Congruency is a developmental concept that suggests that a significant factor in healthy development is the ability of the adults in a child’s life to agree on the essential tasks of childhood. Several studies have shown that the ability of parents and teachers to work together in a school environment is a strong predictor of educational success. Such findings seem to explain some of the oddities of my experience as a youth care worker.

In one setting it was noticed that after a staffing, the specific negative behaviors that were discussed seemed to be less severe in the child being staffed. In my first youth care experience, the small group-home staff was more effective than the larger institutional staff of my second job, even though there we had a better physical setting, more resources and greater support. And finally, in a third setting the dismal adjustment made by the children, from the institution to the home, seemed directly related to the negative perception that the institution’s staff had of the children’s parents.

These latter experiences may alert us to the importance of the program’s congruency with the values of the children’s larger community. The ability to forge and maintain connections between staff and community care givers would be a strong predictor of post-placement adjustment. Conflict among the adults in any setting, if left unresolved, would negatively impact the development of the youngsters in care.

“Who is at fault?”
So what is so hard about congruency? One view might be described as the cultural subtext view. Watch any news cast and the subtext becomes obvious. Nothing bad should happen. When it does, fault must be assigned and punishment delivered. It is reflected in the litigious nature of our disputes and in the endless commentaries on the problems of crime and drug use. Who is at fault seems to be the first question asked in any difficult moment. It is so ingrained in our culture the distinction between limits and punishment is often obscured. We are compelled to defend ourselves against being blamed before we ever get a clear idea of what our responsibility might have been in a difficult situation. It is very unusual to look at conflicts from the point of view of legitimate competing interests spawned from our different perspectives and backgrounds. Yet the solution to difficult situations is never found in crime and punishment.

So to promote congruency in difficult moments one needs to overcome our culturally prescribed impulse to assign and avoid blame. It means we have to give up our need for bad guys. And replace it with the notion that difficult moments provide the opportunity to seek unique solutions to complex problems. It means accepting responsibility without the need for blame and sanctions.

Victor Larson
vlarson@universityprep.org