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.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 25, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
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.
Monday, May 21, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 18, 2007
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’.
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’.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
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 …
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 …
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, May 14, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
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 …
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.
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.
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 …
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
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 …
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 …
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, May 07, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, May 04, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Professional Dishonesty - Part Four
NOTE: This is Part Four of a continuing entry. See Monday 4/30, Tuesday 5/1, and Wednesday 5/2 for Part’s One-Three.
The first of Halleck’s three attitudes is the one area of the seven professionally dishonest behaviors with which I have a problem. He calls this attitude ‘denial of limitations’ and points out that we are lying to young people when we insinuate that they can be “anything they want to be” and encourage them to achieve “beyond their limits”.
It’s not that I disagree in theory. Certainly if a young person is developmentally or physically unable to aspire to an outcome, it is both dishonest and downright cruel to imply that the outcome is an option for them. My concern, however, is how prone we are to underestimate a young person’s abilities, and how quickly we sometimes presume limitations.
Take Halleck’s examples. Writing in 1963 he lists among the ‘limitations’ faced by young people the fact that many “are from troubled homes and lower socioeconomic groups”. At the same time he points out that most professionals are from a “middle-class background” with a “far greater potentiality”. He concludes by stating that “with a few exceptions they are dealing with people of limited potential who will never be like them”. I trust I am not the only one seeing a bias here, and that’s my concern with this ‘attitude’. While I agree with the truth of the statement, I have little faith in most adult’s ability to accurately assess a young person’s potential.
Halleck also identifies the “open up; trust me; all will go well” attitude that many adult professionals have in their approach to adolescents as one of his seven lies. The attitude completely underestimates or negates the risk that most adolescents are taking when entering into the relationship. To be in a position of contact with an adult professional usually presupposes previous adult relationships that have not worked well or been safe for the adolescent. Additionally, the exhortation itself may imply more than the adult professional is able to provide. The adolescent often knows that the adult is a person with whom they will have only limited future contact. The adult is a person who has multiple loyalties and these loyalties may conflict with their loyalty to the adolescent. It is not a true partnership between equals that is being offered, it is a request to surrender autonomy, independence, and control, and trust that the adult professional will not abuse that power. To the adolescent, this can often appear to be a really bad deal.
Halleck’s final lie is the attitude of “we like you but not your behavior”. He identifies this attitude as a rationalization for a professional’s emotions of anger and frustration. The fact is, no matter how big of an advocate you are for young people, or how understanding you are of their circumstances and behavior, sometimes young people are going to piss you off. Halleck claims that to mask your emotions behind platitudes such as this is both dishonest and unfair to the adolescent. Perhaps more important, it is unsuccessful. The acting out adolescent knows that their behavior can sometimes be obnoxious, provocative, and outright infuriating. FYI; that’s the purpose of the behavior. Covering up your real emotions with intellectual rationalizations will only inspire greater effort on the part of the adolescent, or help them conclude that you’re a big phony.
My intention is not to give you permission to dump every emotional reaction you have when working with adolescents. All I (and Halleck) am suggesting is that there is a place for properly expressed emotions within the professional relationship. In fact, if we are angry with an adolescent, role modeling by expressing that anger in a productive and appropriate manner will be much more helpful to the adolescent than will masking it with artificial rationalizations.
Tomorrow I’ll conclude with final thoughts.
The first of Halleck’s three attitudes is the one area of the seven professionally dishonest behaviors with which I have a problem. He calls this attitude ‘denial of limitations’ and points out that we are lying to young people when we insinuate that they can be “anything they want to be” and encourage them to achieve “beyond their limits”.
It’s not that I disagree in theory. Certainly if a young person is developmentally or physically unable to aspire to an outcome, it is both dishonest and downright cruel to imply that the outcome is an option for them. My concern, however, is how prone we are to underestimate a young person’s abilities, and how quickly we sometimes presume limitations.
Take Halleck’s examples. Writing in 1963 he lists among the ‘limitations’ faced by young people the fact that many “are from troubled homes and lower socioeconomic groups”. At the same time he points out that most professionals are from a “middle-class background” with a “far greater potentiality”. He concludes by stating that “with a few exceptions they are dealing with people of limited potential who will never be like them”. I trust I am not the only one seeing a bias here, and that’s my concern with this ‘attitude’. While I agree with the truth of the statement, I have little faith in most adult’s ability to accurately assess a young person’s potential.
Halleck also identifies the “open up; trust me; all will go well” attitude that many adult professionals have in their approach to adolescents as one of his seven lies. The attitude completely underestimates or negates the risk that most adolescents are taking when entering into the relationship. To be in a position of contact with an adult professional usually presupposes previous adult relationships that have not worked well or been safe for the adolescent. Additionally, the exhortation itself may imply more than the adult professional is able to provide. The adolescent often knows that the adult is a person with whom they will have only limited future contact. The adult is a person who has multiple loyalties and these loyalties may conflict with their loyalty to the adolescent. It is not a true partnership between equals that is being offered, it is a request to surrender autonomy, independence, and control, and trust that the adult professional will not abuse that power. To the adolescent, this can often appear to be a really bad deal.
Halleck’s final lie is the attitude of “we like you but not your behavior”. He identifies this attitude as a rationalization for a professional’s emotions of anger and frustration. The fact is, no matter how big of an advocate you are for young people, or how understanding you are of their circumstances and behavior, sometimes young people are going to piss you off. Halleck claims that to mask your emotions behind platitudes such as this is both dishonest and unfair to the adolescent. Perhaps more important, it is unsuccessful. The acting out adolescent knows that their behavior can sometimes be obnoxious, provocative, and outright infuriating. FYI; that’s the purpose of the behavior. Covering up your real emotions with intellectual rationalizations will only inspire greater effort on the part of the adolescent, or help them conclude that you’re a big phony.
My intention is not to give you permission to dump every emotional reaction you have when working with adolescents. All I (and Halleck) am suggesting is that there is a place for properly expressed emotions within the professional relationship. In fact, if we are angry with an adolescent, role modeling by expressing that anger in a productive and appropriate manner will be much more helpful to the adolescent than will masking it with artificial rationalizations.
Tomorrow I’ll conclude with final thoughts.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Professional Dishonesty - Part Three
NOTE: This is Part Three of a continuing entry. See Monday 4/30 and Tuesday 5/1 for Part’s One and Two.
Halleck’s next two ‘lies’ are also related in my mind; the lie of professional helpfulness and the lie of confidentiality. As with yesterday’s lies, there is truth in both of these, but the element of truth sometimes simply makes it harder to be conscious of the lie we are telling. The helping professional generally presents him or herself as being on the youth’s ‘side’ – yet the truth is that they are generally in a dual role as an advocate for the youth and an agent for the community. Their salary, in fact, is paid by the community, and it is the community to whom they are responsible. In more cases than we would like to admit, when the needs of the adolescent conflict with the needs of the community, it is the community's needs that will win and decisions may be made that are not completely in the young person’s interests.
Even if helping professionals doesn’t realize (or admit) this fact, it doesn’t take a very sharp young person to figure it out. This is particularly true when there is an element of coercion in the relationship. As Halleck points out, the majority of young people do not seek help voluntarily – they are sent to someone due to some deficit, problem, or behavior, where they know the professional’s job is to ‘fix’ them. With runaway and homeless youth, they are often seeking help out of desperation and the person to whom they go wields tremendous power over whether or not they get their needs met. These factors can make it very hard for an adolescent to see the professional as a ‘helpful’ person, and declarations that the professional is on the young person’s ‘side’ can ring hollow and, in fact, be less than accurate.
Confidentiality is another area where the promise may be stronger than the reality. I can relate my own experience as a consultant who has visited many youth programs around the country. One of the questions I always ask of various staff is; what are your policies on confidentiality? I am consistently confronted with unclear or uncertain responses. If an individual staff doesn’t understand the agency’s confidentiality policies, how is an individual young person going to know what level of confidentiality they can expect, and how is their confidentiality going to be protected if staff is unclear what protections they are due?
But that was all my rant. Halleck doesn’t even address that issue. He is concerned with the fact that, as agents of the community instead of the adolescent, we can’t really guarantee confidentiality at all. We don’t work for the young person, and we have obligations to their family, our agency, the community, and law enforcement. Similar to professional helpfulness, in a confidentiality conflict between the adolescent’s needs and the community’s needs, the adolescent is unlikely to prevail (particularly if they are younger than 18). If we fail to fully understand and represent our policies on confidentiality, or if we imply that we can guarantee confidentiality even within our policies, we are perpetuating a lie.
Tomorrow I’ll begin looking at Halleck’s three ‘attitudes’.
Halleck’s next two ‘lies’ are also related in my mind; the lie of professional helpfulness and the lie of confidentiality. As with yesterday’s lies, there is truth in both of these, but the element of truth sometimes simply makes it harder to be conscious of the lie we are telling. The helping professional generally presents him or herself as being on the youth’s ‘side’ – yet the truth is that they are generally in a dual role as an advocate for the youth and an agent for the community. Their salary, in fact, is paid by the community, and it is the community to whom they are responsible. In more cases than we would like to admit, when the needs of the adolescent conflict with the needs of the community, it is the community's needs that will win and decisions may be made that are not completely in the young person’s interests.
Even if helping professionals doesn’t realize (or admit) this fact, it doesn’t take a very sharp young person to figure it out. This is particularly true when there is an element of coercion in the relationship. As Halleck points out, the majority of young people do not seek help voluntarily – they are sent to someone due to some deficit, problem, or behavior, where they know the professional’s job is to ‘fix’ them. With runaway and homeless youth, they are often seeking help out of desperation and the person to whom they go wields tremendous power over whether or not they get their needs met. These factors can make it very hard for an adolescent to see the professional as a ‘helpful’ person, and declarations that the professional is on the young person’s ‘side’ can ring hollow and, in fact, be less than accurate.
Confidentiality is another area where the promise may be stronger than the reality. I can relate my own experience as a consultant who has visited many youth programs around the country. One of the questions I always ask of various staff is; what are your policies on confidentiality? I am consistently confronted with unclear or uncertain responses. If an individual staff doesn’t understand the agency’s confidentiality policies, how is an individual young person going to know what level of confidentiality they can expect, and how is their confidentiality going to be protected if staff is unclear what protections they are due?
But that was all my rant. Halleck doesn’t even address that issue. He is concerned with the fact that, as agents of the community instead of the adolescent, we can’t really guarantee confidentiality at all. We don’t work for the young person, and we have obligations to their family, our agency, the community, and law enforcement. Similar to professional helpfulness, in a confidentiality conflict between the adolescent’s needs and the community’s needs, the adolescent is unlikely to prevail (particularly if they are younger than 18). If we fail to fully understand and represent our policies on confidentiality, or if we imply that we can guarantee confidentiality even within our policies, we are perpetuating a lie.
Tomorrow I’ll begin looking at Halleck’s three ‘attitudes’.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Professional Dishonesty - Part Two
NOTE: This is Part Two of a continuing entry. See Monday 4/30 for Part One.
Halleck’s seven areas of professionally dishonest behavior include 4 ‘lies’ and 3 ‘attitudes’. Two of these lies seem related to me; the lie of adult morality and the lie of rewards for conformity.
In the lie of adult morality Halleck points out that we sometimes approach young people who are coping with issues of sexuality and aggressiveness with a message that these are easily resolved impulses, and a view of an adult world where restraining these impulses is a prerequisite for success. Yet the adolescent’s personal experience with these impulses and their observation of the adult world clearly reveals to them that this is a lie. They witness moral failings by adults on a daily basis; they see adults struggling with the same issues of sexuality and aggressiveness that is being used as an indicator of their deficit; and, perhaps most affronting to young people, they know that many successful adults have relied on sexuality and aggressiveness as a contributing factor in their own success. In other words, the adolescent knows that most of the adults they meet who hold power over them have probably at some time in their lives been guilty of the same behavior that is identified as their ‘problem’.
At the same time, adults often insinuate that conformity will make the young person’s life better. If only they will change their behavior to match community norms and expectations, everything will be fine. It is to their advantage to “be passive, to conform, to obey.” Yet when adolescents accept this as truth and begin to conform they can quickly discover that this is often untrue. In many cases their behavior is a manifestation of personal defenses and coping skills. Simply conforming to external expectations of behavior without a corresponding focus on the context for the behavior will generally leave an adolescent more susceptible to anxiety and fear. From our perspective their conformity is an improvement as they are less of a ‘problem’ for our communities. From their perspective, however, things often get worse, not better. This may explain why street youth are more likely to attempt suicide when they are in programs than when they are on the street, or why we see so much acting out and ‘back-sliding’ with adolescents who appear to be doing well.
Of course, there is truth in both of these ‘lies’. It is certainly true that some control and restraint is necessary when dealing with aggressive and sexual behavior, and life can be pretty difficult when your behavior consistently deviates from the norms of the community. But if we give the impression that there is a paradise of adult morality to which they are simply unable or unwilling to conform – and that everything will be just peachy if they do – then we are most certainly lying.
Tomorrow I’ll describe Halleck’s remaining two ‘lies’.
Halleck’s seven areas of professionally dishonest behavior include 4 ‘lies’ and 3 ‘attitudes’. Two of these lies seem related to me; the lie of adult morality and the lie of rewards for conformity.
In the lie of adult morality Halleck points out that we sometimes approach young people who are coping with issues of sexuality and aggressiveness with a message that these are easily resolved impulses, and a view of an adult world where restraining these impulses is a prerequisite for success. Yet the adolescent’s personal experience with these impulses and their observation of the adult world clearly reveals to them that this is a lie. They witness moral failings by adults on a daily basis; they see adults struggling with the same issues of sexuality and aggressiveness that is being used as an indicator of their deficit; and, perhaps most affronting to young people, they know that many successful adults have relied on sexuality and aggressiveness as a contributing factor in their own success. In other words, the adolescent knows that most of the adults they meet who hold power over them have probably at some time in their lives been guilty of the same behavior that is identified as their ‘problem’.
At the same time, adults often insinuate that conformity will make the young person’s life better. If only they will change their behavior to match community norms and expectations, everything will be fine. It is to their advantage to “be passive, to conform, to obey.” Yet when adolescents accept this as truth and begin to conform they can quickly discover that this is often untrue. In many cases their behavior is a manifestation of personal defenses and coping skills. Simply conforming to external expectations of behavior without a corresponding focus on the context for the behavior will generally leave an adolescent more susceptible to anxiety and fear. From our perspective their conformity is an improvement as they are less of a ‘problem’ for our communities. From their perspective, however, things often get worse, not better. This may explain why street youth are more likely to attempt suicide when they are in programs than when they are on the street, or why we see so much acting out and ‘back-sliding’ with adolescents who appear to be doing well.
Of course, there is truth in both of these ‘lies’. It is certainly true that some control and restraint is necessary when dealing with aggressive and sexual behavior, and life can be pretty difficult when your behavior consistently deviates from the norms of the community. But if we give the impression that there is a paradise of adult morality to which they are simply unable or unwilling to conform – and that everything will be just peachy if they do – then we are most certainly lying.
Tomorrow I’ll describe Halleck’s remaining two ‘lies’.