Combat or Cooperation? - Reclaiming Children and Youth

positive peer cultureCombat or Cooperation?Thomas F. Tate and Randall L. CopasThe best intentioned efforts of adults are often sabotaged by coercive climates of bullyingamong peers and conflict with adults. The solution is to create cultures where youth cooperatewith authority and treat one another with respect.Coercive ClimatesIf what we are doing for children is so good for them,why do they fight us so much?Roderick Durkin 1Unions gain or lose members, scout troops flourishor flounder, church groups thrive or decline—allon the basis of participants’ perceptionsof the group’s ability to achieve common, importantgoals. Membership in these groups is elective,situational, and therefore constantly changing.Not so with many groups in treatment, education,or corrections. These groups have captive audiencesthat have little alternative but to react to what thestaff demands. Their options are to defy or complywith the usually well-intentioned but sometimesarbitrary edicts of staff members. Therefore, thetask of the staff is to create a condition in whichstudents see more benefit in cooperating than theydo in combating staff efforts.Of all the forms of dysfunction that can occur ina group setting, scapegoating is among the mosttyrannical, devastating, and destructive. Unfortunately,it is also the most common. In any group,a natural hierarchy forms. That order can be constructiveand can foster group cooperation. Or itcan be a destructive “pecking order.”32 | reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com

The classic study of negative peer influence wasconducted by Howard Polsky (1962) who lived forseveral months as participant observer in a residentialcottage of troubled youth. Beneath the veneerof this distinguished residential treatment program,he found an underground of rule breakingand peer victimization. Polsky’s pioneering worksparked the creation of specific methods designedto transform negative peer group cultures (Vorrath& Brendtro, 1985; Gibbs, Potter, & Goldstein, 1995;Tate and Wasmund, 2000; Polsky & Berger, 2002;Brendtro, Mitchell, & McCall, 2007).Because most constructive relationships do notoccur by chance, undirected, naturally-formedgroups usually possess some undesirable characteristics.When those characteristics become tooundesirable and the group no longer meets theneeds of its members, conflicting cliques form ormembers leave the group. Unfortunately, groupsformed in schools or treatment settings for troubledyouth do not permit most student membersto simply resign. So tyranny can become the norm,and students try to cope in that toxic system.Students in traditional group settings typically organizethemselves into hierarchies with the mosteffective leaders (often bullies) at the top and theleast powerful (often victims) at the bottom. (Seethe accompanying graphic.)Gr o u p Li v i n g Hier archiesThis social pecking order occurs so predictablyin group work environments that some staff legitimizeit by enabling or empowering bullies tomaintain order. Both students and staff may considerthis predatory caste system inevitable (“afterall, that’s the way these kids are”) and learn to operatewithin it. Superficially, this structure mightreduce overt incidents. Some erroneously believethis is a positive peer culture—where youth aregiven the power to confront and coerce those whoviolate rules. Instead, one coercive system hasbeen replaced with another.Because most constructiverelationships do not occur bychance, undirected, naturallyformedgroups usually possesssome undesirable characteristics.Staff may decide that formalizing this informalhierarchy is effective because the bullies who haddefied staff members before seem more manageableand cooperative, and scapegoats are quieter and lessvolatile. Staff may applaud themselves because bulliesseem employed in more productive, less adversarialroles. In reality, bullies learn to become betterbullies and victims better victims. This coercive cultureviolates the Adlerian concept of social equalityand promotes a primitive “survival of the fittest”mentality which exploits weaknesses (Dreikurs,1983). It discourages deep value change because itis simply an expedient way to control children. Instead,it only enforces the belief that “might makesright” and that the world is not fair.When staff members fail to correct this system, theyperpetuate scapegoating, legitimize bullying, andcreate a socially unjust culture. Coercive culturesexist because they occur naturally and do not requirestaff skill or courage. In such an environment,one does not need to challenge bullies’ practices orbeliefs; one only needs to pay them off. Staff sendfrightening messages to weaker group members. Favoringor “playing” (name calling, wrestling, etc.)with the negative leaders signals that even staff areafraid of the “general” and “lieutenants.” Becausecultures are built upon thousands of daily “microcommunications”of respect or indignity, each staffmember’s interaction with youth has a profoundimpact on his or her perceived safety and confidencein the therapeutic environment (Brendtro,Mitchell & McCall, 2009).Building a positive culture requires some way tochallenge the behavior of bullies and prevent thescapegoating of less adequate students. It entails“equalizing” the social structure of the group—enabling the weak and demanding help from thestrong—to provide a democratic, egalitarian environment.While there will always be variationsin power in any social group, when those mostwinter 2010 volume 18, number 4 | 33

to change. But, the “Positives” are really alreadyenlisted. So, without enlisting the less motivatedmembers, staff overload other students by askingthem to do more and more.The “Negative” subgroup is probably not negativein all situations, so enlisting them when possibleprovides the opportunity to avoid conflict entirely.They sometimes rise to the challenge when somecrisis occurs with a group member they care about.But even when youth refuse to cooperate, staff stillhave other options and potential helpers.Those in the “Neutral” subgroup are in social limbo—theyhave not yet decided what to do or whatis right in certain situations. This indecision makesthem disturbingly unpredictable. When the negativesubgroup refuses to cooperate, simply remindthose holdouts that they missed an opportunity tohelp—and then offer the job to neutrals. If the neutralsdo well, they become heroes; if they do not,the positive subgroup is still available.In anticipation that neutrals may side with eitherthe positives or negatives, take the initiative and askthem to help before turning to the positives. Whateverthe neutrals do (positive or negative) ends themystery of where they stand. When they assume apositive role, encourage them; when negative, say “Iguess you’re not quite ready, but there will be moreopportunities for you to help.”This is a process of value internalization: The positiveshave learned and accepted what staff have toteach; the negatives have not; and the neutrals arestill mulling it over. While negatives will need themost dramatic transformation, neutrals feel themost dissonance and can be swayed by either groupfaction.It may help to visualize a teeter-totter as representingthe relative positions or contributions to thegroup of these three subgroups.Su b g r o u p srelative positions to the groupNot only are neutrals uncertain, their ambivalenceoften creates a “smoke screen” behind which “negatives”can operate freely. As the neutral membersmove toward the positive end of the teeter-totter,the negative students become easier to identify,and “lonelier.” Since all persons want to belong,the growing isolation of negative members allowsfresh opportunities to recruit them as helpers. Inany case, as negative members become a minority,neutrals become more willing to embrace positiveroles without fear of reprisals.Whenever possible, staff members work throughor with the group. If an angry student, in the companyof two group members, hurls a rock through awindow, the issue is not only that the one studentbehaved inappropriately; equally important is whatthe others did to try to prevent this problem. A positivegroup process dispels all delinquent denial ofresponsibility and the “everybody for themselves”philosophy.All youth remain accountable for their behaviorand no one has the right to hurt others—or self. Butstaff try to instill these values with the indirect approach.They strategically decide not to confrontthe student who had the problem directly. Insteadthey consult with (enlist) the group members whohad the responsibility to help this student stay outof trouble. When an individual shows a problem,part of that problem may be with group process—that others did not help. So staff find out why his“lifeguards” failed to keep him safe. This is a rallyingcall to the core value: If you are not helping, youare hurting.A Strength-Based PhilosophyEffective treatment environments foster strong prosocialrelationships among peers and positive attachmentswith adults.William Wasmund & Randy Copas 3At the foundation of any effective peer group programmust be the staff belief that all children, providedsignificant adult guidance and support, canbuild a socially interested view of the world. At thebasis of this belief must be the message from staffthat all children are terrific human beings—theysimply need to change some small part of how theythink and behave to become more successful intheir interactions with others. The following diagramhighlights how staff should view children instrength-based programs; that view paves the wayto building adult to child bonds of respect.winter 2010 volume 18, number 4 | 35

How staff should view children inSt r e ngt h-b a s e d Pr o g r a m sRandall L. Copas, MS, serves as Senior Vice Presidentof Programs for Starr Commonwealth, providingleadership and vision to all of Starr’s programs in Ohioand Michigan. Randy conducts numerous workshops atregional and national levels on peer group methods. Hecan be contacted at 800-837-5591 or copasr@starr.org.ReferencesDr. James Longhurst, a colleague at Starr, suggeststhat it may be beneficial to help newly-placed youthdevelop an understanding of their strengths. Muchof what comes in the case file concentrates on deficits,disorders, and deviance. Longhurst suggeststhat group leaders devote an hour within the firstcouple weeks of a youth’s placement to exploringstrengths. One effective way of doing this is by askingthe youth to complete the VIA (Values in Action)Youth Survey online (www.viacharacter.org).This process can be an excellent strength-based “icebreaker.” The survey results provide the staff, thegroup, and the youth with a strengths orientationthat can be incorporated into treatment goals andobjectives. It is critical that staff teams are aware ofand regularly promote each youth’s strengths, evenwhen shrouded by problem behavior.A positive peer culture is built on values of dignityand mutual respect. Thus, any educational or correctivemethod that disrupts bonds of respect isiatrogenic, a medical term meaning the treatmentmakes the patient worse (Brendtro, Mitchell & Mc-Call, 2007). When programs allow staff to behavedisrespectfully to children, or use their positions tosimply “control” youth, countercultures flourish.Likewise, when weak staff “join the opposition” oroverlook hurting behavior, vulnerable group membersfeel unprotected and at risk for bullying.Expecting the best from youth—demanding greatness—isa hallmark of any effective peer groupprogram. This is accomplished by celebrating eachyouth’s strengths, and cultivating strong adult/childand peer relationships.Thomas F. Tate, MS, serves as Starr Commonwealth’sSenior Vice President for Research, Evaluation, and Training.He is co-director of the Academy for Positive Peer Cultureand a leader in work with troubled youth. Tom is coauthorof Partners in Empowerment, a training manualfor group practitioners, and has trained internationally.He can be reached at 800-837-5591 or tatet@starr.orgBrendtro, L., Mitchell, M., & McCall, H. (2007) Positive peerculture: Antidote to “peer deviance training.” ReclaimingChildren and Youth, 15(4), 200-205.Brendtro, L., Mitchell, M., & McCall, H.(2009). Deep BrainLearning. Pathways to potential with challenging youth.Albion, MI: Circle of Courage Institute & Starr Commonwealth.Dreikurs, R. (1983). Social equality: The challenge of today.Chicago, IL: Adler School of Professional Psychology.Fuller, R. (2006). All rise: Somebodies, nobodies, and the politicsof dignity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Gibbs, J., Potter, G., & Goldstein, A. (1995). The EQUIP Program:Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through apeer-helping approach. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Polsky, H., & Berger, R. (2002). From custodialism to community:A theory-based manual for transforming institutions.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Polsky, H. (1962.) Cottage six: The social system of delinquentboys in residential treatment. New York, NY: Wiley.Tate, T., & Copas, R. (2003). Insist or enlist? Adultism versusclimates of excellence. Reclaiming Children and Youth,12(1), 40-45.Tate, T., & Wasmund, W. (2000). Partners in empowerment.Albion, MI: Starr Commonwealth.Vorrath, H. (1971). Positive Peer Culture: Content, structure, andprocess. Lansing, MI: Center for Group Studies.Vorrath, H., & Brendtro, L. (1985). Positive Peer Culture. NewYork, NY: Aldine Transaction.Wasmund, W., & Copas, R. (1994). Problem youth or problemsolvers? Building resilience through peer helping.Reclaiming Children and Youth, 3(2), 50-52.(Endnotes)1 Source unknown, cited in www.cyc-net.org2 Vorrath, 19713 Wasmund & Copas, 199436 | reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com