Changing the Language of "At Risk"

[Lindsay Walton]

I've attached a copy of an article of mine which was published in Parallel Lines, the publication of the Association for Challenge Course Technology. I would be really interested in hearing from others what their experiences have been within the At Risk industry and if they have any thoughts on the language of Investment. I run Facilitating Investment Programs workshops and work in the At Risk industry myself. My experience so far has been that changing one's mindset and language, approaching participants from an "Investment" perspective rather than "At Risk" perspective, results in pretty incredible, tangible results. What are your thoughts? All the best!

Lindsay Walton
Lead Facilitator
Open Door Development

[Roger Greenaway]

Hi Lindsay,

Here's a view from the UK on the labeling of young people - as anything other than 'young people'.

It seems to be a huge waste of time, energy and resources if we deliberately, or inadvertently, create labels that work against what we are trying to achieve. Does anyone know of a 'label' for young people deemed 'at risk' that actually helps an intervention work well?

Even a totally open label in the UK became a term of abuse or ridicule: young people on the 'Youth Opportunities Progamme' became known (derided) as 'Yops'. The newly name 'Youth Training Scheme' was more difficult to abbreviate into a label - so they became known as 'trainees' which was far more respectable. Identifying young people as 'Not in Education, Employment or Training' resulted in the term 'Neet' as a label for a young person deemed to be 'at risk' of - not doing very much. So to get away from the (derisory) 'Neet' label, the new term is now 'More Choice, More Chances' - notice the lack of vowels in MCMC. Even 'MC squared' is a bit of a mouthful and could even be quite a good label since Einstein didn't do well at school. Maybe this was intentional?

When 'at risk' first came into use, I think it was an attempt to avoid labeling because the term describes the situation rather than the person. Inevitably, it seems, even a term that describes a situation ends up as a term describing the person - and then it becomes a label with negative stigma that gets in the way of good work.

So let's just call them 'young people'. Any other term is 'at risk' of creating a counterproductive label.

Your article raises important issues - 'investment' does sound good. I was shocked to learn that there is an "'at risk' industry" in Canada. The 'industry' label is another issue...

Roger

[Lindsay Walton]

Roger,

Thanks for your thoughts! That's interesting that the UK has seen so many labels come and go. And I agree with the insight about an at risk 'industry'. Maybe that's the wrong term considering a good number of the groups involved with at risk populations are non-profit or not-for-profit, but in Canada there's a broad spectrum of programming available for a broad range of populations considered at risk.

Out of curiosity were all those programs that you mentioned government programs or initiatives taken by private companies?

All the best to you!

Lindsay

[Roger Greenaway]

Hi Lindsay,

YOP, NEET and the others were all government programmes. The labeling issue was a hot topic in youth social work in the 1980s in the UK. Research showed that preventative schemes for young people were sucking young people into the criminal justice system and accelerating their 'careers' within it (i.e. the opposite of prevention). One of the main causes of this was magistrates looking at background reports and seeing that a young person had been attending a preventative scheme. The magistrate would then give out a more severe penalty (or treatment order) because the 'prevention' scheme was not working. This process became known as 'up-tariffing'. The research on this was by David Smith and David Thorpe at the Centre for Youth Crime and Community at the University of Lancaster showing that prevention (or 'at risk') schemes were feeding young people at alarming rates into the Juvenile Justice system. On advice from the two Davids (above) our project stopped working with young people said to be 'at risk' and only worked with those whose record of offences was serious enough to expect that their next offence would put them in prison.

As a result of this (and other) work I produced a list of 22 ways in which activities can be used to help reduce offending. These are listed on my website at http://revieiwing.co.uk/strategy.htm#offend Just one of these 22 strategies is about using metaphors. I find it very strange that metaphor has taken such a strong hold in the way in which some providers operate. Taken together this leads into a weird make-believe world in which participants and activities get misrepresented by labels that are a loooooong way from reality.

Roger

[Chris Newland]

I share many of your concerns about the term "at-risk" and the labeling of "struggling" youth, in general and applaud your effort to steer the language. I'm not sold on "investment" though, kind of stinks of money.

However, by challenging the language, I think you kind of put yourself at risk (intended) of having your own language challenged. So I will agree with Roger and take issue with your use of the word "industry" to refer to those of us who work to help struggling youth. Industry, (commercial enterprise, commercial production and sale of goods, a specific branch of manufacture and trade) seems to have a primary goal of making money. If you were to ask a captain of the textile industry if she would rather have her company make more of her product or make more money, you know how she would answer. I like to imagine that most of us working with struggling youth would answer, "help more kids" rather than "make more money." I'd like to see us AND the "healthcare industry" drop this label, too.

It's fun to watch our language evolve.

Thanks for sharing your thought provoking article.

Chris

[Lindsay Walton]

Hey Chris,

Thanks for your insight. I have to admit I get frustrated with the fact that words are our main way of communicating and that our meaning is often twisted or lost over time. How many times do we hear that 'something got lost in translation', hear someone complain 'that's not what I meant', or hear a conversation where the people have been yaking for so long that the conversation has become nothing more than words and nobody cares what is being said anymore.

I'm a big believer in trying to hear the 'heart' of what someone is trying to say to you even if they get their words mixed up they're using words I'm not a fan of. I've seen too many people get shut down for dropping the f-bomb by a person who only heard the swearing and not what the person was actually trying to say.

I have no interest in playing the word game and finding that 'perfect word' because you're right, language evolves too much and what works today will have a new meaning five years from now! My hope in exploring the language we currently use is to try and find a way of expressing the heart of what we're here to do. That we aren't here to pity people or to look down on them in their circumstances, which a lot of the current at risk language suggests. Rather, we value our participants as people whose intrinsic value can't change no matter what they do or what somebody else does to them. The language we as staff use will either give our participants dignity or take it away.

I'm really excited to hear from people as they try using different language and how their program language evolves. If you have any other insight or ideas to share I'd love to hear them!

On the use of the word 'industry' the one thing I can't get away from is how much money passes hands in the provision of investment or at risk programming. This kind of programming is what keeps a lot of challenge course professionals in business! And while I'd like to think that everyone is in the business to help more people and not make more money, there are a lot of case studies to suggest otherwise. At lot of people have been placed in special programming only to come out more broken and struggling than when they went in, and with good money paid to some fat cat who couldn't care less about the people.

I would like to believe that working with struggling people would never become an industry, but I have a sneaking suspicion...

I'm glad to hear that you have a heart for the people. We need more like you. All the best!

[Mark H. Rowland]

Friends:
You make valid points with which I concur. At the risk of trivializing an important concept, I offer a perspective that has helped me in my work in corrections, juvenile justice, and therapeutic adventure pursuits: Carrie Fisher is quoted (sorry I couldn't find the reference, right now) as reacting to hearing the phrase 'at risk youth" along the lines of: "How can you be more at risk than we were? Growing up in Hollywood with no parental or adult supervision, all the money we could ask for, & no direction."

Reminds me that, Pygmalion Effect aside, it reminds me that the phrase really doesn't make much sense.

[Lindsay Walton]

I've never heard of the Pygmalion Effect before, but having just now zipped over to Wikipedia and read up on it (aka the Rosenthal Effect apparently) I'd agree that can be a part of the problem, but isn't the entire problem and your Carrie Fisher quote adds new perspective. Successful, rich, talented and still 'at risk' without loving guidance, boundaries and consequences. If you do come across that quote please let me know because I would love to use it in my training!