 |
The most significant finding from this research was the
importance that young people placed on their fellow residents and the group
itself. The research illustrated the various functions that such a group
might serve for individuals and acknowledged that such functions extended
outside the unit to relationships with family members as well as with the
wider community. Young people stressed the role that the group played in
maintaining safety and security as well as helping them to move forward with
their lives.
As a residential worker I was surprised by the level of support that young
people offered to one another as well as the depth of knowledge that they
had about the social work system, relationships, drug use, etc. More often
than not the information provided was accurate and clearly explained.
Significantly, it would most usually be followed by discussion of how to
include staff member’s involvement and the best way to achieve this. Young
people did not feel that these positive elements of group living were
acknowledged or even recognised by staff members or other social work
professionals.
It would appear that to consider the group as being rigidly structured, with
fixed roles and status positions, oversimplifies the complexity of group
living. It also leads us as practitioners to look only for the ‘negative’
behaviours demonstrated and to assume that with the removal of the ‘bad egg’
the group will improve. There are young people for whom residential care
does not provide a secure or therapeutic enough environment. However,
consideration needs to be given as to why young people are acting in such a
way, and what contribution the group might be making either to reinforce or
to challenge this behaviour. Like the ‘symptom-carrying child’ (Yahav &
Sharlin, 2000) the young person may be maintaining group structure or
harmony; therefore his/her removal leads only to that space being filled by
another young person.
It may be helpful for staff to make themselves aware of the
ways in which young people are achieving status within the group and seek to
encourage the positive behaviours such as support and advice, and the use of
humour. In so doing, it may be possible to support the young people in
deciding which types of behaviour they themselves value and encourage. This
would best be done in tandem with staff groups looking at their own means of
functioning and to consider what messages their group dynamic gives to the
young people in their care.
It is argued that the group can usefully be seen by staff as a resource that
requires nurturing and protection. In order to do this, assessment of the
level of communication that exists between workers and young people must
take place. If good communication is established, then young people may be
more trusted to manage their group functioning and provide individual
support, in the certain knowledge that staff members are there to support
rater than to undermine group activity. Residential staff have the complex
task of clearly assessing the individual as well as the group. Like any good
assessment this must occur regularly and those being assessed must feel part
of that process. |
 |
