply aren’t seeing young people in the sex trade, which to me means one of two things – either they aren’t offering services in a way that is appropriate or accessible; or they are seeing these youth, but they are not seeing this issue. Neither one of these options should be acceptable to us.

A New Recommended Resource

I had the honor of meeting Claudine O’Leary last Friday when she was in Portland doing presentations on Harm Reduction and issues facing youth in the sex trade for the Northwest Network for Youth. I am usually hesitant to recommend a person or resource before I meet or experience them personally and, having done so with Ms. O’Leary, I have no remaining hesitation. You can contact and find more information about Claudine O’Leary and her Rethink Resources project at her website; Rethink Resources.net (I have provided a link in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth). Stop reading this blog and go check out her site, then come back tomorrow for some of my thoughts on youth in the sex trade and current RHY services.

Cultural Awareness

I was doing a Google news search for articles related to street kids and discovered that there’s a new drop in center being planned. It’s location? Lahore, Pakistan. It reminded me once again of the need for cultural awareness training for agencies that work with street-dependent youth. However, I’m not talking about Pakistani, or any other ethnic, culture -- I’m talking about street culture.

When I first wrote my manual describing the culture of the streets, my intention was to develop a training resource for the staff and volunteers of the programs I was running here in Portland. As word got out about the existence of this resource, I started getting orders from places like Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and other cities around the nation. I was nervous that the information, based mostly on experiences here in Portland, wouldn’t be applicable to street youth populations in other cities. Then I got really nervous when orders started coming in from places like Canada, Guam, Israel, Norway, South Korea, and Turkey. How could my Portland experience with street youth be in any way applicable to street youth in other nations? It turned out, according to the feedback I received, that all they needed to do was overlook the United States references -- the culture being described was little different from what was being seen on their streets.

Street culture is not national, racial, or ethnic. It is formed when young people voluntarily or involuntarily c0me together to survive outside of traditional supports and social structures. Those traditional supports and structures may look very different around the world, but the culture formed by young people who abandon (or are abandoned by) those supports and structures is remarkably similar.

When I travel around the country presenting on issues related to street culture, I carry with me an article that appeared in my local paper, the Portland Oregonian. I read my audience the title of the article; Shelter serves as lone escape for abused runaways; and the subtitle; Girls fleeing brutal homes find a haven that helps them avoid lives of drugs, crime and prostitution. I then share some selected paragraphs from the article:

For years, (we) chose to ignore the problem of … runaway youth. But as more and more chil­dren have taken to the streets -- and fallen prey to prostitution, crime and addiction … (we’ve) had no choice but to act.

"Divorce, addiction, (and) poverty … are the main causes of runaways," said the 30-year-old manag­er of … the shelter .... "There are par­ents who force their children to steal money for their heroin addic­tion. There are parents who brutal­ly beat their children."

(The shelter houses) 24 girls, ages 12 to 17

Their stories came spilling out, … and they documented some of the social ills … divorce, parental abandonment, addiction, child abuse, unemployment, ...

When finished, I ask if this sounds terribly different from the local programs? Sure, this was in the Oregonian, but could it have been in your local paper describing a program here? Universally, my audiences recognize that there is little difference between this article and what might have appeared in their local papers. That’s when I drop the bomb and let them know that I’ve lied to them -- but just a little. Everything I’ve said is true; the article appeared in the Oregonian and the quotes are accurate. My only deceit was the title of the article -- I left out a word. The real title is; Shelter serves as lone escape for abused Iranian runaways. While the article appeared in the Oregonian, the program being described is located in Tehran, Iran; a fundamentalist Islamic republic that could not be more culturally different from the United States if it tried. But when young people find themselves in the position of surviving outside of adult guidance and support, the culture formed in Tehran is very similar to the culture formed in Portland, and the services required mirror those required anywhere else. Thus you see shelter programs in Tehran, and drop in centers in Lahore.

Despite all of this, most cross-cultural training I see in youth programs is related to racial and ethnic culture, with street culture largely ignored in terms of a specialized training focus. Ignored, or delegated to having a copy of my manual laying around -- highly recommended, of course, but a 9-year-old manual ready for an update is hardly a substitute for an integrated focus on working cross-culturally with street-dependent young people. If such an integrated focus does not exist within your organization, you’re services are probably going to be less effective than they could be.

Meet the Grups

Imagine if you will …

Human beings are not the only humanoid race living on the planet. Among us, and in greater numbers, lives another humanoid species called the Grups. The Grups are virtually identical to us, except that they are larger, stronger, and incredibly long lived. While an average human lifespan may be about 80 years, a Grup lives well over 300 years. The oldest Grup alive today was born in 1687. He was 89 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Due to these differences, the Grups have accumulated all the wealth and power. They are not hostile toward human beings. In fact, they feel protective of us. They don’t really respect our input, however, as our vision is so short sighted compared to theirs. They actually regard us as only temporarily here, and they definitely feel that they know our needs better than we ever will. As a result, they make our decisions for us and, when they do allow us some level of participation, it’s usually pretty patronizing.

In case you haven’t guessed yet, this is an analogy for the relationship between young people and adults; adults being the Grups (Star Trek fans may note that I stole that from an old original series episode). A young person lives about 20 years, approximately 1/4th our total lifespan. Soon after that, they are no longer a young person -- they are an adult. They are different physically, developmentally, and have greater access to wealth and power. They begin to develop a longer term perspective, and have a much greater foundation of experience upon which to base their decisions. The fact that young people are, in a sense, ‘temporary’ beings is a contributor to the conditions I described in yesterday’s blog -- where adult systems make laws and regulations that affect young people without feeling any obligation to consult young people. It’s entirely understandable how this happens. Ask any Grup, they’ll be happy to explain it to you. But, is it right, and is it really in a young person’s best interest? Ask any human living under the benevolence of the Grups, and I suspect they’ll say ‘no’.

Who's Missing?

I read an article today in the State Journal-Register, a newspaper out of Springfield, Illinois. The article was about legislation being considered that would put new rules and regulations on teenagers. Bills being considered ranged from extending nighttime driving curfews, to allowing teachers to search lockers without student consent, to suspending drivers licenses for underage drinking, even if the young person was not in or near a vehicle when the offense was committed.

The article talked about the various committee hearings and processes used to consider the proposed legislation. It identified the numerous attorneys, teachers, and judges who participated in the discussions and provided testimony. The article also admitted that, throughout the entire process of considering legislation that affects teens, there was one group that was conspicuous in its absence … teens.

Unfortunately, this is not a newsflash or unusual circumstance. Involving young people in the processes to create legislation that directly affects them is the exception, not the rule. Youth under 18 are not permitted to vote, and this lack of power over the system generally means that adults feel no obligation to include them in the system -- but they are not excluded from control by the system.

This is a circumstance that would not be tolerated if applied to any other group in our culture. Can you imagine considering legislation affecting the business community, or a minority population, or teachers, without even feeling the need to involve them in the process in any way what-so-ever? People would be, and should be, outraged. But teens? We act without their involvement, and don’t even give it a second thought. The next time someone questions why teens so often feel alienated and disconnected from politics and social issues, this might be a point worth mentioning …

Accepted Truths

Political junkie that I am, I lost 90 minutes of my life watching the Republican presidential debate last night (the term ‘debate’ being used in its broadest possible connotation). Oddly enough, something actually happened …

Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that the attacks of 9-11 were in part the result of blowback -- a CIA term for responses to our activities in the world. This statement was treated as blasphemy by the 9 other candidates, particularly Rudy Giuliani who responded with obvious and apparently genuine anger that Mr. Paul would say such a thing. In the aftermath, most pundits I’ve seen have been marginalizing Mr. Paul as nothing less than a nutcase, pretty much relegating him to the Rosie O’Donnell camp and making it appear that he said 9-11 was our fault, or perhaps even that we knew about or possibly staged 9-11.

It’s been fascinating to watch this reaction because, of course, Ron Paul said no such thing. All he said was that actions have consequences, and 9-11 did not occur in a vacuum. The popular view that we were just sitting back minding our own business when suddenly madmen came to our shores completely overlooks the decades of American foreign policy in the middle east -- including involvement with and support of an obscure Saudi fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan named Osama Bin Laden.

But, wait a minute (I hear you say) … this is a youth advocacy blog. What does this have to do with young people? Setting aside for the moment that war always has to do with young people -- and, due to this fact, reserving the right to bring up similar issues in the future -- your question is valid. I’m simply bringing this up as an example of two things that I see far too often within youth services.

Agree with him or not, Mr. Paul offered a perfectly legitimate perspective -- yet if the debate format had allowed the other candidates to shout him off of the stage, they would have. Why? Because his perspective challenges the accepted truth of 9-11; that the United States was an innocent victim of an unprovoked attack. To even suggest that there may have been a context for that attack is to remove yourself from the debate. This way of thinking, that there is one truth and other perspectives are dangerous, and therefore need to be crushed rather than considered, permeates our entire culture today -- including youth services.

You see this when we discuss outcomes, and the suggestion that we shouldn’t be measuring things like jobs and education is met with blank stares before the conversation moves on ignoring the suggestion. You see this when you propose that street violence is, at its root, a cultural survival response, and your words are lost in the din of calls for more jails to remove these bad kids from our society. You even see it when a book like All Gods Children is released, and it is loudly condemned by people who haven’t read it.

And what about the real point that Mr. Paul was making; that actions have consequences? Youth services are often reasonably good at seeing young people’s deficit regarding this basic law of the universe. Part of a young person’s transition out of street life, for example, involves developing a connection between the actions they take and the results they get. Despite our position as role models, however, we are often blind to this law ourselves. Responding to funding pressure for tangible short-term outcomes, services evolve to being developmentally inappropriate to the needs of homeless youth. Youth begin to fail within services, or stop seeking services altogether. Our response? Must be something wrong with the kids -- I guess they just don’t want to get off of the streets. That’s the only answer -- because it can’t be us. It can’t be that our actions also have consequences.

I get really frustrated when politicians act on blind faith and blame everyone but themselves. I get both angry and sad when youth services do the same thing.

Homegrown Gang

Last night on my local FOX affiliate, channel 12, there was a news story about the European Kindred. If you are reading this from outside of Oregon, you may not have heard of the EK’s, but they are a gang that was formed in the late ‘90’s in Oregon’s prisons. The European Kindred has now spilled out onto the streets as members are being released and paroled. Fueled by meth and identity theft, they are growing and dangerous.

Like most 5 minute ‘in depth’ news stories, there was little information contained in the report -- but there was one aspect of it that caught my attention. The report interviewed Dave Kennedy, founder of the European Kindred. Today Mr. Kennedy claims to have broken his ties to the gang, and regrets how it has morphed from what he founded in prison to the criminal, violent enterprise it has become on the streets. You see, according to Mr. Kennedy, the European Kindred was originally founded as a kind of protection society for white teens being victimized in prison. Said Mr. Kennedy; “A lot of people saw these (younger white teens) come into prison tried as adults getting sexually abused, so we decided to form something to stand against it.”

Assuming there is some truth in Mr. Kennedy’s statement -- and, from what I know of the prison system, there is -- then Mr. Kennedy is going to have to give up his claim as the founder of the EK’s. He did not create that gang -- we did. When we decided to try young people as adults and sentence them to adult prisons among adult offenders; we created that gang. When we allowed conditions to exist in our prisons where a young offender was not being sentenced to serve time, but instead was being sentenced to violent sexual victimization; we created that gang. The European Kindred was not born in a vacuum, it was born in a Petri dish that we as taxpayers support, and we as human beings ignore.

I am not making excuses for the actions of the European Kindred, nor absolving them of the responsibility for their crimes. I’m just pointing out that there is a cost to the decisions we make regarding our young people. The European Kindred is but one example of that cost.

Fixing Foster Care

I’ve said it before. If you’re going to be an advocate for runaway and homeless youth, there are two populations in which you have to take an active interest; GLBTQ youth and foster care youth. While there is some cross-over between the two, both of these populations represent respectively up to 40% of young people on our streets.

That’s why a newspaper article in last Saturday’s Portland Oregonian caught my eye. Titled “Foster kids belong to all of us”, the article highlights bills and budget requests currently before the Oregon State Legislature to improve the foster care system, and featured the stories of two young people raised by that system. Among the bills currently being considered; prioritizing placement with relatives, keeping siblings together, ensuring legal representation, and providing drug and alcohol treatment for parents of foster children.

That’s all well and good -- particularly the bill to keep siblings together (separating brothers and sisters has always been one of my pet peeves) -- but there’s another issue that seriously needs to be looked at: adequate reimbursement for the cost of providing foster care.

A friend of mine currently provides foster care for an infant. The infant goes through a minimum of 4 cans of formula each week, at $25.00 per can. Providing care for this infant costs $400.00 per month just for formula – we haven’t considered all the other expenses of providing care for an infant child. Yet the monthly subsidy received is just over $300.00. Why do we have a shortage of families willing to accept foster children? Maybe it’s because the system is designed so that very few families can actually afford to do so.

The cost to raise a child, by conservative estimates, is approximately $8,000.00 per year -- yet we ask families to accept the responsibility for young people in the foster care system for slightly more than $3600.00; less than half what we know the cost will be. Curiously, this is significantly less than we spend on a child in Head Start -- an education program that sees young people only a few hours each week. Wouldn’t it make sense that 24 hour care should receive a higher rate?

There are so many things wrong with the foster care system one almost doesn’t know where to start, but here’s my suggestion: let’s make it so good families can open their homes to children without having to pawn the family jewels to afford it.

Evidence of Selflessness

In today’s world we hear many stories of adolescent selfishness. In case anyone has doubts about the capacity for selflessness among today’s young people, I present 15-year-old Lewis Bartlett.

Lewis was talking to his aunt and 4-year-old cousin by a busy road in Beddau, South Wales, United Kingdom. In a moment of distraction, the 4-year-old wandered into the street. Lewis turned to see his cousin in the street with a car bearing down on him. Without hesitation, Lewis acted. As he put it; “I went into the road to protect him.”

That’s his understated way of saying that he ran between his cousin and the car, scooped his cousin into his arms, and let the car hit him. The pair was thrown 5 or more feet into the air, with Lewis protectively clutching his cousin the entire time.

Though both of them suffered injuries, they both survived the accident. It is doubtful, however, that the 4-year-old would have survived had Lewis not intervened.

Lewis has been given a special bravery award for his actions, but this really wasn’t an act of bravery. It was simply a selfless act by a teen seeing a family member in danger, and doing something about it.

Head Shaking Parenting

Many years ago, and for only a brief period of time, there was a segment on Saturday Night Live’s ‘Weekend Update’ news block called ‘Head Shaking News’. It featured stories of people’s behavior that were so off the wall that all the anchors could do after reading the headline was sigh and shake their heads.

I found myself sighing and shaking my head as I listened to the stories of two different parents last night. Both of them are mothers, one of them is in Tampa, Florida, and the other is right here in Portland.

In Tampa, a 26-year-old mother of two is show on a school bus surveillance camera getting on the bus with her two daughters and shouting “Where’s the girl who slapped my daughter?” A 10-year-old girl timidly raised her hand, at which point the mother turned to her 9-year-old and told her to “take care of her business”. The 9-year-old went back and started pummeling the girl. Eventually, her sister joined in the attack, while her mother watched.

(shaking my head)

Meanwhile, here in Portland – where our weather has been sunny and warm recently -- a mother left her daughter strapped in a car seat while she went shopping a Lowes; an illegal act here in Portland (leaving your child in a hot car, that is -- not shopping at Lowes). A passerby noticed the child slumped over from the heat and called the police. Paramedics were also called who determined the child’s body temperature to be 105 degrees. When the mother showed up, she was so indignant about the police intervention that she kicked the police officer while demanding to be left alone.

(shaking my head)

She wasn’t left alone, by the way. She was arrested and charged with child endangerment, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer.

I suspect both of these women have been disqualified from the Mother of the Year competition …

Rubber and Glue

The problem with young people is that they rationalize their bad behavior and fail to take responsibility for their actions. At least that’s the attitude I often encounter from adults. I can’t always argue with the accuracy of the attitude, as some young people do rationalize bad behavior and fail to take responsibility. What I can argue with, however, is the implication that this is trait of young people. If adults want to understand why some young people behave this way, all it takes is some honesty and a mirror.

Take for example the story I heard on the radio this morning. It seems that the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle is having a little bit of trouble scrapping together the cash needed to pay off the judgments against them resulting from the sexual abuse scandals that they ignored for years. This may seem strange, as the Catholic Church is not exactly an organization without resources, but therein lays the problem -- they want to keep all of their resources, and paying the judgments would require them to sell of some of their property. So, in order to avoid the inconvenience of having to suffer any real consequences for their actions, they’ve come up with a great idea. The parishioners should pony up the bucks.

That’s right. The Church failed to protect the parishioner’s children, is now facing the consequences of their actions, and is asking the parishioners themselves to protect them from the responsibility of their actions. Each parishioner family is being asked to cough up one thousand dollars. Yes, you heard me correctly; they want a grand from every family. Seriously, which of these two scenarios do you think does more financial harm: the Catholic Church selling off some property, or a working class family finding one thousand dollars they can afford to spare? How many of these families do you think has the resources to part with a thousand bucks easily? Not to worry, though -- the Church has a fabulous rationalization for this. You see, all the parishioners have to do is put the thousand bucks on their credit cards. In that way, not only will they “have control over the financing and payment” (meaning they get to pay interest), but they can also benefit from airline miles! What a great plan! We’ve betrayed your trust, so why don’t you relieve us of the responsibility by going into debt while earning yourself a nice vacation!

But this post really isn’t about the Catholic Church. They just happen to be today’s example of nearly daily doses of poor adult behavior that role models for our children how people should behave. The next time you hear someone lamenting about the behavior of young people, think about that wise cliché that young people speak; you know, the one about rubber and glue …

This is a Sanctuary?

It’s a small room lined in padding. It has no natural light, no fixtures of any kind, no door handle on the inside, and only one small unbreakable window in the door.

Am I describing a detention cell at Gitmo? A secured area in a mental institution? Sadly, no. The room I’m describing is located in a public elementary school.

Ox Ridge Elementary School in Darien Connecticut, to be exact. Paul and Lisbeth Ehrlich, parents of a 7-year-old autistic son who attends the school, found out about the room only after their son was secluded in it as punishment for his behavior. What was his crime? The 7-year-old, who is described as non-verbal and non-aggressive, was crying for his mother.

I make no secret of the fact that I have many problems with public education in the United States -- so many, in fact, that I am hesitant to bring the subject up for fear that it will dominate this blog (and seriously affect my blood pressure). But when 7-year-olds are required by law to attend institutions where they can be imprisoned in a padded room without parental knowledge or consent for the high crime of crying for their mother, its time to say something.

In fact, lots of people are saying something about this. The Ehrlich’s are suing -- not for monetary damages, but for the right for parents to be informed when the room is used, and for the development of guidelines governing the use of the room. Uh … OK … I guess I can support that, but how about disallowing the use of such rooms at all? Not likely, considering other parents speaking up in support of the room. One parent went on national television defending the room as a “sanctuary for the children”. Really? It’s a sanctuary? Then I’m going to have to get a new dictionary, because mine defines “sanctuary” as “a sacred place where one is immune to arrest”. How that describes a rubber room where a child is involuntarily detained escapes my understanding.

The Connecticut Senate is currently considering legislation that requires schools to report to parents and the State every time a student is secluded or restrained. Currently, unlike all other State agencies, schools are not required to do so. Personally, I would like to see legislation that prohibits the use of seclusion or restraint as a tool of discipline, but that’s just me.

No Eternal Victims

Bill O’Reilly is not the problem, he is simply one example. He is, however, such a visible and vocal example that I’m going to use him to illustrate my point.

For many months Mr. O’Reilly has spearheaded a campaign from his radio and television bully pulpits to get all 50 states to pass legislation based on Jessica’s Law. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, Jessica’s Law is the name given to a 2005 Florida law, and is also sometimes used to refer to federal legislation called the Jessica Lunsford Act.

Jessica Lunsford was a 9-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a previously convicted sex offender named John Couey. Couey has since been sentenced to death for the crime. The various versions of Jessica’s Law call for mandatory minimum sentences (25 years) and lifetime electronic monitoring of first-time child sex offenders.

But this post is not for-or-against Jessica’s Law, nor is it for-or-against Bill O’Reilly’s public stance on the issue. This is about the attitude that people have toward victims of certain person-on-person crimes, particularly young victims, and this is where Bill O’Reilly comes in as an example.

Far be it from me to misquote Bill O’Reilly. I certainly don’t want to end up on his show eating my words, so let me quote directly from one of his columns: “If you rape or sexually brutalize a child, that child will never fully recover”. Mr. O’Reilly has made similar statements repeatedly as he deals with issues of sexual abuse, as have many of his guests. “…our daughter is ruined for life” and “The effects of the abuse will last a lifetime for the little girl” are just two examples that I gleaned from his website.

But, as I said, this isn’t about Bill O’Reilly. I’m simply using words from his show to illustrate an attitude that many people hold. I trust that I will not be misunderstood as an advocate for any form of abuse, or an apologist, or one who minimizes -- but neither am I someone who subscribes to the belief that any form of trauma or abuse necessarily leaves people “ruined”.

This attitude seems to be applied to crimes that have a sexual element; sexual abuse, rape, prostitution -- though I have also seen it applied to domestic violence. The attitude reflects a belief that when one is victimized by a certain type of crime, they are automatically eternal victims. They can “never fully recover” and are “ruined for life”. I could not disagree more strongly.

What about our belief in human resilience? When we approach someone who has been horribly victimized with the attitude that they are now a victim forever, are we not simply imprisoning them in their victimization? While condemning those who victimize others for a moment, we should also condemn those who turn victimization into a lifetime sentence.

I don’t care how badly you have been victimized; the act was about the perpetrator, not you. You are resilient. You are not “ruined”. You can “fully recover”. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

Professional Dishonesty - Part Five

NOTE: This is Part Five of a continuing entry. See Monday 4/30, Tuesday 5/1, Wednesday 5/2, and Thursday 5/3 for Part’s One-Four.

Halleck’s article is somewhat inappropriately titled in that he spends more time identifying the seven areas of professional dishonesty than he does describing the “impact” they have on “behavior of disturbed adolescents”. This makes sense, however, as the article assumes a certain level of knowledge on the part of the reader. Most adult professionals know that if we are seen by adolescents as dishonest they will react to us with fear, distrust, and cynicism and our ability to be seen as a viable, safe and helpful resource for them will be severely limited. Halleck’s contribution is not in how dishonest behavior impacts the adolescent, but in what form dishonest behavior may appear. It is not the big out-and-out lie we need to worry about. It is the subtle, even well-intentioned, misrepresentation where we may not even realize we are lying that we need to be on guard against.

The paper concludes with advice on how to avoid dishonesty in each of the seven categories, but here’s what it boils down to in Halleck’s words; “The methods of developing an honest approach …are based on a conviction on the part of workers to be scrupulously honest with themselves and the child …”. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that being honest with the young person is the easy part. As professional youth workers we should already know that growth and change is more likely to take place in a trusting atmosphere of truth than it is in an atmosphere of dishonesty. It is being honest with ourselves that is the difficult part. With each of Halleck’s seven areas – and with many additional but similar areas we can think of – the real lie is the one we are telling ourselves. For example, because we want to help and our intentions are good, we may believe that if the adolescent would only open up and trust us, all will go well. But our hope-based belief may hide the fact that we might not be able to guarantee that outcome.

Adolescents deserve the truth from us. More importantly, they need the truth in order to understand their world and find their way. Any form of dishonesty, including the subtle forms identified by Halleck, is both disrespectful and a disservice.