1

1

Youth in conflict frustrate efforts to teach, counsel, or guide them. Whilethe importance of trusting relationships is clear, few have formal training inbuilding such honds. The challenges of building different levels of therapeuticconnections with youth are explored.

summer 2008 volume 17, number 2 | 39

Many troubled youth show developmentalproblems in attachments to family, school,

and community. Past experience causes them to bereluctant to trust adults as reliable mentors and lifeteachers. Attachments are repaired and strength-ened by estabhshing healthy relationships. Securebelonging is the foundation to the development ofautonomy and self-control. The twin challenges ofattaching and being autonomous are vital to a suc-cessful !ife (Maier, 1988).

This article describes the complexity of creating re-lational connections in skillful work with childrenand youth. Relationships occur at three levels: con-nections of trust, connections to the ecology, andthe deep alliance. Workers with limited experiencewill find the struggle to create trusting bonds a suf-ficient challenge for their developing expertise.

Trusting ConnectionsThe first layer of relationship building is creating asafe, trusting connection with youth. These Level1 relationships can include the straightforward in-gredients described many years ago by Brendtro(1969). Helping adults can measure the strength ofthe relationship with a youth by noticing increasesin communication, social reinforcement, and thewillingness to accept the adult as a role model.Workers who establish these powerful therapeuticbonds are able to tap the strengths and resilienciesof the youth. They are able to use relational moti-vation instead of punishments and rewards to fos-ter self-control and pro-social behavior. As bothindividuals become safe and more connected, theywill each see the value in the other person's pointof view.

The adult's ability todemonstrate caring in

consistent, non-Judgmentalways can lead to success

when more intrusivemethods have failed.

Strong connections between youth and helpingadults counter the interpersonal response style ofdistrust which has dominated prior relationships.Youth develop personal boundary skills and be-come comfortable in asking for help when needed.Workers at this level tend to drop the label "cli-

ent when retcrring to youth, since they have posi-tioned themselves alongside rather than above theyouth. Trust enables youth to be less guarded andto share the private thoughts and feelings whichformerly kept the youth stuck in unsuccessful be-havior. As the adult empathically joins the youth,this broadens the options available to the youngperson.

Bruner (1990) describes the gradual increase in"meaning making" which enables both partners ina relationship to connect more powerfully. Skilledyouth professionals recognize the adult tendency tooverestimate the developmental capacity and com-prehension of the young and adjust their languageand perspective to more closely mirror the view ofyouth. Novice workers may be unprepared for theworld view they encounter, e.g., if one is notan op-pressor, he or she is a victim; the only sin is gettingcaught; and it is every person for oneself.

The adult's ability to demonstrate caring in con-sistent, non-judgmental ways can lead to successwhen more intrusive methods have failed. Aus-tin and Halpin (1987) declare that the knowledgegained in caring interactions in the child's life spaceis the real power in the professional role, something

40 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimfng.com

"which only those persons who are removed fromthe shared lived-in experience deny" (p. 38).

This Level 1 relationship is the fundamental goalof most helping interventions. Without safety andtrust, there will be little developmental growth.Overcoming mistrust, influencing the youth's storyof self, creating shared meaning, and establishingbasic empathy all grow out of a safe relationship.This occurs best in the natural space (Garfat, 2004),not in an office. In these real world encounters,the adult has to balance unconditional acceptancewith limit setting—not an easy task.

Connections in the EcologyThe Level 2 relationship expands the professionalrole to become a support in the larger world of theyouth. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed the con-cept of an Ecosystem, a total life space that surroundseach person, which is a substantial expansion of theimmediate life space described in Level 1. The youthis now seen to be the nucleus of a system which mayinclude family, peers, school, work, community, cul-ture, and spirituality. The focus of Level 2 relationalwork is to become a life coach supporting the youthwho is navigating various realms of the personal

ecology. This has been described by Anglin (1984) as"relating to the relationships" in a person's life. Thegoal is to replace strains with supports in the ecologyof childhood.

Influencing a youth through a trusting relation-ship is an important step, but the real work is to re-integrate the youth into the natural environment.The sophisticated practitioner, who is no longerpreoccupied by the challenge of gaining a youth'strust, can now explore the multi-faceted layers ofthis relational approach. Family members, com-munity contacts, employers, teachers, friends, andauthority figures all become potential relational fo-cal points. The Level 2 worker helps the youth notonly to explore his or her story of self but also tosee one's self as an agent in the world.

As both individuals becomesafe and more connected, theywili each see the value in theother person's point of view.

Family support workers often describe their work ashelping families to get the social services system outof their lives. Many youth who are victims of oppres-sion and limited skills and resources need support todevelop successful coping strategies. Reintegratinginto family life, creating healthy intimate relation-ships, maintaining positive connections at work,and dealing with peers and community are all majorchallenges. The relational work at this level is to cre-ate autonomy and attachment simultaneously, with-out intruding into any system which would not behelpful. This Level 2 work is conducted in a varietyof locations, with a greatly expanded cast of charac-ters which depend on the connections of the youth.Level 2 relational practice is the province of practi-tioners who are already grounded and successful inLevel 1 practice.

The Deep AllianceLevel 3 work, a further expansion of the relationalprocess, is the most personally challenging and com-plex connection. Krueger (1995) has coined the termNexus to describe the intimate connection that canoccur at this level of practice. The basic physical pres-ence that occurs in the life space, which in a Level 1relationship creates support and empathy, is intensi-fied here into a mutual co-experiencing of life events.As Garfat (2001) suggests, what is important is being

summer 2oo8 volume 17, number 2 | 41

with the youth, instead of doing to, doing for, or do-ing with the person. This relational sharing, co-ex-periencing perhaps, has a mutual effect on both per-sons. In this three-level progression the relationshipshifts from sharing different opinions, to coaching asan observer, to finally being mutually affected by thesame experience. Basically, when helpers recognizethat they might act similarly if they were the youth,they enter this level of relational awareness. The dan-ger here is that mentors can join with the youth indespair and defeat rather than becoming a source ofhope and support. These intense connections canchallenge the values and beliefs of both adult andyouth at a fundamental level. A practitioner who isnot firmly grounded will be tempted to either arguewith the youth's point of view or be inclined to joinhim or her.

The ability to calmly move ahead from this placeof connection is only available to mature practitio-ners. There is a balancing point of empathy andseparateness which can be precarious to maintainunless one is differentiated, yet simultaneouslyclose. The worker is a guide and a mentor, and yetnot aloof from the source of confusion or pain.Kagan and Schlosberg (1989) describe familiesin perpetual crisis who need others to be able tostand alongside them as they dance around a pit ofemptiness—one false move can result in a Fall. Itdoes no good to stand safely away from the terrorand give advice; professionals must see the worldas the youth do in order to be helpful. By joiningas partners at this Nexus, adults can help youthrewrite their life story.

TransitionsLevel 1 relational work requires the adult helper tobe invested in joining youth through shared inter-ests, empathy, presence in the life space, and mu-tual trust. Level 2 work expands to the role of alife coach, encouraging young persons as they buildvarious relationships within their social system.Level 3 practice entails an intense connection whichrequires personal reflection and self-awareness at avery sophisticated level. Although Level 3 workersare the most capable, they require the availability ofcompetent supervision and peer support.

The connections of the professional helper sel-dom become permanent. Youth who have finallyallowed themselves to be open and available canbe easily bruised by poorly managed goodbyes. Clo-sure and healthy separation are important issues atall levels of relational work. The goal is to create the

desire for greater attachment, while also strugglingwith the need to let go and move away. Denial, an-ger, and sadness all must be seen as predictable andmanageable stages which can potentially be usedfor strengthening future relational connections.Failure to negotiate a healthy end to any relation-ship will endanger the success of present, but alsofuture, efforts. There is a saying in this field thatthe three most important things are Relationship,Relationship, Relationship! This also applies to thethree levels of therapeutic relationship.

fack Phelan, MS, is a faculty member of the childand youth care degree program at Grant MacEwan Col-lege, Edmonton, Alberta. He can be contacted by e-mail: phelanj@macewan.ca

References

Angiin, J. (1984). Counseling a single parent and child: Func-tional and dysfunctional patterns of communication.journal of Child Care, 2(1), 33-45.

Austin, D., & Haipin, W. (1987). Seeing "I" to "I": A phenom-enological analysis of the caring relationship, journal ofChild Care, 3{3), 37-41.

Brendtro, L. (1969). Establishing relationship beachheads. InA. Trieschman, J. Whittaker, & L. Brendtro, The other 23hours (pp. 51-99). Chicago: Aldine.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bmner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Garfat, T. (2004). Working with families; Developing a childand youth care approach. In T. Garfat (Ed.), A child andyouth care approach to working with families (pp. 7-38). Bing-hamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Garfat, T. (2001). Developmental stages of child and youthcare workers: An interactional perspective. CYC-OnLine. 24, January 2001. Retrieved April 4, 2008 fromwww.cyc-net.org.

Kagan, R., & Schosherg, S. (1989). Families in perpetual crisis.New York: Norton.

Krueger, M. (1995). Nexus: A book about youthwork. Washing-ton, DC: CWLA Press.

Maier, H. (1988). Developmental group care of children and youth.New York: Routledge.

42 I reclaiming children and youth www.reclaiming.com