Disposable lives

Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h

Disposable lives Kim Snow ⁎ School of Child and Youth Care, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 4 November 2007 Received in revised form 12 January 2008 Accepted 24 March 2008 Available online 7 April 2008 Keywords: Youth voice Critical discourse analysis Child welfare Care leavers Language

a b s t r a c t This paper reports one key finding of a larger case study critical discourse analysis of a youthled research project. A model of 20 care-related conceptual dimensions, utilizing a variety of linguistic tools was applied to the responses to five questions asked of youth in the original study. This paper explores one of the three core findings that were identified by the nested analytical approach. The three meta themes of the original research were: a regulated reality, a disposable life and a stained identity. This paper reports on the theme of a disposable life. It draws on that analysis, demonstrating content, frame, and textual analyses of the spoken text of these young people. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The paper presents one key finding of a larger critical discourse analysis of a youth-led research project. The study examined concepts of power and voice as related to the experience of Canadian children in government care. The case study tested a theoretical model of dimensions relevant to regulated care: language, interpersonal relations, institutional relations and disciplinary practices. The transcripts of a Canadian youth-led and designed advocacy initiative aimed at sensitizing child welfare workers to the needs of youth in care served as a case to apply the conceptual model. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Board. The quotes are derived from transcripts from the youth to youth phone interviews. The sample consisted of 27 young people (seven male and 20 female) who were in care in nine provinces and one territory in Canada. The sample was a nonrandomised convenience sample. The interviewers asked young people to respond to questions about their care experience, including asking them to describe the main issues facing youth in care, to describe their best placement, to discuss how workers could help and to discuss opportunities for voice in care. Four approaches to analysis were utilized in this nested methodological approach to conducting this critical discourse analysis: 1. content / thematic analysis, 2. gender analysis, 3. Goffman's frame analysis of interaction and 4. close textual analysis of the vocabulary and syntax. The National Youth in Care Network who conducted the original study served the function of member checking throughout the analysis. The analytical approach highlights the multiplicity of meanings in these youths' statements. This paper presents excerpts from the larger study and provides examples of thematic, frame and textual analysis. The key finding reported in this paper was identified by way of this multi-layered approach to analysis. 2. Language as a key to understanding institutional impacts Understanding language helps us understand culture. Created within the structures of society, language is a sign. It symbolizes meaning and it structures interactions. Language is indicative of the norms of a culture. The context and meaning of words helps individuals understand expectations, organize interpersonal interactions and facilitate functioning within a particular setting

⁎ Tel.: +1 416 979 5000x4593. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.03.013

1290

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

(Foucault, 1972, 1978; Goffman, 1974). Understanding the language of a community helps us understand how that segment of a society operates. By understanding the meaning and structures of a community, we understand more fully the lived experience of a community that is not our own. Close reading of the text is not the same as interpreting or translating someone else's voice. Rather, this analysis recognizes the complexity of any competent individual's speech, and applies tools that acknowledge that there are multiple layers of meaning embedded within every speech segment and that this can only be understood within the context of content and frame (Goffman,1974). The author accepts that the young people in the care of the state are a uniquely oppressed group, and this paper posits that they are competent and complex speakers (Snow, 2006b). As a result of their standpoint and their capacity to maintain a dual perspective, they have the ability to understand the interests of the dominant group as well as their own (Freire, 1994). Because they can navigate both worlds as a result, they acquire more complex speech segments and become bilingual in system-speak and in youth speak (Snow, 2006c). This bilingual fluency gives them an expert viewpoint on the regulated system in which they are growing up and of which they are wards. The intent in conducting this analysis is not to speak for them, but rather speak with them, and so perhaps to amplify their words— by highlighting language markers—in order that they might be better heard. Interpretation can be a means of taking over voice, which would occur if one started from the perspective that youth cannot speak for themselves or unable to be competent speakers. The message is silenced when the intent of interpretation is to distil a true or valid message. The basic premise of this analysis is that young people are most competent to speak for themselves. They are as competent as any other individual and able to present equally complex multi-layered discourse. Close reading of their speech is needed to try to identify the various messages presented in a specific speech segment. Frame, textual, thematic and gender analysis help us identify and discuss some of the possible meanings. This can assist us in listening. Close exploration of the multiplicity of meanings is also a way to use my words to amplify theirs as a way of standing with them rather than speaking for them or over them. I take what they have to say as true and worthy of being heard. As with all speakers, their words are complex, encoded with many messages and presented to multiple audiences. All listening is interpretive, although most often this interpretation is done without conscious awareness. Interpretation illuminates when it is aimed at shedding light on the complexity of meanings and teasing out the multiple messages according to the various audiences being addressed. This method involves unpacking and disentangling the many meanings and interconnections of a culture's language. A particular style of language has been identified as powerless and is evidenced by its distinct style that includes a lack of personal pronouns, frequent use of the third person and frequent hedging (Blanenship & Holtraves, 2005; Holtgraves & Lasky, 1999; Hosman, 1989). Powerless language is used throughout the responses as youth frequently hedge, downplay and disqualify their perspective. The weakness of markers of evidentiality, frequent use of the third person, indefinite pronouns, frequent hedging and hesitation are all evidence of a powerless style (Blanenship & Holtraves, 2005). This sub-analysis reports on one core finding that emerged from the larger study by examining specific language markers indicative of powerless language (Snow, 2006a). 3. Disposable life Young people's statements were examined using the conceptual model as an analytical tool. Four intersecting conceptual frames were used as the organizing structures relevant to a regulated care system. They were: Language, Interpersonal Relations, Institutional Relations and Disciplinary Practices. Within these conceptual holders, the text is examined, using topical, frame and textual analysis. This paper will follow the analytical model while presenting the core finding of a disposable life. A disposable life is a life in which one is often disappointed, let down and disposed of. These youth speak of being overlooked, disappointed and eventually discarded by the system. 3.1. Language The language of these youth is precise and jarring, when considered in the context of being cared-for. Their words reflect little hope, a paucity of help and many unmet relational and developmental needs. Across all the questions, youth make explicit references to fear, be it the fear of omnipotent systems, of reprisals, abandonment, termination or stigmatization. The analysis of the responses to a question asking for the three main issues facing youth in care found a major theme to be “being alone and fearful”. The words of the youth are strikingly powerful and stark. Markers of instability, displacement and lack of permanency are evident across the responses. Their word choice and syntax reflect a sense of being abandoned, alone in the world and afraid of what the future holds for them. One young person plaintively cites a most important issue faced by youth in care: “Making sure that youth in foster homes know they are not alone in the world”. They doubt their ability to support themselves in the future and worry about how they will do so. Survival and basic need attainment concerns dominate the responses to this question. “…So it is going to go—how am I going to make it, deal with things without that support, without that extra well being…” The sensitivity of the topic is evident in this particular word choice and the self identification with the concern is also apparent in this statement. The shift in temporal vantage point represents a visualization of an uncertain outcome. Expressed are

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

1291

fundamental survival fears. He uses repetition (without that), a marker that emphasizes what follows, which in this case is the supports that are withheld. The young people offer detailed descriptors of caring behaviours, and their language demonstrates their intense awareness of many unmet needs. The tentativeness of their language and their reluctance to hope for too much is evident throughout the responses. Their speech also reveals their awareness of being regulated and of the conflicting demands their workers must balance. This next young person switches linguistically between identifying a need, holding back from demanding its fulfilment and attempting to understand the conflicts that might be faced trying to meet this need. “ …and thirdly, that they can call back, that they have good communication with their youth, I mean I know that, social workers have a shit loads of kids, ya know, when I first went into care, I felt so lonely and like the only person I know was my social worker, so, it just helps for them to call back even for that two minute conversation that you would probably have with them…”. Language borrowed from commerce is used throughout the responses to express the feeling of being an object, manipulated in a machine-like system. Youth's awareness of their own commodification emerges throughout the text. There are also functioning words, such as those that activate the bureaucracy (“plan of cares”, “termination”), and those words that represent distribution (“shipped”, “moved”) and those that supervise resources (“supervisor”, “ministries”), direct operations (“textbook”, “totally textbook”) as well as the physical manifestation of the system (“case”, “caseload”). They make reference to objectifying interactions, where they feel like a commodity, regimented, shuffled and pegged with a negative identity. “Um, showing the world, it's not what we did only that we are in foster care, that's a big issue, trying to get people's respect, that is another issue, because you are in foster care, and everyone changes opinions about you…” Notice how the speaker makes known the enormity of the subject under discussion, amplified by being introduced with a hedge (Um, showing the world). One's identity is pegged as having done something wrong (not what we did), and the awareness of this presumption results in the young person experiencing guilt and shame (Goffman, 1959, 1963; Scheff, 2000). The importance of this topic and the young person's urgency that it be understood is made apparent by both the repetition and the choice of words (big issue, another issue). Youth describe leaving care in harsh and absolute terms of termination and dissolution. They employ utterly stark descriptors to express the abrupt, frightening and total severance of all supports and relations. “…Secondly, I would say that, if um, post majority support services, if that gets taken out that is brutal too, I mean, really, they need that kind of stuff, they need that little bit of support, because just going out all of a sudden on your own, like, everything stops as soon as you turn 19, and you are out on your own with nowhere to go, I mean without any help that is tough.” 3.2. Interpersonal relations When asked about the qualities of a good worker, the young people consistently railed against ‘being a case’. Youth express the need to have interactions in which they are engaged with as individuals rather than as objects of study and service (“a case”). They plead for individualized consideration and recognition of their specific and unique needs. “… a good social worker can adapt to that one individual and meet their needs, as opposed to the needs of everybody, and secondly I would say that a good social worker, looks out for the child's best interests rather than the government's best interests…” Reacting to the tendency to be prejudged and branded with an identity peg of a youth in care, this next respondent reminds workers that he is an individual. He urges workers to be less machine-like and to learn to adapt to the individual needs of each child. “They know what the kids are going through, they're not just like textbook, they just don't go by the textbook, they go by how the kids are doing, and just being real, not being total textbook, to be kind”. Unmet relational needs emerge in the responses across all five questions. Youth are highly descriptive in their references to listening to, being listened to and when describing active and nurturing relations. They long for time to develop interpersonal relationships. They express grief as a result of incidents of non-response and are confused about their place in these relations. “To keep appointments, she would make them a little bit more frequent, it wouldn't be like your plan of care was due last week so I'll come and visit you for it, and I don't know, my worker she doesn't do that, but other than that she's a pretty good, like she's just, our personalities match, it kinda bugs me that she doesn't show up for our appointments, but still I can't help but like her because she's my kind of person”.

1292

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

Her hurt is apparent through the use of irony when commenting on the worker only meeting with her when care plan is overdue. One infers that it more than ‘kinda bugs’ her when her worker doesn't show up. The preface of kindness downplays the obvious irritation. Her fondness for the worker both amplifies the hurt and serves to inhibit her expression of anger at the worker. When describing a clear sense of belonging, the language of the youth in this study betrays the embedded outsider. There is a distinct linguistic difference between a youth's description of a ‘virtual family’, as compared to describing being ‘part of the family’. A ‘virtual family’ is seen as being similar to but not identical to a real family. Virtual family is a simulation that in action and appearance resembles a real family, but as a simulation can never achieve authenticity. “I virtually felt like family there, I mean, real family is actually irreplaceable, of course, but it was as close as it got”. Intrinsic to the potent description of a ‘virtual family’ is grief and longing, and the sense of being an outsider. At the same time as expressing a sense of belonging and having a place, the youth nonetheless retain a sense of their otherness, as evidenced by their struggle to describe the difference. Reflected is a dichotomization of the valid family and the other, the others are different from but similar to the referent group (Riggins, 1997). Consider the words of this next youth referring to the experience of virtual family. “What made it the best placement would have to be that I virtually felt like family there, I mean, real family is actually irreplaceable of course, but it was as close as it got”. The language choices and syntactical arrangement point to his recognition of difference and a longing for the genuine experience. The conflict is evident in that the youth is explaining a positive relational experience, yet stumbles over describing the differences and the loss they evoke and the sense of sadness. This next youth provides another example of the difficulty in naming the experience. Instead, she offers evidence as points of comparison. “Um…well like…it is the only one that I'm in um what made it the best...I don't really have anything to compare it too, I don't know…I have a lot of things...do you know what I mean… I have my own room at the back of the house, and I have my own bathroom in my bedroom and I have my own computer, and all that kind of stuff, so its kinda like I am sort of treated like their real daughter and I'm given the stuff they'd give a real daughter”. The youth searches for and lists evidence. Notice the focus on concrete things and observable objects. Ambivalence is apparent in her language use that reveals a cloaked identity (like I am; sort of), one in which she is dealt with (treated like) as if she were a real member. By observation one would assume her to be a member and interactions are consistent with membership and in many ways she does hold some form of membership yet she is still not an authentic member (real daughter). The reference to the ‘real daughter’ reflects an awareness of difference and alienation, and a longing for genuineness. She has a bedroom, with a bath, just like a real member of the family, but her qualification that it is in the back of the house suggests an ambiguous feeling about her role. It indicates her sense of being part of but not part of the family through the imagery of being in the back of the bus. Declarative statements are used when describing being part of the family. The statements are clear and definitive and express a firm sense of place and acceptance—belonging. This one young person identifies as belonging to the family. The affiliation is asserted when the youth notes that he has been chosen to be included not simply out of pity or obligation (nowhere else to go). This is a powerful statement of his place. “I feel like I belong, ya know, it's not like I'm just there because I have to be, because I have nowhere else to go, it's like I'm part of the family”. This next youth asserts her place, registering affiliation and identification within the unit. This young person had feelings that confirmed her place. “I felt like part of the family”. The following youth declares that her current foster home is her best placement. She observes that she is engaged with as if she were a family member. “This one. A foster home. I am like treated, like part of the family”. This finding of virtual family contrasted with ‘part of the family’ is a good illustration of how close reading of the text through various lenses and linguistic markers helps us hear the subtle emotive shifts that permit us to identify how the same formulation “treated like” has two distinctly different meanings, in this case that of belonging (‘part of the family’) and almost belonging (‘virtual family’). What is meant by as ‘treated like’ is only understood by identifying the linguistic markers and interpersonal frames because, analysing merely through phraseology or word choice the emotive and relational context, and the two different

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

1293

meanings are lost. To uncover the markers of belonging, clearly a more robust language analysis was required, and is an example of what is gained by a close reading of the text (Chambon, 1994). There is a strange absence of care in the way the word ‘care’ is used. The functional and prescribed use of the terms that these youth use to describe care (“wardship”, “plan of care”) has little in common with direct caring behaviour. In the few instances in the text when words of genuine caring are used (“still there”, “love”), the youth, by being self-referential, employ terms in such a way that they identify themselves as belonging, and portray imagery that is obviously powerful and meaningful to them. Some of the most potent descriptions of caring relate to basic and functional nurturing, for example, when the child referred to his foster mother leaving food out for him when he was absent at mealtimes. The highlighting of basic needs is significant and when considered in light of the powerless language, this repetitive focus on food—a basic survival need—and as a symbolic marker of nurturance, amplifies how having one's basic needs met is special, and should be cherished. Even more so if, as is done using this analytic method, one considers the imagery within an interpersonal frame of one child in care speaking to another child in care (either the former youth in care phone interviewer or the imagined audience of other youth in care), the potent focus on basic needs is palpable. “…and she would cook dinner every night for me, and if she wasn't home, because she did girl guides, she would like leave food out for me, and like and we had a really good relationship, like I would call home, and tell her if I wouldn't be home for dinner, it was just good, she didn't have a car, so you know, I did grocery shopping with her and stuff like that…” In a profound representation of the fragile / temporary nature of relations in care, he concludes his response to this question by stating “ I was there for about 6 months”. 3.2.1. Relationships The need for genuine and involved interpersonal relations is noted by this next youth. Notice the call within the relationship for allowing the youth to assert her own voice. “Dream Social Worker? Takes time to get to know you, like personally, someone who genuinely care, I think is very important, but someone who lets you express yourself freely and encourages you to express yourself freely” The need for a response to phone calls is called for. This comment suggests a perception that workers do not initiate contact which is an indicator of genuine care. The lack of response to efforts at communication mentioned here is a frequent complaint throughout this text. Returning a call for interpersonal interaction is seen as caring and responsiveness to the interpersonal bond. “They care about the child, they like call every once in a while just to check up, and not having us call them when we need something, they call us, just to say hi and that kind of crap, just to be really friendly. Like to do things on time, cause I had a social worker one time, who I would ask her to do something and she wouldn't do it for a couple of months, and that just really pissed me off, made me mad” 3.2.2. Discarded The genuineness of relationships is put into question as a result of the frequent threat of being moved, relational ruptures and eventual termination. “I think the feeling of abandonment, especially once they turn 18. Their care has ended…”. Once you are gone…the relationship no longer matters. This young person is expressing a wish that the people she had relationships with while in care wondered how she was doing after leaving care. “…Going back to the dream one, they would still be able to, and if they didn't have such high case loads, blah, blah…if if you know they called when the kids leave to check on them, how they are doing, check on their place, sort of that parental advocated type of role, which is very much a dream but it could be a way they could help…” Wishing that someone might wonder if they are okay and if their place was suitable once the child in care was living independently—something like that what a parent, friend or relative might do. 3.3. Institutional relations They feel invisible within the system, just one of many cases to the worker, and bereft of anyone they can count on. They anticipate an abrupt termination and are doubtful of their ability to sustain themselves on their own. As an essential basic need, safety and security are critical to development, and insecurity about meeting one's own survival needs is destabilizing (Maslow, 1954).

1294

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

This next section makes use of textual analysis to further unpack meaning. Abrupt moves were brought up by first a young girl and second by a young male. They presented images of abduction with undertones of a violent kidnapping. The child feels acted upon, with no idea of destination. This lack of information about where one is being moved is like a psychological blindfold, with devastating uncertainties, serving to amplify fear and powerlessness. “(1.) Yes there was, (2.) I was in a foster home setting and there, (3.) I was because of other incidents and conflicts at this foster home, (4.) my social worker had decided to move me without telling me, (5.) he kinda showed up one night, (6.) I was in the garage playing my guitar, (7.) he says, you gotta pack up your stuff and they moved me. (8.) I was 16. (9.) Then I felt that was kinda odd, odd isn't the right word, but it was kinda disturbing. (10.) He never got the chance to explain because I was switched social workers. (11.) So there have been a couple of occasions where I have not been able to take part in a decision concerning my well being and placement”. (1.) “Yes there was,” A declarative statement is presented to assert that there was a situation in which he was not involved in the decision-making. (2.) “I was in a foster home setting and there,” Using an interesting system-specific phraseology (setting), perhaps in response to the objectifying experience of being regulated, the respondent situates the response in the past. (3.) “I was because of other incidents and conflicts at this foster home,” The response begins with a hedge, suggesting an emotionally charged topic. He begins to explain his situation at the time, and then switches to provide the context that there had been problems at this particular placement. (4.) “my social worker had decided to move me without telling me,” Returning to the story line of his personal experience, he orients the listener to the situation of his displacement. The decision is one-sided and without notice. (5.) “he kinda showed up one night,” Using a story-telling pattern, he notes that the worker arrived unexpectedly at night time. His setting the story in the night time represents darkness, adding a gloomy tenor to the narrative. The phrasing suggests that the event was sudden and the imagery of night time evokes fear and foreboding. (6.) “I was in the garage playing my guitar,” Resituating himself as the central actor and pointing out that he was unaware of the events that were about to unfold, he notes that he was off engaged and unaware of what was about to occur. The image presented is one where he was peaceful and unconcerned. (7.) “he says, you gotta pack up your stuff and they moved me”. Introducing dialogue into the story, he notes that the worker told him to gather his things together. The lexical contrast between ‘he says’ and ‘they moved’ are means of distancing both the worker from the experience and the temporal link to this memory. The choice of the phrase ‘they moved me’ also reflects the experience of being a passive object. (8.) “I was 16”. Furthering the context and the storyline, the youth notes that this event occurred in the past by referring to a prior age. As well, by situating the temporal context by age, the listener is prompted to feel empathy for the respondent due to his youth. (9.) “Then I felt that was kinda odd, odd isn't the right word, but it was kinda disturbing.” Reflecting on the experience, he hedges, which demonstrates his struggle to describe his feelings. He uses interesting lexical choices as it is odd and indeed disturbing to be unexpectedly moved at night. Additionally, the shifts from ‘odd’ to ‘disturbing’ amplifying the disconcerting nature of the experience where one is left unsure and unbalanced. (10.) “He never got the chance to explain because I was switched social workers.”

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

1295

The syntactical arrangement of this phrase suggests that the respondent had a need to have the situation explained and discussed with him. The phrase ‘never got a chance’ suggests a vague hope that the worker might have explained himself if he had only been given the opportunity. He notes that he didn't have this opportunity and using another example of objectifying language, notes that his worker was changed. While his language suggests that the system replaced the worker, it is an interesting consideration to think that a possible active response to ‘being moved’ is to ‘switch’ the mover. (11.) “So there have been a couple of occasions where I have not been able to take part in a decision concerning my wellbeing and placement.” The incident recall is concluded by returning to the frame of the original question of being involved in decisions. There is a quality to the language suggestive of an abduction, where an individual is whisked away without knowing why or where to. Despite providing vivid and theatrical imagery of abduction, he concludes his response with a detached and rational conclusion using system-speak (Snow, 2006c). Objectifying vocabulary is a feature of powerlessness. The experience of being an agent-less actor within a regulated and omnipotent system furthers the sense of helplessness (Milgram, 1975). The image of being suddenly whisked off to a strange and unfamiliar situation would evoke in most people the need to protest and fight. The strangeness of new people in a new setting promotes apprehension and withdrawal, inhibiting the youth's ability to form relationships. Think about it: what is actually being talked about here is that, for one reason or another, the placement did not work out and the child is being displaced to a new location, which presumably is inhabited by individuals who wish to seek a relationship with this incoming child. If the child perceives these new people as strangers, and does not share their framework as a new opportunity, the child cannot see it as a fresh start. The child's framework is that of being swooped down upon, captured, caged and transported, and forced to contend with forbidding strangers. Clearly the framework of the child is clashing with that of the new people, a disconnect which challenges any hope of forming good relationships. If you just look at the words used in the responses to describe the young people's experiences in care, you are left with the imagery of a shipping trunk or valise that gets shoved about (“moving around”, “move from place to place”), sometimes violently (“forced to move”). These trunks are ferried (“shipped them”, “sent them”) to a variety of destinations (“bunch of foster homes”, “foster home setting”, “group home”). There are ways your voyage can be extended, if you can obtain the requisite paperwork (“extended care and maintenance”). Without these papers, the voyage halts (“everything stops”, “cut off”, “on your own”, “terminated”). Issues of transience, expressions of placement bouncing, fear of termination all these leave young people in a perpetual state of fearing and enduring abandonment. Abandonment is loss, resulting in primal grief (Bowlby, 1973, 1988). Institutions have a duty to care, and also the obligation to take measures to help youth heal from existing losses and to prevent them from experiencing further losses, taking all conceivable measures to reduce this possibility (UN, 1989/1999). The following participant urges institutions to consider the impact and logic of the arbitrary, absolute cut-off age of wardship. “ …we get like either you're in a ward of the court when 19–21, we are just cut off, they don't help after 21, they aren't in our life anymore, we need someone there for us, not just until a certain age, but until you feel the child is ready to go on their own…” These youth decry the devastating manner in which they are transitioned out of care. They speak of a practice of panoptic care, which ends suddenly, abruptly and absolutely. The extreme challenges faced by Canadian youth leaving care has been well documented (Kufeldt, 2003; Mann-Feder & White, 2003; Martin & Palmer, 1997; Snow & Finlay, 1998). The method and arbitrary timing of their termination from care is ethically unconscionable in a wealthy advanced society and particularly in a progressive country such as Canada. The youth in this study stress fear about their post-care future. With a negative future orientation, they project inevitable failure and picture themselves being sent out into the world, alone and adrift. 3.4. Disciplinary practices The need for workers to assume the role of advocate emerges across all the responses. Youth call for advocates to help them understand the system, protect them from it, figure it out, negotiate it, and find out how to obtain what they need from it and are entitled to receive within it. They need caregivers who take their sides and are prepared to fight for their interests. “… someone who can speak up for themselves, who ain't scared of their supervisor, someone who is brave enough to step up, and tell their supervisor they believe that ain't right and they advocate for the kid, in that sense, um…” Some governing powers know of the youth and make decisions for the youth but are invisible to the youth (“supervisor”, “ministry”). These panoptic relations, by virtue of their obscurity, make the system more invasive and disconcerting. The statements made by these youth convey a powerful image of manipulation, alienation and oppression within a panoptic system that brands and stigmatizes (Snow, 2006b). The potency of this image is made all the more obvious by the youth's considerable difficulty in trying to describe which of the multiple meanings of the phrase ‘the system’ they are trying to convey. Youth try to make sense of a Kafkaesque system which perpetually surveils, pigeonholes and judges.

1296

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

4. Discussion The findings of this analysis are consistent with other findings that highlight the need for safeguards for young people in care. In their study of the life histories of youth in care, Martin and Palmer (1997) aptly observe that fear and poverty is a parting gift from the system at age of majority. Numerous studies note a heightened vulnerability of youth as they transition from care. For example, MannFeder and White (2003) note that former youth leaving care face enormous challenges. They discuss various indicators of the overrepresentation of former youth in care among the homeless, the incarcerated, those in psychiatric facilities and those dependent on state welfare. Kufeldt (2003) found that Canadian youth transitioning from protection lagged behind their aggregate peers in relation to many socio-economic indicators. Festinger (1983) found that 35% of his sample had not completed high school at the point of discharge. Later Barth (1990) found that 55% had not, and Cook, Fleishman, and Grimes (1991) found that 66% had not. Lower educational attainment is a barrier to the vocational and post-secondary advancement normally undertaken at this developmental stage of transition to adulthood. In a Canadian sample of youth in a homeless shelter, Leslie and Hare (2003) determined that almost half of the youth had received child protection intervention. A similar finding has been cited a number of U.S. studies of youth transitioning from care (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Crystal, 1984; Mangine, Royse, Wiehe, & Nietzel, 1990; Sosin, Piliaving, & Westerfelt, 1990; Susser, Lin, Conover, & Struening, 1991; Susser, Stuening, & Conover, 1987). It is telling to note the findings of a study by Thompson and Newman (1995) showing elevated death rates of care leavers only at points surrounding the age of 18, when child protection services are withdrawn. Similarly, we know that young people with protection histories are found at higher rates in youth criminal justice settings (Finlay, 2003; Snow & Finlay, 1998; Thompson & Newman, 1995). The young people in this study depict, describe and fear the impact of and rail against the harsh manner of termination from their Canadian state parent. The bleak and unforgiving picture that these young people paint of their separation from the system— with its prolonged and intrusive intervention in their lives—ostensibly for the purpose of caring and providing for them—dams that very system. The professional disciplines must ethically consider the manner in which children leave our care and the ongoing duty to the child and the relationship with the child beyond the time when guardianship has been relinquished. Caring disciplines must learn to both actively listen to the complex communication provided by our young people and learn to attend to our own creation and use of language. Really listening requires that we genuinely attend to what we hear and on that basis evolve our practices to encourage the full participation of young people in their own care. How does our understanding of language help us in practice? The bureaucracy establishes the system and within it, creates a language. Workers and young people learn system-speak as a function of interacting within the institution (Snow, 2006c). It is precisely for this reason that practitioners must pay close attention to language, so that they might understand what young people are asking of them and also must understand the language of the system so as to be able to respond to their charges stated and basic needs. It also helps us to support youth in understanding system-speak, and becoming fluent in it, so that they can learn to self advocate as they are navigating the system. The system and its practices are, after all, a creation of the professions. In some ways, what the young people are saying to us is, in part: You belong to the system, you create it, you understand it, try to fix it and make it work, and as you are doing that, help me get through it. Additionally, if we try to understand from the vantage point of living in regulated care, we can pay attention to the system through its linguistic markers. We can sensitize our practice, become mindful of our words and procedures and modify problematic language within the milieu. As just one of many examples, a common Ontario group home term is “going out into the community”. Only in total institutions (e.g. prisons, hospitals) do we hear people make reference to leaving one's location and entering the outside public world as going into the community (Goffman, 1961). This seems to be a language marker associated with group homes, which is ironic, given that these facilities are designed to be non-institutional (Wolfensberger, 1972). The term “going out into the community” provides a powerful sign that one is a) not in the community and b) not part of the community. The disposability depicted by these young people is another finding that we need to pay attention to. Their use of modified and objectified language, their frequent references to instability and insecure and fleeting relationships and their powerful descriptions of leaving care as being discarded, all these are troubling. These young people are fragile with tentative supports and inconsistent response. If we take our responsibilities seriously and commit to young people, we would be able walk with them over the course of their development. We have to demand an entitlement for ongoing relational care beyond the arbitrarily determined term of legal wardship. What young people ask for consistently is enduring and meaningful interpersonal relationships. We need to challenge the system to provide time to foster and build relationships and also to value within service indicators the active maintenance of long-term relationships between young people and natural advocates. This single consistent relationship is not optional in children's healthy development, it is crucial and despite the numerous obstacles faced in trying to provide such relationships institutionally, we must commit to orienting our services towards meeting this aim. Young people require stable and consistent support and assistance to navigate independence with supports similar to those received from parents by their non-care peers. The most powerful language used by these youth was when young people spoke of relationships that had remained in their lives over some time, even post-care. Long-term and consistent relationships are prized by these youth: “… you know, they looked at me as a real person and they helped me get where I'm at right now, they were there for me after I left their home, they've always been there for me, and I guess that's all I can say”. Sustained and long-term relationships are presented as highly important and as evidence of genuine caring and belonging. Youth describing relationships that have remained with them over time make use of language that is more certain and definitive,

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

1297

lacking the confusion that is evident in most of the language analyzed in this study. They describe these enduring relationships as helpful, and they feel privileged to maintain them. “Well I was only ever placed in one foster home, and um, I was the only child in the home, it was a single lady, I had the best time, she was so good to me, and we still keep in contact all the time…” 4.1. Advocates and allies Young people need advocates who stay with them consistently over the course of many years, ideally over the duration of childhood and adolescence. Failing the ability of the ‘system care’ to provide a similar stability to that of kin, at the very least, extraordinary efforts should be exerted to achieve the necessary enduring relationships that a child needs in order to thrive. These relationships must be fostered by the provision of time and resources made available for consistent and active relational opportunities between child and their long-term relationship. The system must prioritize stable and direct care of children above all other wardship functions. Rather than—as evidenced in the discourse of these young people—focusing on rules, paperwork, procedures and hierarchy, it must reorient itself to the direct provision of functional relational care to the child. Restated another way, it is crucial that we change our services from the bureaucratic management and distribution of cases to a care culture orientation which has at its core the provision of meaningful and enduring relations with children (Martin, 2003). In order to accomplish this, we are supported by the mandates within the UNCRC (1989) which give us a framework of entitlement and developmental markers that can organize our approach and our services to meet the evolving needs of young people as they grow. Institutions genuinely concerned about the welfare and future of children in their care must adopt a child rights approach and a care orientation to their practice. It is important that they make it their mission to educate staff, the community and their clients about the rights of the child, making known the manner in which services are mandated by international law. Consistent with a child rights approach, everyone in child welfare needs to be taught advocacy strategies, in particular wards need ongoing and developmentally appropriate self-advocacy strategies. The front line workers in key positions need to use life space learning opportunities to teach and encourage children to advocate for themselves within the system, as appropriate to their developmental stage. The children's services disciplines, which make it their business to describe, evaluate and regulate children in care, must be in the vanguard of child rights advocacy. Academics and other senior professionals have a privileged position that permits them to make known and lobby for the unique needs of children in the care of the state. Buttressed by the UNCRC, professionals need to demand legislation that supports rights and that mandates advocacy for children at all levels of society, from institutional child advocacy to independent political advocacy at all levels of government: municipal, provincial and federal. The absence in Canada of a legislated ombudsman, commissioner or advocate for children is one glaring example of the neglect of fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government and evidence of the need for professionals to take action. This situation, true as of this writing in 2007, should not be tolerated in the sphere of Canadian child welfare. The CRC (1989/1999) provides us with a framework and a language with which to communicate across disciplinary boundaries and speak out on behalf of our society's vulnerable children in state care. Joining together, we strengthen our voices and illuminate the interests and needs of the children in our care. We need to rise to this challenge and this is just one of many studies where the young people in our care are telling us to do just that. Acknowledgments Parts of this paper were developed during doctoral work at the University of Toronto. The author is grateful to Adrienne Chambon for her formative input into this discussion. The author would also like to thank the National Youth in Care Network for their ongoing work and the trust they placed in me by allowing me to use the results of their study. References Barth, R. (1990). On their own: The experiences of youth after foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 419−440. Blanenship, K., & Holtraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 3−24. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss—Separation anger and anxiety. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Bowlby, J. (1988). The origins of attachment theory. A secure base: Parent child attachment and healthy development (pp. 20−38). New York: Basic Books, Inc. Chambon, A. (1994). The dialogical analysis of case materials. In E. Sherman & W. Reid (Eds.), Qualitative research in social work (pp. 205−215). New York: Columbia University Press. Cook, R., Fleishman, E., & Grimes, V. (1991). A national evaluation of title IV-E foster care independent living programs for youth. Rochville, MD: Westat Inc. Courtney, M., Piliavin, A., Grogan-Kaylor, I., & Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 80 (6), 685−717. Crystal, S. (1984). Homeless men and homeless women: The gender gap. Urban and Social Change Review, 17(2), 2−6. Festinger, T. (1983). No one ever asked us…A postscript to foster care. New York: Columbia University Press. Finlay, J. (2003). Crossover kids: Care to custody. Unpublished manuscript. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of knowledge and key discourse on language (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1978). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Vintage Books A. Sheridan, Trans.). Freire, P. (1985/1994). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation.Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Publishers (D. Macedo, Trans.). Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1961). 1961 ed. Asylums; Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates, Vol. 1. (pp. )New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

1298

K. Snow / Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 1289–1298

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Northeastern University Press. Holtgraves, T., & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(2), 196−205. Hosman, L. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifiers: Powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15(3), 383−406. Kufeldt, K. (2003). Graduates of guardianship care: Outcomes in early adulthood. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKensie (Eds.), Child Welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 203−216). Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Leslie, B., & Hare, F. (2003). At care's end: Child welfare grads and street youth services. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Child welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 203−216). Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Mangine, S., Royse, D., Wiehe, V., & Nietzel, M. (1990). Homelessness among adults raised as foster children: A survey of drop-in centre users. Psychological Reports, 67, 739−745. Mann-Feder, V., & White, T. (2003). The transition to independent living: Pr-eliminary findings from the experiences of youth in care. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Child welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 217225). Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Martin, F. (2003). Knowing and naming “Child in child welfare”. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Child welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 217−225). Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Martin, F. E., & Palmer, T. (1997). Transitions to adulthood: A child welfare youth perspective. International Journal of Family Care, 9(2), 12−43. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Milgram, S. (1975). Obedience to authority, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row. Riggins, S. (1997). The rhetoric of othering. In S. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in the discourse (pp. 1−30). California: Sage. Scheff, T. (2000). Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 84−91. Snow, K. (2006a). Beyond silence: Taking young people at their own word. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Snow, K. (2006). Vulnerable citizens: The oppression of children in care. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 21, 94−113. Snow, K. (2006). Bilingualism: the two languages of young people in care. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, 5(2), 45−55. Snow, K., & Finlay, J. (1998). Voices from within: Youth in care in Ontario speak out. Toronto: Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy. Sosin, M., Piliavin, I., & Westerfeltt, H. (1990). Toward a longitudinal analysis of homelessness. Journal of Social Issues, 46(4), 157−174. Susser, E., Struening, E., & Conover, S. (1987). Childhood experiences of homeless men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(12), 1599−1601. Susser, E., Lin, S., Conover, S., & Struening, E. (1991). Childhood antecedents of homelessness in psychiatric patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1026−1030. Thompson, A., & Newman, S. (1995). Mortality among child welfare wards. Child Welfare, LXXIV, 843−857. United Nations (1989/1999). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ottawa: Multiculturalism & Citizenship Canada. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.