This is not at all a scientific study, though I may actually do one at some point. For now, though, this is just an observation based on an impression I’ve been getting.
Writing a daily blog has been an interesting experience for me. Some days I know exactly what I want to write about. Other days, I sit with my morning coffee staring at a blank screen and hoping words will type themselves. On days like that I do a Google news search for articles related to young people, looking for inspiration. This was the case this morning, and it was this morning that I started noticing something.
The majority of articles I find report on the bad things that young people do or have done to them. There is no shortage of youth violence, youth suicide, youth victims, youth-are-bad-or-sick articles. The next largest group is about things we want to do to or for young people. Youth-need-help or youth-need-restrictions (the current focus seems to be on limiting teen driving) are almost as plentiful as the bad-or-sick focus. Finally you see a smattering of good-kids-doing-good articles, which often come across as almost a patronizing exhibit of some “normal” teen behaving well.
Finally, and definitely in the minority, are the articles I’m really looking for; young people as resources and contributors, and here is where my observation comes in. Almost without exception, when I see an article about young people that presents them as intelligent participants in our world, the byline is from Australia, or the United Kingdom, or Canada, or Ireland, or even ‘third world’ places like Sri Lanka or African nations.
There seems to be a distinct difference between the presentation of youth and young people in the United States, and the presentation you see outside of the United States. From the perspective of an advocate for youth, the presentation here in the United States could really stand improvement. Young people seem to make the news mostly to be being pilloried, patronized, trivialized, or victimized, and only rarely to be presented as members of our society with valid perspectives and value to contribute. I don’t believe that young people in the United States are any less capable than those in other nations, but that’s not the impression you get from reading the news.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
A True Travesty
I know enough about today’s world to realize that there may be people reading this who do not agree with my position. From my perspective, however, I don’t understand why situations like this don’t make people rise up and demand change.
I will preface my comments with a disclaimer that I have not studied this case in depth, but if what is being reported is even close to the truth we are dealing with a true travesty of justice. In Georgia, a 17 year old high school senior – a star athlete with a grade point average of 3.2 – engaged in consensual sex with his girlfriend, a 15 year old classmate. What they didn’t know was that they were, actually he was, breaking the laws of the State of Georgia. As a result, Genarlow Wilson is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Look, sexual predators have no greater enemy than me, but to label a young man in these circumstances as a sex offender subverts the entire concept of what a sex offender is. To ruin his life with a 10 year prison sentence and a life long label is an outcome that should not be permitted anywhere, let alone in the United States of America. Regardless of your personal feelings regarding teen sexuality, a 17 year old being sexually active with a consensual 15 year old partner is not an offender or a predator. Genarlow Wilson sits in jail today for an act that millions of adult Americans were guilty of themselves when they were teenagers.
If there is no more to this case than has been described in the press, Genarlow Wilson should be released today and his record should be expunged. And we as a society need to get a realistic grip on what a sexual offender really is.
In response to this case a website was created to help teens understand laws such as the one that nailed Genarlow Wilson. Called My5th.org, a link is available in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth under Recommended Resources for Young People.
I will preface my comments with a disclaimer that I have not studied this case in depth, but if what is being reported is even close to the truth we are dealing with a true travesty of justice. In Georgia, a 17 year old high school senior – a star athlete with a grade point average of 3.2 – engaged in consensual sex with his girlfriend, a 15 year old classmate. What they didn’t know was that they were, actually he was, breaking the laws of the State of Georgia. As a result, Genarlow Wilson is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Look, sexual predators have no greater enemy than me, but to label a young man in these circumstances as a sex offender subverts the entire concept of what a sex offender is. To ruin his life with a 10 year prison sentence and a life long label is an outcome that should not be permitted anywhere, let alone in the United States of America. Regardless of your personal feelings regarding teen sexuality, a 17 year old being sexually active with a consensual 15 year old partner is not an offender or a predator. Genarlow Wilson sits in jail today for an act that millions of adult Americans were guilty of themselves when they were teenagers.
If there is no more to this case than has been described in the press, Genarlow Wilson should be released today and his record should be expunged. And we as a society need to get a realistic grip on what a sexual offender really is.
In response to this case a website was created to help teens understand laws such as the one that nailed Genarlow Wilson. Called My5th.org, a link is available in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth under Recommended Resources for Young People.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Judging by the Cover
As adults, we are sometimes denied service based on external trappings. “No shoes, no shirt, no service’ is probably the situation with which we are most familiar, and we occasionally run into high class restaurants or events with a dress code of sorts (well, those who can afford such places do, anyway). But, for the most part, adults are not judged by their appearance.
The opposite is true with teens. For them, the world is a place that feels justified in assuming things about them based on how they chose to express themselves. I’ve been in debates with adults who vehemently assert that if a young person chooses to dress like a gang banger, they probably are trouble – and if they’re not, it’s a good lesson for them to learn that there are consequences for how they choose to appear in public.
Many young people attending a recent conference in England learned that lesson. About 20% of them reported being harassed or denied services or entry into businesses based on their appearance. Mostly it was the kids with skinhead-like hair styles (or, more accurately, lack of hair styles) and those wearing baggy clothing like gang-bangers.
The conference, called “Find Your Sense of Tumour” was for teens living with cancer. The bald heads were from chemotherapy, and the baggy clothing was special loose-fitting clothing design to avoid irritation.
This is a good reminder that we should give teens a break on how they look and take the time to get to know who they are.
The opposite is true with teens. For them, the world is a place that feels justified in assuming things about them based on how they chose to express themselves. I’ve been in debates with adults who vehemently assert that if a young person chooses to dress like a gang banger, they probably are trouble – and if they’re not, it’s a good lesson for them to learn that there are consequences for how they choose to appear in public.
Many young people attending a recent conference in England learned that lesson. About 20% of them reported being harassed or denied services or entry into businesses based on their appearance. Mostly it was the kids with skinhead-like hair styles (or, more accurately, lack of hair styles) and those wearing baggy clothing like gang-bangers.
The conference, called “Find Your Sense of Tumour” was for teens living with cancer. The bald heads were from chemotherapy, and the baggy clothing was special loose-fitting clothing design to avoid irritation.
This is a good reminder that we should give teens a break on how they look and take the time to get to know who they are.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Are you Helping?
Ever feel like you’re not really helping? I know I have, and I know my partner has, too. Julia (the aforementioned partner) works with homeless teen parents (it’s just not challenging enough for her to work with homeless teens -- she has to be an overachiever and work with homeless teens who have kids). About a month ago, she had a major crisis of confidence. Was she doing enough to help? Was she doing anything at all? Sure, she believed in them, and was lending her support and encouragement, but was she helping?
As if on cue, during the past month she’s been getting her answer. One of her clients quietly slipped her a card at the end of one of their sessions. It was a simple ‘thank you’ that almost demonstrated clairvoyance. “You may not realize how much you have helped me”, the card read, “but remember that to me you are a guiding angel”. And that was only the beginning. A few short weeks later, she was visiting with one of her former clients who went out of her way to express how much Julia had helped. “You always believed in me”, she told her, “and that helped me more than I can say”.
This is not intended to brag about Julia (though I have no hesitation in doing so), but rather it is intended as a reminder to us all. Trust in yourself and trust in the young people you work with. If that’s all that you do, you’re probably doing well.
As if on cue, during the past month she’s been getting her answer. One of her clients quietly slipped her a card at the end of one of their sessions. It was a simple ‘thank you’ that almost demonstrated clairvoyance. “You may not realize how much you have helped me”, the card read, “but remember that to me you are a guiding angel”. And that was only the beginning. A few short weeks later, she was visiting with one of her former clients who went out of her way to express how much Julia had helped. “You always believed in me”, she told her, “and that helped me more than I can say”.
This is not intended to brag about Julia (though I have no hesitation in doing so), but rather it is intended as a reminder to us all. Trust in yourself and trust in the young people you work with. If that’s all that you do, you’re probably doing well.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Spring (give me a) Break
Today is the official start of spring break and the partying is already well under way, as is the annual hand wringing and lamenting of media pundits about “what’s wrong with today’s kids?”
It seems that thousands of spring breakers are drinking to excess and acting stupid. Yes, you read that correctly … this is considered news. Of course, in fairness, the drunken stupidity is simply drawing moralistic headshaking – as though this generation isn’t doing what every generation before them has done. What really has the pundits upset is the breasts! All the young women who are Girls-Gone-Wild-style flashing is this years evidence that today’s kids are more deviant than yesterdays kids. Oh, really?
They say that if you remember the sixties you weren’t there. Well, obviously these pundits were there, because they seem to have forgotten what it was like during the Summer of Love, and at the hundreds of Woodstock-type music festivals that characterized that era. Girls weren’t flashing, they were naked, and so, by the way, were the guys. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to have to step over couples … well … coupling.
So, what’s wrong with today’s kids? I’m gonna have to go with ‘nothing’.
It seems that thousands of spring breakers are drinking to excess and acting stupid. Yes, you read that correctly … this is considered news. Of course, in fairness, the drunken stupidity is simply drawing moralistic headshaking – as though this generation isn’t doing what every generation before them has done. What really has the pundits upset is the breasts! All the young women who are Girls-Gone-Wild-style flashing is this years evidence that today’s kids are more deviant than yesterdays kids. Oh, really?
They say that if you remember the sixties you weren’t there. Well, obviously these pundits were there, because they seem to have forgotten what it was like during the Summer of Love, and at the hundreds of Woodstock-type music festivals that characterized that era. Girls weren’t flashing, they were naked, and so, by the way, were the guys. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to have to step over couples … well … coupling.
So, what’s wrong with today’s kids? I’m gonna have to go with ‘nothing’.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A Question of Respect
I was looking through some old documents of mine and I came across an answer I had written to a question that had been sent to me. As I have been asked this question more than once, I’m making it today’s entry.
Question:
"You speak a lot about the importance of respecting street youth, but I have a problem with that. I don’t respect what they’re doing and they don’t show respect for me - so how am I supposed to respect them?"
Answer:
It’s a valid question. Much of the activity that street-dependent youth engage in on the streets is not activity that most of us would respect. They can be violent; they steal; they prostitute themselves; and they deal and use drugs. These are all activities that we want them to stop, not things that most of us feel are deserving of respect.
But there’s a difference between showing respect for activities and showing respect for the person. How they survive on the streets may not be worthy of respect, but the fact that they somehow find the strength and courage to keep surviving is. Remember, the person you are seeing is very young and, in most cases, has been dealt a pretty crappy hand in life. They may not be playing that hand well in our opinion, but the fact that they keep playing at all is not only worthy of respect, it can be awe-inspiring. I would never recommend that you falsely respect actions that you disagree with, but I do recommend that you respect the fact that, at this point in their lives, they’re doing the best they can. They need your support, not your condemnation.
As for the issue of them not respecting you, frankly, that’s not their job. They have a big enough challenge learning to respect themselves. If respect from others is important to you, look to your family, or your co-workers, or your friends. If you’re looking to get your need for respect met from homeless, abused, drug-affected youth, you will be disappointed and ineffective. But I also don’t want to leave you with the impression that disrespect has to characterize your interactions with street youth, it’s just that respect comes as trust is established. The more you develop a trusting and supportive relationship, the more you will earn, and receive, respect.
Question:
"You speak a lot about the importance of respecting street youth, but I have a problem with that. I don’t respect what they’re doing and they don’t show respect for me - so how am I supposed to respect them?"
Answer:
It’s a valid question. Much of the activity that street-dependent youth engage in on the streets is not activity that most of us would respect. They can be violent; they steal; they prostitute themselves; and they deal and use drugs. These are all activities that we want them to stop, not things that most of us feel are deserving of respect.
But there’s a difference between showing respect for activities and showing respect for the person. How they survive on the streets may not be worthy of respect, but the fact that they somehow find the strength and courage to keep surviving is. Remember, the person you are seeing is very young and, in most cases, has been dealt a pretty crappy hand in life. They may not be playing that hand well in our opinion, but the fact that they keep playing at all is not only worthy of respect, it can be awe-inspiring. I would never recommend that you falsely respect actions that you disagree with, but I do recommend that you respect the fact that, at this point in their lives, they’re doing the best they can. They need your support, not your condemnation.
As for the issue of them not respecting you, frankly, that’s not their job. They have a big enough challenge learning to respect themselves. If respect from others is important to you, look to your family, or your co-workers, or your friends. If you’re looking to get your need for respect met from homeless, abused, drug-affected youth, you will be disappointed and ineffective. But I also don’t want to leave you with the impression that disrespect has to characterize your interactions with street youth, it’s just that respect comes as trust is established. The more you develop a trusting and supportive relationship, the more you will earn, and receive, respect.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Get a Job
Youth programs are always struggling to help young people gain employment. Particularly in programs for at-risk youth, helping them find a way to support themselves is one of our greatest challenges. I don’t have to list all the reasons why this outcome is challenging – most of you are familiar with the issues that stem from delayed development, lack of support or stable housing, drugs and alcohol, and on and on. Instead, I’m going to take this opportunity to add to the list.
A survey was conducted by Teens4Hire.org, a California-based, but nationally-focused, teen job website (a link to the site is in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth, under Recommended Links for Young People). The survey concluded that if you are a teen, your chances of landing a job this summer are slim. The reason this is true, however, may be different than you’d guess.
The survey focused on businesses that have traditionally hired teens in the past and discovered that these businesses are becoming more and more reluctant to continue to hire teens. AHA! I HEARD THAT THOUGHT! Your mind went to poor employment skills, and undependability; that’s why they’re becoming reluctant. Come on, admit it – at least for a split second, that’s where your thoughts went. I know mine did, but I was wrong. They’re becoming reluctant to hire teens due to the convergence of the availability of other workers and child labor laws.
Child labor laws, intended to protect children from injury and exploitation, may increasingly be protecting them from employment. Businesses have difficulty competing if their labor force is restricted in the number of hours they can work, and the times they can be on the job. Teens are restricted from doing jobs that are ‘hazardous’, limiting their value in industries such as construction or meat-packing, or even ‘non-hazardous’ industries where some kind of machine is in use, as many of the child labor law guidelines would restrict teens from operating things like mixers. Now, combine this legal limitation to their value as workers with a growing alternative workforce consisting of new immigrants, older workers over 55, and college students home for the summer who are unable to obtain jobs in their majors, and you have a recipe for unemployed teens looking for other things to do with their time.
Am I advocating the abolition of child labor laws? No … well, at least not in this blog entry. I’m simply pointing out that if we want teens to work, we should find ways to make it easier, not more difficult, for them to do so.
A survey was conducted by Teens4Hire.org, a California-based, but nationally-focused, teen job website (a link to the site is in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth, under Recommended Links for Young People). The survey concluded that if you are a teen, your chances of landing a job this summer are slim. The reason this is true, however, may be different than you’d guess.
The survey focused on businesses that have traditionally hired teens in the past and discovered that these businesses are becoming more and more reluctant to continue to hire teens. AHA! I HEARD THAT THOUGHT! Your mind went to poor employment skills, and undependability; that’s why they’re becoming reluctant. Come on, admit it – at least for a split second, that’s where your thoughts went. I know mine did, but I was wrong. They’re becoming reluctant to hire teens due to the convergence of the availability of other workers and child labor laws.
Child labor laws, intended to protect children from injury and exploitation, may increasingly be protecting them from employment. Businesses have difficulty competing if their labor force is restricted in the number of hours they can work, and the times they can be on the job. Teens are restricted from doing jobs that are ‘hazardous’, limiting their value in industries such as construction or meat-packing, or even ‘non-hazardous’ industries where some kind of machine is in use, as many of the child labor law guidelines would restrict teens from operating things like mixers. Now, combine this legal limitation to their value as workers with a growing alternative workforce consisting of new immigrants, older workers over 55, and college students home for the summer who are unable to obtain jobs in their majors, and you have a recipe for unemployed teens looking for other things to do with their time.
Am I advocating the abolition of child labor laws? No … well, at least not in this blog entry. I’m simply pointing out that if we want teens to work, we should find ways to make it easier, not more difficult, for them to do so.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Worth Sharing
I received a very nice ‘thank you’ letter in the mail this week from Hope Street Youth Development. As a reminder, Hope Street Youth Development is the InterNetwork for Youth’s March Website of the Month (if you haven’t been there yet, you’ll find it on the Kansas page of the Youth Program Directory at http://www.in4y.com ).
There is a line in the letter that is worth sharing:
“At Hope Street Youth Development we believe in the importance of empowering youth to THINK for themselves, SPEAK for themselves, and ACT for their communities” (emphasis theirs).
Many of us share that belief, and couldn’t have said it better!
There is a line in the letter that is worth sharing:
“At Hope Street Youth Development we believe in the importance of empowering youth to THINK for themselves, SPEAK for themselves, and ACT for their communities” (emphasis theirs).
Many of us share that belief, and couldn’t have said it better!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
New in Web Resources
Today's post is just to direct your attention to some new links in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth. Following up on yesterday's post about Ismael Beah's book detailing his life as a boy soldier in Sierra Leone, I have added a few links to organizations that are working to end the practice of using children as soldiers, or to assist children who have been soldiers. There are also links to organizations working to assist children who have otherwise been impacted by war.
Another new addition in Web Resources is the Amber Alert ticker. Clicking on this ticker will take you to where you can find information on how to add this ticker to your own website.
Another new addition in Web Resources is the Amber Alert ticker. Clicking on this ticker will take you to where you can find information on how to add this ticker to your own website.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Shoot the Monkey?
It is unlike me to recommend a book before I’ve read it, but that is exactly what I did with the InterNetwork for Youth’s Readers Club selection for March; A Long Way Gone, Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, by Ishmael Beah (available at any good bookstore, or you may order it from the homepage of the InterNetwork for Youth ( http://www.in4y.com ).
My recommendation was based on seeing Mr. Beah interviewed on the Daily Show. Based on that interview I expected this to be an amazing story. I received my copy on Saturday and read it over the weekend, and was not disappointed.
This is the true story of Mr. Beah’s life during the civil war in Sierra Leone. It begins before he gets caught up in the conflict, follows his life as a boy soldier fighting on the government side from the age of 13 to 15, describes his ‘rehabilitation’, and ends with his escape from Sierra Leone. The book is extremely well written, making his account both compelling and horrifying. The violence he experienced and inflicted is neither glorified nor minimized, he simply presents what happened and allows you to see it through his eyes, which at the time were the eyes of a child.
What struck me most about this book is that it isn’t just the story of a boy soldier in Sierra Leone. It is the story of all children who have to fend for themselves and survive in a world not of their making. I saw in his story the stories of many of the homeless youth I’ve worked with over the years – not that the stories are comparable in content, but that there are so many parallels in the process. The manner in which the child becomes the monster, and the path followed to regaining identity, even humanity – it all seemed very familiar to me. This is Mr. Beah’s story, but there are millions of these stories all over the globe.
I highly recommend this book, and if you read it, you will find in it a parable from Mr. Beah’s childhood. It is a dilemma concerning whether or not to shoot a monkey. His solution to this dilemma carries a powerful message.
My recommendation was based on seeing Mr. Beah interviewed on the Daily Show. Based on that interview I expected this to be an amazing story. I received my copy on Saturday and read it over the weekend, and was not disappointed.
This is the true story of Mr. Beah’s life during the civil war in Sierra Leone. It begins before he gets caught up in the conflict, follows his life as a boy soldier fighting on the government side from the age of 13 to 15, describes his ‘rehabilitation’, and ends with his escape from Sierra Leone. The book is extremely well written, making his account both compelling and horrifying. The violence he experienced and inflicted is neither glorified nor minimized, he simply presents what happened and allows you to see it through his eyes, which at the time were the eyes of a child.
What struck me most about this book is that it isn’t just the story of a boy soldier in Sierra Leone. It is the story of all children who have to fend for themselves and survive in a world not of their making. I saw in his story the stories of many of the homeless youth I’ve worked with over the years – not that the stories are comparable in content, but that there are so many parallels in the process. The manner in which the child becomes the monster, and the path followed to regaining identity, even humanity – it all seemed very familiar to me. This is Mr. Beah’s story, but there are millions of these stories all over the globe.
I highly recommend this book, and if you read it, you will find in it a parable from Mr. Beah’s childhood. It is a dilemma concerning whether or not to shoot a monkey. His solution to this dilemma carries a powerful message.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Surprising Stats
I was reading an article on the web about a program working with homeless youth, and the agency cited an interesting statistic. They said that a homeless youth is 2.5 times less likely to receive a high school diploma than teens who aren’t homeless.
Yes, you read that correctly: 2.5 times less likely to receive a high school diploma. You may be as surprised as I was to read that statistic. Personally, I was completely shocked … shocked, that is, that homeless youth weren’t at least 100 times less likely to get their diplomas!
Think about it. We’re talking about young people who are homeless. They are surviving on the streets, outside of social support structures and even the law, existing in a world of drugs, crime, and prostitution. When they’re not being ignored or discriminated against by adults, they’re being exploited by them. This is the life of a homeless youth; endless hours of excruciating boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. And they are only 2.5 times less likely to receive a high school diploma?
The reason for this, of course, is that contrary to what many people think, the vast majority of homeless youth are capable and intelligent. This is one of my theories about why some youth become homeless and others don’t. It’s popular to point to sexual abuse or drugs in the home as causal factors, but the fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of young people being sexually abused and exposed to drugs all over this nation who don’t leave home. What’s the difference between those who do and those who don’t? My theory is that the more capable and intelligent a young person is, the less likely they are to remain in a bad situation where they have little or no control. Certainly the situation they leave to is not much better; survival on the streets can be, in many ways, worse. But at least on the streets they have a measure of control over their life. Maybe they are still being abused and exploited, but they have some power over how they are abused, who exploits them, and when and where it happens.
In any case, whether or not my theory is valid, those of us who work with homeless youth can confirm that this is not a ‘hopeless’ population, and we are often impressed by just how capable they can be. Was I really shocked at the above quoted statistic? Not so much. I remember one young woman I worked with who attended high school every day and graduated with honors – and, up until the last few months when she moved into the transitional living program I operated, she had been attending while homeless for almost two years.
The truly revealing thing about statistics related to homeless youth is not how bad the stats are, it’s the fact that they aren’t so much worse.
Yes, you read that correctly: 2.5 times less likely to receive a high school diploma. You may be as surprised as I was to read that statistic. Personally, I was completely shocked … shocked, that is, that homeless youth weren’t at least 100 times less likely to get their diplomas!
Think about it. We’re talking about young people who are homeless. They are surviving on the streets, outside of social support structures and even the law, existing in a world of drugs, crime, and prostitution. When they’re not being ignored or discriminated against by adults, they’re being exploited by them. This is the life of a homeless youth; endless hours of excruciating boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. And they are only 2.5 times less likely to receive a high school diploma?
The reason for this, of course, is that contrary to what many people think, the vast majority of homeless youth are capable and intelligent. This is one of my theories about why some youth become homeless and others don’t. It’s popular to point to sexual abuse or drugs in the home as causal factors, but the fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of young people being sexually abused and exposed to drugs all over this nation who don’t leave home. What’s the difference between those who do and those who don’t? My theory is that the more capable and intelligent a young person is, the less likely they are to remain in a bad situation where they have little or no control. Certainly the situation they leave to is not much better; survival on the streets can be, in many ways, worse. But at least on the streets they have a measure of control over their life. Maybe they are still being abused and exploited, but they have some power over how they are abused, who exploits them, and when and where it happens.
In any case, whether or not my theory is valid, those of us who work with homeless youth can confirm that this is not a ‘hopeless’ population, and we are often impressed by just how capable they can be. Was I really shocked at the above quoted statistic? Not so much. I remember one young woman I worked with who attended high school every day and graduated with honors – and, up until the last few months when she moved into the transitional living program I operated, she had been attending while homeless for almost two years.
The truly revealing thing about statistics related to homeless youth is not how bad the stats are, it’s the fact that they aren’t so much worse.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Community Service Learning TLP Outcomes
I’ve been thinking a lot about outcomes lately. One reason is that an article on outcomes will be next month’s addition to the JTFest Consulting Online Library (to be posted April 1st). A second reason is that it is grant writing season in the federal Runaway and Homeless Youth funding world, and there are some interesting new twists regarding outcomes.
The one I want to highlight has to do with Transitional Living Program (TLP) outcomes. For those unfamiliar, the TLP is for older homeless youth (16-21) and provides up to 18 months of housing and related services with the intention of transitioning a young person from homelessness to independence. One of the outcomes being focused on is a participant’s involvement in “Community Service Learning”.
As I understand it, Community Service Learning (CSL) is different from “regular” service learning in that the focus is on giving back to the community. CSL activities are intended to involve young people in projects that benefit others, based on the theory that such involvement has significant positive impact on the participant. One way to think about it is; doing good unto others does good unto oneself.
There are several things I like about this outcome. For one, the focus is on what the program is doing rather than what the young person is accomplishing. I believe this to be an important shift in outcome focus, and I speak about this in greater detail in the upcoming library article. I also appreciate the emphasis on meaningful participation, as this is one of the critical environmental protective factors fostering innate resilience, one of the key concepts involved in the Youth Development approach.
My enthusiasm, however, is tempered with caution. While the end is prescribed, the means are not, and as programs struggle to demonstrate this outcome to their funding source, some potential pitfalls arise. One is that the opportunity might not be implemented consistent with what we know about how participation positively impacts the participant. To be specific, when we are talking about participation as a protective factor, we are talking about participation in things that directly affect the participant. Meaningful participation in the Youth Development sense of the word refers to young people meaningfully participating in the actions and decisions that directly affect them. This doesn’t rule out service to others, but such service is reduced in its impact on the individual the moment it moves from voluntarily motivated service to mandated service. If programs attempt to meet this outcome by developing mandated “opportunities” to serve, they run the risk of a less productive and, in some cases, counter-productive impact on the young person participating.
A second pitfall can be the priority service to others has in a young person’s life during transition from homelessness. At the point a young person moves into a transitional living program, they have a scant 18 month period to overcome the challenges and traumas that have lead them to homelessness in the first place. Quite frankly, with all the service they need to provide to themselves there may be little time left for service to others, and one might even consider doing what they need to do to get off of the streets is a service to others. Another danger is that most young people in this situation are carrying a lot of anger from betrayal and neglect by the adults in their lives. As they work through these issues, being mandated to “give back” to a community that they feel betrayed by might not be received as we intend it to be.
But please do not interpret the above paragraphs as a rejection of the CSL outcome. I actually support this new focus. I just want to point out that it can be implemented in ways that defeat the purpose. I propose two guidelines for the development of CSL opportunities within TLP’s that should go a long way towards avoidance of these pitfalls.
First, realize it is not for everyone, at least not at the same time. CSL should be readily available, but not fully mandatory. By that, I mean that there should be some level of personal choice about how and when a young person is involved in CSL activities. One size fits all should be carefully avoided and, for some youth, CSL might not be appropriate until very late into, or even after, their transition.
Second, participants themselves should have maximum control over the development of CSL activities. Avoid the pattern of creating CSL and trying to excite young people about it. Rather, give young people the means and motivation to create the CSL activity themselves, which eliminates the need to convince them to participate. You might want to use the “what” versus “how” formula I utilized at Bridge House, the TLP I operated for about a dozen years. In this model, the grant requirements determine “what” has to be done, but the program participants determine “how” it will be done. They may change the “how” as often as they wish, but they can’t decide that the “what” need not be done. With the CSL outcome, my approach would be to give the residents as much information about CSL and the funding requirement to meet it, and leave it up to them to come up with a plan for implementing CSL within the program. An approach such as this allows for all the benefits while avoiding the potential pitfalls.
The one I want to highlight has to do with Transitional Living Program (TLP) outcomes. For those unfamiliar, the TLP is for older homeless youth (16-21) and provides up to 18 months of housing and related services with the intention of transitioning a young person from homelessness to independence. One of the outcomes being focused on is a participant’s involvement in “Community Service Learning”.
As I understand it, Community Service Learning (CSL) is different from “regular” service learning in that the focus is on giving back to the community. CSL activities are intended to involve young people in projects that benefit others, based on the theory that such involvement has significant positive impact on the participant. One way to think about it is; doing good unto others does good unto oneself.
There are several things I like about this outcome. For one, the focus is on what the program is doing rather than what the young person is accomplishing. I believe this to be an important shift in outcome focus, and I speak about this in greater detail in the upcoming library article. I also appreciate the emphasis on meaningful participation, as this is one of the critical environmental protective factors fostering innate resilience, one of the key concepts involved in the Youth Development approach.
My enthusiasm, however, is tempered with caution. While the end is prescribed, the means are not, and as programs struggle to demonstrate this outcome to their funding source, some potential pitfalls arise. One is that the opportunity might not be implemented consistent with what we know about how participation positively impacts the participant. To be specific, when we are talking about participation as a protective factor, we are talking about participation in things that directly affect the participant. Meaningful participation in the Youth Development sense of the word refers to young people meaningfully participating in the actions and decisions that directly affect them. This doesn’t rule out service to others, but such service is reduced in its impact on the individual the moment it moves from voluntarily motivated service to mandated service. If programs attempt to meet this outcome by developing mandated “opportunities” to serve, they run the risk of a less productive and, in some cases, counter-productive impact on the young person participating.
A second pitfall can be the priority service to others has in a young person’s life during transition from homelessness. At the point a young person moves into a transitional living program, they have a scant 18 month period to overcome the challenges and traumas that have lead them to homelessness in the first place. Quite frankly, with all the service they need to provide to themselves there may be little time left for service to others, and one might even consider doing what they need to do to get off of the streets is a service to others. Another danger is that most young people in this situation are carrying a lot of anger from betrayal and neglect by the adults in their lives. As they work through these issues, being mandated to “give back” to a community that they feel betrayed by might not be received as we intend it to be.
But please do not interpret the above paragraphs as a rejection of the CSL outcome. I actually support this new focus. I just want to point out that it can be implemented in ways that defeat the purpose. I propose two guidelines for the development of CSL opportunities within TLP’s that should go a long way towards avoidance of these pitfalls.
First, realize it is not for everyone, at least not at the same time. CSL should be readily available, but not fully mandatory. By that, I mean that there should be some level of personal choice about how and when a young person is involved in CSL activities. One size fits all should be carefully avoided and, for some youth, CSL might not be appropriate until very late into, or even after, their transition.
Second, participants themselves should have maximum control over the development of CSL activities. Avoid the pattern of creating CSL and trying to excite young people about it. Rather, give young people the means and motivation to create the CSL activity themselves, which eliminates the need to convince them to participate. You might want to use the “what” versus “how” formula I utilized at Bridge House, the TLP I operated for about a dozen years. In this model, the grant requirements determine “what” has to be done, but the program participants determine “how” it will be done. They may change the “how” as often as they wish, but they can’t decide that the “what” need not be done. With the CSL outcome, my approach would be to give the residents as much information about CSL and the funding requirement to meet it, and leave it up to them to come up with a plan for implementing CSL within the program. An approach such as this allows for all the benefits while avoiding the potential pitfalls.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Mature Shoppers Only, Please
It seems that every few weeks I hear about another shopping mall somewhere in the country that is jumping on the newest response to teens; banning them. Well, to be fair, it’s not a total ban -- they can be there with their parents – but if you’re under 18, it’s no shoes, no shirt, no parent, no service.
This growing trend is intended to deal with “immature and disruptive” teens who are hanging out in the malls, but is this the most creative thing we can think of to deal with teens? More likely, it’s just the easiest thing we can think of, as anything else might require a little bit of effort.
It strikes me as strange, though, that malls would want to take the easy way out. I’ve seen estimates on the web that teen spending topped 190 billion dollars in 2006, and a lazy evening of television viewing confirms how many marketing dollars are targeting teens. It almost creates cognitive dissonance when you see young people with pockets full of money being encouraged to spend that money, but not being allowed to enter the mall.
Of course, the problem isn’t the teens with the bucks, it’s those dang “immature and disruptive” teens -- but I wonder exactly what percentage of teens fall into that category? Is it fair to exclude all teens because some teens misbehave? Let’s all give thanks that they don’t use that same reasoning in response to most adults concerns!
There’s another part of the debate that is often … well … not part of the debate. I’m talking about the fact that malls are often one of the very few places that teens have to gather and ‘hang’. As we exclude them from malls, are we talking about alternatives for them? It’s a rhetorical question, because of course we aren’t. Common sense might tell us that ‘solving’ problems in malls by excluding teens may simply push the ‘problems’ somewhere else, and perhaps even exasperate the ‘problems’. And what of the effect on older teens who may appear younger? Will a relaxing trip to the mall now involve a confrontation with security and the need to prove your age? No big deal, you say? It is for the teen already getting messages that they aren’t valued or wanted in our culture -- and this becomes just one more way for them to experience that message.
The most frustrating thing from my perspective is that there are other things we can do short of banning teens from the malls. Years ago I ran a street outreach program that developed a mall-based approach putting youth/adult teams in the malls during high traffic times to interact with teen customers. If security had a concern about a teen or group of teens, they could direct a trained outreach team to deal with the issue. We offered that program free of charge to area malls, and not one mall took us up on the offer. Their concern was that our program would attract more teens – a frightening thought to them. As a result, the program never operated.
I’m not saying that mall-based outreach programs are the solution to whatever problems may exist, but I do hold them up as an example of a creative solution that is at least worth a try before we simply close the doors to young people.
This growing trend is intended to deal with “immature and disruptive” teens who are hanging out in the malls, but is this the most creative thing we can think of to deal with teens? More likely, it’s just the easiest thing we can think of, as anything else might require a little bit of effort.
It strikes me as strange, though, that malls would want to take the easy way out. I’ve seen estimates on the web that teen spending topped 190 billion dollars in 2006, and a lazy evening of television viewing confirms how many marketing dollars are targeting teens. It almost creates cognitive dissonance when you see young people with pockets full of money being encouraged to spend that money, but not being allowed to enter the mall.
Of course, the problem isn’t the teens with the bucks, it’s those dang “immature and disruptive” teens -- but I wonder exactly what percentage of teens fall into that category? Is it fair to exclude all teens because some teens misbehave? Let’s all give thanks that they don’t use that same reasoning in response to most adults concerns!
There’s another part of the debate that is often … well … not part of the debate. I’m talking about the fact that malls are often one of the very few places that teens have to gather and ‘hang’. As we exclude them from malls, are we talking about alternatives for them? It’s a rhetorical question, because of course we aren’t. Common sense might tell us that ‘solving’ problems in malls by excluding teens may simply push the ‘problems’ somewhere else, and perhaps even exasperate the ‘problems’. And what of the effect on older teens who may appear younger? Will a relaxing trip to the mall now involve a confrontation with security and the need to prove your age? No big deal, you say? It is for the teen already getting messages that they aren’t valued or wanted in our culture -- and this becomes just one more way for them to experience that message.
The most frustrating thing from my perspective is that there are other things we can do short of banning teens from the malls. Years ago I ran a street outreach program that developed a mall-based approach putting youth/adult teams in the malls during high traffic times to interact with teen customers. If security had a concern about a teen or group of teens, they could direct a trained outreach team to deal with the issue. We offered that program free of charge to area malls, and not one mall took us up on the offer. Their concern was that our program would attract more teens – a frightening thought to them. As a result, the program never operated.
I’m not saying that mall-based outreach programs are the solution to whatever problems may exist, but I do hold them up as an example of a creative solution that is at least worth a try before we simply close the doors to young people.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Don't Fall into The Gap
Every high school class wants to take a senior trip, and many seniors have done some kind of fund raising campaign to finance the trip. It’s no different for the senior class of Eddyville, Oregon – all 12 of them. Eddyville is a rural community of less than 500 people on Oregon Route 20, and the 12 seniors finally came up with an idea to raise money; they’d raise pigs.
The seniors are raising 3 pigs, to be exact. Named Wilbur (after a Charlotte’s Web pig), Porkchop (named for its future), and Schwartz (named after one of their teachers), the pigs will be auctioned off and are destined for market.
What are these rural students getting for their creative fund raising effort? They’re getting international flak. Somehow the story got out and letters in defense of the pigs have come in from every state in the union, not to mention places like Taiwan, Japan, India, and even Iran.
Most relevant to the point I want to make today are the people who suggest that the seniors be forced to go with the pigs to the slaughterhouse so they can see the end result of what they’re doing. This, of course, is based on a belief that these misguided children are ignorant of these facts. But they are not unaware of the realities of raising animals for food. These are farm kids. As one of their teachers pointed out; “they know their meat doesn’t come in Styrofoam boxes”. One of the senior’s reactions was even more to the point: “What? I gut my own deer!”
This is an urban/rural version of The Gap, but it is similar to what we often see in the adult/youth version. One group views a behavior from a different perspective and context and doesn’t understand, yet their lack of understanding doesn’t stop them from prescribing solutions. In this case, the urban folk assume that if the kids only knew what happens to pigs in a slaughterhouse they wouldn’t do what they’re doing, because the urban folk can’t get their minds around the fact that the seniors might be well aware of the pig’s future, and be OK with that. Instead of seeking to understand, they prescribe a solution (send the kids in to watch the slaughter) to their perceived problem (the fact that the pigs are being raised for slaughter) that makes no sense from the senior’s viewpoint.
The adult/youth Gap follows this same pattern. Adults view behavior in young people that they don’t understand, perceive problems that may not exist, and prescribe solutions that are meaningless to young people. How can we avoid falling into The Gap? It’s simple, really. Don’t try to ‘solve’ things you don’t understand. The proper response to behavior in young people that we don’t understand is to seek first to understand it.
An example is the current ‘freak dancing’ controversy – at least, it’s a big deal in schools here in Oregon. While the debate rages over what to ‘do’ about it, I have heard virtually no adult effort to understand it. No surprise, then, that the ‘problem’ seems unresolved. That’s what happens when we fall into The Gap.
The seniors are raising 3 pigs, to be exact. Named Wilbur (after a Charlotte’s Web pig), Porkchop (named for its future), and Schwartz (named after one of their teachers), the pigs will be auctioned off and are destined for market.
What are these rural students getting for their creative fund raising effort? They’re getting international flak. Somehow the story got out and letters in defense of the pigs have come in from every state in the union, not to mention places like Taiwan, Japan, India, and even Iran.
Most relevant to the point I want to make today are the people who suggest that the seniors be forced to go with the pigs to the slaughterhouse so they can see the end result of what they’re doing. This, of course, is based on a belief that these misguided children are ignorant of these facts. But they are not unaware of the realities of raising animals for food. These are farm kids. As one of their teachers pointed out; “they know their meat doesn’t come in Styrofoam boxes”. One of the senior’s reactions was even more to the point: “What? I gut my own deer!”
This is an urban/rural version of The Gap, but it is similar to what we often see in the adult/youth version. One group views a behavior from a different perspective and context and doesn’t understand, yet their lack of understanding doesn’t stop them from prescribing solutions. In this case, the urban folk assume that if the kids only knew what happens to pigs in a slaughterhouse they wouldn’t do what they’re doing, because the urban folk can’t get their minds around the fact that the seniors might be well aware of the pig’s future, and be OK with that. Instead of seeking to understand, they prescribe a solution (send the kids in to watch the slaughter) to their perceived problem (the fact that the pigs are being raised for slaughter) that makes no sense from the senior’s viewpoint.
The adult/youth Gap follows this same pattern. Adults view behavior in young people that they don’t understand, perceive problems that may not exist, and prescribe solutions that are meaningless to young people. How can we avoid falling into The Gap? It’s simple, really. Don’t try to ‘solve’ things you don’t understand. The proper response to behavior in young people that we don’t understand is to seek first to understand it.
An example is the current ‘freak dancing’ controversy – at least, it’s a big deal in schools here in Oregon. While the debate rages over what to ‘do’ about it, I have heard virtually no adult effort to understand it. No surprise, then, that the ‘problem’ seems unresolved. That’s what happens when we fall into The Gap.
Monday, March 12, 2007
On Discipline in Schools
Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last week you have no doubt heard about the 6th graders who engaged in full out sexual intercourse in a classroom with a teacher present. Today’s entry is not about this incident. Rather, today’s entry is about the reactions I’ve heard related to this incident. As though on cue, the “kids are outta’ control” crowd is having a field day.
Last Friday I listened as one commentator railed against the lack of “discipline” in today’s schools, and then prescribed his solution to the problem. His list of actions to take began with every school requiring school uniforms, or they don’t get any federal dollars.
I must admit that I am incapable of hearing a call for uniforms in school without also hearing a replay of comedian George Carlin’s routine where he talks about watching old movies of kids going to school wearing uniforms, but having trouble understanding them as they were all speaking German. It’s a good line, and I do have some concerns about uniforms being prescribed as the solution to the rather complex problems we are facing in our schools, but the truth is that I don’t have a huge issue with uniforms per se. My issue is with uniforms in a mandatory setting. If students and parents have a choice about attending the school, fine -- uniform away. But if they are there under government mandate and have no real option to attending that school, then uniforms begin to bother me a bit.
But I may take up the question of uniforms, as well as many other issues related to today’s educational system, in a future blog. The point I want to make today is about the call for discipline itself.
Anytime anything happens in a school, lack of discipline is the first battle cry. Over this din I often hear only my lonely little voice pointing out a belief that whatever the problem du jour is, discipline is not the answer.
When we speak of discipline, and a brief visit to a dictionary will confirm this, we are speaking of training to act in accordance with rules, and punishment inflicted by way of correction and training. Remember, however, we are applying this to a group of people whose needs are not correction, but development. Young people are engaged in a process where they are seeking ways to meet their physical and social needs and build competencies. Rules and punishment do not help human beings develop -- and a call for punishment as a means of preventing problems seems to me to be self-evidently wrong. What young people need are boundaries and guidance. In other words, they need structure.
Is there a lack of discipline in schools? Sure, but where appropriate structure exists, there is a greatly reduced need for discipline. As we engage in the on-going debates about problems in our schools, in which I will periodically participate through this blog, I’m going to consistently assert that there is a difference between discipline and structure, and that the latter is a far preferable approach.
Last Friday I listened as one commentator railed against the lack of “discipline” in today’s schools, and then prescribed his solution to the problem. His list of actions to take began with every school requiring school uniforms, or they don’t get any federal dollars.
I must admit that I am incapable of hearing a call for uniforms in school without also hearing a replay of comedian George Carlin’s routine where he talks about watching old movies of kids going to school wearing uniforms, but having trouble understanding them as they were all speaking German. It’s a good line, and I do have some concerns about uniforms being prescribed as the solution to the rather complex problems we are facing in our schools, but the truth is that I don’t have a huge issue with uniforms per se. My issue is with uniforms in a mandatory setting. If students and parents have a choice about attending the school, fine -- uniform away. But if they are there under government mandate and have no real option to attending that school, then uniforms begin to bother me a bit.
But I may take up the question of uniforms, as well as many other issues related to today’s educational system, in a future blog. The point I want to make today is about the call for discipline itself.
Anytime anything happens in a school, lack of discipline is the first battle cry. Over this din I often hear only my lonely little voice pointing out a belief that whatever the problem du jour is, discipline is not the answer.
When we speak of discipline, and a brief visit to a dictionary will confirm this, we are speaking of training to act in accordance with rules, and punishment inflicted by way of correction and training. Remember, however, we are applying this to a group of people whose needs are not correction, but development. Young people are engaged in a process where they are seeking ways to meet their physical and social needs and build competencies. Rules and punishment do not help human beings develop -- and a call for punishment as a means of preventing problems seems to me to be self-evidently wrong. What young people need are boundaries and guidance. In other words, they need structure.
Is there a lack of discipline in schools? Sure, but where appropriate structure exists, there is a greatly reduced need for discipline. As we engage in the on-going debates about problems in our schools, in which I will periodically participate through this blog, I’m going to consistently assert that there is a difference between discipline and structure, and that the latter is a far preferable approach.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Throw the Book at 'em
One of the most often whined laments I here about teens today is the “fact” that they are wasting all of their conscious hours playing video games. This common knowledge has been spouted in support of everything from teen violence to teen obesity. Now, according to a March 7th story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, we finally have confirmation of what teens are squandering both their time and money on, and the result is that we may need to find a new lament. As it turns out, a record number of teens today are spending their hours in the deviant, mind numbing, anti-social act of … reading.
Booklist magazine critic Michael Cart, a leading authority on young adult literature, is quoted in the article as saying; “Kids are buying books in quantities we’ve never seen before, and publishers are courting young adults in ways we haven’t seen since the 1940s.”
Teen book sales are soaring, up by a quarter between 1999 and 2005, and we’re not just talking about Harry Potter and trashy novels. An industry analysis showed that the quality is soaring, as well. It specifically indicates that older teens are enjoying a surge of sophisticated fare, and identified the growth in popularity of young adult literature as a “global phenomenon”. Declared Cart; “We are right smack-dab in the new golden age of young adult literature.”
Of course, the cynic in me eagerly awaits the panicked stories of scary looking teens hanging out in the aisles of your local Barnes and Noble …
Booklist magazine critic Michael Cart, a leading authority on young adult literature, is quoted in the article as saying; “Kids are buying books in quantities we’ve never seen before, and publishers are courting young adults in ways we haven’t seen since the 1940s.”
Teen book sales are soaring, up by a quarter between 1999 and 2005, and we’re not just talking about Harry Potter and trashy novels. An industry analysis showed that the quality is soaring, as well. It specifically indicates that older teens are enjoying a surge of sophisticated fare, and identified the growth in popularity of young adult literature as a “global phenomenon”. Declared Cart; “We are right smack-dab in the new golden age of young adult literature.”
Of course, the cynic in me eagerly awaits the panicked stories of scary looking teens hanging out in the aisles of your local Barnes and Noble …
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Props Where Props are Due
Regular readers of Youth Advocate Online know that I tend to complain … a lot. Hey, it’s not my fault. An advocate for youth has a lot to complain about in today’s world. But I try to be fair and balanced (where have I heard that before?), so it’s always both refreshing and a pleasure when I stumble upon something deserving of props.
Such is the case with a recent column I read that was reviewing a book for parents of teens. The book, by Michael J. Bradley is titled Yes, Your Teen is Crazy! Loving Your Kid Without Losing Your Mind (2003, Harbor Press). Bradley, an educational psychologist and therapist, postulates that new theories of brain development are the reason why teens seem unstable, irrational, and impulsive, and, according to the reviewer (I haven’t read the book), Bradley gives some good, practical advice for dealing with your teen.
None of this has anything to do with the props I want to give, however. As I said, I haven’t even read the book. It was the reviewer himself that is deserving of props.
The reviewer is a family psychologist named John Rosemond. He writes a syndicated column called Affirmative Parenting, which is where I came across the review. If you want to know more about John Rosemond, I’ve put a link to his site in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth. Personally, I had never heard of him until I came across the review, and I haven’t had much time to spend on his website -- so, at this point, I can’t speak in favor of or against him. Never-the-less, he does deserve props for something he pointed out in his review of Bradley’s book.
Rosemond challenges Bradley’s basic premise; that being that most teenagers think and act like they’re crazy. Says Rosemond; “Let's face it, a significant number of teenagers don't act like they've got loose screws rattling around inside their craniums”. What a refreshing statement to see about teens! The prevailing wisdom is that most if not all teens are crazy people ready to run wild in the streets. The reality is that “a significant number” if not most teens are relatively sane and rational -- at least as much as any of us are. Sure, they have different, and briefer, experience with life, resulting in different perspectives and desires than most adults. But the common attitude that teens are irrational and out of control is simply not true, regardless of how it is supported by the media’s constant attention to the exceptions rather than the rules.
So, props to John Rosemond, for reminding us that when we talk about working in partnership with youth, we’re not talking about letting the inmates run the asylum. We’re talking about giving a sane and rational segment of our society a voice in our ... and their … world.
Such is the case with a recent column I read that was reviewing a book for parents of teens. The book, by Michael J. Bradley is titled Yes, Your Teen is Crazy! Loving Your Kid Without Losing Your Mind (2003, Harbor Press). Bradley, an educational psychologist and therapist, postulates that new theories of brain development are the reason why teens seem unstable, irrational, and impulsive, and, according to the reviewer (I haven’t read the book), Bradley gives some good, practical advice for dealing with your teen.
None of this has anything to do with the props I want to give, however. As I said, I haven’t even read the book. It was the reviewer himself that is deserving of props.
The reviewer is a family psychologist named John Rosemond. He writes a syndicated column called Affirmative Parenting, which is where I came across the review. If you want to know more about John Rosemond, I’ve put a link to his site in the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth. Personally, I had never heard of him until I came across the review, and I haven’t had much time to spend on his website -- so, at this point, I can’t speak in favor of or against him. Never-the-less, he does deserve props for something he pointed out in his review of Bradley’s book.
Rosemond challenges Bradley’s basic premise; that being that most teenagers think and act like they’re crazy. Says Rosemond; “Let's face it, a significant number of teenagers don't act like they've got loose screws rattling around inside their craniums”. What a refreshing statement to see about teens! The prevailing wisdom is that most if not all teens are crazy people ready to run wild in the streets. The reality is that “a significant number” if not most teens are relatively sane and rational -- at least as much as any of us are. Sure, they have different, and briefer, experience with life, resulting in different perspectives and desires than most adults. But the common attitude that teens are irrational and out of control is simply not true, regardless of how it is supported by the media’s constant attention to the exceptions rather than the rules.
So, props to John Rosemond, for reminding us that when we talk about working in partnership with youth, we’re not talking about letting the inmates run the asylum. We’re talking about giving a sane and rational segment of our society a voice in our ... and their … world.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Speaking of Delinquency
Sometimes people ask me how I developed my approach to working with young people. It’s not an easy answer. I’ve been in the field since I began as a 17 year old “hippie hotline” drug crisis counselor in 1970, and everything I’ve done and experienced since then has contributed to how I work with young people today. But along the way there have been a few resources that stand out in my memory as having had significant influence on my beliefs and perspectives. Periodically, I’ll share these resources in Youth Advocate Online.
The first I would like to share is Radical Non-Intervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem, a book written by Edwin Schur released in 1973. I actually still have my original, highlighted copy, and I recently picked it up and read through the highlights. What fascinated (and saddened) me the most was just how relevant the book remains, despite having been penned over three decades ago! It is for this reason that I feel comfortable recommending the book for current reading.
Unfortunately, the book is out of print. Not to worry … copies can still be found. In fact, you can purchase a used copy through the in4y.com marketplace (pretty cheaply, too). But, if you are the impatient type who doesn’t feel like ordering and reading a book, I have another option for you. In the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth is a link to an article written by a criminologist named Randell G. Shelton, titled Resurrecting Radical Non-Intervention: Stop the War on Kids. The article includes a summary of Schur’s book and a perspective on its application and relevance in today’s world. Schur’s book is better, of course, but Shelton’s article gives you a good introduction. I highly recommend that you take 15 minutes at some point to read it through.
The first I would like to share is Radical Non-Intervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem, a book written by Edwin Schur released in 1973. I actually still have my original, highlighted copy, and I recently picked it up and read through the highlights. What fascinated (and saddened) me the most was just how relevant the book remains, despite having been penned over three decades ago! It is for this reason that I feel comfortable recommending the book for current reading.
Unfortunately, the book is out of print. Not to worry … copies can still be found. In fact, you can purchase a used copy through the in4y.com marketplace (pretty cheaply, too). But, if you are the impatient type who doesn’t feel like ordering and reading a book, I have another option for you. In the Web Resources section of the InterNetwork for Youth is a link to an article written by a criminologist named Randell G. Shelton, titled Resurrecting Radical Non-Intervention: Stop the War on Kids. The article includes a summary of Schur’s book and a perspective on its application and relevance in today’s world. Schur’s book is better, of course, but Shelton’s article gives you a good introduction. I highly recommend that you take 15 minutes at some point to read it through.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Why we Study
Or, to be more specific, why we study what we study is a question that keeps popping up in my mind when I run into studies that discover the obvious and conclude nothing. Take, for example, a study conducted by Stacy Armour, a doctoral student in sociology, and co-authored by Dana Haynie, an associate professor of sociology, both at Ohio State University.
Armour and Haynie conducted national survey of over 7,000 adolescents, based mostly on self-report, and published their results in the February 2007 issue of the Journal of Youth and Adolescence. The focus of their study was on the age of a youth's first sexual experience, compared to the average age for first sex within a youth's peer group. Their conclusion was that young people who had sex earlier than average for their peers showed a 20% increase in 'delinquent' acts one year later.
I had two reactions to this study; no kidding, and so what?
To begin with 'no kidding', did we really need a study conducted over 7 years (there were 3 survey points; initial, 1 year later, and 6 years later) to tell us that early sexual activity is one of the signs of a young person in trouble? Today's culture makes early adolescent sexuality an illicit, taboo activity -- and those who engage in such activities are already breaking the 'rules', and therefore are more likely to be breaking other 'rules'. Even the authors of the study admit this. "We're not finding that sex itself leads to delinquency, but instead, that beginning sexual relationships long before your friends is cause for concern," said Armour. I'm not challenging the truth of that statement, I'm simply pointing out that any youth worker worth his or her salt could have told you this in 7 seconds, not 7 years.
This brings me to the 'so what'. I read studies like this and wonder, what's the point? Even the authors themselves seem to grasp for profound insight. "The findings point out the importance of acting within normal bounds for your age group," Haynie said. "Those who start having sex too young may not be prepared to deal with the potential emotional, social and behavioral consequences of their actions." And this is where I have a real problem with studies like this.
Haynie's conclusion is only valid is early sex leads to delinquency, which her co-author Armour admits is not a finding of the study. It is, in my opinion, far more likely that early sex is an indicator, as are other so-called 'delinquent' behaviors, of risk influences affecting an adolescent's development. Does anyone want to bet me that if we conducted a further study we'd discover that those adolescents involved in early sexual activity demonstrate a much higher instance of sexual abuse than those who become sexually active later in life. Seriously, wanna' bet? Anyone?
I don't really mind that studies like this state the obvious. Its always good to be able to back up what you know. The real danger is when we start making up conclusions based on treating symptoms as causes. A study like this will probably be used to justify programs focused at adolescent sexual activity, diverting our attention away from the real, more complex issues that lead to adolescent sexual activity, and a host of other risk behaviors.
Armour and Haynie conducted national survey of over 7,000 adolescents, based mostly on self-report, and published their results in the February 2007 issue of the Journal of Youth and Adolescence. The focus of their study was on the age of a youth's first sexual experience, compared to the average age for first sex within a youth's peer group. Their conclusion was that young people who had sex earlier than average for their peers showed a 20% increase in 'delinquent' acts one year later.
I had two reactions to this study; no kidding, and so what?
To begin with 'no kidding', did we really need a study conducted over 7 years (there were 3 survey points; initial, 1 year later, and 6 years later) to tell us that early sexual activity is one of the signs of a young person in trouble? Today's culture makes early adolescent sexuality an illicit, taboo activity -- and those who engage in such activities are already breaking the 'rules', and therefore are more likely to be breaking other 'rules'. Even the authors of the study admit this. "We're not finding that sex itself leads to delinquency, but instead, that beginning sexual relationships long before your friends is cause for concern," said Armour. I'm not challenging the truth of that statement, I'm simply pointing out that any youth worker worth his or her salt could have told you this in 7 seconds, not 7 years.
This brings me to the 'so what'. I read studies like this and wonder, what's the point? Even the authors themselves seem to grasp for profound insight. "The findings point out the importance of acting within normal bounds for your age group," Haynie said. "Those who start having sex too young may not be prepared to deal with the potential emotional, social and behavioral consequences of their actions." And this is where I have a real problem with studies like this.
Haynie's conclusion is only valid is early sex leads to delinquency, which her co-author Armour admits is not a finding of the study. It is, in my opinion, far more likely that early sex is an indicator, as are other so-called 'delinquent' behaviors, of risk influences affecting an adolescent's development. Does anyone want to bet me that if we conducted a further study we'd discover that those adolescents involved in early sexual activity demonstrate a much higher instance of sexual abuse than those who become sexually active later in life. Seriously, wanna' bet? Anyone?
I don't really mind that studies like this state the obvious. Its always good to be able to back up what you know. The real danger is when we start making up conclusions based on treating symptoms as causes. A study like this will probably be used to justify programs focused at adolescent sexual activity, diverting our attention away from the real, more complex issues that lead to adolescent sexual activity, and a host of other risk behaviors.
Monday, March 05, 2007
A Motivating Thought
Last month in the JTFest Consulting Online Library I posted an article titled Carrots Pro’s and Con’s: A reflection on the use of incentives in youth programs. That’s why a story from the BBC out of the United Kingdom caught my attention. In doing a study on what motivates young people, they took students from two schools (Merchant Taylors’ boys’ school and St Helen’s girls’ school), divided them into two groups, and asked them to make posters about what makes them happy. One group was told that they would be paid for their posters. The other group was told that their posters would be donated to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. In other words, on group was presented with an extrinsic motivation (money), while the second group was presented with an intrinsic motivation (cheering up sick peers).
The result? While both groups produced very creative posters, the intrinsically motivated group’s posters were judged to be qualitatively better. This opinion wasn’t simply a matter of personal preference – there was a noticeable difference in the representations of happiness. For the intrinsically motivated group, happy faces, fun activities, representations of friendship, and joyful emotions were the ‘paint’ on the canvas of their posters. For the extrinsically motivated group, representations of money, wealth, and material possessions seemed to dominate.
The conclusion was that while both the intrinsic and extrinsic groups were motivated, the quality of their motivation was very different. Those who were motivated by the promise of payment did what they were asked to do. Those who were motivated by a perception that the task was worthwhile put their hearts into the project.
The result? While both groups produced very creative posters, the intrinsically motivated group’s posters were judged to be qualitatively better. This opinion wasn’t simply a matter of personal preference – there was a noticeable difference in the representations of happiness. For the intrinsically motivated group, happy faces, fun activities, representations of friendship, and joyful emotions were the ‘paint’ on the canvas of their posters. For the extrinsically motivated group, representations of money, wealth, and material possessions seemed to dominate.
The conclusion was that while both the intrinsic and extrinsic groups were motivated, the quality of their motivation was very different. Those who were motivated by the promise of payment did what they were asked to do. Those who were motivated by a perception that the task was worthwhile put their hearts into the project.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Spare the Rod ...
Honestly, I wasn’t planning on writing another blog entry about spanking so soon, but it seems that the airwaves in my neck of the woods are inundated with the issue. First there was the controversy out of California regarding an anti-spanking law, then came the story of the McMinnville (Oregon) middle school students who have been arrested and charged with sexual abuse for engaging in behavior that included spanking, and now we have a story out of Albany (Oregon) about a father who has been arrested for spanking his teenage son.
Of course, in my opinion, ‘spanking’ is being used in its broadest possible connotation. The 13 year old was hit at least 10 times with a 16” wooded paddle. I saw the paddle on TV … it appears to be 6-8 inches wide and about an inch thick. It is well worn and wrapped in two places with duct tape, as the paddle is cracked from use. In a ball point pen on the duct tape is the inscription Board of Correction. The father was reported to the police by his other son, a 17 year old, who thought the punishment was excessive. The 13 year old had bruises and welts on his buttocks, thighs, and arms.
The twist that has hooked the media on this story is that the father is … well, a Father. He is the pastor of a local Albany church. This has resulted in lots of TV and radio interviews with his congregation who, virtually to a person, support the father. I can’t even count how many times I’ve heard the phrase spare the rod and spoil the child as they defend the father’s actions.
This is where my real problem with spanking exists; in the undefined nature of what it is and when it is appropriate. In principle, I personally am against any form of corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool. But am I going to get all bent out of shape if a parent slaps their kid on the bottom to make a point? No. I don’t support it, but there are much bigger fish to fry in the world of youth advocacy. However, is there a difference between getting a 3 year olds attention, and using corporal punishment on a 13 year old? I think so. Is there a difference between a slap on the bottom, and beating someone with a piece of wood? I definitely think so. Yet these dissimilar behaviors all are discussed in our culture under the heading of ‘spanking’.
Now, anytime religion comes into the picture one is on shaky ground, but I also object to spanking being defended with historically questionable catch phrases. You may wonder what I mean by historically questionable if you believe that the phrase spare the rod and spoil the child is from the Bible. It isn’t, at least, not in that form. The phrase is a common interpretation of several Biblical passages involving the use of a “rod” to discipline children, and has supported a belief that children will only flourish if physically punished for wrongdoing. But regardless of your belief in Biblical scripture, the fact is that the Bible has been interpreted and rewritten by man throughout the ages. A simple Internet search will reveal dozens of different wordings for the same Biblical passages. So, when I say historically questionable, I refer to the possibility that man has changed the intent of the use of a “rod”. What do I base that on? Quite simply, on what a “rod” was used for in Biblical times. A little historical research will reveal that a “rod” was a tool of a shepherd, and when used as a “rod of correction” (note the similarity to the Father’s “Board of Correction”) it was being used to guide and direct a shepherd’s flock. Is it not possible, then, that the admonishment not to spare the rod didn’t mean to beat your child, but rather to provide guidance and direction?
In any case, unless and until we can come to some societal agreement as to where the line is between spanking and abuse, and when it is appropriate to resort to corporal punishment, I’m going to have to stick with my anti-spanking position. But even once we establish this agreement, I’ll probably still advocate for the infliction of guidance and direction over the infliction of physical pain.
Of course, in my opinion, ‘spanking’ is being used in its broadest possible connotation. The 13 year old was hit at least 10 times with a 16” wooded paddle. I saw the paddle on TV … it appears to be 6-8 inches wide and about an inch thick. It is well worn and wrapped in two places with duct tape, as the paddle is cracked from use. In a ball point pen on the duct tape is the inscription Board of Correction. The father was reported to the police by his other son, a 17 year old, who thought the punishment was excessive. The 13 year old had bruises and welts on his buttocks, thighs, and arms.
The twist that has hooked the media on this story is that the father is … well, a Father. He is the pastor of a local Albany church. This has resulted in lots of TV and radio interviews with his congregation who, virtually to a person, support the father. I can’t even count how many times I’ve heard the phrase spare the rod and spoil the child as they defend the father’s actions.
This is where my real problem with spanking exists; in the undefined nature of what it is and when it is appropriate. In principle, I personally am against any form of corporal punishment as a disciplinary tool. But am I going to get all bent out of shape if a parent slaps their kid on the bottom to make a point? No. I don’t support it, but there are much bigger fish to fry in the world of youth advocacy. However, is there a difference between getting a 3 year olds attention, and using corporal punishment on a 13 year old? I think so. Is there a difference between a slap on the bottom, and beating someone with a piece of wood? I definitely think so. Yet these dissimilar behaviors all are discussed in our culture under the heading of ‘spanking’.
Now, anytime religion comes into the picture one is on shaky ground, but I also object to spanking being defended with historically questionable catch phrases. You may wonder what I mean by historically questionable if you believe that the phrase spare the rod and spoil the child is from the Bible. It isn’t, at least, not in that form. The phrase is a common interpretation of several Biblical passages involving the use of a “rod” to discipline children, and has supported a belief that children will only flourish if physically punished for wrongdoing. But regardless of your belief in Biblical scripture, the fact is that the Bible has been interpreted and rewritten by man throughout the ages. A simple Internet search will reveal dozens of different wordings for the same Biblical passages. So, when I say historically questionable, I refer to the possibility that man has changed the intent of the use of a “rod”. What do I base that on? Quite simply, on what a “rod” was used for in Biblical times. A little historical research will reveal that a “rod” was a tool of a shepherd, and when used as a “rod of correction” (note the similarity to the Father’s “Board of Correction”) it was being used to guide and direct a shepherd’s flock. Is it not possible, then, that the admonishment not to spare the rod didn’t mean to beat your child, but rather to provide guidance and direction?
In any case, unless and until we can come to some societal agreement as to where the line is between spanking and abuse, and when it is appropriate to resort to corporal punishment, I’m going to have to stick with my anti-spanking position. But even once we establish this agreement, I’ll probably still advocate for the infliction of guidance and direction over the infliction of physical pain.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Happy New Month!
It's March and, as promised yesterday, a new month means new content at the InterNetwork for Youth!
Congratulations to Giles Arendt of Community Youth Services in Olympia, Washington, our March 2007 PartnerswithYouth award recipient. You can read his profile in the Recipient's Gallery. Take time to visit our featured Website of the Month, Hope Street Youth Development. You can find it on the Kansas page of the Youth Program Directory. Learn about Geocaching and visit 3 new fun links in the Playground, and visit the JTFest Consulting Online Library to see the latest addition, Tough Talk: Dealing with those 'difficult' conversations. All this and more, new for March at the InterNetwork for Youth.
Tomorrow, Youth Advocate Online returns to daily (Monday-Friday) comments related to issues affecting young people. Enjoy!
Congratulations to Giles Arendt of Community Youth Services in Olympia, Washington, our March 2007 PartnerswithYouth award recipient. You can read his profile in the Recipient's Gallery. Take time to visit our featured Website of the Month, Hope Street Youth Development. You can find it on the Kansas page of the Youth Program Directory. Learn about Geocaching and visit 3 new fun links in the Playground, and visit the JTFest Consulting Online Library to see the latest addition, Tough Talk: Dealing with those 'difficult' conversations. All this and more, new for March at the InterNetwork for Youth.
Tomorrow, Youth Advocate Online returns to daily (Monday-Friday) comments related to issues affecting young people. Enjoy!