3 October
No 1225
Creating a sense of belonging to a community
Young people and adults living together can create a united community. This, in a way, puts into action the concept of quality residential care being defined as `Living together as a profession' (Jones, Courtioux, Kalcher, Steinhauser, Tuggener & Waldijk, 1986). In such a community, the prevailing atmosphere is of a group of people having common goals in living together, which is instrumental in avoiding the negative effects of the `total institution' (Goffman, 1961).
The fact that young people are living together and are supervised 24 hours a day in a well designed environment is a very powerful stimulation for achieving behavioral changes among children and young people; however, these behavioural changes are achieved through endless discussions and open negotiations between young people and staff members and by modelling of the staff, not by authoritative discipline. This implies that the relationships between youth and adults are symmetric, rather than the kind of relationship developed in programmes operating under the `medical model' (Eisikovits, 1983).
In order to enable every member of the community to feel at ease, the
community is based on pluralistic and multicultural values. The youth
population is composed of many new immigrants coming from very different
cultural backgrounds. Some examples of countries are Ethiopia, the
former
Soviet Union and Latin America. Other young people are Israeli born but
come from peripheral areas and from families who are, culturally
speaking, at the periphery of society. Therefore, creating a sense of
`belonging' (Brendtro, Brokenleg & Van Bockern, 1990) in such a
community is possible only if staff members apply a true and genuine
cultural pluralism. This is possible only if the prevailing atmosphere
emphasises the importance of every individual finding his or her place
in such a community. It also implies staff members' commitment to the
mission statement: `No child left behind'.
As an example, we can present the integration of Ethiopian youth in such communities. Many of these young people came to Israel without their parents and the youth villages were practically their first home in Israel. In order to give them the feeling that they are fully accepted in the community, and enable them to feel the sense of `belonging', some of their cultural traditions have been incorporated by the community as a whole, such as celebrating holidays like the `Segd' celebration, unknown to Jewish society until the arrival of Ethiopians in Israel (Grupper, 1999a).
Primacy of `education' over `treatment'
The Israeli residential model is based on the principle of
normalisation. This means that a young person has to have the feeling of
being in a 'normal' educational setting. This implies that a normative
school is a central part in the residential programme and that the
educational success of every child is a primary target of the whole
staff. This is not easily achieved. Diverse support systems, both during
school hours and also in the afternoon and evening, are used to help
children experience success in their studies. Although the school is
part of the `normal' secondary school system (and not part of the
`special education' school system), it has to develop special tracks,
special methods and train its teaching staff in order to be able to deal
with all kind of students, and enable them to experience success.
This kind of orientation requires that in the everyday decision-making process, educational considerations are given priority over therapeutic considerations. Although the children often have special emotional needs and the interventions of social workers, psychologists or even psychiatrists are focused on these individual needs, they should not interfere with the overall atmosphere which deliberately stresses educational considerations.
EMMANUEL GRUPPER
Grupper, E. (2005). Creating stimulating environments for young people in residential care: The Israeli youth village ecological' model. Scottish Journal of Residential Care. 4, 2. August/September 2005.
REFERENCES
Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M. & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Eisikovits, R.A. (1983). No exit: residential treatment and the 'sick-role' trap. Child Care Quarterly, 12(1), 36-45.
Grupper, E. (1999). The desired model for professional residential educator in Israel. Mifgash, No. 12-13, 11-27(Hebrew).
Jones, H.D., Courtioux, M., Kalcher, J., Steinhauser, W, Tuggener, H. & Waldijk, K. (1986). The Social pedagogue in Europe: living with others as a profession. Zurich: FICE-International publications.