Children need a strong adult relationship
‘We should also, however, recognise that some adults fail to raise their children properly, fail to care for them, and fail to socialise them.’
So, a voice of reason. Chris Gardiner is the CEO of the Police and Community Youth Clubs. He posted a great article on The Punch today about kids at risk. That quote is from his article.
He argues that we should be investing in our youth in trouble, because while ‘re-socialising dysfunctional, delinquent kids is relationship and resource intensive, … it is cheaper and more effective in the long run than detention centres and prisons. For example, it costs $11 per day for youth conferencing, and $556 per day for custody.’
(And just to explain why this is an issue, he notes that NSW has several times the number of kids in detention that Victoria has, and that over half the kids locked up are aboriginal.)
It’s the same message we hear from the ‘children at risk’ support system. Get into the family, support them, stop the family structure breaking down. Fix it, rather than manage the fallout.
So why does Gardiner’s article sound more realistic to us?
He puts the child at the centre of it.
After that early statement about the family, he talks about the child, and what they need. Let’s be blunt - he doesn’t talk about propping up a failing family structure. He advocates action with the child, and for the child. He says we need to give these children ‘the chance for social development that they have been thus far denied’.
There is no reason why support for the family shouldn’t continue. But it should be separate to support allocated to the child.
And here’s the paragraph that could well be written for children in care.
‘For intervention to work, though, it must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship and an alternative peer setting. Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants (as interagency case management often becomes).’
This issue of attachment came up in an American Academy of Paediatrics article on Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care , and we wrote about it previously on our blog. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Academy article:
‘Having at least 1 adult who is devoted to and loves a child unconditionally, who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time, is key to helping a child overcome the stress and trauma of abuse and neglect.’
So we think those two paragraphs might contain some guidance for assessing whether a child at risk is getting what they need:
Those of us lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing family will read those points and understand what they mean. We know what that looks and feels like.
So, how long should we take to decide a child is NOT getting that, and what are we prepared to do about it?
So, a voice of reason. Chris Gardiner is the CEO of the Police and Community Youth Clubs. He posted a great article on The Punch today about kids at risk. That quote is from his article.
He argues that we should be investing in our youth in trouble, because while ‘re-socialising dysfunctional, delinquent kids is relationship and resource intensive, … it is cheaper and more effective in the long run than detention centres and prisons. For example, it costs $11 per day for youth conferencing, and $556 per day for custody.’
(And just to explain why this is an issue, he notes that NSW has several times the number of kids in detention that Victoria has, and that over half the kids locked up are aboriginal.)
It’s the same message we hear from the ‘children at risk’ support system. Get into the family, support them, stop the family structure breaking down. Fix it, rather than manage the fallout.
So why does Gardiner’s article sound more realistic to us?
He puts the child at the centre of it.
After that early statement about the family, he talks about the child, and what they need. Let’s be blunt - he doesn’t talk about propping up a failing family structure. He advocates action with the child, and for the child. He says we need to give these children ‘the chance for social development that they have been thus far denied’.
There is no reason why support for the family shouldn’t continue. But it should be separate to support allocated to the child.
And here’s the paragraph that could well be written for children in care.
‘For intervention to work, though, it must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship and an alternative peer setting. Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants (as interagency case management often becomes).’
This issue of attachment came up in an American Academy of Paediatrics article on Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care , and we wrote about it previously on our blog. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Academy article:
‘Having at least 1 adult who is devoted to and loves a child unconditionally, who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time, is key to helping a child overcome the stress and trauma of abuse and neglect.’
So we think those two paragraphs might contain some guidance for assessing whether a child at risk is getting what they need:
- A single, consistent and strong adult relationship
- An adult committed to them (our comment – in action, not words)
- An adult devoted to them
- An adult who loves them unconditionally
- An adult who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time
Those of us lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing family will read those points and understand what they mean. We know what that looks and feels like.
So, how long should we take to decide a child is NOT getting that, and what are we prepared to do about it?
|