Kiaras Gharabaghi

Beyond Control: Staff Perceptions of Accountability for Children and Youth in Residential Group Care

This article explores the perceptions of residential staff teams regarding the concept of accountability for children and youth living in group care situations. Using a qualitative research approach, the authors held focus groups with residential staff teams in childrens mental health and private group care facilities and then interviewed the supervisors separately in an effort to explore how these teams conceive of their responsibility to teach children and youth about accountability, as well as in order to determine the specific tools used and approaches taken for this purpose. The authors found that a strong reliance on control-based approaches persists and that, furthermore, very little conceptual or theoretical thinking informs team discussions or approaches to holding children and youth accountable for their actions. It is argued here that there is an urgent need to seriously engage with residential care providers about the lived experiences of children and youth under conditions. The use of control and vigilance around the enforcement of program expectations are rarely focused on the individual needs of the clients and typically reflect the intuition or “common sense” of residential staff teams instead.

Big Data for Child and Youth Services

The role of data in the development and implementation of social policy is undeniably on the rise. Data increasingly drives everything from funding allocations to service design, and from program evaluation to the development of targeted interventions for specific population groups. Sometimes this is not such a bad thing; scarce resources (or the perception of resource scarcity) call for informed decision making, and data is without a doubt one element in this. At other times, this data-centric way of organizing the public sphere has significant drawbacks; for one thing, it tends to privilege particular ways of understanding social relations and of legitimizing knowledge, and thus contributes to exclusion and marginalization. In recent years, the concept of data as a generic value has given way to the new buzzword for this decade: Big Data. Big Data is differentiated from other forms of data in that it seeks to encompass “whole” processes, including the complex network of myriad levels and spheres of social relations in an effort to improve our work in social policy by ensuring that processes traditionally seen to be outside the core of intervention are nevertheless considered as valued components of social engineering. Most commonly, Big Data is associated with health care policy, because it is widely recognized that health is the outcome of not only high end, medical interventions, but also, and perhaps more so, of every day activities, such as exercise, good nutrition, low-stress, and so on. Big Data is a relatively new field, but it is gaining traction in a wide range of fields and industries, post-secondary education among them; many universities across North America have established Institutes of Big Data and have started the process of trying to figure out what data to collect and how to manage the vast number of data values that are involved. For now, at least, the whole enterprise seems to be just that—an enterprise of research that serves the interests of those party to it, and perhaps also a range of corporate interests seeking to expand their hold on information. For this reason, it is important for scholars in the human services to maintain a critical perspective vis-à-vis the rise of Big Data as an industry onto itself. We have learned from so many other initiatives that aggregate unique and sometimes ideologically challenging social issues that such work can do at least as much harm as good. Concerns also involve data privacy. As data are increasingly available (from what Web sites we visit to how often—and with whom—we text) to corporations and governments, and as more people use new technologies

In Search of New Ideas

In spite of the proliferation of research and writing about children and youth over the course of the past few decades, precious little has changed for the young people about whom we are most concerned. On the one hand, advances in psychology, neuroscience, and even more practice-oriented professions such as child and youth care practice, social work, and other human services, have indeed given us confidence that we can make a difference in the lives of even the most marginalized and vulnerable young people. Our current focus on evidence-based practice, and its first cousin, program evaluation, has ensured that we invest our time and effort mostly where we know seemingly desirable outcomes are likely. In fact, many academic careers are furthered by the need to know whether the things we do, the interventions we propose and act on, and the programs and services we design produce the outcomes we are seeking from and in the young people whom these programs serve. It is not our intention to be critical of the excellent work that has been done in this respect. At the same time, however, we are conscious that all the evidence we have mounted, and all of the program evaluations we have undertaken, have had little or no positive impact at all on the young people who are chronically left out. In fact, in many cases the focus on evidence-based practice at the expense of other ways of being with youth—relational engagement, sport and recreation, authentic caring, and the like—has compounded the alienation and marginalization of many children and young people already on the fringes of our service networks. We think one reason for this unfortunate reality is that our efforts are driven by fairly dated and often misplaced ideas about what constitutes desirable outcomes to begin with. So long as we continue to seek social, moral, and political conformity from young people, effectively seeking to recreate ourselves and our social structures with no critical examination, there will be a substantial group amongst these young people who get lost or who won’t conform to the evidence. We then conveniently construct these young people as the exceptions, or as excessively damaged, or as somehow not meeting the criteria for our research studies and program evaluations in the first place. They, rather than our assumptions and predetermined desired outcomes, remain the problem. Child & Youth Services, 33:1–4, 2012 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0145-935X print=1545-2298 online DOI: 10.1080/0145935X.2012.665317

In-Service Training and Professional Development in Residential Child and Youth Care Settings: A Three Sector Comparison in Ontario

This article explores the core themes and issues related to in-service training and professional development opportunities and practices in residential care settings in Ontario, Canada. Inventories of training activities were developed for three different sectors: childrens mental health, child welfare, and private residential service providers. Using a qualitative research approach that involved face-to-face interviews with executive leaders and human resource specialists from 26 agencies from across Ontario, 3 core themes emerged: first, training activities in most residential care facilities are by and large ad hoc and uncoordinated; second, there is no cross-sector collaboration on such initiatives in spite of obvious commonalities in training needs; and third, although many individual agencies have made considerable efforts in developing meaningful and consistent training regiments for their residential child and youth workers, there is very little training emphasis on the issues entailed in life space interventions and living with children and youth.

Private Service, Public Rights: The Private Children's Residential Group Care Sector in Ontario, Canada

This article explores the core themes and issues of private residential service delivery for children and youth in Ontario, with a specific focus on staffed group care within this sector. Such exploration highlights the juxtaposition of the public rights of children with the private world of service provision. Based on twenty interviews with owners of private residential care facilities and an examination of government and professional writing and reports about residential care in Ontario, there is no obvious reason to dismiss or be critical of private residential care. However, both private and public residential care in Ontario are under-regulated, resulting in significant variations in terms of organizational structures, the quality of staffing and training, accountability and transparency, and ultimately, the efficacy of specific residential services.

Relationships Within and Outside of the Discipline of Child and Youth Care

SUMMARY This article explores the practitioners relationships with colleagues, on teams and with professionals from other disciplines and systems. While there has been much analysis and discussion about relationships between practitioners and clients, there has been relatively little attention paid to the professional relationships that are at the center of the practitioners day-to-day work. It is within these relationships that practitioners encounter both opportunities and challenges in positioning themselves effectively to deliver a positive service to clients. As such, in this article are descriptions of the relationships amongst child and youth care practitioners, between practitioners and other professionals as well as between practitioners and other systems. Several core themes are identified including the importance of communication and networking as well as the role of power imbalances in defining the nature of such relationships.

Professional Issues in Child and Youth Care

SUMMARY Several contexts and themes of professionalism are considered including the nature of “professional issues,” professionalism, and writing about professional issues. The professional issues discussed are the socio-political and cultural contexts, systems, employment, career development, relationships with other professionals, and the self. Next, I discuss the professional issues of professional organization, arguing that the professional status of child and youth care matters less than the meaning of the work to practitioners. I also argue that more work needs to be done before the field can be professionally organized. Finally, I suggest both scholarly research work and less formal, more accessible writing have a rightful place in the ongoing evolution of the field.

The Community Context of Child and Youth Care Practice

SUMMARY Child and youth care practice unfolds within the context of the community. It is therefore essential that practitioners develop reflective skills not only in relation to their clients and the organizational context in which they are employed, but also in relation to their presence within a community and the communitys perception of the practitioners presence. The role of community within child and youth care practice is explored in relation to the professional issues that can arise for practitioners. It is argued that practitioners both use and contribute to the communities in which they work and that, therefore, an active engagement with communities will require the practitioner to be aware of the implications of their presence with respect to culture, power and community conventions. Finally, the possibility of expanding the role of the practitioner to incorporate community capacity building is also explored. Child and youth care practice is ideally situated to contribute proactively to community capacity as in most communities, capacity issues are very much related to living with children and youth.

Trending Rightward: Nationalism, Xenophobia, and the 2016 Politics of Fear

Wewrite this editorial as 2016 comes to a close andwe reflect on the year as it passes. This was a year of unprecedented social and political upheaval inmuch of the world. The global refugee crisis continues, with countless deaths, unimaginable destruction, and global powers shutting their doors while jockeying for control over the spoils. Images of displaced children and families, bleeding andwashed up on foreign shores, have dominated the global media. Nations across the global north and west have been shaken by violence within their own borders, and these nations’ leaders have in many cases used the public’s fear of violence to enact increasingly restrictive and isolationist policies to limit immigration, scrutinize and conduct surveillance on newcomers, and fuel nationalist fervor. In the United Kingdom, the Brexit decision to leave the European Union came in large part as the result of these fears – of violence, of displacement, of disenfranchisement at the hands of newcomers. Germany’s Angela Merkel faces heightened criticism for her open-door policies toward waves of principally Syrian immigrants, particularly in light of recent acts of violence in Berlin. Paris and Brussels remain under increased military presence as the French presidential election leans toward farright leaderMarine Le Pen and a platform of isolationism and xenophobic responses toward refugees and immigrants. And of course, in theUnited States, Donald Trump rode to theWhite House on a campaign characterized by nationalism, isolationism, xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, and proudly disparaging behaviors and attitudes toward women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people, and more. Over the course of this year, we have seen no shortage of commentary and speculation about how and why these events have occurred. In the United States, pundits comment on the Democratic party’s failure to court white working-class voters, point the finger at the media and its sensationalized treatment of the entire election, and suggest that Trump’s populist movement (and its alt-right fringe) finally found a spokesperson. Brexit is often chalked up to a fundamental disbelief that “this could ever happen,” coupled with everyday people’s cultivated anxieties around immigration, “radical Islam,” vulnerability to terrorism, and economic disenfranchisement. A similar rhetoric undergirds countless examples of this global drift rightward. But our interest here is less about what has given rise to this movement toward conservatism and nationalism than about what it means for the most vulnerable members of our local and global communities. Taking the case of the United States as an example, we worry about the implications of a Presidential administration willing to seriously consider creating a Muslim registry, denying immigration or entry to Muslim people, and enforcing the mass deportation of up to 11 million

The Voice of Young People

In at least some parts of the world, there are increasing efforts on the part of service providers to consider the voices of young people involved in child and youth services. Very often, this takes the shape of asking young people how they are experiencing such services, what they like and what they don’t like, and what sort of recommendations they would make to professionals as they continue to refine or re-design their services. In some countries, even policymakers are increasingly interested in what young people have to say, and in some cases, national or regional policies, laws and regulations have been adjusted to reflect the feedback from young people. All of these developments are positive; they point to a more inclusive and perhaps more democratic way of thinking about child and youth services. Perhaps the inclusion of the voices of young people also reflects a level of frustration amongst policy makers in particular with the mediocrity of service outcomes in much of the child and youth serving sectors. The services are expensive, and poor outcomes make it difficult to rationalize such expense. In recent years, the voices of young people have spurned an entirely new “industry” in the child and youth serving sectors. Sometimes this industry is referred to as “youth engagement;” other times it is referred to as “youth voice” or some other combination of the terms “youth,” “engagement,” “leadership,” and “voice.” Practices within this industry vary widely. Sometimes, professional approaches are reflected in the process of collecting youth voices, and young people are asked to participate in focus groups, interviews, or the completion of surveys. In other settings, youth voice consists of the “cream of the crop” of “youth leaders” offering feedback on advisory boards or occupying symbolic but functionally powerless positions on agency boards. Increasingly, we can identify far more creative approaches to engaging or soliciting the voices of young people that include performance arts, especially theatre, as well as various forms of visual arts and story telling media. Even more advanced approaches seek to build youth advocacy groups, networks of young people in care or with some other common biographical feature, and authentic integration of young people onto decision-making bodies within agencies or even in policy circles. The slowly emerging perspective that youth services ought to be informed by young people themselves represents enormous progress in many respects, but it also results in some challenges for which we perhaps are