Truth First: Caring Beyond The System – A Podcast interview with Louise Allen

Louise Allen shares powerful insights into care leaver voice, identity, belonging and systemic reform. We discuss trauma, hope, and what genuinely improves outcomes for young people after care. Authentic, challenging and full of lived-experience wisdom.

Truth First: Caring Beyond The System

The conversation opens with a quiet kind of fire: a creative child who became an adult unwilling to walk past injustice. Louise Allen traces how identity is broken and remade in the care system, starting with forced adoption, secrecy, and prejudice that rewrites a child’s story before they can speak. She points to a simple principle that echoes through trauma research and everyday life: children read faces, not forms. A warm gaze, a steady presence, and a smile that means it are more powerful than any policy. The difference between being documented and being seen is the difference between surviving and becoming. In a sector addicted to paperwork, she asks us to put dignity back into each line of text and each moment of care.

What lands hardest is her insistence on truth. She names the layers of dishonesty that creep in: parents threatened by services, children protecting parents, foster carers fearing allegations, and professionals guarding their positions. The result is a record that often fails the child. Louise reframes practice with human clarity: say the answer the child is carrying, not another question they have to endure. Put a photo of the child in meetings so adults remember who is missing from the room. Write logs to the child, not about the child, because they will read them. These are not soft gestures; they are structural fixes for a culture that forgets its purpose. Dignity, not detail, is the bedrock of therapeutic care.

Louise’s stories about dogs bring the science of attachment to life. Contact comfort beats cold compliance. A dog that curls up on a lap or cries for help at the right moment can lower arousal, interrupt self-harm, and offer non-judgmental presence that many adults struggle to sustain. She’s seen dogs act as quiet co-therapists, sensing when to stay, when to get help, and when to simply be warm and heavy in a child’s arms. This is Harlow’s lesson without the lab: safety is felt, not filed. If schools and services greeted young people with genuine warmth, many refusals and ruptures would soften before they harden. Body language, tone, and welcome matter. Train for them.

Her writing life started with a “misery memoir” she wasn’t allowed to make funny, then expanded into the Thrown Away Children series that tells real stories with grit and humour. She writes for foster carers too, because the role is treated like domestic labour while demanding clinical-level skill. Minimum standards won’t raise outcomes; maximum care does. That means training that respects complexity, contracts that recognise the work, and leaders who listen to those doing the night shifts. Foster care isn’t babysitting; it’s relational craftsmanship under pressure. When carers are silenced, children lose.

Spark Sisterhood began with a bag of groceries and red velvet cakes delivered to girls who had just left residential care. The “cliff edge” was brutal: isolation, inconsistent allowances, addictions funded in placement and unfunded after, fear of leaving the flat, no routine, no trust. Spark’s answer is practical and kind: life skills, first aid, real cooking, self-defence, image confidence, employment law, and a bridge to industries that pay—construction, engineering, and tech. Care-to-Career matches young women with apprenticeships and work experience, not as charity, but as an on-ramp to dignity, agency, and wages that break the poverty cycle.

Threaded through is one recurring truth: one good adult can tilt a life toward hope. Sometimes it is a neighbour with jokes and a garden; other times it is a foster carer who bakes, smiles, and writes logs like letters. The system counts hours, but children count moments. Louise’s challenge is simple and tough: tell the truth, keep the child in the room even when they aren’t there, and choose warmth over control. When adults do that, the care system begins to look less like a maze and more like a path.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

About Louise:

Louise is the award-winning author behind the bestselling Thrown Away Children series. Her stories draw from the lived experiences of being part of a foster family. Her brand-new series, Slave Girls, continues her mission to share the real, often unheard stories of children and young people—with courage, honesty, and hope.
 
Through Spark Sisterhood, Louise is building a community where girls from care are met with friendship and essential life and employment skills, and where they are encouraged to believe in themselves and their futures. One of the charity’s most exciting projects is Care to Career, a two-week programme that offers girls jobs, apprenticeships and work experience by working with employers. The programme supports young women aged 18–25. It’s about more than just finding a job, which they do, it’s about creating space for young women to thrive.
 
At the heart of everything Louise does is a belief in the power of real-life stories. Through the marketing agency, Louise, she helps founders, charities, and mission-led companies connect more deeply with their audiences through branding, content, and campaigns that are built with empathy and purpose. Whether it’s supporting a small charity or reshaping how we talk about foster care, Louise brings clarity, heart, and strategy to every project.
 
Having grown up in care and now fostering children herself, Louise understands the care system from the inside out; she has a unique 360? understanding. She is a respected and leading voice. Her work is now focused on changing the conversation around fostering in the UK by challenging the fear-led culture, the lack of collaboration between agencies, and the reliance on legislation to drive change. Instead, she’s advocating for honest dialogue, practical solutions, and a shared commitment to putting children and carers first.

Related Podcasts:

If you really like my conversation with Louise, you may also like these other conversations:

Dr Hayley Lugassy

Ben Perks

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello, and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Louise: 0:05

And I began to use creativity as a way of thinking and a way of working. And sometimes you get drawn to these things because you just can’t live with the injustices that go on. And if you see it and you know it, you can’t walk past it. That man saved my life. So again, the other thing I would say is things aren’t always what you think they are. The people on paper who were meant to be really good and kind and the puppy were not. The people next door who were poor, who uh were a bit rough on the edges, I guess, were the kindest people I met. I have to absolutely believe it. If we put the children leave, genuinely, genuinely hot fellow, actually with a bit green, fellows, will all the green, and the children. I wanted to be very happy on a dream. Somebody who smiled with the simple gonna eat me. But just someone who’s a child. It’s all in the face. That’s all I wanted. It wasn’t about money, it wasn’t about material things, it was about that feeling that you were with an adult that looked at you with kindness in their eyes because it was in the heart. And children read that instantly. So I think most of the work we do could be helped if we worked on ourselves first minimum. Why aren’t they maximally? No one ever tells the truth in this world. It’s layers of eyes. The parents don’t tell the truth because they’re in a position of failure and threat from the children’s social care. The children don’t tell the truth because they’re loyalties to their parents. Uh, and they say a lot of what they think people want to hear because they’re used to it. Foster carers don’t tell the truth because they’re terrified of obligation. Social workers don’t tell the truth because they fear that they might lose the foster carer. Yet no one is telling the truth. So I thought, wouldn’t it be fun just to tell the truth?

Colby: 2:23

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me for this episode is an inspirational UK-based foster carer, author, artist, and champion of post-care support for young women. Before we begin, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Louise Allen. Louise is the award-winning author behind the best-selling thrown away children series. Her stories draw from the lived experiences of being part of a foster family. Her brand new series, Slave Girls, continues her mission to share the real, often unheard stories of children and young people with courage, honesty, and hope. Through Spark Sisterhood, Louise is building a community where girls from care are met with friendship, an essential life and employment skills, and where they are encouraged to believe in themselves and in their futures. One of the charity’s most exciting projects is Care to Career, a two-week program that offers girls jobs, apprenticeships, and work experience by working with employers. The program supports young women aged 18 to 25. It is about more than just finding a job, which they do. It’s about creating a space for young women to thrive. At the heart of everything Louise does is a belief in the power of real life stories. Through the marketing agency Louise, she helps founders, charities, and mission-led companies connect more deeply with their audiences through branding, content, and campaigns that are built with empathy and purpose. Whether it’s supporting a small charity or reshaping how we talk about foster care, Louise brings clarity, heart, and strategy to every project. Having grown up in care and now fostering children herself, Louise understands the care system from the inside out. She has a unique 360-degree understanding. She is a respected and leading voice. Her work is now focused on changing the conversation around fostering in the UK by challenging the fear-led culture, the lack of collaboration between agencies, and the reliance on legislation to drive change. Instead, she’s advocating for honest dialogue, practical solutions, and a shared commitment to putting children and carers first. Welcome, Louise.

Louise: 5:44

Hello, Colby. Thank you so much. That was was that me you were talking about?

Colby: 5:50

Well, of course it was. And I know that that uh from our uh conversations already, that’s only part of the story, and maybe we’ll we’ll get into that um a little bit more as as we go through the podcast. And uh thankfully, it being late in the day and me tripping over my tongue, I can edit those bits out um in the in the final product. Um, but I just wanted perhaps just to kick us off, Louise. Is there anything that you would add to that um that bio?

Louise: 6:24

Um the only thing I would kind of not add but uh highlight because I think it’s important uh to explain why someone like me would become so committed to the work I do. And and I do feel like it’s sometimes it’s accidental. It wasn’t I was quite happy working in fashion and art, floating around, wafting, having a lovely time, but um it felt incredibly um trivial and sometimes uh not very important when in the back of my mind, my own experiences of the care system, because I was in care from before I was born, um it kind of didn’t halt my creative career, it kind of changed it. And I began to use creativity as a way of thinking and a way of working, and sometimes you get drawn to these things because you just can’t live with the injustices that go on, and if you see it and you know it, you can’t walk past it. You just can’t. So when I found out about my own understanding of myself, I because you you you don’t know your own past until you gather all your evidence and lay it out in front of you, and even then there are holes. Is that um, if I can briefly say from the pro, because I always find this a bit of a shocker, not to me, but people to understand my father was a man in his 30s who was on his second marriage with children. My mother was 12 years old when she met him, or he met her. My father was a serial paedophile, and I found out as I got older. Now that changes the way you think about things because when I say to people my father was a paedophile, they think that it was me that he was having sex with, it wasn’t, it was my mother. So I have a kind of I talk about child abuse a bit like I’m having a cup of tea and a piece of cake because it’s my world that I live in. So that’s the only thing I’d like to say is a kind of disclaimer to why you know I do I bother so much and I care so much.

Colby: 8:28

Yeah, you you’ve touched a bit on that and and your motivation. Um, is there anything else that you would say about where this motive motivation comes from and what continues to motivate you in the the various endeavors that you are engaged in?

Louise: 8:46

I think the motivation, I think you you’re kind of born with it. I I kind of came into the world fighting for the underdog, um, not even realizing I was also one of the underdogs. Um, and I think I saw a lot of pain. I heard a lot of stories. I had a an adoptive mother and foster mothers that always overshared. So I was kind of burdened with their uh knowledge uh about the world. And I you kind of when you’re a child and you get that level of you know, your optics are like that, and you know those stories, you have a huge sense of responsibility, and sometimes it felt too much, but I I’m I’m creative, so I would turn that into something that would work with me. But I’ve always been very aware of how other people feel, and I think that’s my motivation. I can’t, I don’t like people around me being sad or lost or hurt, it bothers me dearly.

Colby: 9:48

So, in some ways, the relief of suffering is is has been a prime motivator for you.

Louise: 9:55

Absolutely, Colby. I’m gonna have to stop one of my dogs is howling. I’m gonna go and shut the door.

Colby: 10:03

We have a shared interest in dogs. You shared a story about how dogs have been uh lifelong friends and companions for you.

Louise: 10:19

Dogs to me are are um to me, they’re the most uh beautiful creatures I can think of. I absolutely love their souls and find them so forgiving for what we do to them. And when I was uh a child, in in my first well, in every single book, I it occurred to me that I was writing as much about my dogs as I was about me. So wherever when when I was in care and when I was at places or at new foster places, or wherever I was, I would find a dog and I would sit with the dog and befriend the dog. And and and at my most saddest times in my life, I found I’m sitting next to a dog, and it was uh I I I just love them dearly. I had a dog that um my adoptive mother got rid of because she got jealous of the devotion I had to the dog, and I came home from school and she just had it put down. And that kind of of all the things she had done to me, and she’d done some pretty horrendous things, that hardened me to the point where I could not, I I knew it was just a matter of time till I left. But she did some horrendous things, but she got my dog killed because she didn’t like the fact I was up ever six o’clock every morning walking it around a university parks in Oxford, and I love my dog’s company, and I still do.

Colby: 11:49

I’ve got two, and I was actually looking at a uh dog rescue last night, just sort of trying to convince my husband that we can have another one, and of course, we’re having this conversation because we just had to have a temporary interlude while you went in um and and did something for one of your dogs, yeah. Who’s having a very uh unnatural experience at the moment?

Louise: 12:14

Yeah, she’s having a fancy pregnancy and she surrounded herself with uh the children’s shoes thinking they’re puppies.

Colby: 12:21

Oh dear, poor thing. Yeah, you yeah, so um you you mentioned your adoptive uh parent and you you you indicated that you um you had foster foster mums as well. Um so I guess from um from my perspective and probably from the perspective of our listeners, they would be really keen to hear about what you think um i i is important for foster carers to know and do in that role in consideration of your your experience of having been um cared for by them and and being a foster parent themselves uh yourself now.

Louise: 13:11

Uh yeah, and I thank you for that. That’s a really important question. And and and probably the the the work I find myself doing, uh consciously or unconsciously, is trying to to unravel that to spare the pain um of the the foster carers, the doctors, and mostly the children and the communities around them, because we don’t do this on our own. We have family and we have neighbors and we have friends that all buy into what our affections are. So my my experience of being in care before I was born um was because of my mother’s age, because she was at school. I was then a forced adoption. Um in England there was a prolific amount of us being adopted. Now I I have often wondered whether that’s connected to the late 60s, to to whether the it was a misuse or no use of the pill and the the kind of culture going on in the background of free love and sex and all the rest of it and misunderstanding. In our case, in my mother’s case, sheer exploitation by a man that was clearly a predator. Um and so you you you there’s a dishonesty, I think, that uh uh underpins uh what what we are because when you are adopted or fostered, the first thing you that happens to you is your identity is changed and you lose your identity. Now, my birth mother, even though I had spoken to her throughout my life, I only found out two years ago that she’s Italian. I had no idea why I was olive. I was told I might be Greek, and you realize that that people, the most important thing is to get the facts right, and if you don’t have the absolute correct facts about identity, about family, and don’t say them, don’t guess, leave the gaps because we can fill them in later. And with the digital world now, we can access stuff on ancestry and so on quite quickly. I think me, I was called manufactured. Um, I was adopted by um a woman on my in my paperwork, which I have in a cupboard over there, uh, should never have adopted children, but she had adopted another child child before me and was under the spotlight for um serious child abuse, but then she was allowed to adopt me two years later. I was originally fostered. Because I think um of the prejudice at the time, I think they knew who my father was. Um he was quite he was uh I met him, he was not a nice person at all. Um and I think they uh my birth plan, not my birth plan, my care plan, the first thing on it was this child must be baptized. So I think the fact I was illegitimate, I was the result of uh uh uh uh because it paedophilia, they would have then I would imagine they would have blamed a girl for her uh behaviour. Um I I would imagine that I was very olive. Well, I faded a bit now, but when I was a child I was uh very dark. Um and I think I had the the the the all the the red flags for sort of devout deep prejudice and racism. So I kind of um was I was I was sort of binned off quite early, and I think I had a sense of that, and then I was um I don’t, you know, you end up becoming when you are a foster child or an adopted child, and you know that you are living with someone else’s family, the the hardest thing is trying to understand your own identity. Then you get to a stage which I got to when I discovered punk when I was a teenager, where you just think, well, I’ll create my own identity, and my identity at that point was angry, creative, and sort of a bit wild. But when I was a child, I remember always feeling that there were conversations and whispers that I was not party to that were about me. When my um uh uh I was introduced to my birth mother because my adopted mother was trying to bin me off quite quickly because she’d had enough of us, and I was an incredibly quiet child. And I think the first thing that we need to understand when we uh work with children from trauma, or we’re giving it to them on a daily basis, is that please watch out for the quiet ones, the shy ones, the quiet ones. We go unnoticed, and so my uh other adopted brother was taken away from me. We used to cling to each other, it was just I came downstairs and he was gone. I just saw a car leaving and he was put into residential care. So I’d lost my ally. I had a uh an Irish navy, and if you don’t know what a navy is, they were they were brought over as cheap labor to build the roads and the railways, and he lived in the caravan in the orchard next door with some um evacuees from World War II, so Polish people. Um, and I used to sneak over there into the caravan for food and company, and I ended up becoming my greatest friend was an Irishman from County Court who lived in a caravan, drank Guinness, and used to protect me. If you read that back, small child in a caravan alone with an Irishman in his 60s and 70s, you would you would be alive. That man saved my life. So, again, the other thing I would say is things aren’t always what you think they are. The people on paper who were meant to be really good and kind and and look after me were not. The people next door who were poor, who uh were a bit rough round the edges, I guess, were the kindest people I met. And learned and and kept he knew what was going on, but he he he kind of created created a magical space for me where I could be a child, and he taught and he had that wonderful Irish humour. So he taught me to laugh as well. So I’m grateful. So what would I say? I’d say you know, things aren’t always what you think they are, and people definitely aren’t always who they seem, and when it comes to trying to do life story work, it’s never the truth, it will never be the truth until we decide it’s the truth and the truth that we can live with. So it’s um, and you learn so many bad things, you know, and and people are embarrassed of us. My adopted mum would introduce me if I’d done well at something, oh, this is my adopted daughter, then then literally blow on her nails and and brush her lapel like it was all her work. You know, you kind of you you you you’re you’re uh you you’re appeasing a lot of people if you’re quiet and shy. And then if you were like my adopted brother, he went through it like a bull in a china shop because he didn’t know what to do with all his emotions. Either way, you’re punished, either way it’s a struggle. But now I’m a foster carer and I have long-term placement, so that’s like you know, a bit like adoption, but much more social work intervention. I’d say that um the most important thing is the truth, and the truth will always do because we find out later. And I’ve and I’ve been, and if someone like me approaches a relative, a birth relative, or somebody from the past, it’s not like the TV shows. We don’t throw our arms around each other and go, Oh my god, you’ll just look at your nose, it’s just like mine. You don’t do that. What you do is you you get a sense that they’re looking at you thinking, What do you want? And people have met relatives who have said to me, I haven’t got any money. But it’s you you’re always seen as the other, you know. If you look, we very rarely get put in wills, and and you know, we we’re not financially taken care of. So I would ask anyone who does it to have a real think about what they why they’re doing it. Is is it to replace something they’ve lost, a child they’ve lost, or a child they’ve never had, because you’re just about to adopt or foster a unique universe that has the whole energy, and your job is to find it and to help them accept their own energy because they’re fighting, children are constantly exhausted, and I see it with my children. I think I’m quite good at what I do, but I can see it in them that they’re trying to bend and twist and to try and second guess how they can keep you happy to give them space to to do what they need to do. And I just think that we gotta do this better.

Colby: 22:33

So there’s three, I guess three main things that I I took from that, Louise. And if there’s some that I missed that you think are important to to also mention, do so. One the the remo the probably the latter one was the importance of understanding the children in your care. Understanding the depth to which they feel is you you use the word outsiders, um you you I know your books, you talk about throwing away children, you use the language of being binned. Um but that understand the depth to of lack or loss of of a feeling of belonging to everyone. And and the other thing that I think you said in there that was I thought really poignant, and um as it happens, I’m I I was writing questions for uh for upcoming podcast guests about the input the who we with whom I’m gonna I plan to be talking about other adults, you know, adults outside of the foster placement or the residential placement or the kinship placement. And um yeah, so you mentioned the the neighbour who the role of that he played in your life was so significant that you you he said you described him as having saved you. And um yeah, it puts me in mind, this is a theme that comes up quite regularly on our podcast about and and in my professional life as well, just about the vital role that um you know having at least one one good adult in your life who sees you, listens to you, and is there for you, particularly when times are tough. And um we know incidentally from um the study I’m most familiar with was a large-scale Irish study that was completed a bit more than a little bit more than 10 years ago now, but of um 12 to 25 year olds that showed that um and quite a lot, and it was quite a large sample size, but it showed that the children um or the the adults who were able to um report that they’d had someone in their life who saw them, who understood them, who was there for them. The difference for that population in terms of mental health and well-being, physical health and well-being, and and problematic behaviours is significant, yeah, whether you have that or you don’t have that. Yeah. So yeah, I don’t know if I missed any of those significant points in there, but there was getting to know the children, being aware of belonging and the and and how significant that is for young people, and and being aware of how the the the role of just being one good adult, at least one good adult. We of course we want more.

Louise: 25:42

It’s well it I I could do my own little uh uh example is that I myself and uh the adopted other adopted brother who is a bit older than me, we live next door to together next to this orchard, but he didn’t have I I’m always curious and always, you know, and and and there were cats and dogs around, you know, so yeah, it was a given for me. I was gonna get close to those animals. And he didn’t have the he didn’t make the effort, I guess, as a child to crawl through the fence and go and introduce himself. I made the effort several times a week um to crawl for the fence and to smile at people and to and I’m a natural smiler, and I I don’t know whether I became a natural smiler for people to like me so I’d be rescued, or I don’t know, we just did it differently, and I think it’s all down to personality. My adopted brother struggles in life hugely, um, whereas I don’t, and I think that connection I had with Sean, the Irishman, was he didn’t say, How are you? How are you feeling? None of that. It was far more come over here and let’s let’s don’t dig this garden, you know. Let’s let’s you know, let’s do it. He used to let me um he had a comb over, he had a bold head and a comb. He used to wear braces and vests, you know, proper old school. And he would sit there reading the local paper, drinking in his name, plat his comb over and put makeup on it. He was completely at ease with himself, but he was very aware, I found out later, what was going on, and I respect him more now than ever, knowing that he knew and he placated her and he protected me. He didn’t involve me in that discussion or in that world, he didn’t get involved, he protected me, and I appreciate that because I got to have a childhood, I got to, you know, I and I love a gardening because of him, you know. So I’m grateful, and I’m grateful for people that don’t keep saying, Are you alright? What’s going on with you right now? You don’t want you get sick of it as a child.

Colby: 28:02

I look and in my professional life, I I say to people, if you find yourself about to ask a child a question and you think you know what the answer would be, should they give it, don’t ask the question. Say the answer. Say the answer. Because children our children, every time my experience is is when we ask them questions, their experience is what you know, another dumb adult that doesn’t can’t it can’t see, can’t hear, isn’t looking, doesn’t know. But when we when we say the answer, their experience is what finally, someone who who sees me and gets me.

Louise: 28:44

It’s so important that is such a really inspiring and hopeful thing for me to hear because I live with children now who um you know I only we were doing some work the other day, they’re in residential care for three years, and we were uh we we totted up um all the people that this child has had to tell her story to over the last five years, and it was 360 people, 70 care workers, five social workers, managers. Every time she went to AE, it was at least five doctors, nurses, because they never they always go, I want to hear it for myself. It’s like, no, trust, trust the child, therapists, counsellors, teachers, whatever, uh other people. So we came up with the idea that we’re going to make a recording.

Colby: 29:37

Yeah, it’s a good idea.

Kouise: 29:41

Because she I just cannot say it one more time, and then when she refuses to engage and sits at her phone and scrolls and doesn’t engage, they say they get angry with her.

Colby: 29:51

Yeah, yeah. I’ve never insisted that I mean, I’ve been doing working therapeutically. I had a primarily assessment role for the first seven years. Years of my career, and then I gradually did more and more therapy, although I had therapy, psychotherapy clients from the beginning, but 30 years. I’ve never expected a child, I’ve never asked a child to tell their story. Um I think that that’s um re-traumatising. I think I think that children um get more out of a therapeutic encounter from warmth, from understanding, um, from feeling like they’re a person of worth, that they’re good enough, yeah, than yeah, raking over the coals of you know of what’s happened in their life.

Louise: 30:43

And I just think it’s a continuation of abuse when you because to what end are you asking? Because you haven’t read the notes. We got her file, there was just one part of a file, which is 360 pages. This is just for one year of her life, you know, with the rest are coming because she’s soon to be 18. And um, then she asked for another load. Um, and you you when you look at the paperwork that uh uh this is a bit I didn’t say is that as a foster carer and a doctor, you are only ever as good from the beginning as what you have been told and what you know about the child. So when those notes are written, and I I I sat there trying to fight the tears off when I was going through her paperwork just the other evening, because it’s careless, it’s it they don’t even get her name right, they don’t, you know, it is so and they she said, but that didn’t happen, they got that wrong, and you know, so they’re building an identity, a picture of a child that isn’t accurate, which is why I say the truth will always do. If you can’t be the truth and there’s less of it, then hallelujah! Just don’t put stuff in that you’re not sure about and you cannot uh hold to account because they uh it so we’re only ever as good as what we know, and then what what I learned as a foster carer is those referrals, the redactions are you know what is not there is conspicuously loud, and you have to second guess.

Colby: 32:24

Yeah, I think um the word that was coming to me, and I’ve just noticed that I’ve got a nice shadow on my face because the sun is uh uh reflecting off the neighbor’s roof. But um what I um the word that came to me was dignity. Like where is where’s the dignity in for the child in the notes in the the records? I you had me in mind of a young person who complains that every aspect of her life, she’s in a residential placement, but every aspect of her life is documented. Every every what time she got up, what she did for breakfast, rahdy rah. And yeah, and it’s excuse me, Louise, I’m just gonna shut it off. There we go.

Louise: 33:18

There we are. And and that is so important because I when I, you know, was in care, I felt when I ran away at 15 because I just legged it from Oxford to Portsmouth, I got on a train after a horrendous incident of abuse, and I dragged myself three miles to the train station. I got on a train and I was gone. I felt like I’d broken out of prison. And it was liberating, and I worked very hard to make sure that I could earn money not to be anywhere near a social services or a social worker, because by then my trust had gone. So the fact that I’m back in this world much later working with children’s social care, and I see some inspiring social workers, but I read those and I see a lot that I don’t really want to see again. But I see I read the notes with great with great interest. I read I’ve got my own file, and most of it is redactions, and those redactions are not to protect me, they’re to protect themselves, and you diminish more and more and more that you know you you kind of and and and in my um uh file all the way through, I’m hardly mentioned. There’s even a note about you know, a particular thing happened where my adopted mother beaten me so badly, and they went, Oh, I suppose someone better go around and check on Louise, but it’s Friday, I’ve got to go. Can you do it? It was all handwritten before my uh adoption because I was fostered first, because uh so many social workers said, Don’t do it, don’t do it. She must not, this woman must not adopt this child. There are all these handwritten notes saying, please don’t do this from the Guardian Litem from the social workers. And I was still adopted, and I think it was because when you adopt you you you’re one financial burden less for the local authority. And it’s it, and I think what it made me very aware, angry originally, that we matter so little, we matter so little, and you you you see this in decision making now, and and I I am that foster care. I because I do I have this absolute belief that if we put the children’s needs genuinely, genuinely heartfelt, matching with a bit of brain, first, we’ll all agree, and the child will get what they need, but you get all these weird other things going on, careers, politics, you know. Why are children politicized? So you a lot of the the the words around children are lazy, um rude. Uh, I mean, just some of the stuff, and and then you get foster carers, and we have to write logs every week or two weeks. I do two weeks, I do two weeks for any foster carers who are listening. If you write them every week, you’re gonna write about the minutiae. They go up, they clean their teeth, they they who cares? If you write them every three weeks, you forget. So every two weeks for me works out to be about the right, you get you get the right stuff in there, and I always write my logs to my child because it keeps me focused, it keeps me focused on that. I’m not recording their daily activity or then anything negative. What I am doing is I am on the journey with them as long as I can until they read this, and I want them to read that I said, Well, uh, it’s not the child’s name, but say, Sarah, you know, you had a really good day today, and uh, we we got through that bit, you know, with that bit, and I write it in a funny voice, and I use my voice, and I never talk about the the the the whoopsies and the disasters and the and if they abscond, I’ll say, Well, we got your back, that’s great. But I never because they will read it, we never want to be continually reminded of our failures, the failures that were put on us by other people, and I think that that how we write about children is essential. Everybody, doctors, therapists, counselors, you know, teachers, you know, we don’t need to hear the negative, we’re living that negative stuff. I remember it, and I see the children I look after. We you’re living that daily, you don’t need to be reminded, you just need to know that people know that you can you can get through this, and you’ll be great.

Colby: 37:52

Yeah, yeah. And I have a I have a saying that when you get a group of adults in a room, often the first voice that is lost is the child’s voice. And it’s it’s just remarkable how that happens and observing that happening. And I think in our pre-meet, you told me that about putting the photo of the child on the table. Yes, I did it on the table. Yeah.

Louise: 38:16

Yeah, I I and I, you know, you have to be a stage in your life where you really couldn’t give a hoot about what other people think about you. I really don’t care. I generally like I got what I want, got what I need. I don’t need your your validation. But while we were in this meeting, we were it was an online one and they were talking not about the child, they were talking about the child, but not talking about the child and about all the problems it was causing them and the logistics. I just got her photograph and I just whacked it on the screen on camera and went, This is who we’re talking about, and I’m gonna every time you don’t talk about her, I’m gonna put her face up. Yeah, and it and it, you know, and then they were like a little bit shocked, and then they kind of and I said, How can you not? She’s not even here. We’re talking about her, and she’s not here. Do you understand how that feels for her? She knows we’re here, she’s not in the room virtually or the least I can do is remind you who she is, and they and it did change the whole mood of the meeting because suddenly they lightened up. It stopped being about their commissioning and about the the egos and the wars, and I want to further my career because I’ve managed to save 500 pounds this month or whatever, and aren’t I wonderful? Because I really generally don’t care about the adults, I care about the children, and you have when you go in with that attitude at first, it’s like what Gandhi said, didn’t it? When you have when you want something big to happen, when you want to create a change, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they get angry with you, then you win. And I keep that in my head because I know they go, God, it’s yeah, then they get a bit, you can feel the pursed lips and the and but that’s all about them, not me or the child. All I am doing is reminding them that this human being, this vulnerable, only vulnerable because we have bureaucratically made that child vulnerable on the fact that they were physically and emotionally vulnerable before. So the corporate parent continues the vulnerability, and then they go, and then they get you know, then you get to the conversation with 16 or 18, and you go, right, and off you go then.

Colby: 40:39

Bye. I want to get to you and talk to you a little bit about the Sparte Sisterhood in a in a in a bit, but there’s a couple of other things that uh just something that I want to cover off about what you’ve said so far. There was an e there was a um I refer I refer to this study in my in my writing and um it was published in the mid-1950s under the article titled The Nature of Love. Um and uh Harry Harlow was his name, and he and and he published his study in a very esteemed psychology journal. I think it was in the American Psychologist in 1955, and it was and this is the you may have heard of it, but this is the experiments where they separated infant rhesus monkeys from their mothers um shortly after birth. And what they were they were testing is you know how how important is it to the infant um that they get fed? Um they had mother surrogate, so they have would have a mother surrogate that uh would feed them, but was wrapped in wire, was not warm, was not cuddly, they couldn’t cut it cuddle into it, and it could feed them. But then they they also had a mother surrogate who was wrapped in terry towel and had a a like load behind it, so and it was roughly shaped so that the infant could cling onto it, and it was it was warm, it was soft, and um and and I won’t, I’ll spare you some of the details, but the the long and the short of of it all is how much because they were looking at what are the primary needs of a child, and the primary needs turned out to be as concluded from those studies, were warmth contact to comfort. Whether they feed you or you know, and and I was reflecting on your experience growing, you know, you you I’m sure you were well you may not have been well fed, but but your adoptive.

Louise: 42:44

Well there was a case I had to eat.

Colby: 42:47

Yeah. But um but the kid, yeah, it was that was game changing really for um uh for for thought thinking at that time, that in fact it’s not the fact that the parent feeds and uh the child that is is a primary uh driver for the child orienting to the parent. It’s that they it is that they provide warmth and comfort. And in actual fact, when they frighten these baby monkeys and they had a choice of either going to the mother surrogate that fed them but was just made of wire, or the one that was soft and warm but didn’t feed them, the babies would always go to the soft and warm um uh mother surrogate. So Jessica, you know, I I think about that in terms of the warmth that you undoubtedly experienced with Sean from Sean and um yeah, and and you know, like it’s not it’s not that sophisticated in a way, you know, the the raising and the care of children, it is that um we do provide them with love and comfort and warmth. Yeah, yeah.

Louise: 43:58

And it’s so interesting because every child I’ve looked after, which is over 30 now, um, and and some stay for years and years, is that when they go somewhere else or when they report about back on their residentials or their previous foster carers or whatever. If I can couple that with when when I began fostering and my memories of my own childhood, because I didn’t want to, it was my husband’s idea. I was the most reluctant area you’d find. But you know, I I I absolutely do I love it? I don’t know. You just do it and you don’t think about do I love it or not, because it’s not that kind of uh work. But I wanted to be for my own children, I have two birth children, my stepdaughters when they were young, and all the students because I used to teach in a university. I wanted to be consciously or subconsciously, the the the the very adult that I dreamed I’d had. And what that was was somebody who smiled when they saw me. That simple. Not looked like they were gonna eat me or beat me, but just someone who with warmth, because a child will tell you it’s all in the face, it’s in a split second, and when my children go somewhere, my foster children go somewhere and they refuse to go back, and then the social workers, we’ve spent this money on that, and you have to go, and they’ll say they didn’t make me feel welcome. So it’s all with the initial greet, and every time that you know, and I made sure I worked really hard, and this is why foster care gets mixed up with domestic women’s work, is that even though you know I’m not the greatest and finest baker in the world, but I would half-kill myself to do all my work to make sure that when the children came back from school, the kitchen smelt of of biscuits, and uh the biscuits were warm, and I was there smiling, and just for 10 minutes I’d go, you had a good day, and if they didn’t want to talk, we didn’t, but it was I was always smiling, not like a lunatic, but with utter warmth because I knew that’s what I never that’s all I wanted. It wasn’t about money, it wasn’t about material things, it was about that feeling that you were with an adult that looked at you with kindness in their eyes because it was in their heart, and children read that instantly, you know. And I meet a lot of professionals, and I wouldn’t I wouldn’t want to be left alone with them.

Colby: 46:43

I mean a lot of people in the sector, yeah. The same. I wouldn’t have wouldn’t want my children to to spend time with them.

Louise: 46:51

No, no, so you know, we we don’t, you know, the efficacy that the sense, you know, we don’t pay enough attention as adults to adults, we don’t tell them, you know, when we employ people or when we train people, we don’t say, can you work on your body language, please? Can you work on what your voice sounds like? Can you stop sounding so depressed? Can you can you not make them feel so uncomfortable? Because you will hold a child’s attention, it’s like teachers as well, you know. If you I I have a child with me now that just won’t go to school. Luckily enough, I work from home mostly, so that’s that’s okay. And I never say you’ve got to go to school, because why would you want to go somewhere every day where people treat you badly when you’ve come from a childhood where you were treated badly, and and people don’t understand if they stood there at the door and greeted the young people and said, Hi, so lovely to see you, hi five or whatever. Come on in, it doesn’t matter if you’re two minutes late, rather than you’ve got detention, you’re late, you’re late. Who wants that? So the whole kind of abuse of power, you know. I see it again and again in these stern faces, and children are not stupid by any means. So I think most of the work we do could be helped if we worked on ourselves first.

Colby: 48:32

I I agree, I think that’s a that’s a really fantastic point, and there is a lot of thinking about how we manage the relationship that we bring to the table, how how we manage ourselves when um when we interact with the children. Um look, Louise, there’s lots more that I could talk to you about. But I also I want to cover a couple of other of other things in the time that we have available. I do wonder though, uh, you do you you seem to stick your neck out a little bit on behalf of the children. Who who’s got your back?

Louise: 49:10

Um I’ve got my back. I’ve earned the coverage of my back through through putting my neck out, sticking my neck on, and finding other people that also stick their neck out. And through the years, we have independently and collectively challenged this the the system, the the the the the behaviors, the policies, because unless you you you do create a little bit of disruption and and agitate, nothing will change. And and um I have my back very beautifully covered by uh a number of people. One of them is Sarah Anderson, who uh, for anyone in fostering in the UK or anywhere actually, because I think her her work is pretty global from foster uh foster wiki, which is basically everything you need to know about fostering from law to to minimum standards. Minimum. Why aren’t they maximum standards? Um to quality standards, yeah, quality standards. Why minimum? Why the bare minimum?

Colby: 50:15

Um I’m sure that’s not what min not what Winnicott meant when he talked about good enough parenting.

Louise: 50:21

No, no, exactly. Well, there’s a conversation, isn’t it? You know, oh my goodness. Um, I think I also have my own back because one thing you learn through the care system is resilience, and I’ve learned to to know what to worry about and what not to worry about, and I’m at a stage in life where I’m still standing and I’m still here and I’m still laughing. So I think with age and experience, I I’m more discerning about what I offer my emotional time to. So yeah, a number of things.

Colby: 50:58

Yeah. Um moving on, I just wanted uh you this the books that you’ve written, um I I think people will be very interested to hear more about uh what inspired you to write them and perhaps even a little bit about what what they cover.

Louise: 51:18

Yeah, the thrown away I wrote my own book for thrown away child. That wasn’t my title when you write these books, it was for Simon Schuster. So you write them and then you kind of, you know, things PR and marketing get put in, and they want a nitty-nitty title. And then after I wrote my first book, I was like, I liked writing, but I I wasn’t a writer, and then I had a big gap, and I was thinking, what do I do with my life now? I’ve written a book. So then I started to write about what I know and what I know as a fostering family. Um, and when you are, you know, no one sees your family. It’s a really weird work because you’re kind of divided up and you we hardly see each other as foster carers. Uh, and when we do gather up, we’re always surrounded by social workers who are very keen to keep us on track and not talk about them. So we we we kind of have these fake conversations. But I I wanted to write the books because mainly for my fellow foster carers, because we live in this mad world and we are treated like babysitters, and foster care is intense work. You you have to enjoy learning, you have to be prepared to spend a lot of your time gathering information to tailor it to every child in your home, because there’s no generalization possible for what we do, and I think um I wrote it because we we are treated badly. Uh I think because that some the the the governments all level see what we do as tradition as gendered work, as women’s work, uh, therefore in a lot of people’s minds, including some uh females in in management and so on, we are lesser, we have a lower value. And what amazes me about being a foster carer is that even though I’d worked as an academic, I have lived experience, and I’m reasonably sharp. Um, I’d set up businesses, I’ve already looked after my children, my stepchildren, they’re all alive, you know, it’s all good. I did all that. When you become a foster carer, you doesn’t matter what you bring with you, all your life experience, we’re all treated like we’re just it’s like a processing. You you just get treated like you now, you’ve got to wear a beige cardigan and you don’t have a voice, and now you’re just seen as a domestic person. It’s really weird. And I think when I was uh teaching, I was in a trade union rep because I wanted to know why there was so much bullying going on in my university with academia, full stop, and so I brought with it this kind of uh awareness of uh you know rights, um human rights, workplace rights, you know, whatever. I I brought all that with me, and so that made me really unpopular straight away because I started going, well, what are we then? We’re foster carers, so we you know, we don’t have a contract, we have an agreement, we don’t we don’t get sick pay or pensions, but we’re meant to work like robots 24-7, not not complain. If we do say we’re tired, then you tell us we’ve got compassion fatigue and we’re useless. So you you I really was startled actually when I became a foster carer, I was a bit freaked out, and then I started looking at all my other foster carers, and we come from the most diverse backgrounds, you’ll never meet a more broad demographic than foster carers, but we’re all glued together. Some foster carers naively think that if they you know, if they uh try and impress and befriend the management, they’d be like the favourite child, and we we sit there going, Oh, they’re gonna throw you under the bus, and they do. Um, so I wrote it for foster carers, I wrote it for education because we don’t get very good training. You have a little bit of skills to foster at the start, and then you’re chucked in looking after these little universes with all their issues and all their problems, and all that you don’t know what you’re dealing with because no one ever really tells you what’s going on, and you have to wait for the bureaucracy and all the rest of it. So I wrote it to to share the the more extreme experiences, but the fun as well, you know. And and in my first book, I wasn’t allowed to be funny because it was misery memoir. And I thought that’s not me. I do like a laugh, thank you, Sean. My lovely Irishman, and taught me to laugh. And most things are funny if you look for it. So I started writing the books about our our life. So my husband, my sons, the dogs always in there, um, and the children that come into our lives, into our home, and and all that goes with it, that their families, you know, how they ended up in care, because they don’t just appear from from space and land in care. There’s a whole backstory, there’s intergenerational trauma, there’s poverty, there’s uh all sorts of issues that bring children into care, and and and then the external world that doesn’t know about the care system thinks they’re naughty children. So you kind I uh I wrote it, I never thought I’d get published. I’m on my 20th now. Um, and it’s uh they they go down, but they they’re uh I I I I seem to a lot of Australian people seem to read my books. Thank you very much. But it’s a bit of a it’s just a real story to la isn’t it? It’s love. I I I tell about all the naughty stuff, you know, like when the social workers are coming, we hide all the wine. Oh dear, yeah, and all that stuff because we’re real people, and like sometimes on a Friday after a big week with the children, a bottle of wine will do nicely, thank you very much. But you can’t, you know, you see you live this old, you know, no one ever tells the truth in this world, it’s layers of lies. The parents don’t tell the truth because they’re they’re in the position of failure and threat from children’s social care. The children don’t tell the truth because they’re loyalties to their parents, uh, and they say a lot of what they think people want to hear because they’re used to it. Foster carers don’t tell the truth because they’re terrified of allegation, the social workers don’t tell the truth because they fear that they might lose the foster carer. Yeah, no one is telling the truth. So I thought, wouldn’t it be fun just to tell the truth?

Colby: 57:57

It’s uh it it sounds inspirational.

Louise: 58:01

Um, and a lot of reggae going on as well, because I I’m always listening to reggae in my studio, so that’s quite funny as well.

Colby: 58:09

Yeah, and you’re an artist as well. Yeah, you’re an artist, and uh you obviously paint regularly. I see I see uh some of your offerings on LinkedIn. Yeah, sponsor me LinkedIn. Uh but yes, there is that, and you know, you you mentioned dogs, the dogs again there, and what I the other thing I really wanted to say when I was telling that ghastly story earlier about Harley, Harla, Harlow and his monkeys. So it’s it’s just about how their preference for warmth and contact comfort rather than food or um you know whoever feeds them, and that’s something that dogs are very good at. They’re very good at, and uh, we don’t have a dog at the moment. My dog died a couple of years ago, my most recent dog. Yeah, and you you feel that lack.

Louise: 59:00

Um, it’s horrible. It’s you know, you start throwing bits of food on the floor, don’t you? And you think, well, why am I doing that? Because there’s no dog not that we should feed dogs at the table, but the um the dogs uh are essential for the work that I do at home. Without the dogs, I could not be uh anywhere near, and I don’t think they get praised enough. You know, they know when to go and sit on a lap and they don’t say anything. They got your back. I’ve got your back.

Colby: 59:31

Yeah.

Louise: 59:32

And I had a child who was a prolific, prolific self-harmer, and I used to leave one of my dogs in their room. Because you have to sleep, you know, sleep is the most valuable thing a foster care can have. And the dog used to come in and wake me up when when they were cutting. When it got too bad, when they were getting close to an archery or something. And I used to to go in and my dog would would all they would cry. If a child cries, the dog will let me know and come and get me. And I find the um it sometimes they make me just cry because they’re just so beautiful, the dogs, and they um they reach children in ways that you know I’ve got one at the moment, I’ve got a small dog who’s a Jack Russell Chihuahua, and this particular child carries. I was gonna get them a kind of uh papoose because they carry the dog around, and the dog the the the front legs on their shoulders and they just stare at each other all the time. I think and that it the dog is giving the love but taking away the pain, and you can see this beautiful cycle. So I could not do the work without dogs. No, I want more dogs.

Colby: 1:00:52

I wondered if I’d like dogs again, but um, yeah, at the moment my children are working on that.

Louise: 1:01:00

One of them has yeah, they’re campaign campaigning.

Colby: 1:01:03

Yeah, well, one of them’s got his own dog, so yeah, and we’re we’re grandparents to the dogysitting rights. Um you tell tell us a little bit about Spark Sisterhood. Because I think um I think you you and I are both completely on the same page as uh you know Aberdeen um people in this sector about just just the the awful circumstances that can befall young people post-care.

Louise: 1:01:37

Yeah, it’s the cliff edge, isn’t it? It really is. Um the last thing I needed to do three years ago was set up a charity. But I’d been into a residential home the year before uh as a guest to do some art and do some uh work with the as uh as someone from the care system. And I, you know, I was talking to a group of girls and they’re all about 15, and I’d say, what and I was quite naive, you know, even though I think I I I get it covered, and then I realize I still don’t know how this system works. And I’d be saying, What are you gonna do? Are you going to college? Are you going to this? Are you going to that? They get a little shrug, you know, that teenage shrug. And I go, Oh, okay. And then, you know, life goes on and whatever. And then one by one, after a few months, they were contacting me on social media. And it’d be, hello Louise, how are you? And I go, hi, darling. But my mum bit would go, What’s going on for you? Where are you? And then I found out that there was about eight girls that had been not bonded, but bonded by circumstance and environment, uh, in residential for a few years, who were now all completely separated. And they were living in uh independent living accommodation, which varied from a tent to luxurious, to being in an unregulated home, looked felt very much like it was run by county lines. And if if you haven’t got county lines in Australia, what it is, it’s criminal, criminal gangs trafficking girls and boys using mainly uh uh children to move drugs and it’s slave labor, which is what my books are about. Um, and it’s all it worked through phone lines, so it’s not train lines as my hairdresser thought, it’s uh phone lines, and it’s a sheer exploitation of children and and our uh we haven’t got the the government and the police services do not have the support uh the resources, thank you, previous governments, to to deal with it, so it’s sheer blatant exploitation, and so I was listening to them, and then you know, you do that thing like oh god’s sake. So I remembered that they all liked red velvet cake because I used to take it in, so I got all their postcodes, I put them in my sat nav, and I went to the shop and I got a carrier bag of food and feminine supplies. I just assumed they need them, and on top of each bag I put a uh a red velvet cake, and I drove round to see them all, and it was one of the most heartbreaking things I’ve done because you know, for whatever you say about children in care, they have they have dignity when they need it, and that dignity presents itself as politeness, and that politeness is um a kind of it scares me because it means that they have no, they don’t feel that they have any agency or autonomy, they just silent. And these girls I went to see uh put on uh an insane amount of weight. That was the first thing I noticed, but obviously never said, and I then I’d get to the bottom, they’re too scared to leave their accommodation, they didn’t know how to get on buses because they had been driven everywhere in residential. They were heartbroken because in care, it doesn’t matter how many carers they had, they were told that they were loved, and then when they left, that love disappeared. So now they’d recognize that that love to be paid love for them to say it and totally hollow, and it left them re-traumatized because they’d left they had the rejection of their own families and leaving and having to go into care, and then they so big things that no one thinks about the none of them had really been kept in contact with, they were in isolation, they’d been split up, and this is interesting. Each local authority gave them a different allowance, so some are on £50 a week, which would you know, buy maybe a lunch out for two, and some are on £70 a week. So there’s complete inconsistency. Whilst they were in care, in residential care, they were having their hair done, their nails done, they had clothes allowances, they were going on holidays, you know, everything was blissfully lovely, and then it all stopped. So they didn’t know what to do, but they had developed vape and smoking habits, which were funded by the local uh by the residential home just to keep them quiet, but no one actually so they had developed addictions, so their money went on fags, cigarettes, and vapes before they got fed. And the food they bought was so cheap and nasty that that that’s why they’d put on the weight and they weren’t getting any exercise because they were terrified to go anywhere, they were terrified of the people in the next room. So it was awful. So then I started the charity because I felt that they weren’t going into education. I’d say, why you why are you not going to college? And then when you look at a college timetable, it’s erratic. It’s like, you know, you go in 10 on a Monday, nine on a Tuesday, two on a Wednesday. What they were craving was consistency, what they were craving was routine, what they were craving was validation that they’re okay, not a reminder that they were different. So they couldn’t make friends at college because they had no, they weren’t going to bring them back to their weird accommodation, they didn’t have the money to join in and go to the cinema and go bowling and go out to the pub and do all the normal stuff. They just didn’t know how to do that, and they were probably also being exploited because they, you know, they are so vulnerable because the exploiters of gangs and so on see them and then know they need money and friendship, and they offer another version of family, which is totally corrupt and dangerous. So I set the charity up because of them, and I set it up, and uh first of all, it was a mentorship, and then I and I backed away from that completely because the women that are in business that were quite powerful and I thought could help them were terrifying, and and they would have no relationship. And I knew that they would the girls would turn up because they thought they were awful, and you know, it’s all about those skills that we talked about earlier about welcoming, about non-judgment, and about you know, it’s an art, and not many people have it. So I set up a charity, and I’ve been doing um uh proof of concepts and pilots for nearly uh 18 months now, where we test projects to get the girls’ uh life skills, like teaching them first aid. Uh, we get image consultants in top chefs teaching them about cheap, wonderful food, how to cook. Um, we get uh I’ve got martial arts experts coming in to help them protect themselves both physically, verbally, emotionally. Um, and then we link them up with industry. I’m my main uh drive is to get as many girls into construction, engineering, and tech. That’s where the money is. Because the option, the career options of girls from care are hairdressing, manicurists, care workers for the elderly, or care workers for infants. Now I’m a bit cautious about the care work because they’re still so close to their own trauma, and the others will never get them out of poverty, none of those careers will get them out of the cycle of poverty, and some of them are third generation poverty of unemployment, so it’s working, and I set up a CIC as well to for boys. We have here NEETS, which is not in education, employment, or training, and we’ve got over a million, and it’s not acceptable, it’s not acceptable, and we have uh post-Brexit, we have a lot of really good businesses desperate for workers in the hotel and catering industries in agriculture, and so I’m kind of matching them up, but I have to get the girls and now the boys as well through another project ready to work because you can’t expect employers to lean and bend all the way to meet them and then go into the workplace and disrupt or not know what to do. So we’re teaching them about employment law, we’re teaching them about efficacy, we’re teaching literally how to shake a hand, how to stand straight. We’re doing all the stuff that should have been done if you have a parent that is paying attention. So that’s a charity, it’s growing and growing. I’m just having a round table in London, hopefully with some big, big names, to see how we can do motivational work with them and attract more funding. But yeah, it was an accident like everything I do, Colby. I I don’t mean to, I just end up doing it.

Colby: 1:11:01

I fall into it, yeah.

Louise: 1:11:02

I fall into it.

Colby: 1:11:04

That’s actually been quite a common theme on this podcast. Um generally speaking, the best the best way it’s been put was the the wonderful Peter Wilson, you know, 85 or 86-year-old um uh child and adolescent psychotherapist saying life is a a sequence of serendipities, yeah.

Louise: 1:11:26

Where you just fall into the right, you’re in the right place at the right time to do and uh because it’s so good to hear that because I don’t I always say I don’t have a career, I’ve just been careering around.

Colby: 1:11:40

I don’t know how you get time to do it all, Louise. Where does the time come from? You want a different time scale to the rest of us?

Louise: 1:11:48

I think I’ve to be honest with you, I’ve been working paid work since I was nine, ten. I’ve always had side hustles, I’ve always been pretty focused because I I wanted to get out of poverty, I wanted to get out of care, I wanted to be financially independent because I remember Jermaine Greer, I remember listening on Woman’s hour at the age of like 13. I just caught it saying, Women, to have independence, you must have your own money and that, you know. So it’s like property, what was it, property uh jewelry and something else. I remember thinking I’ve got to get all that because I don’t want to be owned by anyone, I don’t want to ask permission to buy shoes. So I was very determined, and and you can’t make any of this happen from sitting around.

Colby: 1:12:35

Fair enough.

Louise: 1:12:36

No, I knew it was gonna be hard work. Now, if I don’t do anything, I just sleep.

Colby: 1:12:42

Well, maybe that’s the only time you’re not doing something is when you are asleep. Yeah, yeah. Well, look, it’s been wonderful to have you on. It’s been a I think hopefully a really inspiring chat um for and and just a a reminder um to people to remember the humanity of our least fortunate um yeah, uh our least fortunate members of the community. You you and Sarah Anderson have a podcast. Um I I just thought I’d mention that. Um you can you can just as a plug, you can uh say the name of it.

Louise: 1:13:26

Thank you so much. Yes, Sarah Anderson and I are probably the the the most uh uh seasoned campaigners for for foster children and foster carers. You know, we got your backs, and we’ve just launched a podcast called Foster Care Uncovered, the truth from the front line. And we’re getting, you know, some prolific people on there, social work, academics, child uh child psychologists, everything you need about fostering, because without foster carers, there is no fostering, and we want to recruit and look after them.

Colby: 1:14:06

Wonderful. Well, thanks again, Louise, and uh I hope to that we can have another conversation another time, keep in touch.

Louise: 1:14:16

Yeah, and maybe by then you’d have got a dog.

Colby: 1:14:21

Well, uh maybe maybe one of my sons has got um, yeah. Well, maybe maybe we’ve got three dogs, but they they live with my son, so probably more likely to be a company if you think the body is.

Louise: 1:14:41

Thank you so much to have me on Colby, it’s been a delight. Thank you.

Building Trauma-Responsive Care – A podcast interview with Richard Cross

What if “care for the carers” is the real key to healing children? Richard Cross unpacks attachment, containment, and why residential care isn’t always a last resort.

Why caring for carers is the first step to healing children

The conversation with Richard Cross traces a clear through-line from first principles of attachment to the practical, daily realities of caring for children who have lived through repeated adversity. The central idea is disarmingly simple: care for the carers as deliberately as you intend to care for the children. When organisations build genuine containment for staff—through reflective supervision, stable leadership, and shared language—adults think more clearly, tolerate uncertainty longer, and respond more humanely. This is not abstract. It shows up in fewer reactive decisions, more patient attunement, and a culture where difficult feelings are metabolised rather than acted out. Richard’s pathway is parallel by design: a staff pathway that mirrors what we want adults to offer children—holding, reflection, and growth—so that therapeutic care becomes a living experience rather than a manualised aspiration.

This lens also reframes how we choose care environments. There’s a prevalent belief that family is always best, and that residential care is an option of last resort. Richard challenges this. For some children—especially those phobic of family life due to traumatic family histories—early, high-quality residential care is the right first option. It offers increased containment, predictable routines, consistent relational responses, and an integrated team that can share the emotional load without burning out a single carer. Used early and well, residential care is not a cul-de-sac. It can be a structured bridge that shortens the overall care journey, stabilises education, restores trust, and improves placement matching into foster care when the child is ready. The cost argument fades when we look beyond a single year and count the human and financial toll of repeated breakdowns.

Translating theory into practice depends on leadership. Trauma-informed care is not a leaflet or a one-off training day; it is a culture choice repeated under stress. Richard starts with directors and senior managers, setting an honest expectation of a long journey. Leaders must protect time for reflection, model transparent communication, and respond to crises without abandoning the principles that keep the system humane. Shared language is the glue—terms like containment, emotional holding, thinking-not-acting, and amber flag meetings give teams a way to notice patterns, signal risk, and convene quickly to think together. Staff need spaces to explore triggers, write safety plans for themselves, and acknowledge that not knowing is often the wisest starting point. Tolerating uncertainty creates room for curiosity about what a child’s behaviour is communicating, rather than rushing into control strategies that escalate distress.

Integration across services magnifies healing. When residential homes, foster services, schools, and clinical teams all use the same concepts and responses, children experience adults as consistent and coordinated. Anxiety drops when staff don’t contradict each other, and when ideas flow freely across settings. Practical structures make this real: cross-service supervision, shared formulations, and “amber flag” meetings anyone can call when pressure rises. These routines stop fragmentation before it sets in and keep the system relational. The message to commissioners is equally clear: bring psychologists into placement planning, invest earlier rather than later, and track outcomes credibly so trust grows. Evidence from practice shows that the right residential intervention can reduce total time in high-intensity care, improve education continuity, and increase the success of subsequent family placements.

Mentorship underpins all of it. Richard’s story threads through good governors, supervisors, and collaborators—people who stood at his shoulder while he learned to hold complexity without panic. That’s the same stance we need for staff stepping into tough roles, and for children learning that adults can be steady, honest, and kind. The north star remains attachment: safety, proximity, and reliable responses that let minds turn back on. When organisations embody that for staff, staff can embody it for children. That is how cultures change, how placement breakdowns slow, and how healing becomes less about slogans and more about daily practice that holds firm when it matters most.

Listen here:

Watch here:


About Richard:

Richard is a UK Registered Psychotherapist and Child Psychotherapist.

His career for over 30 years has focused on working with relational approaches in areas associated with attachment, trauma and dissociation.

Richard’s early career was focused on developing relationally based treatments within correctional environments to reduce recidivism, as well as managing democratic prison-based Therapeutic Communities for high-risk adult life-sentenced offenders (HMP Dovegate, England).

Richard collaborated with Sandra Bloom to introduce the Sanctuary Model to the UK in 2004.

Since then, Richard has developed an interest in trauma-responsive models and continued his focus on Therapeutic Communities, exploring how to bring these aspects to life in organisational cultures. One example is a multi-component approach called ATIC (Attachment and Trauma-Informed Care), which is now harnessed across multiple residential child care homes. 

Richard is actively involved in research and innovation, and he also provides consultancy services to organisations, and training to qualified mental health professionals. 

Richard is Director of Clinical Services at Five Rivers Child Care & Midhurst Children’s Therapeutic Services, where he leads teams of psychologists and psychotherapists. He is also a Fellow and Faculty member of the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation, and serves as a trustee of the Bowlby Centre in London and The Consortium of Therapeutic Communities (TCTC).


Related Podcasts:

If you liked the conversation with Richard, you may also like:

My Interview with Patricia Sheridan of Moore House:

You may also like my conversation with Dr Kevin Gallagher:


Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start Podcast.

Richard: 0:03

There’s something about having a really good mentor, having a good individual who can create the space for you to think, grow, and develop and wrestle with some of these tensions and unknown elements that can often come around in the world. It’d be great if you could put an old head on your own shoulders, but the reality is that that can never be the case. So we need to go through this. Through this process of learning. It’s that experience that we have someone there that’s going to stand by us through that process of learning, through that process of growth. It’s so reassuring, and we don’t want to care for the staff equally as much as we do the children. We often see the graduates of within the home having other children in mind. I speak to leadership and management, but what’s that going to mean in terms of the leadership style in the organisation and the culture that’s going to permit staff to be able to move to a place where we can truly use the structures and attachment to twelve and form. And we start to think, to learn, to grow, to develop. But if people think twelve and four care to be responsive is easy. It’s not. To be able to deliver this and to be able to do it, so it’s created as a living experience for the staff and a direct experience for the children. It takes a lot of courage and bravery because people need to go and think about hearings and would not really think of it. Foster care can be highly effective for those children who have anaphobic about family living. You know, the great thing at the moment is that five of us is changed caring for over a thousand children, and then the much of it those children are in foster care. Very happy, really good outcomes, you know, great foster parents, you know, doing great work. But there is a group of children and young people that are still the BO them to identify when residential the residential environment is the environment that’s best for them.

Colby: 2:25

Welcome to the Secure Start Podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is a leader in therapeutic and social care in the UK who has a particular focus these days on supporting those whose therapeutic task is to support children in need. Before I introduce my guest, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Richard Cross. Richard is a UK registered psychotherapist and child psychotherapist. His career for over 30 years has focused on working with relational approaches in areas associated with attachment, trauma, and dissociation. Richard’s early career was focused on developing relationally based treatments within correctional environments to reduce recidivism, as well as managing democratic prison-based therapeutic communities for high-risk adult life sentenced offenders. Richard collaborated with Sandra Bloom to introduce the Sanctuary Model in the UK in 2004. Since then, Richard has developed an interest in trauma-responsive models and continued his focus on therapeutic communities, exploring how to bring these aspects to life in organisational cultures. One example is a multi-component approach called Attic, Attachment and Trauma Informed Care, which is now harnessed across multiple residential childcare homes. Richard is actively involved in research and innovation, and he also provides consultancy services to organisations and training to qualified mental health professionals. Richard is Director of Clinical Services at Five Rivers Childcare and Midhurst Children’s Therapeutic Services, where he leads teams of psychologists and psychotherapists. He is also a fellow and faculty member of the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation and serves as a trustee of the Balby Centre in London and the Consortium of Therapeutic Communities. Welcome, Richard.

Richard: 5:18

Thank you. Thank you so much, Colby, for that very warm welcome. And it’s really good to be here.

Colby: 5:24

Yeah, and look, it’s lovely to have you and thank goodness for the technology. Otherwise, uh be coming from a different uh well, I’m in the future for you, um, because I’m later in the same day. Um, and and also this technology uh allows me to sound very professional in the opening, even uh if you had to sit through a couple of uh blooper worthy moments there. Now, Richard, is there anything um that you’d like to add to that um that short bio I just uh gave of you?

Richard: 6:01

No, naturally, that’s that was that was very kind for you to share about a little bit about my developmental work history there. Uh but naturally it can’t cover off uh everybody that’s been really supportive of the thinking and innovation that I’ve had the privilege to do because often it takes organizations and systems a leap of faith to consider doing something something new or innovative.

Colby: 6:32

So yeah. Yeah, well, I I want to I do want to um talk to you as we go through about um about individuals, organizations that that that have um uh been influential, I guess, in in uh your career to this point. But I guess I’m wondering in the first instance, maybe if you can tell us a little bit about how you got into this um this space, this space. Uh you might even uh have some other words to describe the space you occupy uh in your work.

Richard: 7:11

Yeah, it’s fascinating when we end up at a destination. We often think about how did we get here, and I think for many people that getting gets involved in thinking about how to supporting children and young people, often there’s a real benefit to think about port supports being our motivators uh to engage in the task, and I’ll sometimes even help the care staff and the people that I support to really think about joining the dots around us. Uh personally uh yeah, you know, I had uh I think one of the driving forces was thinking about the key significant peoples in my early development that supported me through what wasn’t uh uh a particularly easy time coming into the world and uh starting starting off in life, and those experiences really stuck with me. So when I uh left the military in uh 1991, I left the services uh the Navy. I thought, what is it I’m gonna do? And for some unconscious reason, I I ended up working in young offenders. That was my first sort of task. That started off as a prison officer. Uh but very quickly within I think it was six months, I had this really supportive governor, uh, somebody called Dan Gunn, who uh MBE who uh supported me to go on my journey to become first qualified in psychology, but then start up my route to become a psychotherapist over the over the preceding 12 years and get some, you know, and then I got involved in the programs and the like. But yeah, so yeah, there’s there’s uh I often reflect on how I ended up, but there was something that was driving me to think about understanding the needs of children and young people. Uh even back then, it was thinking, thinking be sort of beyond what the label was back then, back in the 91 when I first joined the young offenders. It was all about the young person who committed a certain offense, which which is important. But quite early on, I was thinking, what is it that we need to do to think about what happened to this young person? What was the drivers, what was the antecedents for them to end up in their journey to end up in the young offenders? So yeah, that was that’s a little bit about my early embryonic sort of foray into the work.

Colby: 10:10

Aye, aye. And um uh was is there through your um uh your career since then, you’ve you you hinted at before that there’s been individuals and organizations, I guess, that have been willing to give give things a go or give give your ideas and innovations a go. I’m really excited to have you on because um I said the magic word when I in your bio, uh, which was bulby. And uh I think I think early on in each podcast, I I tend to ask people um about what theoretical orientations um uh influence their work. And I’ve been waiting for someone who who to uh who obviously um has drawn on attachment theory um probably similarly, uh if not uh more than I have done in my own career.

Richard: 11:08

Yeah, John John Bowlby and the subsequent pioneers. Uh because often thinking has its origins, and hopefully then there’s there’s others that can come after and pick up the bat and uh and carry on these these areas of development and thinking, and just as John Bowby’s uh theory is and uh and all uh and also pioneers about the social mind as well. Uh Colin Trif Island, for instance, uh there’s there’s been so many pioneers who who who create idea. Uh so John Balby was a very significant influence in my early war. That’s in part that was why I chose to go and they support places like the Balby Centre in London, but also thinking about how that relational aspect about how it can be applied not only to the practitioners themselves, thinking about their relational aspects in the work and the therapeutic task, but also thinking about the tasks with the child or the young person. Yeah, it’s very important, and I think the whole notion that John Bowlby brought, and I can remember watching his very last interview that was filmed, he uh he often said he had a regret about not incorporating as much as he wanted around the whole notion of trauma. He did move the theory away from the fan this notion of fantasy into the reality, but he had this element uh in his last interview with Peter was saying that there’s so much we need to do in terms of hearing what the children are bringing to us and and understanding that context in the relation of adversity. Uh so yeah, John Bowlby is a very influential person, but so so has been the people that I’ve had the privilege to work with. Uh so I can remember back in uh 2003 I was presenting at a conference in Scotland, uh, and at that time it was presenting on attachment, it was called broken bonds. Uh and in the audience was somebody called Sandra Bloom. And I’m fascinated when we’re passed cross, just like we’ll pass across in today, Colby. Uh when I pass cross with like-minded people, it can often create an energy to think about how we can collaborate and work together. So that was a significant experience for me because I was speaking about things like essays, the importance of the therapeutic relationship within residential childcare. And some of these concepts back then, because that was before trauma informed ideas were in the UK in a big way, it seems to just have become massive like overnight. But in the audience was Sandra who had uh developed this model, and it was great to be able to collaborate with her uh and and and bring that to the UK, which was great.

Colby: 14:32

And that was the sanctuary model.

Richard: 14:34

That was a sanctuary model, and I suppose at that moment, 2004, that had been after I’d my path had crossed with with uh someone called Roland Woodward who uh developed a democratic prison-based TC called HMP Dovegate, and he gave me the opportunity of being the therapy manager for a 40 40-bed therapeutic community. And I wish I could bottle experiences sometime to to give people an experience because to be able to work and manage a team in a therapeutic community for a period of time uh and embody principles like containment and management of anxiety and start to understand how these ways of working can be really effective in turning people’s lives around. Uh it would be because sometimes I feel it’s really hard for people to understand how cultures need to be in a live and breathing way, unless they’ve experienced it. You know, I used to say have faith in the process, uh but that can be difficult if you you haven’t experienced what a process is. And uh I’m going to say thank you for like to roll in because he was there’s something about having a really good mentor, having a good individual who can uh create the space for you to think grow and develop and wrestle with some of these uh these tensions and unknown elements that can often come around in the work. Uh yeah, there’s so many people I could actually say thank you to, you know. There’s I’m sure everybody is that what’s in this field, you know. We’ve like we’ve often had somebody, I’m gonna say something about Bulby here. Uh we’ve often had somebody that’s been at our shoulder that can help and support us in our work, particularly in the early, you know, the early foundational stages of our growth into either being clinicians or therapeutic residential practitioners. We’ve often had somebody at our shoulder that’s that’s embodied that confidence to then go through the professional maturation process, as I call it, to get to a point we can feel more comfortable in the task.

Colby: 17:03

I’ve I’ve I’ve kind of referred to it when previous guests have brought it up as the importance of had people who have confidence in us until we have confidence in ourselves.

Richard: 17:16

That’s that’s such a nice way of putting that, you know, that whole notion that uh and I think this is what children and young people need, you know, this this intentionality that we believe in someone, it’s it’s uh it’s often the unspoken though. It’s like it’s that experience that we have someone there that is going to stand by us through that process of learning, through that process of growth. Uh it’s so reassuring, and and it can automatically reduce anxiety because often that is that’s the critical element that I feel that I’m day-to-day. It’s like it’s my day-to-day task almost of being the being the processor of anxiety from like for staff, creating spaces where they can sit and gain their confidence and tolerate uncertainty and uh yeah, develop that understanding. That’s a nice, very nice way to put it, Colby.

Colby: 18:17

Yeah, well, thank you. I I I had these moments every now and then, but um I I’d forgotten about it until you were talking just then. But um uh you I mean, you’re obvious you were also talking about containment when you were talking about holding on to and and processing other people’s anxiety. So I I sense that containment theory and perhaps the work of Beyond has also uh been of some um well thank you.

Richard: 18:46

Yeah, I’ve I was I was so lucky I had a supervisor for a long time called Bob Hinchelwood. Uh he’s a professor and he’s a psychoanalyst, and uh often that transfer of knowledge and wisdom. I used to have like my first supervisor used to say uh it’d be great if you could put an old head on young shoulders, but the reality is that that can never be the case. So we need to go through this through this process of learning. So yeah, Wilfred Beyond, he was uh when I got involved in therapeutic community work, I used to prolifically read the texts about the origins of TCs, you know, Northfield experiments, you know, thinking about how Beyond, Tom Main, uh Maxwell Jones. I I really like his ideas of the social, the social environment as well. Uh there’s all these active ingredients and knowledge that people have people have identified and brought that we can think about bringing to life, and there’s often interconnections as we know, so so Beyond’s work on containment is really connected as well to Donald Winnicott and that notion of emotional holding, as Winnicott called it. And Winnicott naturally worked with Barber Docker Drysdale. So sometimes when we look, you know how we’re talking about people’s past crossing. Often, often there is the crossing and history of uh how knowledge is then translated from one to another. So, yeah, containment, emotional holding, thinking about how we can use the day-to-day environment effectively for the therapeutic task and all that’s been the foundation of my work, yeah, for many years.

Colby: 20:43

And what one of the things that I often say about Balby is that he was not insular or siloed in it, you know, in the way that so many can be. Um you know, in his time and and and more recently, he was drawing on work from other areas of endeavour and integrating it into attachment theory. So attachment theory is an integration in a way of multiple areas of endeavour. Um and I just go off like I’m sorry. No, no, you say, you go ahead.

Richard: 21:20

No, it’s interesting because if you ever, you know, if I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Taverstock clinic where Bowby was based, uh in London, it’s a you know, it’s it’s still a center of psychoanalytical thinking. But but even back when Bowlby arrived, and often often a new theory when it emerges, it’s there’s often a there’s often a rejection, there’s often a pushback. And I find this is a fascinating dynamic, particularly in work around children, because often children we can be very clear about their histories and why they’re having to get the supports they’re needing, but often just like theories are often struggle with. I think in general, this notion about attachment theory, thinking about how we handle that. There can be a bit of a bit of a wrestle for professional organizations and systems to you know to truly embrace it, to truly understand it and how to translate it in actual direct practice. Uh there’s there’s there’s often a real challenge about walking the talk, as I call it, in the field. And this is natural and normal in terms of human beings, it can be hard to do what we say we’d like to do. Uh so that’s why systems really need to develop approaches that they can tolerate almost the checking out. Are we sticking to where we want to be? Are we you know we’re staying in staying in this position of therapeutic mindedness and relational-based practice, particularly when the stress comes on the system.

Colby: 23:02

Yes.

Richard: 23:12

And sometimes Bowby, I think, had a really difficult time of it. He didn’t think you know, the very you know, the very early stages. Now it’s like one of the widest embraced uh frameworks that’s in the world. But back in the early thing, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 23:33

There’s a there’s a lot in there. One of the things that you mentioned it was about it can be difficult to walk the walk sometimes. Yeah, I think I think theories are good if they have good explanatory power and and and they’re easily understood, digested, and and I think you know, for me, from when I first got involved in child protection work, attachment theory and 30 years ago, attachment theory gave me the best way of um helping me with with um understanding the work that I was doing. Just going back to um I liked your your your idea of having a mentor that you know someone that just is there at your shoulder, guiding you in a way, and and I talked about them having having someone that has confidence in you until you have confidence in yourself. And you mentioned too that that that’s essentially something that we we do for the children that we work with. Um and um and I you know I’ve talked about this with previous guests, but I we talk about you know, we want I think a really important aspect of the work is to ensure that the adults have it have this have an experience of being held in mind, an experience of of being looked out for and looked after in a way that we want them to in turn transmit to the child or or to be to be doing with the children it themselves.

Richard: 25:13

Yeah, and that’s that’s that’s that’s part of the model and the thinking that I’ve actually embodied within attachment and trauma-informed care. Because I thought about how to distill quite complex ideas into uh a model which can be easily embraced and understood. And what I created was two parallel pathways, uh one for the staff and one for the children and young people. And basically the parallel pathway is saying we are going to care for the staff equally as much as we do the children because they are the therapeutic agents of change, and it’s like what does what does an adult adult practitioner need in terms of that mentoring, that support, that guidance, supervision? So, yeah, I work through these parallel models, which fascinatingly it then starts to give the practitioners or the carers or the staff the knowledge and the experience to more directly to be able to do this with the children and young people, because not everybody arrives at the therapeutic task having the knowledge, experience, attunement, and the abilities to do the work with the children. So we we really put as much nourishment as we possibly can into the care staff because so my role really and my my clinical services teams are to care for the carers, to do that that you’re describing very eloquently, Kobe, about giving that that that sense of uh togetherness, uh and it’s fascinating because we even see this happening between the children and young people. We we often see group like the graduates of uh within the home having having other children in mind, starting you know, helping and supporting them. So it’s I see the system as everybody, I see the system as the staff, the children, young people, and also the relationships with the two children themselves, and about how they can start to support and think about each other and help each other.

Colby: 27:37

Yeah, you you’re I think the point to make is that if you want to create a healing system, you need to be supporting your staff very well in a in a way that is analogous or closely aligned with, I should say, with with what how you want the staff to um care for the children. And I think you know, when I think about who comes to the work, um and previous guests referred to the the kind of wounded healer, or you know, you all you’ll often you’ll often get people who come to the work who um haven’t had the the best of upbringings themselves. Yeah, and so they don’t they’re not necessarily they they probably come with an idea of what they don’t want to repeat, they don’t want the children to repeat. And it repeat they want to relieve suffering, they don’t want other children to to experience and go through what they’ve gone through. What they maybe um benefit from is is is a form of um reparenting in terms of setting that re resetting the parenting model for them, yeah. And a containing mentor, supervisor, I guess is it it’s an important part of that relationship.

Richard: 29:05

Yeah, and that supervisor relationship needs to needs to create the environment, the you know, the weather system almost about how that uh professional development can take place. Uh because there is there is a process that often goes through for new staff coming into the field, and I used to find this uh even within the prison-based T sort of TC environment, that the first stage is people arrive believing they’re going to be this omni-important saviour for the children and do this sort of change over like married days, you know. They’re gonna be able in some way make uh significant changes quickly, but then often it’s the repeated relational attunement. Attachment over quite a period of time, and that takes sometimes the need to be really resilient and to be aware of our own biologies and responses, and really understand ourselves and our triggers. And that supervisory relationship can hopefully create an environment where staff can have their own uh well-being and safety plans, so they really start to understand themselves, understand their own responses when the therapeutic task gets difficult. Have a space that they can go and talk about how they feel emotionally before this anything gets acted on. So that uh I really like Tom Main’s notion of thinking non-action, being able to create an ability where practitioners can think but not act. Uh naturally, that’s what we want to support the children with as well, to get to a place where they can think and then you know, through this thinking stuff and not have to act through behaviors. But staff need to learn that, staff need to be able to be in the presence of a child and create a space between them and the child that they can do this thinking and understanding so they can do the attachment work, like we know they can, you know, they know what how they can be in their best of selves uh and respond to children.

Colby: 31:29

Yeah, and and of course, containment the idea behind containment theory and what Beyond wrote about that was essentially um we support another person and in doing in doing so we facilitate their capacity to think.

Richard: 31:45

Yeah.

Colby: 31:46

And I think and I think staff staff who are thought of are better equipped to think of others. If you yeah, when you encourage reflection on your own motivations, the reason why you do things, the reason why you you reacted in that way, your blind spots, when when you’re encouraged and supported to do that, then I guess in turn you don’t just jump to the immediate conclusion that children are bad because they’re doing behavior that is not um agreeable, and uh and they should and they need to be disciplined in some way. You there’s a there’s a cart and a horse thing going on here, and I I myself have been across my career guilty of putting the cart before the horse. If the whole if the cart is teaching this is teaching the adults, this is how you um you need to be relate therapeutically or care therapeutically for the children. If that’s your first step, your first move, then I’ve been as guilty of it as probably you know great many people have. But as I’ve gotten older, and you talked about putting an old head on young shoulders. I am hoping the podcast by interviewing very experienced people does help uh new practitioners in the area a bit, accelerate the growth, so to speak. But yeah, you know, the first step needs in in therapeutic endeavor, it’s become much more clear to me over time, needs to be to um needs to be our endeavours to support the staff and contain the staff and facilitate their own reflective capacity.

Richard: 33:33

Yeah. Yeah, there’s there’s someone that sadly passed away recently called Philip, Philip Bromberg, who’s a psychoanalyst, and he’s written written prolifically about working with complex trauma and dissociation. And yeah, his notion is about always being aware to hold us hold a space between you and the other. That like beyond beyond stuff was about being able to create this metabolic, this this said sort of digestion of another’s person’s uh transference or affect or whatever notion we want to consider. But without creating a space to think, hopefully, all structures out there trying to do the therapeutic task, uh hopefully they have a place where it can be protected to do to do that work, as a group, but also individually in supervision. Uh because without that, people can start to get a bit lost in the task.

Colby: 34:40

Well, I think yeah, my view is that they become procedural and and heartless in the sense that there’s you know, the heart is lost from the work because it’s just a cognitive, it’s not even a cognitive exercise, it’s it’s a reflexive approach, you know. Um, there’s not not that thinking. I I am very concerned about child protection systems, like statutory child protection systems, where workers from you know supervisors down to the to to workers um at the coal face are just you know so much under the pump that they don’t have that opportunity to stop and think about the work that they’re doing.

Richard: 35:24

It becomes a paradoxical situation around the whole things around the social care system, is that everybody like I come from the position that everybody are good entities wanting to do the good task, but often the systems be can can become unconsciously uh distracted due to the some of this parallel shift in us, but some of the anxieties, some of the trauma-related challenges, and actually these systems are working with extreme distress, extreme challenges that can often create reactivity in the systems, but like uncannily that we know what can help and sometimes it’s around holding the boundary around the systems and the processes that we know that work because they’re often the things that go out the window of us, sadly. Uh so it’s like trying to know that people are good people, but be able to find ways that we can raise it in the consciousness about what’s happening because people find it really easy to deal with the rational about uh objectives and well, we’re doing great, and but when things become irrational and they become really difficult, there’s a rule, there’s a real challenge for people to consider that, to think about it, and to really tap into what the reality might be going on, so then solutions can be identified. Thought you know, thought like this, thought through relational-based solutions for people, but also families and children.

Colby: 37:09

It’s it’s such an interesting area. I and I wonder about your experience of introducing um maybe new staff or or new organizations, your experience your experience of trying to introduce um this this thing that we’re talking about, where what we how we want the staff to interact with the children, we’ve we’ve got to offer that as an experience for the staff in their in supervision, in mentoring, in yeah, how how does how does that how does that go down, so to speak, when when you try that?

Richard: 37:52

Attachment and trauma-informed care. So it’s a model now that’s uh you know it’s been in five five rivers childcare for a long period of time, but it’s also going into all the organizations outside the five rivers now. And the first thing I’ve the first thing I say to organizations and the leadership, so start the leadership, even right up at the the point of the directors of the organization, because uh I’ll say this is a journey, it’s not uh I’m gonna arrive today and we’re gonna do this intervention and it’s gonna be in place tomorrow. I’m gonna hand out these leaflets, I’m gonna I’m gonna do a bit of training, and then all of a sudden, the whole organization is going to be trauma involved. Uh so I start off with a realistic base about the journey, about how that’s going to be, what it’s going to feel like. That’s a notion I’ve taken from my work uh as a psychotherapist with traumatised clients. So, like clients will come into me and they’re often like, What’s this going to be like, Richard? And I give a sense about what the journey is going to be like. And it’s like we’ll give a sense about what we need to achieve first. And so, in terms of trauma-informed practice, it’s safety, stabilization, all these notions. But it’s the same for organizations, we go back to we go back to the sort of foundational ways, and this is where the A in attachment and trauma-informed care comes in. I speak to leadership and management about what’s that going to mean in terms of the leadership style in the organization and the culture that’s going to permit staff to be able to move to a place where we can truly use the structures in attachment and trauma-informed care to allow staff to think, to learn, to grow, to develop. How are you as a leadership team going to respond when things might not go quite well within our service? How like how are we going to respond? Uh, how are we going to work together to embed uh these ways of working? Uh so right from the start, it’s all about collaboration, open, transparent communication, you know, it’s almost setting setting the tone, setting the culture. Uh but you know, if anybody thinks trauma-informed care is an easy option, but it can be if you do a bit of training and you get a leaflet and you think you’re trauma-informed. But if people think trauma-informed care and and being responsive is easy, it’s not to be able to deliver this and to be able to do it so it’s created as a living experience for the staff and a direct experience for the children takes a lot of courage and bravery because people need to go and think about areas they would not normally think about in terms of the work.

Colby: 40:58

Yeah, so um I think you’ve touched on the importance of senior management um and or setting setting expectations, managing expectations from the outset. And uh, you talked about you know going into an organization, speaking to those leaders. And while you’re speaking to me, it reminded me of of some previous conversations I’ve had on the podcast about about how we ensure that our that the very leadership of the of these organizations are um uh uh supported to have experiences of of of the model, basically. That you support you know have a have a containing supervisory relationship or relationship with the mentor. Yeah.

Richard: 41:46

Yeah. Can I just say a little bit about how I came to attachment and trauma and phone care? Just a little bit

.Colby: 41:54

Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead. I was working my way around, I was working my way back around to that, but you’re reading it.

Richard: 42:01

Well, because yeah, no, it just somebody came to mind there, and it was and it was the person called Pam Pam McConnell that created five five rivers childcare. So 36 years ago, uh actually on the 19th of September, Pam McConnell created the entity which is called Five Rivers Childcare. And it’s I’ve been there nearly 16 years, and I’ve I’ve stayed there because it’s a secure base for me. Because I believe places of work can also create this sense of security, places you can grow and develop. So I’ve been there for 16 years, but what Pam created, even away back 36 years ago, she noticed that those children who had sadly experienced sexual abuse, trauma, and neglect, the systems weren’t designed to meet their needs. So she was she was very creative and very innovative, and she she started to create residential environments, residential homes for children and young people to come and stay in. And since then, the organization’s significantly grown, we’ve gone into foster foster care, uh, education, we’ve got clinical services, but the key task is to support children at the heart, you know, at the heart of the organization, it’s doing good, thinking about how we can help children and turn their lives around. But PAM allowed the creative thinking about developing a model that could be easily accessible across multiple multiple geographical locations, about thinking about how we we we package up what can be quite complex psychoanalytical, therapeutic community ideas, adapting it into a model that can be translated and easily uh applied if the live and breathing system is on board, if that leadership manager team is in place. Um so yeah, Pam, you know, Pam McConnell just naturally came to mind because without her support and uh Five Rivers is a social enterprise, it’s you know, it’s it’s uh in the UK that means that paradoxically, people have difficulties thinking about sadly, care organizations need to charge because we need staff wages to pay and all that sort of stuff. But as a social enterprise, we reinvest, we reinvest in research, development, invest in our staff, and a bit of the investment that Pam gave was to allow me to invest in creating a model for the organization, which was great. So, yeah, yeah, I wanted to say my appreciation to Pam McConnell for that.

Colby: 44:59

Yeah, it is a remarkable organization because as you mentioned, it has residential care, it has foster care, it has education as a school, has clinical services. Yes, it has multiple schools, multiple services, and crisis intervention. Yeah, and and crisis support services as well.

Richard: 45:19

So, yeah, it’s got these multiple uh so in terms of children, in terms of their care journeys, they can come in at any part. Sadly, children, you know, it’d be a you know, the world would be a great place if children didn’t have to access our services. But the reality is children do, and sadly, in an increasing way across societies, there’s an increase. So, like in the UK at the moment, there’s about a 10% increase in the use of residential childcare. Yeah, uh often sadly, residential childcare isn’t seen as an early intervention, and that’s partly why I developed ATIC because it’s for under 12s initially. That was when I sort of developed the idea that children who are going through repeated placement breakdowns and disruptions in foster care given a given an idea to commissioners and uh uh people who are not sadly not often practitioners in the field. Look, if you see this pattern, there is something else, there’s something else that can be really helpful and harmless for good, and that’s residential childcare. So the notion that we have is we’ve got multiple ways that children can come in and uh have a home with us, uh, and that’s either in residential care or foster care, uh and also access education and the therapeutic services is the need. Yeah.

Colby: 46:51

Oh, yeah. Look, um you’ve drawn you’ve drawn on a number of themes from some fairly recent podcasts. But as I’ve as I’ve been doing these podcasts, one of the things that um has been more and more clear to me is that the this option of last resort is just I mean, that’s what there’s a look, there’s a bit of a story to it. I won’t go into it all, but that that was one that was almost what spurred me on to do the podcast, and in particular a stream of the spot podcast that looks at at residential childcare. I just think that there’s so many problems with this idea of residential care being an option of last resort. I think as I think you did you just touched on in there, there are times when it can be an option of first resort. There are it, and that and and I I’ve been writing and thinking about that and talking to people about that. Um you it it it does, it is something that a number of guests have talked about uh that can be utilized, and this has got to be good quality, good quality, therapeutic focused residential childcare. It can be it can arrest one of the most harmful aspects of out-of-home care, which is repeated placement breakdown. And the other thing is, and Bruce Henderson talked about, he’s my most recent past guest uh on the podcast. He’s he’s probably done the the largest review of the literature, including the uh empirical literature around uh social care, including residential childcare. And um he talked really clearly about um placement matching, and he was in he’s involved with the Black Mountain um care organization, he’s in America over there, and and similarly they have residential and foster um options, and um and it it it it’s allowed what I think you know it sounds like you’re able to do there at Five Res Rivers as well, is is to uh mobilize the care that the children need um where where they are in their journey, and sometimes that’s residential care, often enough that’s residential care.

Richard: 49:24

Yeah, this is very embryonic work in the UK. Um so embryonic uh attachment and trauma-informed care came out of 36 years, you know, the past period of time that we’ve been working, so we’ve harnessed all that knowledge, but that’s only been really since 2016. So I know that’s it might sound a long time, but in terms of changing systems and changing knowledge, uh we’re still on that journey to collaborate and work uh with commissioners with with local authorities because I I feel we’ve got a responsibility to explain really accurately about what can be supportive and helpful for children in terms of their needs. Often we need to translate that for the local authorities and commissioners in terms of the plans that we do. So we’ve got uh you know, when we get the privilege to have a referral for a child, a young person, we spend a lot of time about right, even at that initial phase about really understanding the child’s needs and taking the responsibility for being truly able to say that we are able to support this child, and this is what we would suggest would be helpful in terms of that part of their care journey. Often it comes down to trust, though, with with local authorities and commissioners around is this going to be something that’s gonna be helpful for the child? And and naturally, this is where research and evidence comes in. Being able to deliver really focused uh supports and how to explain outcomes and how to translate that as we go through the journey as well, is support the commissioners to understand that this is being effective, then it then it generates uh more more trust, trustworthy reactions again in the future. So it’s like, yeah, we’ll go back to Five Rivers and we’ll consider this approach again, like residential. It should can be the first option because of the experience. So there is a big responsibility on providers, isn’t that, to be able to make sure that we deliver what we say on the outside of the tin, you know? Yeah, uh, that we walk the talk, going back to that walk the talk bit again.

Colby: 51:57

And I’ve whilst you’ve been talking, I’ve I’ve been thinking about how five rivers with all of with all of those divisions, it’s probably not I mean divisions is the wrong word in if you because it it implies divide, but you’ve got those streams is a better word, and and and you are able, I think I’m hearing, to be to provide an aligned service so that staff might move between the streams, kids might move between the streams, but they have a consistent experience of care across those streams.

Richard: 52:34

And that’s where the model almost provides a tapestry for that. So one of the great things that Sandra Bloom told me when and I learned from what going back to the mentorship thing again, was language becomes the glue in terms of the model, in terms of how we speak about the work, uh how we see the task. And if that is shared consistently, if that language is shared across the different uh almost threads like the education, residential fostering. Children experience this as well. Children experience staffs using the same language, the experienced staff having the same response if situations are occurring. You see the adults sitting down and thinking together, you know. Uh yeah, it creates that uh that harness in the tap. Well, often people call it integration. Uh so one of the things that we do seek to make sure we don’t experience is this fragmentation in the system. In actual fact, people do become that sort of separate siloed uh thinking and the breakdown and communication. So part of the model was as well about the shared language is also making sure we keep these strands interconnected and almost be really aware if they start to drift apart, which can be natural and normal and anxiety. I’m not saying that there’s there’s anything abnormal about that that tension that that can happen, but we are really aware so we can bring things back together.

Colby: 54:11

It’s like and how reassuring for children who leave chaos and uncertainty to come into a place where they uh where the adults interact with them similarly. Because I think I think a task, a therapeutic task or a primary task and a model, it doesn’t make everyone clones of each other, it just ensures that there are there are aspects of uh the way they go about things that are consistent across home and school. And I think that that even just in and of itself, as long as there’s that consistency, that alignment between home and school, and it’s safe and and nurturing, but as long as there’s that, that it that’s gonna have such a massive impact on heightened nervous systems, yeah.

Richard: 55:04

So that magnification is a you know, when I was developing attachment to trauma and informed care, I thought, how can I magnify these helpful relational experiences? Going back to attachment again. How can I magnify these experiences?

Colby: 55:19

Can I say it all comes back to attachment? Sorry, I didn’t want to talk over you, but I I just needed to chime in there. It all comes back to attachment. Sorry, yeah, go ahead.

Richard: 55:30

No, it’s it’s great, yeah, because naturally it’s great, you know. All like research shows like if we’ve got one person, you know, it can have like quite a significant impact on us. But imagine if we can magnify that having 12, 15 people. So like I was looking at okay, if I can create this this approach in the residential care environment and have it in the schools, and when children are prepared and ready to go to their home in foster care, and the carers are embodying this stuff as well. It’s you know how enriching, how nourishing is that for the children, but also it creates this really helpful relational way of working and way of managing stuff between the staff and the adults as well. They’ve got this sense of understanding about okay, when this stuff happens, we get together. Uh, we’ve got different approaches for crisis management. There’s one called an amber flag meeting, which is anybody can call it, it’s like when things start to become difficult, staff can raise the flag, call a space, everybody gets together. We’re all involved in thinking, all involved in supporting. Uh and it, you know, it takes away the anxiety and fear that it becomes an everybody approach rather than somebody feeling their left on their own with a situation. Again, going back to attachment theory, uh, you know, often yeah, we’ve got our own resources and we want to develop that and our staff increase their resiliency. But when it gets to a point they feel overwhelmed, they feel like people either grow or they go sadly in the work. You know, people either grow in the work or uh it feels it gets too much, they leave. So we have like we’re all about growing people, so create and make sure people know they’ve got an outlet if they feel they’ve got to the end of their solutions or the end of the resources. We create this space where they can come and talk through and uh get the helping support they need.

Colby: 57:42

And of course, um um the first of my guests to um talk something uh a little about this was John Whitwell and uh of Cotswold Community and ISP uh integrated services. I’m not sure I got that last bit right, but anyway, John John was talking about uh going to because he went to the it went from residential care to foster care, and uh on the first day the staff, you know, there was something was going on in Stafford came to him and said, What do we do? What do we do? And he says, I don’t know. But but let’s talk, what do you mean you don’t know? Um but let’s talk about it, and I think, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like there’s and that has come back a number of times. Um, in fact, Peter Wilson, who we were talking to about a little bit beforehand, uh uh wanted to name his forthcoming book or title his first coming book forthcoming book, I don’t know. The because the I think the the the the um the the power or the influence or the strength in that is that it invites collaboration. And one of the things that that I’ve noticed, just as a bit of an aside, when I when I do training with um carers, uh if we if a carer brings up an issue to do with um a child in their care and they just don’t and they don’t know where to go with that, the other carers are actually really good at offering solutions, yeah. Yes, but then those same carers feel stuck in coming up coming up with solutions about their own the the children in their in their care. So it’s it’s quite fascinating that if you take if you take almost like a metacognitive stance, yeah, you’re yeah, you’re one step removed from it. The the yeah, that’s such a resource to be around people who are one step removed from being in the in that particular challenge.

Richard: 59:54

I think it’s I think it’s one of the key areas that can impede for. Trauma informed practice in my mind is the inability to tolerate what I call the unknowing. And that’s a direct translation from my work with clients because we can be sitting thinking we’ve got the answer. But the sad bit is if we think we’ve got the answer, we’re missing the opportunity to find out what it is actually like or what the meaning is from the other person. And equally with staff, the temptation is to think about that we’ve got the answer and to do the quick solution. And uh thinking really like back in my early work 30 years ago, I used to be so keen about just getting a solution. Let’s just let’s just do something. Because I used to come to the thing about doing something was better than doing nothing, right? But in actual fact, being able to tolerate uncertainty that uncertainty, that unknown for a period of time creates opportunities that uh can make people feel the part people need to feel part of the solution because otherwise, what what we find out in the terms of the attachment uh people go into that ambivalent state, they feel that they’ve not got a voice, there’s no point in saying, they become silent, and those toxic things within care environments are unawanted because we need we need people to feel they’re part of, they’ve got a voice, they can be heard. Uh and it may be a difficult process this about working through this, but the outcome of it is as golden as I see it. It’s it is to me, it’s the work to be able to because equally the staff are going to have to do this for the children, they’re gonna have to try and understand what the children are communicating through their behavior, trying to make sense of it, uh, and coming to that from a certain lens as well, as we know it’s about uh trying to illuminate about what that communication is that the you know the child is doing between them and the staff.

Colby: 1:02:17

Yeah. While we’re while we’re talking, Richard, um a question without notice has been formulated in in my mind a little bit. Um but hopefully you don’t you don’t mind. Um the question is what it was starting out as what sort of child need needs residential care and it and and but it’s now it’s also kind of in my mind it’s it’s blending a bit with what what does residential care offer uh to children to children in need of care that that perhap of that is per hot perhaps superior that time of need for the child than than other forms of out-of-home care.

Richard: 1:03:11

I’d be interested in your thoughts about that well foster care in its is a in its own right can be highly effective. So in terms of my comments that I’m gonna say about is foster care can be highly effective for those children who are anaphobic about family living. Some of the responses I see children displaying, and it’s not about the family they go and stay in, but they carry inside themselves experiences about being in families that mean it’s going to be highly unlikely that they’re going to be able to stay and create security within that family. Uh it becomes unbearable for them. It’s uh and it becomes unbearable for the uh foster carers as well. And it’s the foster parents can sadly they can they can almost be placed in a situation where the material that they’re getting given to process and uh the behaviours and stuff gets to a point, and often foster carers can get to a point they they feel this task is task is too much for me. It’s too much. They get to yeah, too much. And sadly for children, then if they they start to expand, well, naturally they’ve had one, but their uh the original scene was in the family or origin, uh this is often replicated and reenacted within the foster replacements, and I’ll see the attempts to use foster care well into double figures sometimes. You know, children children will be in that repeated cycle. So if we can identify children as early on that that are gonna often I’ll I’ll see social workers and stuff understanding the children’s history through an attachment and trauma and form lens, understand about their experiences and knowing that that containment is going to be needed in terms of the children’s distress, it’s gonna need much more than foster care. Yeah, foster carers can’t typically manage situations where children act out excessively in terms of acting out against other people or uh the environment of the home, the foster foster parents’ home. So, quite early on, you can almost you can see what I call gateways. I’ve got this notion of gateways to particularly uh care options uh to help be able to identify through assessment, and this is where the psychological lens can come in within care organizations commissioning. I don’t know how it is in Australia. I don’t know if you know, I worked in New Zealand for a little period of time myself, but yeah. And I’m like I’m always fascinated about where care the care system is sort of held within the UK, it is social care. There is a greater involvement with health. To me, there needs to be even more. The more that we can help commissioning teams understand the psychological and emotional aspects of the child’s needs, then that can more effectively inform what part of the care journey does that child need. Does the child need residential care and all that that it offers, increased containment, and less risky staff burnout, foster carers, fostering families, massive risk of that? Uh we can provide this more integrated educational magnification of these principles that often child needs. And that often cuts down the time. Some of my some of my research at the moment has shown that if you do this early enough, it can be an early intervention that over the care journey period actually reduces not only the the child’s need for in terms of staying in these higher higher recruiting environments, so the child can go to foster care, uh but it also cuts down the time. Uh because naturally I saw the other end like working in that prison-based therapeutic community for adult male life offenders uh who had committed it was sad to see how many of those uh human beings had been in the care system. So this notion of early intervention and about stopping patterns and doing the you know, doing the work as early as possible, not as late as possible. To me, it’s a cost saver. To me, it’s uh to me it’s a no-brainer. It’s like just it’s just uh uh but it’s a challenge I know for systems to think past a year. You know, most uh business plans only cover one year, most governments I think only covers the their term in office. Some of this stuff is moving the systems to longer term thinking, longer term perspectives. Uh but I but I truly believe the more people that have these these ideas, the more we can send the messages out in the box to social care and social work and the political system. About let’s turn this thinking, you know, the mindset from short termism, like to sort of longer term.

Colby: 1:09:02

And and I mean, I think part of the whole option of last resort is for residential care is is it’s the most expensive form of care. So we don’t want we don’t want to be uh what we don’t want to be uh focusing initially on on the most expensive form of out-of-home care.

Richard: 1:09:24

Is it not?

Colby: 1:09:26

We’d rather we try foster care. And and and there is a a deeply held belief in society that the that family is the best place to raise children. But it’s not it’s not for those children, as you said, who are phobic of family, who have a phobia. And I’ve written, I first wrote about this um in a published paper 13 odd years ago. That um, and and so to me, residential care provides a psychologically so people think, oh, you know, with all the scandals and and so on, this is you’re mad for saying this. But in actual fact, residential care provides a psychologically safe, relationally safe care environment that is better for certain young child certain children and young people than than putting them into a into a family-based environment. And we we need all those options. We in my state here, they they embarked on a bit of a uh um uh an endeavor to to get rid of residential care because it was seen as being because it was of low quality, seen as being of low quality, option of last resort, expensive, all of these things. But but in a what I’m hearing you say is in a um in a functional, adaptive, um, effective uh social care system that that meets that is able to tailor care to the needs of the children and use fitness and match it placement matching um to its best ability, then residential care has an equal place alongside uh family-based uh care options. And I really like what you said that you think that it that it can enhance the young person’s preparedness to go into or ability to go into a family-based placement such that that’s uh more successful for them.

Richard: 1:11:39

Yeah, uh the evidence illustrates that uh so early on in the delivery of the attachment trauma-informed care model, it was children and young people who had largely been through that repeated placement disruption and ending and leaving one one relationship and going to another relationship, and often being out of education that would come into the service, and naturally we we we were we were still able to attain the trajectory that we wanted, the aspirational trajectory for the children in terms of them being able to go into foster care and becoming more secure. Uh but while even the children used to say to me about the trust thing, about almost their mindset was that they were gonna even have to leave that home, you know. It’s like the you know, the attachment systems have become so uh hyper-vigilant that they believed that nobody could care for them, nobody could uh tolerate what they were going to give us. And it’s like, wow, I’m not like I used to say, I’m not surprised that you’re giving me this stuff to have to handle for you. You know, this is what I used, you know, in terms of my understanding with the children, is that uh it’s quite understandable if they’re exposed to situations that are repeated and chronic and things don’t work. Uh yeah, it is still possible, but it’s much better for the for the child and the whole system to be able to identify those children, it’s not all children. No, uh you know, the great thing at the moment is that Five Rivers has changed caring for over a thousand children, and uh the majority of those children are in foster care, very happy, really good outcomes, you know, great foster parents, you know, doing great work, but there is a group of children and young people that I feel that we owe them to identify when residential uh the residential environment is as the environment that’s best for them. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:13:59

I think that’s a wonderful spot to finish up, uh Richard, because um time is time is marching on. I’ve put I’ve kept you for over an hour. Um it’s been fantastic to chat with you and um and talk more about attachment uh on the podcast. Everything comes back to the catch. Um I’m being a bit time-cheapy. I’m kind of sort of being time cheap about that. Yeah, it’s been thank you for taking the time and uh invariably I I say it before I’d like to have you back on again at some stage because there’s so much more that we could talk about. So thank you.

Richard: 1:14:42

Thank you so much, Colby, for the time today. I’ve really enjoyed speaking to you.

Colby: 1:14:47

As have I. Thank you.

The Case for Quality Residential Childcare – A podcast interview with Bruce Henderson

“We don’t need to pit different kinds of care against each other. The real question is quality.” Professor Bruce Henderson shares compelling research showing why high-quality residential care should be an option—not a last resort—for vulnerable children.

Rethinking Residential Care

In a world where residential care for children is often viewed as a “last resort,” Professor Bruce Henderson’s evidence-based approach brings a refreshing perspective. His comprehensive analysis of the research challenges longstanding assumptions about what’s best for vulnerable children in out-of-home care.

Professor Henderson’s experience with Black Mountain Home for Children in North Carolina provides a compelling case study. What began as a struggling facility with outdated approaches was transformed through quality leadership into a model organisation offering a continuum of care. Today, Black Mountain provides not only residential care but also foster care, adoption services, family reunification support, and programs to help young people transition to independence. This approach recognises that children’s needs are diverse and often change over time.

The concept of “fit” emerges as central to Henderson’s argument. Rather than adhering to a rigid hierarchy of placements where family-based care is always prioritised, Professor Henderson advocates for matching each child’s specific needs, history, and circumstances to the most appropriate care environment. For some children, especially those who have experienced multiple failed foster placements or who need to remain with siblings, high-quality residential care may be the most appropriate first choice – not a last resort after everything else has failed.

One of the most disturbing statistics Professor Henderson shares is about children who have experienced dozens of placements. He mentions a young person who had been in 35 different placements by age 15, and the interviewer notes working with a child who had experienced 50 placements. The damage caused by this constant upheaval – educationally, socially, and psychologically – is immeasurable. For these children, stability in a well-run residential setting may be far preferable to continuing the cycle of failed family-based placements.

Professor Henderson’s critical analysis of the research literature is particularly valuable. He points out that much of the negative perception of residential care stems from a handful of influential studies, particularly research on Romanian institutions, which examined exceptionally poor care provided to infants and very young children. These findings have been inappropriately generalised to all forms of residential care for children of all ages. Meanwhile, research showing positive outcomes from quality residential care – including survey research with alumni who report positive experiences – receives much less attention.

The core issue, Professor Henderson emphasises repeatedly, is quality rather than setting. “You can find good and bad versions of every kind of care,” he notes. Quality care comes down to relationships – selecting the right staff, training them properly, supporting them adequately, and providing stability. When these elements are in place, children can thrive in residential settings.

Professor Henderson challenges the “family first” language common in child welfare policy, preferring the Danish approach of “children first.” This subtle but profound shift places the focus where it belongs – on the needs of individual children rather than on ideological preferences about care models. For some children, particularly older adolescents or sibling groups, quality residential care may be the environment where they can best heal, develop, and prepare for independent adulthood.

As jurisdictions around the world reconsider their approaches to child welfare, Professor Henderson’s evidence-based perspective offers a valuable corrective to simplistic thinking. Rather than eliminating residential care options, we should be focused on ensuring quality across all care settings and making placement decisions based on the specific needs of each child. Our obligation is to provide vulnerable children with environments where they can heal from trauma and develop to their full potential – whatever form that environment might take.

You can listen here:

You can watch below.


About Bruce:

Bruce is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Western Carolina University, and is a child psychologist (PhD for Minnesota) whose research until 2018 focused on the development of curiosity and memory in children, and on teaching in higher education. Since then, most of his writing has been about residential care. His book Challenging the Conventional Wisdom about Residential Care for Children and Youth: A Good Place to Grow (Routledge, 2024) is a critical appraisal of the research on residential care and a defense of high-quality residential care for children who need it. For over 35 years, Bruce has been involved with the Black Mountain Home for Children, Youth, and Families, an organization that provides residential care, but also has foster care and adoption services, transitional and independent living programs for older youth, and works to reunite children with their families of origin whenever possible. Bruce lives with his wife Judy in the mountains of Western North Carolina. 


Related Podcasts:

I am sure you will also like my conversations with Dr Laura Steckley and Dr Jenna Bollinger. Click the links below to watch and listen:


Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Bruce: 0:04

I think it’s a huge mistake to break up sibling groups when that may be the only part of their family that they’re still in touch with on a regular basis. I think the record that I know of was a young man at the age of 15 had been in 35 different placements 35 different placements, and if you think about what that does to your life, it’s just. I mean educationally, socially every way you can think of.

Bruce: 0:37

I think the issue is a matter of finding a fit between a particular child, that child’s history and an environment that’s going to work for that child, and I think residential care needs to be one of the options. I don’t think we need to pit different kinds of care against each other. I mean, you can find good and bad versions of every kind of care. And the question, the real question, is quality, the quality of the care, and it comes back to that every single time and to a large degree, the question of quality is a question of building relationships. If in fact, there’s a good chance of going back to the family of origin, residential care is kind of a neutral place to go.

Bruce: 1:18

The evidence is that we lose foster care families at a rapid rate and I think it’s oftentimes because of that insensitivity about the nature of that child. I don’t think residential care should be the norm for kids who need care. I think it’s gonna be relatively rare, but it needs to be one of the options. The last resort notion came from a belief that residential care was inherently bad for children. But if you ask a large number of alumni of residential care about their experiences and they tell you. They had good experiences and they never would have preferred foster care. You’ve got to give some attention to that.

Colby: 2:08

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is the author of perhaps the most comprehensive review ever of the research evidence in relation to children’s residential care. Before I introduce my guest, I would like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Kaurna people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest this episode is Bruce Henderson.

Colby: 2:55

Bruce is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Western Carolina University and is a child psychologist with a PhD from Minnesota, whose research until 2018 focused on the development of curiosity and memory in children and on teaching in higher education. Since then, most of his writing has been about children’s residential care. His book Challenging the Conventional Wisdom About Residential Care for Children and Youth A Good Place to Grow is a critical appraisal of the research on residential care and a defence of high quality residential care for children who need it. For over 35 years, bruce has been involved with the Black Mountain Home for Children, youth and Families, an organisation that provides residential care but also has foster care and adoption services, transitional and independent living programs for older youth and works to unite children with their families of origin whenever possible. Bruce lives with his wife, judy, in the mountains of western North Carolina. Welcome Bruce.

Bruce: 4:14

Thanks for having me, Colby.

Colby: 4:16

Yeah, and you quiped a little bit earlier about speaking to someone in the future, which probably the laugh that it got from me probably would have if we’d been recording. It would have blew out a few eardrums if we included it in the podcast recording. But yes, it’s nice to be here too. It’s Thursday for you and Friday for me.

Bruce: 4:41

And don’t give me the lotto numbers. I don’t need them.

Colby: 4:44

You don’t need them, you’re doing okay. Well, that’s good to know. Yeah, yeah, in my neck of the woods, professor Emeritus means that you’ve retired. Is that the same in America?Bruce: 4:58

Yes, it means I retired from teaching and committee work and you’re given access to your computer and to your email and you can sit on dissertation committees and things like that.

Colby: 5:14

But yeah, I basically retired from teaching in 2020 after 42 years, 42 years, and look, and I was going to uh make the point that it doesn’t really look so much that you, like you, have retired as such my, my brother calls it a faux retirement a faux. Yeah, that’s probably a good yeah, that’s probably a very good term to use yeah anyway, as long as you still enjoy it, why not?

Colby: 5:42

that’s right and that’s right yeah, and particularly brain active yes, yes, I can imagine myself writing, you know, until I can no longer write, I would in fact, I’m looking forward to retiring. I’ll probably do a faux retirement myself, in terms of I’ll retire from certain activities and free up a bit more time for reading and writing in the area.

Bruce: 6:06

Well, my job was at a regional comprehensive university we call them here, not a research university and so when you did research and writing, you had to find bits and pieces of time. So I find it quite a luxury to have a good deal of time to write. It’s been fun.

Colby: 6:26

Yeah, yeah. So, as I read out in your bio, your work activities until relatively recently were very much focused on teaching and training and you were interested in children’s curiosity and memory from a research point of view. But you have also had this longstanding connection to residential childcare, wondering if you’d tell us a little bit more about how that came about.

Bruce: 6:58

Well, my wife talked me into doing that. I didn’t really want to do it, but she had visited the Black Mountain home and at that time in 1989, the home was in a good deal of difficulty. Their leader had died unexpectedly. He had actually fallen back behind the times and really had needed to retire years before he died, and there were lots of problems and I didn’t really like what they were doing there. And so I went on the board and at that time met with other board members trying to find a way to gracefully close the place down. And it had become. It wasn’t serving very many children and it wasn’t, in my opinion, serving them very well. But instead of closing it down, we hired some effective leadership and that turned the place around.

Colby: 7:59

And that was, as you say, 35 years ago, in the early 1990s. Yeah, yeah, as you say, 35 in the early 1990s, yeah, yeah, what was it that you noticed?

Bruce: 8:12

where had it gone? Gone awry? From your perspective, I think, uh, they hadn’t kept up. Come up, uh, come along with new ideas about child care. They, they were still using almost a barracks kind of situation and they didn’t have cottages, they didn’t have enough house parents, the physical facilities had gotten old and dilapidated, they didn’t have a good education support. There were lots of things that needed to be fixed and they didn’t really have good relationships with the children’s families, and all of that needed to change.

Colby: 8:50

Well then, tell us a little bit about how that happened, how it came to be turned around.

Bruce: 8:57

Well, I think it’s almost always leadership, and we hired two leaders. It was a couple and the man had been involved in mental health he was a Presbyterian minister and he’d been involved in mental health and his wife was a child welfare lawyer and so they brought some skills that were really well applied in the child care situation well applied in the in the child care situation, and having having a lawyer around was quite useful in trying to help kids navigate the legal system.

Colby: 9:33

That oftentimes is pretty oppressive, and having that that kind of background really helped a lot and I was impressed to read that not only is Black Mountain these days a therapeutic residential child care facility, but it also has fostering activities associated with it. It has some endeavour around looking after young people who are entering adulthood who have been in out-of-home care, and also reconnection or strengthening connection with birth family.

Bruce: 10:13

Yeah, I think that what you see at Black Mountain is increasingly common with good programs. They often call it a continuum of care. I like to call it an array of services, because I don’t think continuum is an accurate description. But you know, children are complex. They’re as complex as they’ve ever been. Families are as complex as they’ve ever been, and so I think the programs need to have the flexibility to assess what’s going on with a kid or a family and then use whatever services are needed at that time, and you know that can change over time. It’s different for every child and family. Every child and family and we are at Black Mountain, like a lot of places, we’re dealing with kids who’ve had just awful experiences. I think the record that I know of was a young man at the age of 15 had been in 35 different placements, and if you think about what that does to your life, it’s just I mean educationally, socially, every way you can think of that’s insane.

Colby: 11:30

And so those are the kinds of situations we’re often dealing with arises that you see the young people with that level of well, that type of history, largely because of residential care being seen as an option of last resort, so that definitely has an impact.

Bruce: 11:58

So what? What has often happened to these young people is that they’ve been in foster situations that didn’t work, or even even, sometimes, adoption situations that didn’t work, or even, sometimes, adoption situations that didn’t work, and then they’re put in residential care and the pressure and this is not just true in the United States, it’s true all over the world there’s pressure to get the young person out of the residential care as fast as they can and oftentimes it just leads to another bad foster placement that doesn’t work and the kids suffer for it.

Colby: 12:33

So I guess what I wonder with what you’re saying is that sometimes children may even yo-yo in and out of residential care or between foster situations and residential care.

Bruce: 12:46

Some of the histories are amazing. I mean, you look at it and you say how can that happen to any child?

Colby: 12:52

Yeah, well, as it happens, I work therapeutically with children in the out-of-home care sector primarily, and I have a young person that I see at the moment who’s been through 50 5-0 placement that’s unbelievable, unbelievable yeah, yeah. So, um, the option of last resort, um, how does that sit with you?

Bruce: 13:24

Well, you know, I think the issue is a matter of finding a fit between a particular child, that child’s history and an environment that’s going to work for that child, and so the idea that you’ve got a hierarchy of placements makes no sense if you think in terms of fit, because there may be children the very first thing that would be best for them would be in residential care, and I’m not talking about being in residential care the rest of their lives.

Bruce: 13:57

Oftentimes, what they need is a period of time. It may be six months, it may be a year period of time. It may be six months, it may be a year, a year and a half, two years. It varies. And there’s another situation that is common and that is sibling groups.

Bruce: 14:11

And oftentimes sibling groups in the United States and I know other places get broken up because their foster families don’t want to take more than one child, and I think it’s a huge mistake to break up sibling groups when that may be the only part of their family that they’re still in touch with on a regular basis.

Colby: 14:33

Yeah, if you stop and think about it, and this is part of the problem, certainly in many jurisdictions, and what I’ve heard from many people talking on this podcast is that practice is dominated by a set of, I guess, principles or ideals or beliefs, indeed, one of those beliefs being the best place for children to grow up is in a family environment. The best place for children to grow up is in a family environment, and if that’s your paramount decision-making standard, then you get those sorts of situations where children are separated from their siblings, because if it’s a large sibling group, it’s very rare or difficult to find a family-based placement where they can all be together, and it comes with complexities when you do put siblings together as well that I think child welfare authorities often worry about.

Bruce: 15:43

Well, I think you’re right about the concept of family has, I think, been used in an unfortunate way, because sometimes what these kids need is a home. They need a place that is a home, and sometimes your biological family isn’t home, or at least it isn’t for a period of time.

Colby: 16:02

until it can become a home, you need another home yeah, yeah, I often and you made a very good point in there I I think the language we use is really important. I I strongly encourage child welfare authorities to um use the word, use the that’s not a word unless you make it one but use could not, instead of cannot be safely cared for at home. Because you see kids who tally up a huge number of placements over in their teens by the time they reach their teens and they’re still writing that the young person cannot be cared for at home, but no one’s really assessed that for years and years and and so much damage is being done in the meantime with, with, through failed placement endeavors. Uh, in family-based care.

Colby: 16:56

You see, black mountain is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of which is you have those, at least those four streams of endeavour that I talked about children’s residential care, the foster care, the transition from care and the family reconnection. I think. I mean it sounds like an absolutely ideal model service to me From your point of view view. You’ve talked about fitness and I think I think fitness is a a really key concept here, because fit in a struggling child welfare system, fitness goes out the window. They’re just looking for a bed, right, right, yeah, that’s right. But I also wonder about what your thoughts are about the relative standing of residential care alongside family-based foster care or adoptions, which you do in America.

Bruce: 18:02

Well, my view is that what we need are options because of the fit fit question, and I think residential care needs to be one of the options. I don’t think we need to pit different kinds of care against each other. I mean, you can find good and bad versions of every kind of care, and the question, the real question, is quality, the quality of the care, and it comes back to that every single time and, to a large degree, the question of quality is a question of building relationships, and one real problem with the last resort notion is that oftentimes the children are placed with the expectation they will not build relationships because they’re going to get yanked out soon, and that’s, I mean that that’s becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you, if you say, well, um, you know that here’s the, here’s the care of last resort. Therefore, don’t build relationships, and then in, in fact, it’s bad care, it’s bad care by circumstance, and you said you talked a little bit earlier.

Colby: 19:12

You mentioned that for some children it may be the first resort, the option of first resort, and this is something that is very much in my mind at the moment and I’ll just just just very quickly. The reason being is that my, my long-held view or observation of children, young people, who find their way into out-of-home care, the trauma that they’ve experienced is relational trauma. It’s happened at the home, it’s happened, you know, with their parents and they come into care with. Well, I would say it’s uh for people, because people don’t easily think of it in this way. I would say it’s akin to a phobia, where the phobic object is there is a relationship, is relationship or relational connection.

Colby: 20:03

Now it’s, I would say it’s more than akin to a phobia. It is a phobia and that phobia has, you know, probably relative degrees of difficulty for the young people, a challenge for the young people and there are, there are probably young people, there are undoubtedly young people who come into care that perhaps the worst place to put them is in the family environment, where they’re really challenged by relational closeness and the expectations of the adults in those environments. And again, I think that comes back to what you were saying about fitness. I wonder have you got any comment you’d like to make about that?

Bruce: 20:48

Well, you know, I think something that goes with that is that we often think in terms of these children who’ve had traumatic experiences in their families, all in terms of parent-child attachment.Bruce: 21:04

But as kids get older, it’s their peer group that’s increasingly important.

Bruce: 21:09

And unfortunately, there has been a mythology that’s built around the idea that if you put kids in residential care, they’re just around other troubled kids and that’s just more trouble, when in fact I don’t think the research supports that.

Bruce: 21:24

And I think that if you have high quality care, as kids get older certainly when they’re by the time they’re 12 or 13, their peers are becoming increasingly important and that peer group can be a powerful form of relationship and, under the guidance of sensitive adults, that can be an important part of their therapy. And the idea that you’ve always got to go back to the infant-child attachment model I think is a mistake. Now, the infant-child attachment model works in the sense that every social relationship is about kids sending off signals and needing to get sensitive responses back from those they send the signals to, but it doesn’t have to be a parent and it doesn’t even have to be an adult yes, in fact, um children will continue to make relationships that we would we would refer to as attachment relationships throughout their throughout their growing years and even as adults as well.

Bruce: 22:30

And I don’t want to, you know, put down the parent-child relationship, because I mean, if it had worked in the first place, the kids would have been a lot better off. But the other thing I know is I’ve rarely met a child who wouldn’t go back to their family if they possibly could. I mean that that that is fundamental, and even when they’ve been mistreated, and even when they know it’s not a good situation in their heads, they would love to be able to go back to that. And so I don’t want to suggest that’s not an important relationship.

Colby: 23:05

it is yeah, and I think it’s something that it should be aspirational in terms of our endeavors, that we, we, we do endeavor to try and return them, and part of the part of my reasoning around this is that children form multiple attachment relationships, but their overall attachment style is a is influenced by all of those relationships.

Colby: 23:31

So one of the reasons why placements, foster placements break down, not least of which is that the children are challenged, potentially overwhelmed, by the expectation of the foster carer around relational closeness, is that they’re carrying around all this attachment baggage for want of a better term from their relationships with their parents and that impacts their capacity to form a new attachment form, an attachment to their current carers, and also it impacts their overall attachment style and those two things interplay with each other.

Colby: 24:12

So you know, I call it the secure ideal. Child protection authorities seem to be relentless in trying to pursue this idea of attachment security, but in the process they often neglect these historical relationships or they may still be contemporary, but they may also be unrepaired, and those relationships do hamper our efforts, I think significantly, to achieve an outcome where children and young people approach life in a well-adjusted way, well, cognitive psychologists would call it mental models or schemas, and that’s how we interpret our worlds, and these kids often have mental models that are distorted in important ways, and partly what therapy is about is working on those mental models and providing new models.

Bruce: 25:09

And uh, and you can’t provide new models.

Colby: 25:12

If kids are changing situations over and over and over again, they, they never get a chance to form them yeah, yeah, and if they’re just putting transference into all of those, there’s a lot of transference going on into all of those new relationships and too often unhelpful counter transference. But one other thing I think you touched on. I just wanted to ask you, before we move on, do you think that residential care, children’s residential care, could be an option of first resort, and under what circumstances do you think Well, I think there are a couple of situations residential care, children’s residential care, could be an option of first resort, and under what circumstances do you think?

Bruce: 25:50

Well, I think there are a couple of situations. You know. If in fact there’s a good chance of going back to the family of origin, residential care is kind of a neutral place to go compared to having to get a brand new family and starting all over again. And residential care under those circumstances might be the best place for kids to be while their family’s getting their act together.

Bruce: 26:17

And so I think that’s one. Another one is the sibling situation, and at Black Mountain I’ve seen situations where we’ve taken in three or four kids at a time and they, for those kids, those sibling relationships, are the most important relationships in their lives, and so that that, I think, is sometimes a good reason to put children in a residential care as a first resort. There may have, you know, there are also, I think, red flags. There are red flags in some kids especially, you know, adolescent, young adolescents, where it’s clear that they don’t want another family and that you’re really putting not only them at risk but the poor foster family at risk. The evidence is that we lose foster care families at a rapid rate and I think it’s oftentimes because of that insensitivity about the nature of that child. And you know, I feel for social workers, social workers around the world they’re too young, they’re too inexperienced, they don’t last think, I think they’re in incredibly difficult situations.

Colby: 27:29

But I think we’ve created some of that difficulty by doing things like saying um, well, residential care is last resort yeah, when indeed it as we’re talking, I mean we’re highlighting some of the, you know, the manifest strengths of residential care, and I know from reading some of the you know the manifest strengths of residential care and I know from reading some of your writing you’ve talked about stability and resources as strengths Wonder if you might tell us a little bit of your thoughts about that.

Bruce: 28:02

Well, you know, this gets complicated because it’s related to what I think has been the stereotype of residential care that has kind of ruled the literature over the last 30 or 40 years. And I think that what they look at is they say that residential care is inherently unstable because the caregivers are coming and going Well in high quality care. That’s not true. In high quality care, where you’re compensating your house parents, for example, well and you’re making their jobs doable and attractive, then you can get long-term stability in relationships. So I think that stereotype has worked against it. If, in fact, the residential care is not providing stability, it is not high quality by definition. It’s not able to provide high quality care Resources.

Bruce: 29:07

I think the most important resource we’ve talked about relationships and those are the most important resources. But I think also there are resources like specific forms of therapy for some kids with particular traumas, but also just basic things like education. One of the things that happens to these young people who’ve been through dozens of placements is they’ve not only changed families, they’ve changed schools, they’ve changed neighborhoods, they’ve changed playgrounds. They with the same group of children and adults is just. For some of them that’s the first time that’s ever happened to them in their lives.

Colby: 29:54

Yeah, yeah, I think you speak compellingly about these aspects of residential care that are strengths and often overlook strengths.

Bruce: 30:07

You’d have to say when the dominant, when the dominant view is that residential care is is the lowest standard of care and the option of last resort well, even related to to foster care, one of the one of the advantages we have at Black Mountain is we we have a campus and we have resources there, and one of the advantages we have at Black Mountain is we have a campus and we have resources there, and one of the things we can do for foster parents is provide them with resources. And one reason that foster care places don’t make it is because the foster parents don’t get enough support. So we’re careful about identifying the parents in the first place, but then we also support them. It may be if it’s very young children.

Bruce: 30:51

it may be something as simple as diapers, providing them with diapers, which are very expensive, or it foster children that they wouldn’t have otherwise, and now they’re getting some of the same experiences as the residential kids are getting and we can also work with them in terms of things like educational planning, vocational planning, and that really helps those foster parents.

Colby: 31:26

Yeah, and what you’re describing is a is a community, a therapeutic community that’s right, that’s right. Yes, that’s that’s right, and you know a lot of, I guess, even just from my own jurisdiction, where I’m most familiar a lot of these things that that we’re talking about just don’t exist in residential care yeah, that’s right, that’s right and so residential. I want to get on to talking a little bit about the research in a moment, but it’s probably worth mentioning beforehand that residential care is a heterogeneous group, just as families are.

Bruce: 32:02

That’s right and worldwide it’s incredibly heterogeneous and some of it’s good and some of it’s bad, and I will say that I have tended to focus on private residential care. I am not in the sense that I’m not sure for profit residential care. I don’t know how you can make a profit in this business. I don’t know how you do it and make a profit, and I haven’t looked closely at for-profit care. I read the newspaper too, and I read the stories about a lot of problems in for-profit residential care, but I just don’t, unless your government is supporting it well or you’re a private, uh organization that has extra support from, from donors. I don’t know how you do it, yeah it’s definitely an.

Colby: 32:59

What we’re talking about is expensive care or at least someone taught me the task about this about whether you call it extensive, sorry, expensive or high cost, though, and no, he was arguing that it’s high. When it’s done well, it’s high cost, expensive kind of has connotations of not being really value for money, but just for image, I guess.

Bruce: 33:26

But yeah, I think the key, key word is value. Uh, I mean, it’s a question of values. Uh, you know, the united states spends billions and billions of dollars on aircraft carriers that float around the the world and in the sea. Uh, we spend enormous amounts of money on betting, on sports activities and lottos and so forth. And it’s a question of you know, where are you putting your money? I don’t think residential care should be the norm for kids who need care. I think it’s going to be relatively rare, but it needs to be one of the options.

Colby: 34:10

And I guess when you say the norm, are you saying that children? Probably it’s not the best place for children to grow to independence so that they spend all their time in care, in residential care.

Bruce: 34:25

Well, again, it depends on the child and the environment, and when we get new youth, when they’re 14 or 15, it may, in fact, be the best place for them to grow to independence. Because we can, we can provide the support in terms of training and support. You know, for years and years in many states in the United States, when a child turned 18 in foster care was basically by it’s been nice knowing you, and for most 18 year olds, the idea that you’re going out on your own without any support, I mean could you have done it? Could I have done it? I mean I can’t imagine it and so that idea was just crazy. So I think the changes in recent years to provide more support for older kids it may be a 15 year old. They need to stay in residential care until they get the skills to be independent. But yes, certainly there are situations where it’s going to be a lot cheaper, more effective, to find a forever home for children, whether it be a really good foster situation that’s going to remain stable or adoption.

Bruce: 35:37

Now I have concerns about adoption. In the United States. We’ve had a tendency to rush to adoption in too many cases and I don’t like the idea that families of origin can be cut off quickly. That shouldn’t happen. If they need to get their act together in order for their child to come back to their house, give them some time for it, because one of the naive aspects of some of the changes that occurred in the last decade was the idea that you can fix families real quick and then send the kids home. I mean that I don’t know who told them that could happen as a psychologist.

Bruce: 36:17

That’s crazy to me yeah, yeah.

Colby: 36:21

So so the issue with residential care, or the I guess the point sorry that we’re that is being made is that, um, there, there needs to be an ongoing, perhaps, assessment of what is the best care arrangement for this person. So, um, so that that can happen at the beginning when children come into care. And what I’m hearing you say is that there shouldn’t be a distinction in relative status between residential care and a family-based care environment. They’re just all part of the care options and they have equal standing and merit because they cater to children who have different needs, the variability of needs, and then, as a child travels through the remaining years of their growing up, their childhood, there can be a continuing assessment of fitness and what is, what is the best placement environment for them. And we need residential care to have the same standing as an option as, uh, as those family-based options.

Bruce: 37:44

That’s what what I’m, I guess, to summarize, yeah the last resort notion came from a belief that residential care was inherently bad for children, and what got me going on and looking at the research was that a law that was passed in the United States in 2018 that said that no federal funds could be used for residential care. And I was the chair of the board of directors at Black Mountain at that time and a reporter called me up and said you know, you’re going to lose significant amount of money here. What are you going to do about it? Now, black Mountain is a faith-based organization and I said we’re a faith-based organization. We’ve been working with kids for a long time. We’re going to find a way to work with these kids and meet their needs.

Bruce: 38:39

Well, I got attacked immediately by a lobbyist in Washington DC who said you people who are spreading this notion about good residential care, that’s phony and I’ve got the research to support it. And he argued that he had three pages of citations of studies that showed that residential care was inherently bad for kids. Well, there I was, a child psychologist and somebody with research background and research methodology and I thought, well, I’m going to take a look at those citations. And that got me in looking at the whole literature. Now it turned out that those three pages of citations didn’t have a single one that supported what he was saying, but it got me into that literature to look at what actually was going on I’m going to come to that in a moment.

Colby: 39:36

But what I would say I mean we, because we’re going to have people who listen to this podcast. Perhaps. Perhaps we’ll get a lot of people who listen who are kind of thinking similarly, but we’re going to have a proportion of people who think that this is nuts. You know, talking positively about residential care. And there is and I know I’ve had, I’ve put, I remember a post I put up about residential care some time ago on LinkedIn and I didn’t get any comments, but one where the person who commented basically said that residential care was basically a repository for adults who engage unlawfully with young people, and they weren’t as vague about it as I just was.

Colby: 40:32

But I think to those people, to those people who are concerned about residential care, I would say that my understanding of what we’re talking about, the message is this that in some instances and for some children, residential care is not a good option. So, in some instances, because residential care is not always the same and there are residential care programs or facilities that do not meet the needs of the children and young people and for other children and young people, that’s not what they need at this time. They need to be, they’re ready and they need to be in a caring family option, or they need to go home to their parents a parent or parents? Yeah, I think so, and I think, think so. It’s a good time to go to the next part of our conversation with the. What does the research actually say about children’s residential care, including in comparison to other care options in out-of-home care?

Bruce: 41:50

Well, you know, I think I started off the book with an early chapter on research methodology, because I think you need to think carefully about this research.

Bruce: 42:03

It’s a messy area and there’s some things that we can’t know, and I think it’s important to keep that in mind.

Bruce: 42:12

I do not think there’s any way to prove that residential care is inherently bad or that it’s good, because of what you were talking about earlier the range of different things we’re talking about, and so definitional issues are really important and I’ll just say up front that I think there’s certain forms of residential care that seem to have consistently been poor, and that’s correctional juvenile justice forms of residential care that seem to have consistently been poor, and that’s that’s correctional, juvenile justice forms of residential care, and I think that’s because they rarely, if ever, use a developmental model, they never really understand the way kids work, and so that all over the world you know juvenile justice interventions in residential care have not worked.

Bruce: 43:03

Now I think that when you look at the research that says residential care is inherently bad, a problem with making that statement is all you have to do is find one, one residential care situation that isn’t bad and then that blows the inherent out of the water, it’s not by its nature, it’s, again, the quality of the care. So, anyway, when I started looking at the literature, it became clear to me that there’s a handful of studies, research studies that have had an enormous impact on the view of residential care, and the single most important one is the study of the so-called Romanian orphans who by?

Bruce: 43:47

the way were not orphans at all. But that study, the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, has just dominated all the talk about residential care for almost 30 years now.

Bruce: 44:06

And it appears over and over and over in the statement, and that was a situation where there was lots of money for research and American researchers, including good researchers from Harvard University, were involved in the research. They’ve published dozens and dozens of journal articles out of it and indeed the care that was given in Bucharest was horrible care and it should never be repeated. But what’s happened is that that research has been generalized. It was, it was research on infants and very young children, and yet it has been generalized to all forms of residential care, for all kinds of different kinds of residential care, for kids of all different ages and backgrounds, and that’s a. That’s a research. No, no ages and backgrounds. And that’s a research? No-no, you don’t generalize from one kind of research to completely different situations, different majors, different kids. I mean it’s just amazing to me that it has been applied so naively. And there are a handful of other studies that have the same problems, have the same problems. There was one that was funded by the Annie Casey Foundation that basically looked for kids or adults who had grown up in bad residential care and interviewed them and said residential care is terrible. I mean it just frankly. It’s researchers not following their own rules.

Bruce: 45:45

Now, on the other hand, I think there’s evidence that it’s not proof. It can’t be proof, but I think there’s strong evidence that good residential care has positive effects. And some of it is just simple survey research, which tends to be. You know, researchers tend to look down their nose at survey research. But if you ask a large number of alumni of residential care about their experiences and they tell you they had good experiences and they never would have preferred foster care, you got to give some attention to that. If you look at simple pre-post studies, kids come in and you look at them when they come in, you look at them when they leave and they get better consistently. Now, that’s not going to prove that it was the program that made them better, but it all suggests that it’s not making them worse. That’s not going to prove that it was the program that made them better, but it all suggests that it’s not making them worse. It’s not.

Bruce: 46:46

So I you know what I did in the book was to was to kind of look at both sides and I looked very critically at both sides and I and I and there is no perfect research. There’s not going to be perfect research, but the evidence is that if you do it well, kids thrive, they do grow. And then in the book I focused on two very different models of residential care the teaching family model, which has behaviorist roots and a lot of people I work with don’t like behaviorist roots but I don’t think the actual application of the behavioral psychology and the teaching family model has been. It’s not Watsonian or Skinnerian, they found out very, very early relationships mattered and that family systems model I think works well.

Bruce: 47:44

And the other is the care model. And, uh, the care model is the out of cornell, out of the uh, uri bronford brother center, and the care model is what fit, uh, what we were doing at black mountain, and so, uh, we adopted that and became one of the care model programs and I think they do a wonderful job. I think they have a very sophisticated theory that combines James Anglin’s work, attachment theory, vygotsky’s work, and they do it in a very sophisticated way and I think that it’s had a power, powerful, positive effect on residential care all around the world, including in australia.

Colby: 48:26

Yeah, yeah, what you were saying there put me in in mind very recent guests, which was, uh, dr laura stickley, who, um you, you would, you would know, who in fact put us together in contact with each other.

Colby: 48:44

And, yeah, she talked about exactly the same thing that when you interview alumni of residential care, more often than not they’ll say that they have a positive opinion of it, and even if they’ve also been in foster care, they’ll report comparatively more positively about their residential care experiences.

Colby: 49:08

It would have to be said, though, that that data may be influenced by the circumstances in which they left foster care and went into residential care, and I think this is it’s that, it’s that level of and I think this is probably what you were, you, you have were saying about just be aware of basic research methodology, and and you had that early in your, you have that early in your book which is that we, we, we need to, to be, we need to be able to critically appraise the research. That um and not not everyone can do that, and that’s why I guess it it’s helpful to have people like you who can do that. To spell it out, um for people, but, um, you know even just what, what I just said, that you’ve got to, you know, understand the circumstance, or turn your mind to the circumstances under which a child might have left foster care to go into residential care, or young person.

Bruce: 50:08

Yeah, you’re really not talking about discrete effects. You’re not talking about what we would call discrete, independent variables. You’re talking about packages. It’s much like studying cultural differences when you’re comparing kids from one culture to another culture. You can’t identify something discrete about those two cultures because you’re dealing with packages. And that’s certainly the case in terms of residential care. And the other thing I think you have to be careful about is the quality issue, because that’s what comes back over and over again is as more important than the site of the care is the quality of the care, and kids can have bad care in every single different situation, and what we need to do is make sure you’re assessing that quality of care is. Make sure you’re assessing that quality of care.

Colby: 51:02

Yeah, yeah, you’ve mentioned your book a number of times. You’ve mentioned I don’t mean that in a bad way, but you’ve mentioned it. It’s one of the reasons why I was really keen to speak to you. What can people expect to get out of reading uh, access and reading the book, and how? How do you think it would influence practice in this space?

Bruce: 51:30

uh, you know I I did not push the book for the first year and a half because the hardback version was ridiculously expensive.

Bruce: 51:38

So I didn’t suggest anybody buy it, and so now it’s in paperback and you can buy it on sale sometimes and it’s more reasonably priced. But I think some of the other things I’ve written in journal articles would get the message across, and I often just give references to open access articles because they can get the basics. James Anglin, who has had a big influence on me, and anybody who knows residential care knows James’ name, and James said that the main purpose for my book should be that anybody writing a grant proposal to get support for residential care should put it in the appendix, and that’s basically why I wrote it. I wrote it because I felt like those who do residential care, those who see it as having a positive impact, were getting a bad press and I wanted to clear that up. And so you know, I think the major purpose of the book was to make that point. Now I do think that and this happened to me when I talked I was giving in Calgary, canada, last year a young woman came up to me and had actually bought the expensive hardback and she said that she she had, she was running a program there in Canada and she said what she had picked up from the book and which I was delighted to hear, was a better idea about what quality care is, and I think if people can can read that book and take that away.

Bruce: 53:21

I’m delighted because I think that’s such an important issue. It is the issue, the issue of providing quality care, and I think the reason you know, I don’t think there’s a mystery here. I think the research shows what high quality care is. It’s a matter of picking the people who are going to provide it carefully. It’s a matter of training them carefully, it’s a matter of supporting them carefully, providing the resources they need and the kids need, and then providing that stability. And I think that if you do that, you can provide quality care. Now it’s easy to provide bad quality care. There’s so many different ways of doing it and you do have to go into it. I think, thinking that this is an expensive form of care. And I say in the book, in the conclusion of the book, one of my conclusions is that residential care is expensive and it should be. We owe it to these kids. Society has not supported these kids well up to now and we’re going to pay for it and we should pay for it.

Colby: 54:30

I think that’s a really good point and it puts me in mind of an earlier guest who came into residential care from economics and who was very interested in human capital, the notions of human capital Graham Kerridge was his name, if you wanted to look back and I think that residential care done well, I think that residential care done well, just as is the case with other forms of out-of-home care, is an investment not only in the future of that young person, but their children and their children’s children. That’s right, and I do think that when you view residential care as an option of last resort, I wonder whether you know, like I wonder, whether a certain amount of that argument comes from the funders. Because of the cost yes, because of the cost they don’t want kids to be in residential care.

Bruce: 55:37

It’s bad for them, which also confounded with with the fact that it is also expensive yeah, there’s no question about that, that that happens, and and I think that, um, one of the reasons they get legislators on board for, uh, pulling the support from residential care is exactly that. And they said you know, it’s cheaper to keep kids in families. Well, no kidding. But the question is what’s the long term impact and what’s it going to cost society in the long term if we’re not careful? One of the things that’s happened because of the last resort thinking is that and the lack of foster care placements is there’s some strong stress on keeping kids in their families of origin, sometimes to the point where that’s dangerous.

Bruce: 56:34

And they’re doing it in situations where that’s dangerous. So there’s a writer, Naomi Riley, who writes about this regularly and what she’s pointed out is that when you increase the number of kids who are going back to their families of origin, abuse and deaths go up. Yeah.

Colby: 56:54

Well, that’s sobering.

Colby: 56:57

As a practitioner myself for 30 years working in child protection and related endeavor, one of the one of the the challenges that practitioners like me have is is that the state is a is a relatively poor carer and it’s a bit of a case of out of the frying pan into the fire for a lot of our young people, unfortunately, and I think you know, our legislators and our services have got a big job ahead of them to address the quality this, the quality of, of all forms of out of home care I mean state care, or the care if you’re in the care of the state. That should be a haven, that should be a sanctuary for the children that should be a safe place to grow up and too often we owe that to them yeah, yeah, have you ever said

Bruce: 57:58

that no, you go well, I, I think you know the foster, foster parent situation is we we don’t give, typically, we do not give nearly enough support to foster parents. Um and and if, if you’re serious about making uh, foster care work, we’ve got to do a better job of supporting foster parents.

Colby: 58:19

Yeah yeah, yeah, bruce, it looks like the sun’s going down where you are, the it’s getting darker and darker. It’s getting dark. You’re right. I don’t know if you wanted to pause for a moment and put a light on I can put, I can put a light on does that help? That’s different. We’ll wait for that. There you go.

Bruce: 58:45

Now the camera is focusing in on you again well, I I was going to do this outside on my, on my deck, overlooking the mountains, but, uh, they were predicting, uh, um, thunderstorms, so I I decided to go inside.

Colby: 58:57

I I well, we talked last time. You, I think you were out on the deck.

Bruce: 59:02

Oh was I.

Colby: 59:02

Yeah, there were thunderstorms predicted then too. You were in a very stormy place, it seems. Yes, yeah, I can predict that, on the basis of N equals 2. Both times I’ve spoken to you.

Bruce: 59:13

Well, we live in what’s known as a temperate rainforest.

Colby: 59:18

Yes.

Bruce: 59:18

And we are in the wettest portion of the United States east of the Mississippi.

Colby: 59:24

Wow, yeah, yeah, well, there you go. Well, there you go. I mean, my prediction was true based on a sample there you go. Sometimes it works. Bruce, if you were sitting down in front of legislators, what would you say to them about residential care?

Bruce: 59:42

in a nutshell, Well, we’ve talked about some of the things I would say to them. In fact, I have written to to as a written witness, to a number of of legislative groups and what I, what I say, is good residential care needs to be available and it needs to be an option, and not an option of last resort, but an option that takes into consideration the child’s needs. And one of the problems we’ve had in the United States and I’ve told legislators this over and over again they use the term family first and I think that’s wrong. I think the Danes have it correct. In Denmark, they don’t say family first, they say children first.

Colby: 1:00:32

And.

Bruce: 1:00:32

I think that’s the attitude that we need to take, and so what we need to do to have children thrive. They’re the ones that don’t have the power, they’re the ones that don’t have the voice, they’re the ones that get pushed around, and when you say family first, and what you really mean is parents, adults first, that’s not a good approach.

Colby: 1:00:55

No, no, yeah, finally, I’ve asked you a lot of questions, bruce. Was there anything that you’d like to ask me before we wrap up?

Bruce: 1:01:06

yeah, um, um. Australia was a place a few years ago that said we’re going to do away with all residential care. That’s the dream, and the dream’s been realized, and then things seem to have turned around pretty quickly. What’s your take on what happened?

Colby: 1:01:27

Well, I can’t really speak authoritatively for what’s happened in other states of South Australia. I’m in South Australia. We had what’s called a Royal Commission in our political environment, which is based on the British one, a Royal Commission and I’m probably not going to give a great description of it, but it’s like a very high level judicial inquiry into an issue. It’s called by the government of the day, it tends to take a period of time and it’s an investigation of an issue of great importance to the body politic, and then recommendations are made and it’s usually around things that have gone wrong. We had one in relation to child protection systems and an outcome of that was that, well, one of the things that flowed on from that was there was this idea reinforced that residential care is inherently bad, excuse me. And so we did have congregate residential care units. They’ve been closed down. Residential care units they’ve been closed down. I think almost all of them have been closed down, at least the state-run ones.

Colby: 1:02:48

And there was pressure in the last few years to move children out of residential care arrangements and, in particular, temporary residential care arrangements, which they were referred to as emergency care.

Colby: 1:03:05

And there remains this um, this idea that that residential care is bad and and that we should have all children out of residential care. And indeed our minister, or her staff has, has, you know, talks in posts on social media about we funded this program or that program and we saved children from residential care. I can’t quote you the figures, but residential care hasn’t gone away, and though the state or the government-run child protection agency tried to divest itself of residential care to independent providers, they have ended up having to maintain their own residential care program. I don’t know if it’s expanding or static. I don’t know if it’s expanding or static, I just know that it’s not been successfully gotten rid of. And I think you won’t. You won’t, and I think there’s very good reasons, as we’ve outlined in this conversation, for why residential care needs to be part of the picture. So it’s almost like the tail wagging the dog, in a way.

Bruce: 1:04:23

Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:04:28

The need is right in front of people’s faces. There needs to be this option. You can’t get rid of it. What you, rather, should be focused on is how do you make it better? How do you improve?

Bruce: 1:04:44

it. Quality is the issue. Quality of care is what it’s all about. I know that the people at Cornell in the care model have spent a lot of time in Australia and a lot of Australian programs have adopted the care model and I think that’s a real positive outcome because I think if you really do take the care model seriously, you can provide high quality care. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:05:22

Well, Bruce, it’s been a real privilege to be able to have tracked you down and had this conversation.

Bruce: 1:05:27

Well, I have a low social media presence and that’s intentional, but I’m not hiding from anybody I know.

Colby: 1:05:34

But look to be honest. Last weekend it’s Father’s Day here tomorrow, tomorrow, sunday’s Father’s Day here tomorrow. Tomorrow, sunday, it’s Friday here, but one of my sons is going away tomorrow. So we celebrated. Last weekend. I barely picked up my phone and looked at social media and, gee, it was nice to do that. But thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

Bruce: 1:06:00

I’ve enjoyed talking with you. It’s been a fun conversation, awesome, thank you.

The Science of Prevention: How We Can End Child Maltreatment, with Benjamin Perks

The Importance of Attachment and the Science of Prevention in Child Development

In a recent podcast episode, Benjamin Perks, Head of Campaigns and Advocacy at UNICEF, shared profound insights about child development, attachment theory, and the global effort to end child maltreatment. His personal journey from growing up in residential care to becoming a leader in child protection provides a powerful narrative that underscores the importance of positive relationships in childhood development.

Ben emphasizes the concept of the “Four S’s” – secure, safe, seen, and soothed – as essential elements that every child needs to flourish. When children receive these four elements from their family, they develop resilience that protects them from adverse experiences in other environments. When family support is lacking, schools become the critical secondary buffer. The ideal situation, according to Ben, is having all three systems – family, school, and community – committed to ensuring every child experiences these four essential elements. What makes this particularly significant is that we are the first generation in history with the knowledge and resources to ensure universal access to these developmental necessities.

The podcast highlights the alarming prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and their long-term impact. According to the Center for Disease Control in the United States, each adverse childhood experience significantly increases the risk of negative outcomes across 40 different well-being indicators, from addiction to poor mental health to involvement in crime. This intergenerational cycle of trauma creates what Ben refers to as “relational poverty” – the inability to form healthy relationships due to lack of early relational skills development. This pattern is observable not just in humans but across species, where similar patterns of attachment and development have been documented.

One of the most compelling arguments Ben presents is that child maltreatment can be ended through a public health approach similar to how child mortality was dramatically reduced globally. In the 1980s, when 14-15 million children died annually from preventable diseases, a targeted approach implementing four simple interventions (vaccinations, oral rehydration salts, growth monitoring, and breastfeeding promotion) reduced child mortality by 61% over a decade. Ben proposes that with similar determination and a few key interventions, we could achieve comparable results in reducing child maltreatment.

These key interventions include universal access to evidence-based parenting programs, extended parental leave, universal preschool from age three, and widespread public education about child development and trauma. According to the UN Special Representative on violence against children, while child maltreatment costs societies up to 12% of GDP through various social costs, implementing these preventative measures would cost less than 1% of GDP – making it not just a moral imperative but an economic one as well.

The podcast also explores the complex nature of intergenerational trauma, including collective trauma experienced by communities that have faced historical oppression. As Resmaa Menakem notes, people maladapt to contexts that are passed through generations; the context is forgotten, but the adaptations become culture. This perspective helps explain how trauma patterns persist in communities long after the original traumatic conditions have changed.

Ben’s’ own healing journey demonstrates that recovery is possible at any age. After recognizing the impact of his childhood experiences on his adult life, he underwent therapy that transformed his world “from black and white to color.” This personal transformation enabled him to break the cycle of insecure attachment with his own son, demonstrating that with appropriate intervention, intergenerational patterns can be disrupted. His book, “Trauma Proof: Healing, Attachment and the Science of Prevention,” combines scientific research with personal narratives of healing from around the world, offering both inspiration and practical approaches to addressing childhood trauma.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch here:

About Ben:

Benjamin Perks is the Head of Campaigns and Advocacy in the Division of Global Communications and Advocacy at the United Nations Children’s Fund, based in New York. He leads public and policy advocacy on the development and protection of children. He previously served in human rights diplomacy roles as the UNICEF Representative and UN Resident Coordinator ad interim to both the Republic of North Macedonia and the Republic of Montenegro. In both capacities he advocated for reforms to fulfil international human rights commitments and realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. He has served in Georgia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, India and Albania. He coordinated the Back-to-School campaign in the Northern Afghanistan which brought 3 million children, including 1 million girls, into school-most of them for the first times in their lives. He has led work on demobilization of child solders, deinstitutionalization of children in state care, addressing child poverty, pre-school expansion and disability inclusion.

Related Podcast Episodes:

Professor Julie Taylor:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:01

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Ben: 0:04

This teacher took me under her wing and made a connection with me, and I say in the book that she’s the first adult that I think I really had a proper conversation with. If you grew up without family, your relational skill you have relational poverty. Your relational skills are poor often. Poverty, relational skills are poor often. So family is the primary buffer in that, when family is not able to provide that buffer, school is the next best option.

Ben: 0:34

And what’s really important in relation to my work is that we got the first generation history that can ensure that every parent is able to give the child the four S’s and that every school is able to do that too. But we now know that with three or four, similarly, with three or four simple interventions, we could dramatically reduce child trauma, child maltreatment, risk of trauma. I also think that child maltreatment is something that drives a number of social costs. According to the special representative of the Secretary General of the UN on violence against children, he says it costs us up to 12% of GDP, but the interventions I’m suggesting we make globally available will be less than 1% of GDP. We must be the last generation to see violence against children, maltreatment and trauma as being insurmountable social problems.

Colby: 1:33

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and my guest for this episode is a global leader in child development and protection. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge the Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray Lakes and Coorong, on whose land that I’m coming to this podcast from, and I’d like to acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ngarrindjeri people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest this episode is Benjamin Perks, benjamin Perks.

Colby: 2:28

Ben is Head of Campaigns and Advocacy in the Division of Global Communication and Advocacy at the United Nations Children Fund, based in New York. He leads public and policy advocacy on the development and protection of children. Ben previously served in human rights diplomacy roles as the UNICEF representative and UN resident coordinator at interim to both the Republic of North Macedonia and the Republic of Montenegro. In both capacities he advocated for reforms to fulfil international human rights commitments and realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Ben has served in Georgia, kosovo, afghanistan, india and Albania. He coordinated the Back to School campaign in northern Afghanistan, which brought three million children, including 1 million girls, into school, most of them for the first time in their lives. He has led work on demobilisation of child soldiers, deinstitutionalisation of children in state care, addressing child poverty, addressing child poverty, preschool expansion and disability inclusion.

Colby: 3:47

Ben is Senior Fellow at the Jubilee Centre at the University of Birmingham in the UK, which researches education policy on character, social and emotional development of children, and he is an Associate Faculty Member at Oxford University Department of Social Policy and Innovation. Ben is recognised as a public speaker and campaigner on child development and protection. His book Trauma Proof Healing, attachment and the Science of Prevention is out now.

Ben: 4:22

Welcome, ben. Thank you very much, colby. It’s great to be with you, connecting from New York to you in Australia. I’m very glad to be on your podcast.

Colby: 4:34

Yeah, thank you, owen. Thank you very much for agreeing to be on, and I was just wondering and I give all my guests this opportunity is there anything that you’d like to add to that bio of your work?Ben: 4:48

yeah, a couple of other things. I I lead globally for the un on international day of play, which is a new ua, the outcome of a new un resolution, and obviously play is central to child development and child protection. So I’ll be talking about that, I guess, a little bit in the conversation today. But also just to add that everything I talk about today and everything that I’ve written in my book is in a personal capacity. I’m not speaking on behalf of the UN or UNICEF or anybody apart from myself today, so I just wanted to to be clear on that as well. Yeah, excellent.

Colby: 5:23

Terrific. So, ben, tell us how you got into this work that you’re, this really important work that you’re doing and have done across your career.

Ben: 5:34

I think there are three kind of major turning points. I think the first one is that I was in. I grew up the second half of my childhood in residential care in children’s homes. I was in. I grew up the second half of my childhood in residential care in children’s homes. I was in Birmingham and in London. I lived a lot on the streets, I ran away a lot, I was involved with gangs and other kinds of kinds of activities. And then suddenly at 16, I had the opportunity to become an activist in London for the rights of young people in care. And that’s my first job, my first serious job at the age of 16, a full-time activist. Um, so, so that was how I became a campaigner. That’s how a campaigner was born, I think.

Ben: 6:15

And then, secondly, a few years later, when I was at university, it was very rare for somebody from a children’s home to go to university in the UK. Uh, in those days it’s still quite rare, but it’s uh, the prospects are a little bit better now than they were back in my day. But I was really passionate at university about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement and Gandhi. I read endlessly about their work to change the situation of segregation and structural racism in the United States. Also the effort of Gandhi to build a movement against colonialism, the passive resistance and all of this very well-disciplined campaign work, and that made me really think that I want to dedicate my life to real change, not performative work but real change that delivers outcomes. And one of my heroes in the civil rights history of the United States was a guy called Ralph Bunch who was a big figure, an African-American guy who became a big figure in the early days of the United Nations and he became kind of a hero to me and I then thought about a career in the UN.

Ben: 7:29

So at the end of my first year at university I somehow managed to organise to go to Croatia and there was a middle of a conflict Croatia and Bosnia and Croatia. I somehow went on the bus to Croatia and kind of talked my way in to a role, a temporary role, in UNICEF, and took a year out and worked on that and I was hooked. So I I had very much of like a bog standard UNICEF kind of career. I I did very well I, when I finished my master’s degree a few years later I went back to the organization and, you know, worked my way up towards being a head of office and all of that.

Ben: 8:12

But finally when, when I became a head of office, you know, in a formal diplomatic UN role I was at a meeting where there was a conversation about deinstitutionalization and somebody was talking about attachment research and I heard it for the first time. I was sitting there and I realized the guy who was talking, the professor, was talking about the outcome, the adult outcomes, of insecure attachment in childhood relationships. All of that and I saw myself in everything that he was saying. So I went into a period of therapy for a year and then I became a passionate campaigner on issues like child trauma, attachment, and that’s the journey that brought me to write the book and that added another very personal stream of work to the work I’d already been doing on children’s rights. Very long-winded answer, but those three points were crucial in bringing me to where I am now.

Colby: 9:13

Yeah, that’s awesome and I also am a little bit interested in attachment as well and written a bit about it. But do you remember the name of the fellow who who, um, first introduced you to attachment?

Ben: 9:28

but that’s yes, you know, I’m getting to an age where I think that I forget things, so it’s uh, it’s uh, it’s professor from uh university of nottingham, and it will come back to me during the course of the conversation and I’ll probably blurt it out when it comes back to me okay, awesome, so I’m just queuing your recall for that, perhaps at a later date.

Colby: 9:50

You’ve talked a bit about influences in terms of your circumstances and the roles that you’ve gotten into. Are there any people that really stand out for you as having played a role and been a big influence over your career development? And you’ve mentioned attachment. Maybe you can tell us why you think attachment is so important in your work as well so well in terms of, um, in terms of people that have influenced me.

Ben: 10:23

I write a lot in my book. My book tells lots of stories of different people, but I write a bit about my own as well, and one of the things that was transformative for me was I had a teacher when I was 15. I’d been thrown out of school. I had a best friend who’d been killed in a knife fight. I I had, uh, I was in a very tense inner city poverty care, you know situation, no parents or anything like that. But this teacher, um, somehow, in this, in his school for kids that have been kicked out of school, this teacher took me under under her wing and made a connection with me, and I say in the book that she’s the first adult that I think I really had a proper conversation with as a child.

Ben: 11:08

I was 15. And her name is Jan Report. And when I had this moment, when I listened to this professor from Nottingham giving this talk about attachment, at the end of it I went into this process of therapy. But I also tracked down my teacher in that process, because I wanted to go back and tell her what I’d done with my life and I would have done none of it without her. And so I went back and met her, having not seen her since childhood, and that was incredible. And now now every year when we go back to the UK, we go and see her. I took my son to meet her last year and so so that’s a really pivotal person.

Ben: 11:52

I also had a great social worker. At one point there was a good residential social worker in the children’s home. I had a couple of good friendships when I was young and also eventually also became kind of connected to a family that had reached out over some campaigning work that I was doing. I think that makes all the difference, because if you grow up in a without family, your relational skill you have relational poverty. Your relational skills are poor often and so you know, because you just don’t. It’s like a muscle. You have to grow relational skills and I hadn’t so many things that people learn in a family. I hadn’t really learned them.

Colby: 12:35

I grew up in a, in a survival mode, um, but somehow I managed to have these friendships and uh, attract this support and engagement, and I think all of it meant the world to me and I wouldn’t be here today without those people yeah, that’s an awesome story and it puts me in mind of two things the, the idea that comes from the one good adult research, that that all the child needs is one adult who believes in them, who’s’s there for them, who truly listens to them and helps them. And then there’s the other idea, which is that it takes a village. Now, I think both of those concepts they may be seen as being mutually exclusive, but I think that they sit comfortably alongside each other. The one helps the other, particularly the one good adult helps the other. I do think that when children grow up in adversity relational adversity the more good relationships they have, the better the outcomes.

Colby: 13:40

And I was speaking to someone relatively recently and apologies if you’re listening, and it was you and I can’t remember who it was, but he talked about that it takes a village. The construct at the very beginning was referring to, or at least meant to take into account, peer relationships, so that the important role of peers in children’s up, children growing up and and and I can see how that fits with with social learning theory, for example. So I guess, attachment theory what is it about attachment theory that has influenced your, your career since that introduction?

Ben: 14:24

I want to come back to what you were just saying about peers, community, trusted adult and then lead that into the conversation about attachment and how that influences my work. So I think that you know Dr Daniel Segal and Tina Penny Bryson have this brilliant expression of I think it comes from them the four A’s, sorry, the four S’s. So it’s to be secure, safe, seen and soothed. And the idea is that for children to flourish they need to have those four S’s. If a child has them at home with the family, that’s really important, particularly for early development, uh, early childhood development, to set that secure base and safe haven. We know that early experiences we don’t remember things that happened to us before the age of two, but they are disproportionately and massively influential on the way we see the world for the rest of our life and for the opportunities that we will have and the constraints that we will have.

Ben: 15:32

So that’s really important in the family.Ben: 15:34

But if a child is not safe, seen, soothed and secure in the family, then if they have the four S’s in school, that can help to some extent to heal and prevent them going on a trajectory that is driven by trauma and toxic stress and help them to build relationships and so on.

Ben: 15:58

That’s why the teacher was so important to me by reverse, if children are safe, seen, secure and suited at home and then they go to a rough school, that resilience that they get from the forest is at home will protect them from the trauma of the school or a war zone or a gang infested neighborhood. So family is the primary buffer um in that when family is not um able to provide that buffer, school is the next best option. Certainly it’s the community um. But the idea, the ideal world is you want to have all three of those things family, school, community, committed to, intentional about ensuring that every child is secure, safe, safe, seen and soothed. And what’s really important in relation to my work is that we are the first generation in history that can ensure that every parent is able to give the child, the four S’s, and that every school is able to do that too, and we know that that can be achieved for a fraction of what is lost by not doing it. That’s how it influences my work, yeah.

Colby: 17:12

Awesome. I understand from your work you have a powerful belief that we can end child maltreatment. Tell us a little bit more about why you think that to be the case.

Ben: 17:27

Let me tell you another story that brings me back to this. In 1980, and I talk about this in the book in 1980, in University of Birmingham in the UK, an American public health professional delivered a paper in which he argued that we could I think 14 or 15 million children die every year from preventable disease that if we could just do four things if we could vaccinate every child globally, if we could provide oral rehydration salts to treat diarrheal diseases which can be deadly, if we could monitor the growth of children and if we could promote breastfeeding, then we could dramatically reduce that. Unicef and WHO got hold of that paper and had a really complex internal conversation with many people against the idea, but some of them championed the idea of making this a reality. And over the next 10 years they mobilized a coalition of royals, of heads of state, of community organizations, of religious leaders all around the world and they increased vaccine coverage, for example, from 15% of the world’s children to around 85% of the world’s children and in the decade that followed, child mortality under five mortality reduced by 61%. Everybody thought they were crazy in the beginning. Everybody thought that this was insurmountable, but they did it. And if you look back on every single um global achievement, whether it’s a massive expansion of education, whether it’s massive expansion of availability to um, to to clean water, or prevention of child labor or child marriage. There has been a really audacious drive to do that.

Ben: 19:21

Um, child maltreatment is something that is a problem everywhere. It’s not just in the global south, it’s a problem everywhere. But we now know that with three or four, similarly, with three or four simple interventions, we could dramatically reduce child trauma, child maltreatment, risk of trauma, toxic stress, all of that. Things like universal access to evidence-based parenting programs, a minimum package of parenting programs that we now know, through systematic review, can improve child outcomes, reduce risk and maltreatment and even improve parental mental health outcomes. Secondly, parental leave making parental leave a universal norm, dramatically increasing parental leave, recognising it as a public good. Thirdly, ensuring that children from the age of three in preschool are in schools where they are safe and secure and seen and soothed.

Ben: 20:22

And fourthly, making people aware. If you think about it, people are aware of influenza or the common cold or how to manage a knee injury. Right, they know this stuff. It’s part of family conversation, it’s something that’s common knowledge. Really, child maltreatment, trauma and all of that is no more complex than the transmission of influenza. It’s not more complex. It is shrouded in taboo and stigma and shame and myth. But we can break all of those myths. We can break all of those constraints and make it something where everybody’s aware of the basics to underpin those changes.

Ben: 21:01

With those interventions, I believe we could dramatically reduce child maltreatment. I also think that child maltreatment is something that drives a number of social costs, right From addiction to poor mental health, to risk of being a perpetrator or victim of all kinds of violence, from gang violence to political violence to domestic violence. It puts us at risk of poor health and poor learning outcomes. And all of that, according to the special representative of the Secretary General of the UN on violence against children, says it costs us up to 12% of GDP, but the interventions that I’m suggesting we make globally available will be less than 1% of GDP. So we lose trillions by not addressing problems before they occur at scale, and that’s something I think we’re the first generation to be able to do that, and I think, because of that, we must be the last generation to see violence against children, maltreatment and trauma as being insurmountable social problems.

Colby: 22:09

Yeah, yeah, that’s terrific. While you were speaking there, my mind was going to what the universal parental education would look like, what the intervention into schools might look like. I wonder if you would comment on each of those things.

Ben: 22:39

Sure. So in terms of the parental parenting programs, they can be delivered in a number of ways In some countries because they already are available in about 25% of countries targeted not universal Right and what? The most common format is a home visit. That home visit often it’s bundled with a health visit, and so a home visitor comes and talks to you about health things like vaccines and nutrition, but also talks to you about play, engagement, positive discipline and all of that, and often a minimum package of that. A few visits in early childhood and then, like booster sessions, critical milestones like before adolescence can make all the difference. You know as an attachment expert that Bowlby and Ainsworth said that when a parent is able to either process their own insecure attachment or come up with a strategy for parenting, they’re much less likely to transmit it. And who and oxford university and unicef and others have done a vast systematic review with um hundreds of random I think 460 randomized controlled trials all over the world and found that parenting programs really make a difference. So there should be a minimum package of visits, but then progressive, in the sense that those that need more support can get more visits. This can also be backed up by things like group sessions. In South Africa, for example, they have group sessions for parents, but also grandparents, to talk about how they can ensure the best outcomes for their children. Also, apps are beginning to show real breakthroughs. There are some apps. I think there’s an app in India that reaches 20 million people. Unicef has an app called Bebo. There are many different apps which are actually really helpful for parents who are trying to access evidence based information. So I think you can have an ecosystem that has all of these things, with quality control supported by organizations like UNICEF, who and others.

Ben: 25:11

In terms of parental leave, I think every country in the world should be having a very minimum WHO standard of six months for the birth parent and four months for the other parent, but it could be all foster parents as well, or adoptive parents. I think it should be much more. The Scandinavian countries are showing a really good model for that um. I think that’s really important. Then, having family-friendly workplaces attached to that is also a part of that, that package.

Ben: 25:29

And then schools really having um systems in place where teachers would create a system where where where children are seen and safe and secure, and where teachers are aware of trauma. They’re aware of the prevalence of trauma, because in an average classroom of 30 kids, half of the kids have experienced an adverse childhood experience, a risk factor for trauma and toxic stress. So you know, this idea from the past that you know it’s one or two kids in a class that are in touch with the social work system that are the really vulnerable kids is wrong, recognising that it is across the board and what we need to do is make sure that kids have a strong sense of belonging and uh, um and you know uh, connection with a teacher and, as you mentioned earlier, peers.

Colby: 26:28

the peers thing is really important in adolescence because, of course, in adolescence, it’s peer relationships that are the most important thing for children yeah, yeah, thank you, and um, have you had an opportunity to observe or otherwise get a sense of what the uptake of these measures might be across Western and non-Western countries, jurisdictions, western and non-Western?

Ben: 27:01

countries, jurisdictions. Yeah, I think there’s a lot of enthusiasm, very little resistance to parenting programs, which is interesting because a parenting program often is like going into the house, going into the home, but there’s a lot of hunger for parenting skills. You know, I think increasingly the world is talking about the fact that many of us grow up with intergenerational issues of trauma or or neglect at home. Um, and then even people that haven’t got that want to know what’s the best way of securing the best future for their kid. So I see a lot of um support and interest and very little resistance. I I speak to people that I interview, people in the book that are receiving parenting programmes, people that deliver them, for example, and there’s a lot of interest and I think it’s just a question of making it a normal thing, normal part of childhood, a normal part of parenting, the way that vaccines is or the way that schools are.

Colby: 28:02

Yeah, sometimes I talk about how birds don’t have bird parenting experts that teach them how to raise their birds, and neither do wolves or, you know, even the other great apes. So there is that view that parental advice and guidance is really not necessary, that we are meant to be the most sophisticated, uh, of at least of the great apes, if not of the whole entire animal kingdom, on this. How, why, why can’t, why do we need parenting experts? We, we’ve, you know, we’ve been parented ourselves. We’ve learned from the things that our parents do well and the things that our parents don’t do so well. Um, and we, we must have a, an inbred instinct, just like other members of the animal kingdom. Do what? What would you say to that?

Ben: 29:14

well, they do research on rats I think it’s. My community does research on rats and what they do is they see the same patterns of poor attachment in other animals and they see that those that are licked and groomed by their parent have much better outcomes, are much more likely to go out into the world and be a success by rat standards, right, and so it’s the same as humans. You know it’s the same as humans. We know that humans that don’t grow up with a strong sense of being safe and loved are more likely to have poorer interpersonal relationships, are more likely to do poorly in school, to be addicted, to have all of these problems.

Ben: 30:03

You know the Center for Disease Control in the United States, the major public health institution, has an index of 40 different well-being indicators, from suicide to osteoporosis to addiction, everything, everything, and there’s almost a step increase every risk of negative outcome for every adverse childhood experience a person has had. So somebody that has been suffered emotional neglect emotional via verbal violence, for example, and physical violence and witness domestic violence, for example these are four things quite common, all of them very common is multiple times more likely to have a poor outcome across all of those 40 well-being indicators. So that’s why really I think we do have an instinct, that’s why really I think we do have an instinct, but for maybe at least 40% of us, that instinct is driven by intergenerational trauma, toxic stress, neglect and violence.

Colby: 31:18

And we, now that we know because we didn’t know throughout history, now that we we know, we should be able to stop that cycle and make people you know, ensure that people can flourish yeah, it put me in mind of when you were talking about the rats, because when I’m delivering training, I’ll uh, I will talk also about another group of rats, the rats that were in skinner’s operant conditioning experiments. And people go oh, aren’t you supposed to be an attachment person rather than a behavioural person, when, in actual fact, there should be a lot. In my view, and this is what Bowlby did there should be a lot more cross-fertilisation of ideas and theories and knowledge, rather than siloing of ideas and theories and knowledge, rather than siloing Skinner with his rat experiments and the operant conditioning paradigm. It was really quite interesting because, though he didn’t go down that path at least not that I’m aware of there is a group of rats and pigeons in his research that are very much like our children, who’ve experienced grossly inadequate care, and they’re the rats and pigeons who are in an inconsistent reinforcement paradigm. They got their needs met inconsistently in response to a gesture, and the gesture was to either peck a button or push down on a lever, and the operant conditionings paradigm teaches us a lot about learning and adjustment in those circumstances. So and I also, while you were talking, I was thinking about a conversation I had with a previous guest. It may actually have been a YouTube video, I’m not sure which.

Colby: 33:07

But talking about these now, I’m hoping I’m not going to butcher it, but I think they were mosquitoes. You can put mosquitoes into a jar and they try to get out of the jar. You put all these, but if you, and if you so, they kind of go up and down in the jar. Now, if you put some clear film halfway up the jar, that prevents them going all the way to the top and and getting out after a while, you can take the clear film away and they’ll never try and jump out of the jar. They just go up and down, and that’s really interesting, I guess, until and you think, well, you know, they’ve just learnt that that’s as high as they can go.

Colby: 33:58

Well, this is where it gets really interesting, which is that their offspring also only jump as high. So their offspring don’t go out of the, notwithstanding that there’s no longer a clear film to stop them from getting out. They only go as high as their parents do, and I think that’s. You’ve spoken a little bit about the cost of child maltreatment, but that seems to bear quite significantly. Uh as well. Uh, on that, that issue, that, um. You know, what are we transmitting down through the generations?

Ben: 34:39

the, the positive psychologists, I think, would describe what you’ve just described as learned helplessness, seligman would. That’s what happens. I think that happens often with communities already beaten down. Yeah, I think that. Yeah, I guess that it’s obvious now from psychology, from neuroscience, from population level data, that a lot of these things are intergenerational, that you know they are acquired characteristics from you know that are transmitted through the culture of families.

Ben: 35:28

And, of course, resmei Mannequin, who’s a leading scholar on mental health and race in the United States, says it really well. He says that you know that people respond. He’s talking often about racism and slavery in the United States, but people respond. He’s talking often about racism and slavery in the United States, but people respond they maladapt to a context that’s passed on through generations. The context is forgotten and it becomes the culture, and I think that’s something that is often seen in communities that have been oppressed and affected by collective trauma, if they don’t have the, the holocaust and slavery and also the situation of the native American Indians and the boarding schools, which would have a lot in common with um, with with the um, aboriginal, uh and Torres Strait Islander community in Australia I hope I’m saying that correctly in Australia, um, I think, I think there’s a there’s also. We think, as well as thinking about individual, um trauma, we also need to think about communal trauma.

Colby: 36:48

Yeah, yeah, and I think the the other thing that was, I guess. Well, the thing that was going through my mind as well in relation to the, the mosquito story is I is that we can’t do nothing If we do nothing. It just gets, as you say, transmitted, transmitted through the generations. But if we can but it might be too simplistic to say this but if you can change the course or the trajectory of one generation, then you end up with perhaps a multi-generational change of trajectory. So when you talk about we had the opportunity to end child maltreatment, and the impact of doing that and the importance of that endeavour really is not just for those children and young people who otherwise would have had quite an adverse experience growing up, but you’re changing the trajectory for their life partners, their children and their grandchildren. So yeah.

Ben: 38:06

So if you look at an issue like crime, if you go to most juvenile justice facilities, the young people that are involved in crime continuously, and serious crime, over 90% have four or more adverse childhood experiences.

Ben: 38:29

If you could, um prevent adverse childhood experiences before they occur, um, from what we can see, it would have a dramatic increase on propensity to commit crime, to be involved in violence, to take risk, because risk is related to the adolescent brain.

Ben: 38:49

You know it’s adolescent brain development, right? So you have. If you have this toxic combination of poor attachment and trauma in early childhood crashing against the really complex process of adolescent brain development, you have this really high risk and almost all children at very serious risk of being exploited or being involved in crime or violence are coming from those kind of backgrounds. If you speak to people that dealt with the Epstein case the girls that were targeted or if you look at radicalisation, or look at the kind of people that end up in far right groups or people that end up addicted or victims of grooming, almost exclusively coming from very high ace backgrounds, if you could eradicate most forms of adversity by ensuring that children have the four S’s in both the family and school and community early on, then you’re going to completely transform all of those risks across society, making society a much better place for the future and for future generations.

Colby: 40:08

Yes, yeah, and one of my earlier guests was Graeme Kerridge, who has had perhaps a not dissimilar career history, as you have, except in other organisations, but he was very interesting. We’ve had a number of people who have an economics background on this on this podcast, who, um, who moved into the, this social care, uh, into the social care arena and but anyway he, graham carriage, was very interested in human capital as part of his economic background and again, this really ties in with what we’re talking about. This idea of human capital is the human capital gains of reducing or eliminating the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences is significant. Yeah, yeah, you’ve mentioned your book. Well, I mentioned it first, but then you mentioned your book a few times Trauma proof, and let me read the healing attachment and the science of prevention. And let me read the Healing Attachment and the Science of Prevention.

Colby: 41:33

I think I’ve butchered it every single time. I’ve tried to say it. But tell us about your book. Tell us. You’ve mentioned stories. I’m getting really excited about reading it now. So there you go. I haven’t read it yet, but I only just recently learned that it was already out, so I’m looking forward to it. But tell us a bit about your book and who you think it would be of most interest and usefulness to.

Ben: 42:07

Well, the first thing is I probably need a new title if it doesn’t slip off the tongue so easily, because it won’t get that kind of contagion, don’t worry about it.

Colby: 42:18

It’s not unusual for me to struggle with verbal fluency. It’s pretty, it’s a bit embarrassing being both verbose and not particularly verbally fluent.

Ben: 42:34

Oh, you’re doing fine, yeah. So I wanted to write a book that would present this argument that you could end child maltreatment, and you bring all the data together, the economics of it and all of that and all the science. So I talk about the history of attachment theory and, and, uh, the evolution of aces and our understanding of toxic stress, um, some of the economic arguments about return on investment. That comes from james james heckman at university of chicago. Loads and loads of science, but I also do lots of storytelling. Um, when I went to the agent and the publisher and said I want to do a book about how you end child maltreatment, they said that’s great, but you need to include something else as well, which is you’ve got something to say about how people heal, right, how you healed and how others heal. So it has to be about healing and prevention and attachment. So the book, in addition to putting forward the idea that we can end child maltreatment, it also argues the case that we can heal at any age. Almost everybody can go through some kind of healing process and, as a result of that um have a much better quality of life. So every chapter tells a story of somebody and the stories are from all over the world, um. So the first part of the book is really focused on kind of the, the, the, the prevalence of uh, child maltreatment, the parameters of it, what we know about it. The second part is really focused on parenting and talks about parenting programs and parental leave, but through stories. So, for example, the one on parental leave. I do a comparison between two different families, one in Alabama in the United States, where they have really harsh policies on parental leave, and one in Estonia where they have the most progressive policies in the world, and looks at what happened to the parents through both different processes. Then there’s a part about schools and community and crime. And then there’s a part about collective trauma, societal issues like myth and stigma and taboo. And the final part is really my call to action on what we should be doing about all of this. And it tells something of my own story as well.

Ben: 45:06

My own story about intergenerational the issue of healing and intergenerational trauma is kind of this you know, I lived most of my life as an outwardly successful person who was really not having um. You know the quality of life I would have because of the way that I felt inside, which is completely normal if you grow up without parents. You know, viol, the quality of life I would have because of the way that I felt inside, which is completely normal if you grow up without parents. You know Viola Davis says you grow up with this sense that you’re wrong Not that you’ve done something wrong, but that you are wrong and living with that inside me the whole time, while being outwardly successful and doing well and suppressing it. You know, it was something that I kind of thought was normal and then, when I realized that I lived with all of that trauma inside of me, um, I went through a transformation, through healing, uh, seeing a therapist and changing my life. It felt like the world went from black and white to color, and then when to colour. And then when I got married and we had our son, I held my son in my arms and I just instinctively knew or felt that what happened to me as a child was completely unimaginable to myself. The cycle had just broken. I got what you experts would call an insecure attachment, like I would walk to the end of the earth to protect, love, nurture my son. And that’s something that I thought very consciously of because I’d had to go through a lot of work to become, to become the kind of person that could instinctively feel that um.

Ben: 46:56

So that’s my healing journey, but I talk about lots of other people’s healing journeys as well. There’s a guy that was a gang member in Glasgow who was in prison and went through a process of change. There was a, a woman here from new york that was born into um to a crack affected family. Her parents died, which is very young, um, and she had a teacher that helped her and now she’s a big-time campaigner in washington dc for disadvantaged kids.

Ben: 47:23

All these amazing people, scottish member of parliament, um, who had post-natal depression, who talks publicly about it. All these different, amazing people. I got to interview them also on the Holocaust and slavery and other things, all of that. There’s a famous saying by the writer James Baldwin and I can’t quote it exactly, I’ll probably butt-tread. But you think your suffering and pain is personal, pervasive, pervasive, permanent, personal to you. But then you read dostoevsky or tolstoy and you realize that a couple of hundred years ago elsewhere in the world, people going through the same thing and like putting together these different stories of healing and trauma from all around the world, completely different cultures, but people going through broadly the same thing, I think was really cathartic for me and I think for the people I interviewed as well, and hopefully it’s uplifting for people that would read it.

Colby: 48:21

Awesome. Where can you get a copy most easily?

Ben: 48:26

Well, you know, it’s on uh. It’s on uh kindle audible audio and a hard copy. It’s available, I think, through most good bookshops where you are in australia. I get feedback from people that read in australia and in most places there is a different version in North America because there’s a different publisher. There’s a different audible audiobook in North America and the one in North America went through a second round of editing, came out a bit later, so it’s slightly different, but they’re probably the same thing. So it’s available everywhere, I think.

Colby: 49:07

I hope yeah, if it’s not, let me know you haven’t gone on done what I did. I mean, not long after my first book came out, I was on the internet to look where it was coming out and what people were saying about it.

Ben: 49:20

Yeah, yeah, I do do that. You know it generally had good reviews so far. This has been a very busy year in my regular job with the UN. You know the UN’s gone through a lot of changes and so I haven’t had as much time as I wish to promote it. But I’m going to be doing a bit more of that now. I hope it just came out at the beginning of this year. It came out in April in North America, so it’s relatively new, yeah, yeah terrific.

Colby: 49:51

It’s been awesome to have you on and have a chat to you, Ben, about your life and work. I’ve asked you a lot of questions. Is there anything you’d like to ask me before we wrap up?

Ben: 50:03

What do you think about? You’re an attachment expert. What do you think about the idea that we could be the first generation to end child maltreatment if we have a public health approach to it?

Colby: 50:18

I think, in considering my response, I think we live in slightly different worlds, and what I mean by that by saying that, is that I think where I live and work and I’m not talking about here in Adelaide, south Australia, I’m talking about the level of where I sit in terms of exposure to child maltreatment I think it can be really hard for people to think and believe or even consider that what we’re dealing with every day, what we’re seeing, what we’re immersed in, I would say, can be ended or at least significantly reduced in some way. I think we all believe that if that happened and that happened and that happened, you know we’ve all got ideas about how you could end it. I think the benefit of the argument that you’re making is that it’s a bit like the difference between thinking and metacognition. So thinking is just thinking, as we always do, the thoughts that come into our head, and those thoughts are very much linked to what’s happening, you know, to our experience of ourselves, of our surroundings, of our life, that our thoughts are very much linked to emotion. Metacognition is thinking, about thinking, and it’s that higher order thinking where we’re noticing what we’re thinking, where we’re noticing what we’re experiencing, and at that level, we are less emotionally attached to what we’re noticing as such, and this is the foundation of certain therapeutic traditions that exist now, the foundation of certain therapeutic traditions that that exist now. And so I think the benefit of what you are advocating and talking about is perhaps, um, you’ve had, you you’ve had direct personal experience and I think direct parent personal experiences is very important but you’re able, you, you’ve risen above in a way. You’ve risen above and been able to take that more, that meta view, um, and I think so, I think probably a lot of people in who work in it, in this, in those systems, I think if they had time to be able to go to a metacognitive place, to be able to, and maybe your book will help, maybe your book will be a source of tremendous comfort and inspiration for the workers on the ground.

Colby: 53:32

That’s who I’m really referring to and who I count myself one amongst, is the workers on the ground. I think the book, as you describe it, perhaps will present some hope that there are things that can be done at a systems level or a government level, a country level, an international level, that can make a meaningful impact on child protection. So that’s how I would say it is that I think. I think it’s. It’s probably hard for the people at the coalface to, but uh, but necessary for them to feel like something can be done, because when you’re at the coalface you just think, oh, it’s very hard, yeah that’s a brilliant point.

Ben: 54:31

I gave a talk recently at oxford and do a lot of practitioners there and I was describing this public health approach that I’m promoting. They said, well, what about the family that doesn’t respond to parenting? Or what about this? You know this or that, and they won’t get it? And I think it’s not.

Ben: 54:49

I think what you’re doing with the public health approach is a long-term process. Yes, right, like you, you started off in like 1980 where people thought it was normal, insurmountable, that millions of children died and then, gradually, as pieces were built on the audacity of saying that we can end this, there was a whole system, a public health system in place. Uh, that could protect you, I think. I think it’s like that. I think that you’re, you’re gonna, you know you’re gonna have, with a kind of really public health approach, you can have improvements across the board over time, but you’re always going to have those hard to reach kind of parts of the community that need more work. And I think it’s a long-term process where you change the whole culture of society around the issue over a generation. Yeah, I think that’s the approach, but we have to start the work.

Colby: 55:41

Yeah, look, and I think that in my own jurisdiction here and many jurisdictions, people at the coalface who are on the ground doing child protection work all the time. Morale is often compromised and there is a risk of people becoming quite cynical about the work, and I think it’s and that’s a shame. It’s a shame for them, but it’s also a shame for the people who come into contact with them and you know the families that are struggling, the children who can’t, for a period of time, be safely cared for at home, and I think everyone gets involved in this, wanting to make a difference. We all want it, but sometimes there’s a risk that it can seem like it will never end and there’s a degree of hopelessness.

Colby: 56:49

I think one of the power, powerful thing, messages of what you’re talking about is we’ve done it, we’ve done it before, we’ve done it in other, in other ways, in another, in other areas.

Colby: 57:02

Of course, we haven’t reduced it to zero, we haven’t eradicated all diseases, but we have had a. We have had a good and sustained crack at a number of things and seen a global, a significant global reduction, if not elimination, of um certain ills that that beset us in this life and why not? Child protection as well. And the other thing I think about that message and I often ask guests this later in the podcast I’ve avoided asking you any questions that might come hard up against your role in the UN and not wanting to be seen as speaking on behalf of the UN and not wanting to be seen as speaking on behalf of the UN. But I think a book like yours should be inspirational at multiple levels of the work and in particular, I would say, at the level of the policymakers, the level of government, the level of the policy makers, the level of government. So I think, hope, hope in a direction to get us out of, away from and towards a better future for our children, their children and grandchildren as well.

Ben: 58:27

Thank you very much and, on the back of what you just said, can I just end by saying massive gratitude to all the people that work in the child protection workforce, both in Australia and all around the world. Yeah, terrific.

Colby: 58:43

Thanks, ben, and hope to speak to you again at another time.

Ben: 58:49

Absolutely Thank you. It’s been a real pleasure. Thank you very much, Colby.

Transforming Lives: Dr. Kiran Modi’s Journey with Vulnerable Children in India

Every child deserves a sunrise and a new beginning

Dr. Kiran Modi’s remarkable journey from academia to founding one of India’s most influential child welfare organizations offers profound insights into transformative care models for vulnerable children. With a PhD in American literature, Kiran’s unexpected pivot into child welfare began with a deeply personal childhood experience of being separated from her parents – a brief but formative moment that instilled in her a visceral understanding of the trauma children face when separated from family care.

Founded in 1994, Udayan Care has evolved from a single children’s home to a comprehensive organization operating across 36 cities in 15 Indian states, with international chapters in the USA and Germany. What distinguishes Kiran’s approach is her holistic vision of child welfare that extends far beyond institutional care. The organization’s name itself – “Udayan” meaning “eternal sunrise” or “new beginning” in Sanskrit – embodies its mission to bring light and hope to vulnerable children’s lives.

The cornerstone of Udayan Care’s innovation is the LIFE (Living in Family Environment) model for group homes. Unlike traditional orphanages with rotating staff and institutional environments, these “Sunshine Homes” create genuine family-like settings with remarkable stability through a unique feature: voluntary mentor parents. These committed individuals, currently numbering 29, pledge lifelong relationships with the children – providing consistent emotional support even while not living in the homes full-time. This addresses the critical issue of attachment disruption that so many institutionalized children face, directly implementing John Bowlby’s attachment theory in practical care settings.

Kiran’s research-informed practice led to India’s first comprehensive care leavers study, examining the challenges faced by young people aging out of institutional care. The study identified critical gaps across eight domains: identity and legal awareness, housing, independent living skills, social support, emotional wellbeing, physical health, education and vocational skills, and financial independence. These findings directly informed policy changes, including improved aftercare planning, increased financial support, and the creation of India’s first care leavers networks – demonstrating how research can drive tangible system improvements.

Perhaps most impressive is Kiran’s integration of therapeutic approaches with practical support. Trauma-informed care underpins all services, with Kiran poignantly observing that trauma “lodges in your heart” – we don’t overcome it completely, but rather develop coping mechanisms and resilience. Through this lens, Udayan Care’s model combines Bowlby’s attachment theory, Erikson’s psychosocial development framework, and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems approach to address children’s needs holistically.

Kiran’s work extends beyond direct service to include advocacy, research and policy influence. She established BICON (Biennial International Conference on Alternative Care for Children in Asia) and launched an international academic journal focused on institutionalized children. This multilayered approach – connecting grassroots practice with research, policy and global networking – creates systemic change rather than just service delivery.

For organizations seeking to implement similar models, Kiran emphasizes several key principles: prioritizing mental health and trauma-informed approaches; developing secure attachments through stable relationships; addressing developmental needs through frameworks like Erikson’s stages; embedding children within communities rather than isolating them; building resilience and coping skills; and fostering spiritual well-being and purpose.

As we consider global challenges in child welfare, Kiran’s integrated model offers valuable lessons. By combining family-like environments, professional therapeutic support, community integration, and pathways to independence, Udayan Care demonstrates how we might better serve our most vulnerable children while advocating for systems that prevent family separation in the first place.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

About Kiran:

Kiran has a PhD in American Literature from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Kiran founded Udayan Care, a non-profit organization, in 1994.

Since then Udayan Care has delivered programs at national and international level, with a focus on family strengthening and care reform.

Under Kiran’s leadership, Udayan Care now operates in 36 cities across 15 states in India and has international chapters in the USA and Germany.

Kiran developed the LIFE (Living In Family Environment) model for group homes, initiated aftercare programs, and launched the Udayan Shalini Fellowship, which has supported over 16,000 girls in higher education. Kiran also established 24 IT and Vocational Training Centers, training over 30,000 youth.

Kiran has pioneered several initiatives including BICON, Biennial International Conference on Alternative Care for Children in Asia, (BICONs), Asia’s largest platform for care reform; an international journal, ICB, Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond, and related initiatives.

Kiran led India’s first care leavers study, resulting in new programs and the formation of the country’s first care leavers’ network, as well as a global network of care leavers.

Kiran is a recipient of many prestigious awards, including the National Award for Child Welfare – India’s highest commendation for a non-profit child welfare organisation, and has contributed to several research papers in national and international journals.

Related Podcasts:

Patricia Sheridan

Listen here:

Watch here:

The Lighthouse Foundation

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Kiran: 0:20

Then you can do individual care for each and every child. So this is the kind of stability we are able to bring in. Children know that the others may come and go, but my mentors would remain and we’ve been able to facilitate care leavers networks as a global care practice. Aftercare does not stop. Even when they become an ARG, they leave after care, they become Udian Care alumni.

Colby: 0:51

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me today for this episode is a highly respected figure in child and family welfare in India and beyond. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I’m meeting on, the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Kaurna people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest today is Dr Kiran Modi. Kiran has a PhD in American literature from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.

Colby: 1:40

In 1994, Kiran founded Udayan Care, a non-profit organisation. Since then, Udayan Care has delivered programs at national and international level, with a focus on family strengthening and care reform. Under Kiran’s leadership, Udayan Care now operates in 36 cities across 15 states in India and has international chapters in the United States of America and Germany. Kiran developed the Life Living in Family Environment model for group homes, initiated aftercare programs and launched the Udayan Shalini Fellowship, which has supported over 16,000 girls in higher education. Kiran also established 24 IT and vocational training centres, training over 30,000 youth.

Colby: 2:39

Kiran has pioneered several initiatives, including BICON, the Biennial International Conference on Alternative Care for Children in Asia, BICON, Asia’s largest platform for care reform, and an international journal Institutionalized Children’s Explorations and Beyond. Kiran led India’s first care leavers study, resulting in new programs and the formation of the country’s first care leavers network, as well as a global network of care leavers. Kiran is a recipient of many prestigious awards, including the National Award for Children for Child Welfare India’s highest commendation for a non-profit child welfare organisation and has contributed to several research papers in national and international journals. Welcome Kiran.

Kiran: 3:38

It’s such an opportunity. Thank you, piers, for giving me this opportunity. I don’t know whether I should call you Colby or.

Colby: 3:45

Yeah, colby’s good, colby’s fine. And I just like we just also should acknowledge Lena, who is also joining us on this podcast, and she will be helping you with some slides that you wish to show during the podcast. And Lena is your Director of Advocacy, research and Training there at Udayan Care. Thank, you.

Colby: 4:09

Thank you. Yeah, so I feel very privileged to have you on, kieran, and it’s also nice to have someone on who’s in a relatively similar time zone for me. So it’s mid-afternoon for me and mid-morning I think for you, mid to late morning. Yes, yes, and I just tell you that somewhat embarrassingly when we were first communicating and you were putting IMT, I was reading that as international median time. I thought I thought it meant Greenwich Meridian time, not Indian. So that was my bad. We say that was my bad here. So, anyway, glad that we got it sorted out after a while. So, kieran, can I first ask you to perhaps just tell us about Udayan care and in particular, perhaps mention what the word Udayan means and how does the definition of Udayan relate to the work?

Kiran: 5:14

It’s a lovely question, very near to my heart. Udayan is a Sanskrit word. It means eternal sunrise or a new beginning At Udayan Kaya. This is the essence that guides everything that we do. We strive to bring light into the lives of children, youth and women who have experienced deep vulnerabilities.

Kiran: 5:37

We were founded in 1994 and we had three major verticals and I would just like to tell you family strengthening. Actually it anchors all our programs in all these verticals we are looking at how do you strengthen the families so that children do not remain vulnerable, they don’t get separated from the families. So, first silo, as you can see, child protection and alternative care, under which we have many programs. But you mentioned also the group home model, which is called GAR. Gar means you know children’s homes. Then there is aftercare. There are several programs for care leavers. In the second vertical, which is education, skilling and employability, you’ve already introduced this to the audience, but I would just like to reiterate Shalini Fellowship Program and the Information Technology and Vocational Training Program. They are looking at vulnerable girls from the communities, youth and empowering them as per their capability higher education, vocational training and finally getting into employment. The third silo, which is very, very near to my heart because I’m also realizing again and again just service delivery will not make systemic change. How do you bring about that systemic change? That’s why we started this vertical, and I’m so glad that Lina is here with me. She’s heading this department.

Kiran: 7:08

Art means advocacy, research and training, so we’ve been doing a lot of consultations and seminars. You’ve already mentioned biennial conferences and I’m so happy to say that in October of this year 2025, we will be having an international conference. This will be the sixth one. In Malaysia.

Kiran: 7:30

We take out an academic journal you have already mentioned, and I always like to say that it’s a niche journal, you know, because it’s not about social work, it’s not about child rights, it’s actually about children who are without parental care. It’s actually about children who are without parental care. How do you strengthen the communities so that every child gets a family-like environment to grow up in? Then we’ve been conducting a lot of research studies. Almost 100 research papers have been published in different journals, including our own, and trainings, which is again very, very important, because we are working with several governments in India where we are training the child protection functionaries into delivering their work even better and learning from them as well. So it’s not only we are training, we are also learning, and I would just like to say that you know our children without parental care. When they get all these opportunities, you know the underserved children and youth they can really go places that’s lovely.

Colby: 8:34

Yeah, it’s such a an awesome endeavor, or endeavors, array of endeavors, that you’re doing for vulnerable children and young people, and I’m very pleased to be able to hear about it today. And you said something in there that is interesting to me, and I think it’s important to acknowledge that, just when you said just providing a good service or service provision alone doesn’t necessarily bring about systemic change. We do need to be doing research and advocacy around the work that we do, and I was introduced to an interesting term by a recent guest, which was pracademic, by which she meant, yeah, being both a practitioner and a researcher, and connecting.

Colby: 9:37

And her name is Lisa Etherson. She talked about shame containment theory, but it was new to me and I think I think she was making the point that not only is it necessary, as you say to, to do something more than just provide, do service provision. We are the best people to do research in this sector, the service providers, yes.

Kiran: 10:04

The practitioner’s experience has to inform policy and research.

Colby: 10:10

Yes, yeah. So what led you into this? I noticed you have a PhD in American literature, but you’ve kind of gone down the child and family welfare path. What led you into this work, kieran?

Kiran: 10:27

So actually, you know that life experiences as a child. I was only 80 years old and I just can’t forget. I was on a very, very busy road full of people with my parents and suddenly I found myself lost and I cried my heart out and finally the police took me to the police station where my parents came after some time looking for me everywhere. They were looking so worried and I was so relieved to find them. This thought remained with me just a few seconds of parental separation, you know. It formed my childhood, it informed my childhood, it continued with me in my youth, you know. So I think it was a very powerful experience which really, you know, made me understand what do children without parental care go through? And then, a quirk of a fate, I had personal tragedy and from the world of literature, suddenly I was thrown into the world of reality and I realized I need to do something, and especially when I found that my son was doing so much with his meager income in America, I really need to take that work forward and I started thinking of setting up an organization which can serve the underserved here.

Kiran: 11:55

In the initial one year it really took me. I went around to all kinds of causes, at least 150 organizations I visited. In one of my visits to an orphanage there was a child who just took, took hold of me and said please take me home. That remained with me. That remained with me and my childhood trauma of that parental separation came back to me and I said here is something. And that’s where in India, the model of children’s homes were always. You know, even the juvenile justice act was talking about 100 children’s homes, so largely children were very big homes and they were little away from society. Based on all that and my personal belief in that the family model has to be there, we set up our life. Udayan Khars means living in family environment. That was my first venture into the development sector.

Colby: 12:59

Yeah, lovely and, I think, such a stark portrayal of an experience for you of what it feels like to be separated from family, and that extends even to children and young people whose families are struggling with their care, yeah, and or are very dysfunctional. The children still feel keenly that separation, yeah. So you visited more than 100 organisations I think you said more than 150 organisations in that year before you went down this particular path and you started out in 1994. And how easy or difficult was it to establish Udayan Care and the work that it did?

Kiran: 14:02

I would say it wasn’t really difficult in the beginning. You know, all you need is some kindred soul who speak to you, who understand where you come from, and just find those kind of people who will support you. So once you’ve been built that kind of a support system and the legal legalities of setting up an organization is done and also your cause is very clear, then you know it’s not such a big challenge. But of course, limited infrastructure, low awareness in India about child rights and especially low awareness about small homes where children could live like a family. So there was a lot of skepticism and the government was running such large homes. To get a license for a 12 children home was also quite difficult, you know. So I really had to fight it out. But you know, as they say, one right person really brings about a change. There was this officer in one of the women and child development department. She understood where I was coming from. I said how would you understand a child’s trauma or the need if there are hundreds of them are together? If there are smaller numbers, then you can do individual care for each and every child and the adequate resources could be provided. So she understood my point and they allowed me the first license. Then, of course, more licenses came and we set up 17 homes at one point of time.

Kiran: 15:37

Resource mobilization, as you know, it’s always a constant challenge for any organization, but I think we were really blessed we have been able to find actually, you know, I always say the man upstairs, god, he’s there to help us, so I don’t have to worry about resource mobilization, he takes care. The biggest challenge was how do you find the workforce who is qualified, who is trauma-informed and who are interested in learning and sticking on with you? Children they have suffered unstable families uh, you know broken relationships and then they come here in a children’s home. They want, you know, that kind of a stability.

Kiran: 16:20

But the reality of the world, at least in India, is that it’s very difficult to retain people because you know it’s becoming like how any profession you know earlier it used to be different. It wasn’t really social work was really looked at only as a profession, mostly people with large hearts. They were coming here so. But the things have started changing. So it becomes very difficult to get qualified and trauma-informed workforce. Also to develop partnerships both at the local and international level with policy makers to your next-door neighbor. How do you develop these kind of partnerships with different NGOs, with different funding agencies? So these collaborations were again difficult, but it wasn’t very difficult we were able to do. I think the key is you have to persist, there has to be a transparency in your work and, of course, an unwavering belief in your mission which can take you forward.

Colby: 17:21

Yeah, yeah, lovely. Something that you said in there that resonated with me quite a lot was um, uh, I, I strongly believe that when we just focus on doing a good job, that the, you know that, the, the other things that are necessary, the people, the, the, the financial arrangements, they tend to fall into place and and at least that’s what I found, and it sounds like that’s what you found as well Absolutely.

Kiran: 17:51

And also another challenge which I would like to put it across is the ecosystem which is changing. You know the legal legalities, the legal provisions, whether it is for foreign donation, whether it is for you know, different kinds of paperwork it’s becoming. You know so much of paperwork in India also, which I realized when I visited some organizations abroad that the social workers end up doing a lot of paperwork and we never used to have so much, but now it is increasingly, you know, becoming more and more so it becomes like a tick box for many things, so, which is a little bit painful, but we are trying to deal with it.

Colby: 18:31

Yeah, yeah, I don’t think you’re on your own there.

Colby: 18:35

I think that there, as you say, you saw that in many of the organisations that you visited and even here in Australia, in the jurisdictions I’m familiar with, I think the paperwork has long been a bone of contention amongst workers who really just want to help children and and families.

Colby: 18:58

Yeah, yeah, you know, kieran, one of the things that really intrigued me about your organization and and your bio when I read it was the care leaver study that you did. Care leavers are very near and dear to my heart. I have primarily worked long term as a psychotherapist in the child protection space and out of home care space and I’ve kept in touch with or at least they’ve kept in touch with me a great many of the care leavers that I knew when they were younger people and in care, and I’ve always been really concerned, I guess, about the lack of support for a great many of our care leavers and the struggles that they have post-care. So I’m really interested to hear a bit more about your care leaver study and how that was then translated into better support for care leavers.

Kiran: 20:10

Yes, since you know, as we’ve been talking about, both of us agree that you know practice should inform your research. And you know, as we’ve been talking about, both of us agree that you know practice should inform your research and you know your advocacy. So, after running these homes for so many years and their children were growing up, 18, and then they were given aftercare, so they were supported fully, and we realized that many organizations are not able to do that kind of work, even though the government mandate was there to support youth, you know, as they are growing up at 18. You can’t expect them to be on their own at the age of 18. But it wasn’t happening in a very big manner. So we decided to conduct a study and we were lucky enough to get partnerships from UNICEF and Tata Trust. I did to conduct a study and we were lucky enough to get partnerships from UNICEF and Tata Trust. So this study was conducted in five states of India where we took up 500 youth and first of all, it was so difficult to trace children who have gone out of those institutions, if they are not being supported, so it was very, very difficult to find them. But when we developed our questionnaire was, again, you know, a very big process of you know to and fro, getting participation from the care leavers also. Finally, we finalized our tools and then we started doing studies and some of the the gaps which came out.

Kiran: 21:30

I would like to just tell you and the the youth that they were telling us. We realized where are the gaps? Gaps are in identity and legal awareness. So they don’t understand who am I as a caregiver? Am I a caregiver or am I a human being? You know, who should we support? What is my legal awareness level? Most of the caregivers did not even know that they are entitled to aftercare support Housing. Most of them did not know after 18 where to go because in India we don’t have any special system other than some aftercare hostels set up by government or NGOs like us. So there was a big problem about housing. If they would like to take an apartment, it wasn’t easy for them to get the paperwork done.

Kiran: 22:18

Independent living skills what we realized? Children who were growing up here in institutions or in foster care. Everything was done for them, so they were not learning the independent living skills. So we felt that this is a big gap. Then another gap that came out was social support and interpersonal skills. When you are in a children’s home, largely you are meeting children of your own kind. When you go to school, it’s only for a short while. Then again you come back to the routine of the home. You don’t get an opportunity to go out and meet society at large. So they become, you know, their interpersonal skills they do. They are not able to develop.

Kiran: 22:57

We also realize children who suffered so much trauma and abuse when they were separated from the family. Sometimes family itself was the perpetrator and so many times after, you know, leaving the family, they land up on streets there again more. Uh, you know trauma is perpetrated on them. How do they have emotional well-being? Are the, the care homes able to address their emotional well-being? Give them support, trauma-informed care so that they are able to. When nobody can really overcome trauma, this is what I believe.

Kiran: 23:33

At best a scab is formed and at the littlest of the provocation the scab is gone and the blood starts oozing. But still, to even to form that scab and even to inform the children how you can deal with your issues, the coping mechanisms, the resilience, how much is being done? We found there was a big gap. Physical health wasn’t so bad 78 percent children, but they did not have any insurance. So without insurance it’s so difficult to go for any kind of a proper care, education and vocational skills was taking a real, you know, back step. Because the children, they, their education gets disrupted when they leave the family and sometimes, from institution to institution, from one foster family to another, the education system is such that, you know, dropout rates increase and it becomes very difficult for them to cope up and if you don’t have the required education or vocational training, it’s absolutely impossible to gain financial independence and to develop a career. So these are some of the things that we develop and we call it a sphere of aftercare. So we feel every young person coming out of a childcare home or from a foster care, they should be getting support on these eight domains because these are, as you can see, these are interconnected. Nothing is standing on its own. You give housing, you don’t give others. It doesn’t make sense. So it all has to come in a package so that the youth, they are able to sustain themselves and go to the next level in their lives.

Kiran: 25:11

So you also asked me how did it support the larger system? So these recommendations which came out where we? Three things I would just like to point out, although there are many things, but we also have lack of time. So, uh, we were talking in india. For every child in an institution there has to be an icp individual care plan, but at it has no connection with your care plan, which was made for you. It has no future because there is no aftercare plan made. So we very strongly recommended that there should be an aftercare plan for every youth who is coming out after 18. So it happened in 2023, mission Vatsalya, which is a come and run scheme. There they are introducing IAP, which was a very big, you know, satisfaction for us.

Kiran: 26:03

In our recommendation we said there has to be an increased investment on aftercare. They were giving only 2000 rupees per youth and 2000 rupees is so measly, so measly and nobody can survive on that. So we requested you make it more so, from 19 pounds now to 38 pounds per month, which is still quite measly, but still because there are homes which are being provided so they are able to maintain. We also said there has to be a lot of linkages and convergence between educational institutions, between skilling ministries, between all these ministries must come together and more such with this convergence. Different government departments should be addressing the issues of the aftercare, youth and again, the mission Matsilya talks about it.

Kiran: 27:02

We also said how do you strengthen the voices of care leavers? Before that there was no care leavers sorry network. So we, I mean, I always take very, I feel very happy that we were the instrument by which many care leavers came together and they set up platforms for peer networking and mentoring and supporting each other. We also talked about that. There should be proper aftercare guidelines. You know, of course, in the law it is mentioned, but without a proper guideline, how do you know anybody function? So I’m so glad that now state level guidelines are there in many states as many as 13 states and others are also developing their own guidelines. So actually care, after care and care leavers is becoming a word which people have started understanding and recognizing and recognizing we also did at our level many models we developed to support caregivers. So this evidence that we created helped us in incubating programs because, again, as I’ve been saying, practice informs research and research should inform practice, because if you don’t bring back those learnings, there is no point. So we started our aftercare outreach program in 2020.

Kiran: 28:18

And here in six states of India, we are taking care leavers and supporting them for their next level on those eight domains that I showed you. In the sphere of aftercare, then we have started the care leavers networks, which I’ve already told you. After care, then we have started the care leavers networks which I’ve already told you. And now the care leavers are themselves, you know, putting it forward. In many states, care leavers themselves have set up such you know networks. Many states, ngos are also coming forward. Even UNICEF has been a very big driver to bring care leavers networks and we started a fellowship which is a very, very beautiful fellowship. It is called lift learning in fellowship. Together. Here, the youth they have to submit a proposal by which they are going to going to support other care experienced youth. So every project is different. Somebody is taking up developing life skill programs. Somebody is developing a research program. Somebody is developing podcasts of care leavers so that their voices can be heard. So beautiful you know projects they come up with state governments, especially on FBAC, family-based alternative care programming, which includes aftercare. So these are some of the states Bihar, madhya Pradesh, telangana and Jharkhand.

Kiran: 29:42

We have been generating a lot of evidence through publications, researching and publishing it. As I told you earlier about our 2018-19 study beyond know, the one which I talked about, but there after that, there have been a lot of researches which we have been publishing in different journals. So, in a way, care leavers you know, we started very, very locally, but we were very lucky that we had other partners joining in, international partners, and we have been able to facilitate care leavers networks as a global care practice. So some of australian care leavers are also part of it. We also realized that you know families need to be supported. If the families are supported, if the children are integrated with the families, why would they leave the families? So we started, you know, programs which is called fit families. It is working in three different localities of Delhi and where we are working with families so that the children who have been sent back from institutions can get properly integrated and how do you prevent further separation. So these are some of the programs which actually emanated from the research study.

Kiran: 30:58

We have already talked about this particular journal and this journal is doing very well and we also do a global monthly news wrap-up. So, if you see, 25 plus research studies have been conducted, 93 plus research papers and articles have been published and global monthly news wrap-up. I’m really proud that Sage Publishers. They are our partners. They are world-famous publishers. They are our partners for this journal In advocacy. I’ve already talked about you. You also mentioned BICONS, and first Care Leavers Convention was done. It was an international Care Leaversavers convention was done. It was an international care leavers convention. After that it was followed by the second one. So actually our practices can improve if there is advocacy, evidence generation and research all feeding into one. So this slide, you know, actually represents that.

Colby: 31:51

That Kieran, I’m just sitting here gobsmacked, we say, or in awe it is remarkable, truly remarkable, what you’ve achieved. I come from a sector where a jurisdiction sorry where sector organisations and sector supports are very fragmented. And seeing what you’re doing in Udayan care, you know, in terms of providing a therapeutic family environment for children and young people who are separated from their parents or can’t reside with their parents for whatever reason, through to support post-care, integrated with education we know everywhere that education is one of the absolute keys to rise out of poverty but also for our children and young people to have normal lives post-care. So it’s remarkable what Udayan Care and you have achieved.

Colby: 33:11

And another thing that you said very early on that, uh, I want to just mention um because I I agree with it very much where you said, um, we children don’t get over trauma. At best there’s a, there’s it scabs over and and, depending, and if and I think, if I heard you’re right, you were saying um, you know, depending on what happens after and particularly after care, the scab can be picked away or otherwise. And I use the term enduring sensitivities. I think we’re all impacted in some way, or at least shaped, by our childhood experiences and um, I hear a lot about trauma recovery, trauma repaired, you know, um as if, as if we can achieve an outcome where it is as if the trauma did not occur and the reality is that that’s a false yeah, it’s a false quest.

Colby: 34:16

We’ll never. We’ll never get there and and I think saying it is really important because it takes the pressure off everyone yeah, we, we don’t, we know what will help. The what will help will be, uh, connection to that was the other thing I didn’t mention. That I loved about your presentation restoring connection and strengthening connection to family. The most healing relationships, in my view, are those family relationships, absolutely, yeah, and so, yeah, I’m just blown away. It’s just remarkable to see what you are doing there from an integrated service provision point of view.

Kiran: 35:01

Thank you. Thank you, I would just like to, you know, add here yes, in the last three years, eight of my youth who came out of our children’s homes, they all studied in the UK and on complete scholarships they did their masters, you know, I mean. So it’s not that that trauma was erased, trauma remains. I always like to say, trauma lodges in your heart. You know it’s not easy to, and every given situation it does come out on the fore. But the issue is what kind of resilience skills, what kind of coping mechanisms you’ve been trained so that you can, at least at that time you are able to overcome that sorrow, that pain, that self-pity. So I think that’s very important and I think resilience training takes a lot of our, you know, focus.

Colby: 36:00

The other thing that I think is particularly close to my heart because I’ve also developed therapeutic models, but the life program, the living in a family environment model that you talked about. I’m just wondering if you might share a little bit more about its kind of key elements, and I’m particularly interested in any challenges you had in rolling it out or delivering it and how they were overcome.

Kiran: 36:33

So actually, you know, as I told you in the beginning also, that large homes were the reality. So when we started, you know residential group homes which are called sunshine homes, udayan, as I told you, sunshine. So these are sunshine homes, you know, so that they can dispel darkness from their lives. So we developed a strategy which is called LIFE Living in Family Environment. First of all I did is called life living in family environment. First of all, I did not like that system where every eight hours new people are coming in, the next batch of people are coming in. There is no continuity there. So we developed a system by which the carer team the carer team, it was like permanent Voluntary mentor parents, like I’m also a mother to. You know so many of them. So these are all volunteers who commit themselves for life. So that means as long as I am alive, as long as this home runs, my services are for the children, but since we have our own families, we are not able to stay with the children. But we are there for them. So we are meeting them twice or thrice a week and whenever they need us we are available on telephone. We actually become a window to the world for them. So these are voluntary mentor parents. Then, other than that, there are supervisors, in-house caregivers, psychologists, health specialists, social workers and volunteers, and at the office level there are managers who are managing the whole thing. So at this moment there are 11 Udayangars. There used to be 17,. We have reduced the numbers. I will talk about that later.

Kiran: 38:08

Let me first finish this particular part. What is our model? So the model is to develop a beautiful synergy between volunteers who want to give and volunteers who are committing for life it’s not that I can come in today and tomorrow I can go and the professional workforce. Then you know community ownership. We thought it was so important that the children should be in a community and they should be available to the neighborhood. So there is a community park where they are playing with others and they are mingling with others. They are going to the neighborhood shop to buy something. So it becomes like a normal childhood and community ownership was so important. Communities they start owning them For them. These become their children. They go to middle class neighborhood schools and there is a lot of social integration and this gives them a very good, realistic world view so that when they grow up suddenly they don’t have to face this monster called society, you know, because they are carrying some very bad image from their childhood. So we want them to get adjusted.

Kiran: 39:20

Then. Holistic upbringing here, through a participatory approach, they are provided quality education and all those eight domains which I showed you are for their all-round development. We are working on that. There is a safe and non-discriminatory environment. There is vocational training, education, life skills exposure, exposure to the market, secure and stable attachments. I will be talking about this attachment theory of John Bowlby. He was my biggest influence, you know, when I started these homes, the children who have disrupted attachments. And how do we make their insecurity and turn them into secure attachments? How do we train them into this? That’s why we brought in the voluntary mentor, parents and the social workers and everyone. All of us are very consciously working on developing stable attachments in them.

Kiran: 40:09

As I said earlier, individual care plans are made where each child we discuss with the child and the full team what should be the plans for going forward, and these are the therapist and then the mental health. You know, therapeutic interventions are tailored to each child’s need. So certain things we are able to address in a group system, group workshop, certain things they need individual attention and we are constantly researching on what we are doing. We have developed our own tool which is called qa ncc. Already 10 years, data we’ve been able to collect and three research papers have been published where children tell us what is going right for them and what is not going right for them. And just to maintain complete, you know, transparency. None of our staff conduct these. We are getting, you know, master students from social work. They come in every year and they conduct these tests so that, you know, children are able to voice whatever they want to say. So trauma-informed care approach is very, very strong and we do continuous training of our staff. The staff is, you know, quite fast rotating, so we try to retain the staff. We try to, you know, train the staff into trauma-informed care and our ultimate aim is that the environment of the home should be trusting. The child should be able to trust us, should be enabling and stimulating so that they are able to become productive citizens of tomorrow.

Kiran: 41:43

By giving aftercare support, aftercare support does not stop. Even when they leave aftercare they become Udhiyan Care alumni and we continue to handle. I’m very happy to say more than 2000 children have come out of our homes and we’ve got at least 100 children who are married without our support. Wherever they needed our support, we were there to give them away in marriage. And we have got more than 70 grandchildren in the family. And I must say about the mentor parents, we are 29 mentor parents who are looking after these children like our own and long term. You know Dolly Anand, I mean she really brings me so much joy. Now she’s 84. She joined me when she was 60. Even at the age of right age of 84, she goes to the children’s home, talks to them, makes them see the sense and discusses things with them. So this is the kind of stability we are able to bring in children, to know that others may come and go but my mentors would remain. So that’s a very big feeling of stability and security for the children. So this is our therapeutic model.

Colby: 42:59

It’s remarkable. I was just, I was kind of blown away at the voluntary mentor parents and what a remarkable thing to do to provide. Because you’re right, in any jurisdictions there is always mobility of professionals. But to have that stability of connection through those voluntary mentor parents and I guess they get a You’re one you were saying I guess you get so much joy out of that as well.

Kiran: 43:39

Oh, my God, You’ve said the same words with each and every mentor. Parent says you know, because there is no monetary outcome for them, it’s only sheer giving. So whenever you ask them, you do so much, what do you gain return? They said what can we give them? The amount they give us back, their love, their trust, you know just to? I mean Lina here. She has started working so much with the aftercare youth and all of them have started calling her mama, mama and they go and land up at her house. You know, because they know here is this mama will be available to me. So I think this kind of a feeling is so important for children to have that secure base where they can turn to.

Colby: 44:25

And I think it is. Yeah, absolutely Sorry, I was still thinking about the. You know, it just gives your life so much meaning to be giving to vulnerable young people who otherwise wouldn’t have these, wouldn’t necessarily have these stable and lasting connections that are so important for their growth and development. Absolutely, I could do a whole podcast with you just talking about the voluntary mentor parents, I think, and their relationships with the children. But sadly, we need to move on a little bit, and my last question to you, before I give you the opportunity to ask me a question, if you like, but my last question to you, is what advice would you give to an organisation that is trying to implement a model of care?

Kiran: 45:34

So these are some of our ideas that we’ve been using. You know, how do you integrate children in institutions, back into families and prevent the separation? So unless you keep that mental health perspective on the top of your priority, you will never be able to do the justice. It has to be a strength-based framework. So what we do is trauma-informed care and my advice to everyone is you have to bring in into your system of working and training the staff, letting the children know you have suffered trauma. There is no problem in that. We can still, you know, move on and tenets of Boolvi’s attachment theory. How do you develop secure adult interpersonal relationships? This is why, as I told you, mentor parents. I know it’s a very difficult system and it’s not easy to find this kind of a lifetime committed people. But I always say if we could get them, I’m sure out there hundreds and hundreds of them. You just need to be on the lookout. You need to provide opportunities. People would be coming, they would be willing to get trained and they are experienced parents themselves. So parenting experiences plus attachment tenets, they will be able to apply to the children. We also believe a lot on Erickson’s psychosocial theory of development, the eight stages. So we keep on training our staff onto these stages. Unless you understand where the crisis is and you are able to resolve it and go to the next stage, otherwise you will remain there. So it’s very important for all the organizations who are working with children at least in my mind to have this kind of a developmental approach, and we have placed our children right in the midst of the community. So when I found Yuri Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems approach theory, I was blown away because this is exactly what we were doing, without you know naming as microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem or chronosystem. But we were doing everything, whether it is, you know, at the community level, whether it is at the school level, whether it is at the state level. We were trying to bring children and people, community, together. So I think these are very, very important, this community approach.

Kiran: 48:00

When we go to the community, what we found? Most of the community members. They feel so hopeless because they feel I’m not able to look after my child, so take away my child. How do you convince them that you have enough strength in you and you can look after your children? So I think you know even something as simple as genogram. You know you make them remember who are the people around you who could be. You know, your partners in bringing up your children. What are the assets available in your community, in your area, on which you can impinge upon? I think for any organization, it’s very, very important to keep these in mind. Then, as I’ve been saying again and again throughout that building resilience, improving coping skills, emotion and social well-being make them into a social person. Don’t let them be a loner in a children’s home or even in a community when they are not able to come out. You have to make such systems by which the child is able to cope and become a social being. We have to address behavior modification children who have suffered trauma.

Kiran: 49:07

They need, you know, behavior modification. So we need to develop a proper you know plan for each child. How do you ensure a productive future? And everything should be done in a case management approach and a higher purpose in life. So we haven’t mentioned in our eight domains the spiritual aspect, but I think it’s so important to have a higher purpose in life and that the moment you know anybody who has suffered, they start feeling a higher purpose in their lives. Their hope and faith goes up, and that’s what we are here for and that’s what all the organisation should be aiming for. This is my firm belief.

Colby: 49:50

Yeah, it reminds me a little bit of what I was saying about the house mentor parents as well. When our life has meaning, we thrive. And that was very much the message of Viktor Frankl, the author of Logotherapy and Survivor of Auschwitz and other concentration camps during the Second World War. So yeah, and again another theoretical orientation very close to my heart. That’s wonderful. It’s wonderful to hear that you can instil in our children and young people the children and young people that you serve in your country. I mean, they’re collectively ours. It is one human race, isn’t it?

Kiran: 50:46

I must make a caveat. It’s not possible to have 100% result and we must not get upset or start feeling guilty that I’ve not been able to serve this child. Because you are trying your level best and you are making an individual, specific plan. Still plans fail. So you have to take your successes and your failures in your stride. It’s the trauma is so complex and the kind of trauma they have faced we can’t even imagine. You know, we have not suffered. They have suffered, so they have their own reasons. So we have to keep that in mind and accordingly deal with them and deal with our own frustrations and sense of failure. It’s very, very important that we take self care, otherwise we will never be able to do justice to the children.

Colby: 51:36

Yeah, I think it’s really important that you mentioned that, that it is a tough area to work in and that what you said links in with a couple of my previous podcasts too one with Dr Nicola O’Sullivan talking about supervision and the importance of reflective supervision and acknowledgement that acknowledges the impact of the work on us. The other thing that came to mind was graham carriage’s podcast. Um. That was, I think uh, at this by this day, the the most recent past podcast that I released and he told the story of a young person who he worked with at the cotswold community in the UK in the late 1970s and who who recontacted him or contacted him via LinkedIn only a few years ago, but some 40 years later, for more than 40 years later, and in telling that story, graham did mention that the young person.

Colby: 52:38

You know that there were challenges and it wasn’t the best outcome that you would want to draw everyone’s attention to in terms of his early progress in life, but then he found his way and Graham tells a wonderful story about that young person’s achievements in their adult life and I think what that see a lot of people say to me. You know they worry about whether what they’re doing is enough for these young people. And I’m always put in mind of the one good adult research, the one, the one good adult literature, which which says, and I’m paraphrasing here but as long as a young person, when they’re growing up, can identify one person who, yeah, who is there for them, who understands them, who they can turn to for support, then that will make, yeah, they’re much more likely to have a normal life. And I say normal life because again, I’m tying this in another recent guest, adela Holmes talked about aspirations for our young people should be a normal life, just a normal life.

Colby: 54:06

Just a normal life, yeah, yeah, lovely, Kieran, I always give everyone a. I’m not sure about your time, but I always give everyone a chance now to ask me a question before we go. Did you have a question you’d like to ask me?Kiran: 

54:23

Actually, can I ask you to?

Colby: 54:25

yes, why?

Kiran: 54:26

not. So you’ve been doing such beautiful podcasts two or three of them I’ve been able to hear, and I gained so much from them. I want to understand from you what is one surprising or transformative insight you would like to quote. After meeting so many people who are practitioners in this field you are speaking to people from around the world one surprising and transformative insight which you were not exposed to earlier? This is my first question and the second question in the AI world, you know, how do we manage, you know the learnings that we are making and how do we maintain children’s confidentiality and safeguarding concerns? These two questions I have for you.

Colby: 55:19

Well, I’ll ask. I always pride myself on being able to answer questions without notice. The second one on AI. I have to say I don’t know with that one. I think the technology, the AI field is just developing very quickly. Field is just developing very quickly and if you don’t, if you and if you don’t kind of stick with it, it, it, you know, it leaves you behind very, very quickly. And I had kath nibs on. Katherine nibs on uh, I think was podcast episode four, um, she’s a international um expert in online harm for children and and she reflects on just how difficult it is seemingly, or at least how um, how far behind adults are in having a full appreciation of the online world and where children and young people are at online. So, um, if you haven’t already have a, have a listen to her podcast and and and perhaps um follow up.

Colby: 56:31

I’ve seen your youtube I okay, yes, um, so sorry. Unfortunately, all I could say is I don’t. I don’t really know the answer to that. What I do know is that we can’t we, we probably we need to educate our kids, we can’t our young people about what’s out there. We can’t restrict it, because children who come from deprivation, apart from it being totally unfair, they respond very badly to further attempts to restrict. And also, being overprotective and restrictive in that way will mean that they will feel different to their peers. In terms of what I, there’s been quite a number of insights. The things that have really stood out for me have been the importance well, I came into doing this very much of a mind that you need to have time.

Colby: 57:41

You need to take time to think about what you’re doing if you don’t take time to think about what you’re doing, then you become your work, becomes very heartless and procedural.

Colby: 57:57

And with regard to the heartless point, I think one of the things that I’ve been talking about with a number of guests has been the importance of acknowledging the impact of the work on us and being aware of our own capacity to perhaps not provide the best level of care because it’s uncomfortable for us because of some aspect that it brings up for us.

Colby: 58:32

So I think that, addition to what I was already coming in with about thinking about care, I think thinking about the work we do, thinking about the impact of the work we do and where our blind spots are. Nicola O’Sullivan talked beautifully about this in podcast number three, but you know it can sometimes feel isolating working in this space. It’s very nuanced, it’s very specialist and you can’t just talk to anyone about the work that you do and for them to fully understand and get where you’re coming from, what your experience is, so what the thing that the overwhelming experience that I take out of this is I’m surprised that so many people want to speak to me for a start, and it’s just a great experience to talk to people who are like-minded and have a similar experience of the work.

Kiran: 59:47

Great, thank you, thank you. There’s so much of learning here.Colby: 59:50

Yeah, Well, and thank you. Look, it’s just been wonderful to have you on board today, Kieran. Perhaps can you just tell people, our listeners, where is the best place to get to access more information about Udayan Care.

Kiran: 1:00:07

Yeah, so we are headquartered in Delhi and, as you said, we have expanded our banks to almost every part of India, and the website is there, wwwudayankareorg, so people can always find us. They can find me, kiran Moody. I’m on LinkedIn. I’m everywhere, so they can find me. I’m always available.

Colby: 1:00:32

I’ll put those links on the podcast, the audio and the video that’s on YouTube. Look, kiran. Again, thank you very much for appearing. My plan at the moment is to listen back to each of the podcasts that I’m doing in a little while and write down all the questions that I would have liked to have asked you today, but didn’t have time scheduled to do that. So I wonder if you would be happy for me to recontact you at some later date to ask you a few more questions.

Kiran: 1:01:15

Absolutely more than happy Because you know it makes me also reflect and, like you said, you need time to reflect on what you’re doing. I’ll be more than happy, and especially, you know, our transitioning from the institutional care model to the family-based care. Today we didn’t have enough time for that, I would really love to talk about that, thank you.

Colby: 1:01:37

Yeah, absolutely All right. Well, thank you and all the best to you, and I’ll speak to you another time yes, thank you bye.

Beyond Fear: Raising Tech-Smart Children in a Digital World, with Cath Knibbs

Help! My Child Won’t Look Up From Their Screen

In an increasingly digital world, the lines between our online and offline lives continue to blur, especially for our children. This fascinating conversation with Catherine Nibbs, a researcher, psychotherapist, and technology expert with over 30 years of experience, delves into the complex relationship between technology and child development.

Cath brings a unique perspective to the discussion, combining her background in engineering, IT, and psychotherapy with her extensive work with children around issues relating to the internet. She emphasizes that we often make a critical mistake when discussing technology and children—we talk about technology as merely a tool, when in reality, it functions as a medium through which children experience life. This fundamental misunderstanding shapes how we approach the challenges that arise from children’s use of technology.

One of the most compelling insights Cath shares is that “vulnerabilities offline result in far more vulnerabilities online.” Children who struggle with attachment or connection in their real-world relationships often seek to fulfill these needs through digital spaces. Rather than simply viewing problematic online behavior as an addiction to technology, Cath suggests we should understand it as an attachment-seeking behavior. She introduces the concept of “e-tachment” to describe how children’s online connections are shaping their attachment styles alongside their real-world relationships.

The conversation takes a particularly thought-provoking turn when Cath discusses the impact of “distracted parenting” on early childhood development. She questions what sense babies make of a world where parents are frequently more engaged with their devices than with their children. In what she calls “three-parent families” (mum, dad, and device), babies may struggle to understand why their caregivers suddenly change their tone and attention when interacting with screens. This early experience of technology may shape how children relate to both technology and relationships throughout their lives.

Addressing current societal concerns about social media and online harms, Cath offers a balanced perspective. While acknowledging the potential risks, she argues against prohibition-based approaches, referencing Australia’s recent legislation banning social media for those under 15. She criticizes fear-based reactions that fail to address the underlying issues, comparing them to banning fire rather than learning to use it safely. Instead, she advocates for “Tech Smart Parenting”—an approach that combines technology, parenting skills, and education to help children navigate digital spaces safely.

The discussion also touches on the Netflix show “Adolescence” and its portrayal of online harms. Cath cautions against drawing broad conclusions from fictional outlier stories, emphasizing that we often miss the underlying attachment and relationship issues by focusing solely on technology as the problem. She argues that we’re failing our boys not just through their online experiences, but through broader societal messages that make them feel marginalized and problematic simply for being male.

This conversation challenges us to move beyond simplistic narratives about technology and children, recognizing that meaningful solutions require addressing both online and offline aspects of children’s lives. Rather than reacting with fear and prohibition, we need to equip children with the skills to navigate technology safely while ensuring their fundamental attachment and connection needs are met in the real world.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

About Cath

Cath is a Researcher, Psychotherapist, Author, Speaker, and Doctoral candidate looking at the real harm children suffer in a world of technology, which is advancing quicker than many adults can keep up with.

Cath has a background in Engineering in the Army, IT, and Computer Tech of over 25 years, and over a decade of working with children and adults directly around issues relating to the internet, from Bullying to Porn viewing, from cybercrime to cybersecurity and more.

Cath writes about issues such as the impact of tech on the developing child, the impact of cyber trauma and the issues of immersive technology on eyes, brains, and bodies.

Cath runs a company educating professionals about child safeguarding around tech and digital spaces, and she teaches therapists how to be ‘safe AND secure’ when using tech to ensure they protect their clients.

Related Podcast Interviews:

Lisa Etherson

Listen here:

Watch here:

Professor Julie Taylor:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Cath: 0:03

And the thing that I would certainly say is the vulnerabilities offline result in far more vulnerabilities online. What we tend to do at the moment is talk about the use of technology as though it is a tool, and we forget so often it is the medium.

Colby: 0:19

Welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is a global expert in children’s online behaviour and associated online harms. Before I introduce my guest, I’d like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we’re meeting on, the Kaurna people, and the continuing connection the Kaurna people and other Aboriginal people feel to land, waters, culture and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. My guest this episode is Catherine Nibbs.

Colby: 0:59

Catherine is a researcher, psychotherapist, author, speaker and doctoral candidate, looking at the real harm children suffer in a world of technology which is advancing quicker than many adults can keep up with. Kath has a background in engineering, in the army, in IT and in computer tech of over 25 years and over a decade of working with children and adults directly around issues relating to the internet, from bullying and porn viewing to cybercrime and cybersecurity and more. Kath writes about issues such as the impact of tech on the developing child, the impact of cyber trauma and the issues of immersive technology on eyes, brains and bodies. Kath runs a company educating professionals about child safeguarding around tech and digital spaces, and she teaches therapists how to be safe and secure when using tech to ensure they protect their clients. Welcome, Cath.

Cath: 2:11

You’re welcome, colby, for inviting me on, because I’m very excited to talk about this, and thank you to that beautiful rendition and nod to the land you’re on.

Colby: 2:16

We do that as a sign of respect for the traditional custodians of this land that we refer to, australia, and their continuous connection and habitation of this land that spans at least the past 40,000 years. So, kath, I’ve given a little bit of a bio or summary of your work, but I’m just wondering how you would describe the work that you do.

Cath: 2:47

Ah, in a nutshell, well, some of that description makes me sound younger than I actually am, because it’s over 30 years. I’ve been working in and around technology, so we’ll just skip that bit quickly, but I would say what I’m doing in my role is I work from the micro to the macro in terms of trauma. One of the things that isn’t on that description is my background in functional health since 2018, and using functional testing, such as checking for gut microbiome DNA what we call single nucleotide polymorphisms I can actually see on a cellular level what trauma does and how it impacts a body. And when I’m looking at technology, I’m looking at what we do individual, all the way through to the macro, in terms of society and how we’re changing, if you like, as a species, uh, so I would certainly say what I do is working individually, collectively and metaphysically. If that’s not too deep for uh, what? What time are we on tuesday morning?

Cath: 4:03

you know it’s the afternoon for me uh, here in Australia, but yeah yeah, wow, that is fascinating, and I wonder is that um associated with the PhD that you’re completing, which I referred to, or um, no, the PhD is in um, how young children so I’ve worked with seven to ten year olds how they perceive the impact of viewing, distressing, inappropriate graphing imagery and this is a piece of research that really hasn’t provided any new findings really in terms of children are affected by this stuff on a, let’s say, a nervous system level, on a psychological level, on an emotional level, and it’s almost like I’ve had to do the research to prove to people what I’ve been saying for the past 15, 20 years.

Colby: 4:59

Yes, yeah, yeah. Well, I guess that in some ways is the role of research, isn’t it? Yeah, is that research is? I often describe research as being scientific inquiry into the things that we already believe to be true.

Cath: 5:22

Yeah, and I guess what we do as clinicians is considered anecdotal until we have a piece of research that backs it up.

Colby: 5:33

That’s right. That’s right which can be reassuring but also frustrating, I guess.

Cath: 5:41

Yes, yeah.

Colby: 5:43

You know certainly you would be aware perhaps that I sometimes write about things like practice expertise and titled expertise, and a lot of titled expertise emanates from universities and probably has more standing than practice expertise. So it’s good to hear from someone who is a both a practitioner and a formal researcher, who is conducting research, just bearing out, I guess, what what you have known from significant practice in this field. Significant practice in this field, yeah, so that’s fantastic. Yeah, and how did you get, like, how did you get into this area of work?

Cath: 6:33

oh, in a nutshell, um my, if I go all the way back to my childhood, because that’s where we always go when we’re clinicians in this space my father was a radiographer in the prison service after leaving the army and he worked in and around what’s called category A prisons. So these are prisons where people are serving lifelong sentences for really macabre and abhorrent crimes. And when I was younger he would talk about the crimes that some of these criminals have had engaged in. And I must have been nine, ten. Obviously there’s reasons why my dad talked to me in that way and we’ll not talk about his dysfunction for doing that, but I got really fascinated in. Well, why would somebody do that? And because of the, if you like, the dysfunction in the family.

Cath: 7:28

I went down the route of physics, not people. But I actually came back to people after the career in engineering and going into computing because I was raising my own children, I was working in the computing industry and what I was dealing with. So this is when the Internet really started to take a really prominent part in people’s life, particularly in business. So this was like 1996, 1998, 2000. And I had young children who were beginning to get used to computers. I introduced them to technology very early on and what I noticed is the way in which the adults use the Internet and the way in which children use the Internet. And that was really my foot in both camps. And then I decided to train as a therapist because I jokingly say computers suck my soul. Train as a therapist because I jokingly say computers sap my soul.

Cath: 8:26

It’s a very quiet industry to work in in most cases, and I’m a chatty person. So I went and trained as a psychotherapist and, whilst doing so, did a little bit of work in some of the secondary schools.

Colby: 8:40

Yes.

Cath: 8:40

And I was finding what children were doing online was kind of in between, let’s say, the teenagers. Really, what the teens were doing differed to the primary school age children versus what the adults were doing, and we were not talking about this in 2010. If we go back, that’s really when I started, it was being missed and I continuously say and that’s the generation of children that we let down.

Cath: 9:08

Now, in 2025, 15 years later, we are now talking about the harms that children face, and this is thanks to uh online safety, trust and safety and, of course, a recent tv program which we’ll probably get into. But also it’s the space in which now we’re looking backwards saying we should have put um guardrails in place, we should have taken care of the children and, because of the ubiquitousness of this space, now we are now recognizing that children can be harmed.

Cath: 9:42

But I would certainly say the phrase I tend to use is we look at the ACEs study for trauma but, what we didn’t look at were cyber ACEs, and these are the ones that you can be harmed by on the internet, and that goes all the way back to early 2000s for the last 25 years, really.

Colby: 10:01

So you’re really talking about cumulative harms when you’re talking about the aces um, yeah, study, which is for those who who are not familiar with it, that’s the adverse childhood experiences um study. That um, that really contributed to our idea, contributed to our knowledge about um the impact of cumulative harms during childhood on health and well-being in adulthood. And yeah, it’s very interesting what you’re the parallel that you draw in terms of um, I guess children’s exposure and and and uh, in the same way that the ACEs study referred to complex trauma experiences, because there were multiple trauma experiences, probably experienced multiple times you’re clearly drawing a line of association between that concept and what happens in the online world for children and young people yeah, yeah, and the reason for that, uh, colby, is because everything we do online is attachment based.

Cath: 11:16

When you actually get to the crux of the, the modus operandi and the why we do what we do, there is so much neurobiology involved in using technology, being on technology, doing what we’re doing, and unfortunately, that’s the bit that has been missed, because what we tend to do at the moment is talk about the use of technology as though it is a tool and we forget so often it is the medium, and that’s that’s one of the phrases that I’ve used for a long time is it’s a tool and a medium.

Cath: 11:46

And when we’re talking about screen time and the metrics that that are being discussed in ways that reference addiction and things like that, that’s not taking into account the why we do what we do and when, when you actually get down to the crux of it, it’s about socializing, it’s about connection, it’s about engaging with your, your peers, and each and every part of uh, the developmental, uh trajectory of children is about that technology and how they interact with it or how others interact with it in front of them so everything has an impact on uh attachment and the thing that I would certainly say is the vulnerabilities offline result in far more vulnerabilities online.

Cath: 12:34

but when we’re talking about children who are um in environments where uh technology is um present uh and and it’s overly used at the detriment of the real-world connection, we are seeing a different kind of process emerging, and I call that e-tachment.

Colby: 12:58

Very good. Yes, it’s fascinating listening to you talk about it, and particularly the link that you draw to attachment. My mind was going to thinking about children’s online behaviour, as you were describing it as being a place where connection is achieved, a significant place where connection is achieved, and it’s through those those, each of those connections, plays a role in what our children, young people’s, attachment style is. So I you you may well be familiar with my work I draw a distinction between attachment, relationship and attachment style. Children, young people, can have multiple attachment relationships and they all differ based on their experiences of those relationships. Their attachment style is something of an amalgamation of all of those experiences and and it’s very interesting and the penny’s dropping for me, even as we speak as that you have included real world and online relationships as contributing to a child’s attachment style, which is very important in the way in which children and young people, and eventually adults, approach life and relationships and is like the rudder the rudder that steers them and their ship through life.

Cath: 14:34

Yeah, yeah, I mean, that’s why I went off to do my TEDx, because I found myself in that position with my own children. So one of the things I’ve looked at is early developmental, because I found myself in that position with my own children. So one of the things I’ve looked at is early developmental needs. When there’s a three-parent family the mum, the dad, the device and I was really interested when I was doing my baby ops about what sense do babies make of their world when perhaps the parent is only interested when the flashlight is on and the camera’s on and they’re paying attention to this thing and this thing gets pointed at them, and then their cadence and tone changes and, of course, the prosody around connection is around. Hi, let’s take a picture Da, da, da, da, da, da. And then the parent goes back to looking in the phone. What do, what do babies make of this new way of um being in the world? And what happens when that distracted parenting becomes about what I call other children inside the device, because babies can’t recognize themselves. And when, when mum, dad or other relatives are like oh my goodness, look at your picture here, swipe, swipe, swipe. Is that another infant in the room? Is that a sibling? Is it a baby that could be a threat. You know what is really going on in those first 1001 days and the?

Cath: 16:05

The reason I went off to do the TEDx is because I was sitting in, uh, my living room this is going back quite a few years, because my children are adults now, but nearly 30 in terms of their age and I was sitting there with one of the first, first ever iPads and I’m tapping away thinking, look at me doing my extra hours and I’m being a very busy mom. And here I am tip-tapping away and my children were playing on their consoles and devices and I realized nobody had spoken for an hour and I had this realization. I went okay, everybody, stop, we need to not do this, or we need to not do this as often as we currently are. And it was about, you know, really having a conversation Fast forward to I don’t know, probably about five, six years ago.

Cath: 16:57

I was on the telephone the good old fashioned, and I’m doing it here like the good old fashioned finger and thumb telephone, doing it here like the good old fashioned finger and thumb telephone and my eldest son sent me a piece of research. I opened my phone and started to read it, because we were having a conversation and he went deadly silent and he said you’re not paying attention to me, are you, whoa? And that was a moment where I thought, oh my goodness, even in a telephone conversation I’m not present because I’m reading the piece of research, which means I can’t do, you know, multitasking, and as a result, I kind of dropped that into the middle of the talk about this real world connection. What I’m beginning to see well, not beginning this has been happening for 15 years. Children who do not get their needs met and I call it out here go looking for their needs in there, and in there is whatever kind of technology they can find, or whatever app, device, game, etc. Etc.

Colby: 18:02

Wow, I’m yeah. I think we all have a certain level of understanding that these devices intrude into our real life and real-time interactions. I got goosebumps when you talked about what what do babies make of this? Uh, three-way interaction. Yeah, that that is fascinating and probably probably the um, the topic of, of of a of a much longer, I think, podcast interview. But I’m really, yeah, now that you’ve brought it up, I’m fascinated to hear more about what you’ve said and what you believe to be the case about that.

Cath: 19:05

Can I just put my caveat in there? Actually, it’s not to blame parents. I understand, um, and I think I’ve written this in my first parenting is the hardest job in the world, and if you’ve got a brand new baby and you’ve got I don’t know 300 people on your facebook page because that’s where us old fogies are, apparently- yeah if you’ve got 300 people telling you how you need to be as a parent, that can be so overwhelming for these, uh, new parents.

Cath: 19:32

Maybe there’s a reason why they’re online so long. Maybe it’s because they’re like well, should I be doing this or should I be doing that? Should I be doing sleep training? Oh, my goodness, I gave them food too early. Uh, I’m feeding them too often. Contradiction, contradiction, contradiction. Plus the health visitor who comes round. Maybe they’ve got 300 friends that have been telling them what they need to do.

Cath: 19:53

As a professional, we are overwhelmed with not doing things in air quotes the right way anymore. No real way of sitting with our instincts anymore, when this device can be telling you continuously comparison, comparison, comparison. You’re not good enough, um, you haven’t done enough of this. Your baby’s not doing that. They’re not standing, they’re not sitting, they’re not walking, and I I totally understand that must be overwhelming for brand new parents. But also, parenting is so difficult that in the early days when babies are sleeping, it used to be you would stick the television on. Well, you can now sit and play a game, you can talk to your friends, and for new mums, I guess that’s a way that they can still have some form of connection, whereas the isolation of the parents before the phone connection, whereas the isolation of the parents before the phone.

Colby: 20:49

So it’s pros and cons. It’s interesting because, while you were speaking about that, when we think about tech and of course our first concern is always our children and whether we have, and whether we have, by embracing online tech with the alacrity that we have as a society, whether we have created a I guess the grossest generalisation is that we’ve created a generation of anxious children and young people, people, more to the point, we’ve created a generation of anxious young adults, but what I’m hearing you say also is that it’s more generalised ubiquitous, I think, is the word than that, in that we’ve also created a generation of anxious adults who have a medium by which to constantly compare and contrast their performance in various roles, as well as the general stuff you know how they look, how they, you know what their interests are and all of that sort of thing, what Alain de Botton, my favourite modern-day philosopher, refers to as status anxiety.

Cath: 22:16

Yeah.

Colby: 22:17

Wrote a fantastic book about it.

Cath: 22:20

Yeah, his most recent one is absolutely gorgeous.

Colby: 22:23

Is it? Yeah, well, I haven’t read the most recent one, but, wow, I could sit and talk to you about tech, I think, for much longer than we’ve both got. But if you could, I’m actually really interested to hear a summary of where you land with tech and in terms of what you would say to professional people like me and yourself, and what you would say to parents about tech, and what you might even say to governments about tech.

Cath: 23:01

Well, do you know what that segues really nicely into? I have just written a book, right, which will be out in July with Penguin, and it’s called Tech Smart Parenting, because I am pro-tech, I am pro-parenting and I am pro-education and those three need to go together. In terms of the world we now live in is technological. So I will just go back to your reflection on the anxious generation being a particularly provocative piece of literature. Um, that has not summed up the world of technology very well. Uh, mainly given the. The author is not steeped in. Technology has arrived and done a recent uh, it’s kind of like an overview, without understanding all of the different domains and spaces and ways in which technology is used. Um hasn’t included games. Hasn’t included. Uh, immersive environments hasn’t included. The internet wants to just talk about social media without actually defining what social media is. So that’s just my little rhetoric reflection on that particular book.

Colby: 24:15

Absolutely Sorry. I was just going to jump in and say yeah, I think my understanding is that there is a distinction to be made, or at least, if we’re going to talk about the impact of tech and the online world on children and young people, we need to look more broadly than social media. Yes, if we’re going to talk about what we’re noticing, about the changes in the emotional health and wellbeing of our young people, we need to not just look at tech and the online world. We we need to look at everything that is happening in society yeah, there is um, I’ll actually send you a link to it.

Cath: 24:59

There’s a very good uh podcast that I’ve not long watched, which is an attachment specialist talking about actually the mental health crisis started before technology which I’m sure uh yourself being in this domain, this is not a new um arrival and because of tech it’s much more complicated and nuanced um I didn’t suddenly get busier.

Cath: 25:22

I didn’t suddenly get busier in 2010 um, there is yeah, there is something to be said about. I get it clickbait. Books and book titles sell and unfortunately I’m watching this particular professional at the moment distance diagnosing people on the internet when he knows nothing about the family situation. Actually, they’ve just appeared on a big US platform. A very well-known um tv presenter has just hosted them and one of the lines was so no tech, you know, no social media, but if they want to take a laptop into their bedroom then and I I just kind of rolled my eyes and went. Then you really do not understand what the dangers are and where they come from. And the reason I say that, colby, is because the reason I’m in the world of cyber trauma is because of something that happened to my children when they were about 10 or 11, on these flip phones which are allegedly safe.

Cath: 26:22

I can tell you they are not, because all of the spaces that children can interact and engage with all have the same kind of harms and they can be accessed in many different ways. They can be accessed a library. They can be accessed um. I actually know recently of a child managing to do something on a mcdonald’s uh device. Mcdonald’s device in the restaurant.

Cath: 26:47

So children are savvy enough to know how to get around if they’re not allowed on social media, because there’s no way to regulate this vast internet. So, going back to my position on this, I would say we need education for parents that A does not shame and blame, because that’s what I’m seeing at the moment. There is a huge drive to say, well, you gave them the damn devices, you should know better. You must, you can. And what I’ve seen as a fallout is scared and angry parents. And when we’re scared and angry and we go into fight, flight, freeze, we want the thing to go away, which is why the campaigns at the moment for no phones, no social media, no whatever.

Cath: 27:36

It is smart tech, this, that and the other. They’re coming from a place of fear of the unknown and it’s being driven by lots and lots of narratives in the mainstream media and certainly by TV shows, saying, oh, my goodness, this particular outlier case could be your child, and that isn’t helping anybody. And the children that are growing up now are going to be prime ministers, they’re going to be the technicians, they’re going to be the surgeons, they’re going to be the librarians. They’re going to be the surgeons, they’re going to be the librarians they’re going to be, tradespeople.

Cath: 28:10

And they are going to do that with technology, which also includes AI.

Cath: 28:15

And if we’re going to make this approach get rid of smartphones, get rid of social media what is it that we’re going to miss out on by teaching children how to survive in the real world?

Cath: 28:26

And it harks off going back to hunter-gatherer tribes and saying we’re not going to have fire in the camp because it could actually burn our village down, so we’re not going to learn to live with fire because it could potentially be dangerous, whereas another, another hunter-gatherer tribe might say well, we’re going to contain ours with stones and we’re going to use it, and we’re always going to have somebody taking care of the fire to make sure it doesn’t go beyond the bricks, so to speak. And what we’re doing at the moment is we’re saying we’re going to be a village that has no fire. There we are. We’ve progressed far more than the tribe next to us, who have learned to harness and contain it and to educate people about the dangers. But also, fire can cook food, fire can keep us warm, and this goes to that metaphysical approach. So heidegger talked about this, actually and called this techne.

Cath: 29:23

This is the use of uh, if you like to improve the environment and society and progress.Colby: 

29:34

Thank you. So I’m pro-progress, yeah, yeah, and powerfully so, if I might say. And of course, I’m coming to you from a country that is seeking to ban young people access to social media until they’re 15. And, in fact, legislation has been passed bringing that into effect, and the mind goes to you know, whether we’ve learnt anything from prohibitional approaches.Cath: 30:06

Not so far.

Colby: 30:08

No, no, but at least the government is on the side. The government can say they’re on the side of concerned parents and that’s a good thing.Cath: 30:20

Yeah, it is in how parents feel supported.

Colby: 30:25

Yeah.

Cath: 30:26

However, the gripe across the world from the academics is this is not research based, and I will give you a good example in terms of Pete Etchells has written a book called Unlocked. So, professor Pete Etchells, and he talks about the way in which sometimes we implement good ideas with the vested interest, only to find out later it wasn’t the best approach and that has happened repeatedly in medical settings where we’ve considered, for example, where somebody has a head injury and we do the little hole known as trepanning, where you actually do that, and we do the little hole known as trepanning where you actually do that. That has not been for the best interest of the patients, as it turns out, but it sounds like a good idea and if we think about what we’re doing at the moment, this is that it’s really an anecdotal. I don’t know how to, in air quotes, control my child. I don’t understand the technology, so I’m going to shout from the rooftops. It is damaging my child, because that’s the only thing I can say as a parent, because I don’t understand what’s happening and because there is, um, a movement of parents saying I, I’ve heard it and I’m going to go into the the things that really gripe me in terms of I’ve heard it gives them a dopamine fix or a dopamine hit? Um, when people don’t even understand what dopamine is or how it actually works within the body, um, I, I believe they’re addicted because they won’t get off it, whereas the understanding about what children are doing and why they can’t come off the game or why they can’t come off the platform at this point in time is about relational processes.

Cath: 32:12

But what we do is we get scared and we get angry and then we shout at the government and the government says well, best we keep our voters on side, we will support this movement and, sadly, bit around uh, we’re going to ban social media, hasn’t even defined it, and what I have seen is certain platforms are still available, but the internet isn’t banned and neither is gaming and neither is uh, vr, ar, xr, you know all of the different new immersive technologies, and the government is is pretty much saying there we are, we we’ve put a gate around the pond, but we haven’t done it for the skate park and we haven’t done it for the swings and the rides and we haven’t done it for the? Um, the, the graveled area, and we haven’t done it where the dangerous dogs run, and we have. It’s almost like we’ve done our part, because we’ve done the health and safety over this particular aspect in the city park and parents feel relieved, but it hasn’t really sorted the issue out yet. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Colby: 33:16

Yeah, yeah, wow, yeah, there’s a lot in there. I think you mentioned the word segue earlier and I wonder if this is a good place to segue into the topic of the Netflix show Adolescence, which I guess very much from my observation, taps into some of these issues that you’re talking about, not least of which the concern that exists around the impact of social media on children and young people’s behaviour. On children and young people’s behaviour, I just want to ask you firstly well, I’m probably going to ask you a double-barrel question, the first part being just your general impression of the show and, in particular, how it portrayed social media use amongst young people and the contribution it made to the plot, I guess, of the show.

Cath: 34:34

So I think I used the word earlier, but I will make sure that I do use it here again. It is a fictional outlier story, okay, and certainly in terms of the actors in it, I enjoyed the programme it was. If it was a book, it might be what’s called a page turner. For certain, the story was fast paced, which I’m going to do the idiosyncratic. If we’re going to talk about what social media does in terms of how they influence us and how they hook us in in air quotes, that’s the same as the cinematic way in which this story was told.

Cath: 35:14

We went from, uh, an opening scene that was, uh, very energetic. It had lots of unknown uh questions and answers as to what was happening. Why was this child being arrested? Is this really how the police arrest children, etc. Etc. So it absolutely captured our attention and gave us that dopamine spike and I’m being slightly ironic, sarcastic here, okay, so what the program did was really good in terms of creating that attention economy in the same way that social media does, and, given that it was a screenplay, the way in which the story started to pan out on the first and second episode were kind of indicative of if we didn’t know anything about the policing service, we would expect that’s how they arrest children, and that is not necessarily the case. That is a very, very rare case that somebody would be arrested in that way, particularly if they were known to be 13. So for me there was quite a lot of eye rolling. Well, that’s not how it happens. That’s not how it happens, but in terms of entertainment, I enjoyed watching it yeah in terms of the actualities in practice.

Cath: 36:34

Is this? No, it did not. It did not go, uh, in line with what I know as a child therapist, certainly what I know in the criminal justice system, certainly in terms of, um, being around children who are within this system in this way and and that’s because I work with children in the criminal justice system and in this particular way, um, what was interesting was the tiny little nugget, and this is the bit that seems to have captured everybody’s attention was the, the police, uh, the police’s son, who said dad, it’s all about the manosphere, and began to talk about an environment that isn’t usually talked about in that way by 13 and 14 and 15 year olds. And I have had so much fun since the program talking to my 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year old clients, because many of them have watched it, including the ones that are underage, and their response has been we don’t even talk like that and we don’t use the emoticons and the emojis like that, and that’s not how, that’s not how we behave, that’s the adults not getting us. Uh, again, and and one, one client reflected and do you not think this was my favorite, you know, and do you not think that now you adults are talking about the emojis, that we’re not going to change what we’re doing. And I laughed and said but that’s, that’s what all children do. Yeah, so what it did do was it named, or it kind of gave a nod to the environments in which, um, in which misogyny and um and I particularly despise this term toxic masculinity is being discussed.

Cath: 38:17

Um, there’s no such thing as toxic masculinity. It’s masculinity and toxic behavior, and toxic behavior always has a root cause, which comes from and I’m sure I do not need to say this to you at all, colby that children do not rock up as toxic adults. You know, there is a trajectory, there is a story, and the way in which the the story has been told is, it’s, an absolutely outlier case. This does not happen in general day-to-day practice, however, we’re back to that blame, shame, scare, shock and all in which parents are now frightened uh, maybe my child is a potential killer. Maybe my child well, that is true of everybody who lives on the planet.

Cath: 39:03

We are all one. I think the way to to phrase this is probably we’re all one fight away from being um a dangerous person, and that for anybody who’s interested. Actually, there is a book called ordinary men. It is not a very nice, uh gentle, read. It’s about, um, how, how behaviors happen in nazi germany, how ordinary men became these killers, and that’s the thing about the human psyche. We are all one error away from a lifetime sentence in prison, for example, and what it has done, certainly, is bring to the surface conversations that we need to have about children, about boys, but the social media influence wasn’t discussed enough.

Cath: 39:51

For it to make sense in the program. I can say with absolute certainty not all boys who watch pornography turn out to be killers. Not all boys who watch pornography turn out to be sex addicts. Not all boys, not all boys, not all occasions, not all situations and the reason I say that is because I’ve worked with a number of them for 15 years. This is not a I’m not throwing this out to defend the program. This is based in a long time of being a clinical practitioner.

Cath: 40:24

What the program has effectively said is porn, social media gaming and being out of the sight of parents is the thing that caused the problem, and what I’m not seeing being discussed is really what it was like for a young boy to not get on with his father in that way. There was no discussion about how he got on with his mother. There was certainly a lot of shame, a lot of parental conflict, a lot of um, uh like parental uh modeling in terms of the way the father behaved. That that was completely missed and that’s the bit that we haven’t focused on. And yet again, I don’t need to say this to you when you go back and look at attachment processes of children who end up in criminal justice systems. There is always that child to parent neglectful or abusive attachment process underneath it all. What we have done is we found the common enemy to point towards. It’s social media, it’s pornography, it’s gaming are job done. Wash our hands of it, make it go away.

Colby: 41:27

And certain speakers in the so-called manosphere. So yeah, very interesting points that you make passionately, kath. I think it’s just yet another example of an inherent need is not the right word for it but an inherent focus on the behaviour of concern and a lack of consideration of the reasons those behaviours exist.

Cath: 42:06

And Daniel Kahneman would be, or is probably rolling in his grave, as the phrase goes. Because if ever there was a situation that absolutely played out type one and type two errors, as he called them, uh in in terms of the errors of misjudgment, the errors of speedily uh making a decision based on intuition, that is not true. This is it.

Colby: 42:29

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yep, it’s been my own reflections that we’re missing the point really in our society, or community’s concern about young boys, or community’s concern about young boys. We’re missing the point by creating labels, by concern about the online presence of certain people. The point that we’re missing is consideration of the experience of our boys growing up.Cath: 43:11

Absolutely absolutely.

Colby: 43:15

And, for example, why they’re turning to connections, connection on the internet, to help them to understand who they are as a male person. And you said something earlier which I think will resonate, which is that young people seek in the online world that which they’re missing in the real world, so to speak. I mean, the online world is the real world, but you know what I mean? Yeah, so if our boys are attracted to or consuming a certain type of content, then we really need to be looking at well what’s actually going on with our boys in terms of their connections in the real world, in the non-online world.

Cath: 44:19

Yeah. So there’s two little points that I want to dip into here. One is early childhood experiences of everybody’s equal, and I’ll come to that one in a second. But if you look at the internet writ large and how these podcasts occur and take place, what I would say is we are getting a cocktail phenomena, and the screenwriter and the conversation about Andrew Tate is quite minimal. So what I’ll say is you get what I have colloquially called the bro science podcasts.

Cath: 44:52

Ok, it’s a number of podcasts of adults talking to adults, and some of those podcasts are Jordan Peterson, they are Joe Rogan you know some of the biggest podcasts in the world and it’s adults talking to adults about adult sexual behavior. And in that space is where Andrew Tate lives. I’ve mentioned him, and Andrew Tate’s audience is not 13 and 14 year old boys, because he can’t sell to them. Because he can’t sell to them and whilst he operates in what I call the porn industry approach, which is customer of tomorrow, his audience are people who are putting money into his wallet, and that audience are young males, usually around 18 plus the males that are consuming the Jordan Peterson and Joe and joe rogan uh, content tend to be a little bit older, and what happens is then there is a conversation that takes place between the adults who are on the podcast and the adults consuming the content, and then we have the slightly younger adults who are regurgitating and having the conversations, without necessarily having that level of understanding that maybe Jordan well, jordan Peterson is his own uh, his, his own uh monarchy in his own right anyway, but there is something about an 18 year old young male who might be saying the same things using the same language that’s picked up by a younger sibling, by younger boys who hear it being talked about, I don’t know, when they’re on the football or rugby field, and what I find is the 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13-year-olds are using phrases that they don’t even understand.

Cath: 46:39

And if I was to ask them do you understand the 80-20 rule which was cited in the programme? They don’t know what it means. The 80-20 rule, which was cited in the program, they don’t know what it means and they certainly do not have an understanding about this uh incel movement, which I find kind of interesting because all 13 year olds, in most cases, are not having sex.

Cath: 47:00

They’re not in those kind of relationships, so by default, they are not involuntary celibate. They are celibate by the very fact that they haven’t developmentally progressed to where they are having sexual contact at 16, 17, 18, 19. And it’s this I would certainly say go and have a look at William Costello’s reflection on the incel movement, because the way in which this was portrayed in the program is, as I keep saying, an outlier. This is really really unusual and not the norm. And then, of course, I think to answer the question about why do boys do this and I’m actually going to throw it back as a question to you in a second is when my, when my children so that I’ve raised boys okay, when they were in primary school in the early 2000s, going into the 2010 and onwards, there was a whole approach of everybody’s a winner. There wasn’t on sports days, we all do it together and we all get a certificate. And I I challenged this at the school and I said where is the element of competition which exists naturally in evolution, where? Where is the competition between children racing each other in the egg and spoon race? Because you have to handle disappointment. So I took my children into martial arts. That was the first thing I did, because you learn by losing in martial arts and that is how you develop an ability to understand where you sit in terms of society, in terms of where you sit with your skill set, but also how you can handle disappointment and how you can handle victory and what.

Cath: 48:42

What I, what I have seen is this certainly the 20 plus the 20 to 30 year age group are that cohort of children who did not get the competition during school. I certainly remember my schooling days where your grades were read out in front of every other child. Oh, my goodness, it was heartbreaking If you didn’t you know, if you didn’t get your high score or if you were a low score. Actually, what we tend to do is we grade the children into classes and the top set, as they’re called certainly here is the way they say well, we’re top set, so we know by default we’re much cleverer than the lower set or the common denominator, and that is a normative part of adolescence, that is a normative part of growing up, and that’s actually what happened in the adolescence movie is there was a child who was given a statement. He was called an incel by the emoji. He was called it as an insult and my question would be about that TV program is where did it address who helped that young person manage that approach of being bullied, of being called names, of having disappointment around his father, of the non-victory status?

Cath: 50:01

So my question to you then, colby, would be so what? How do I phrase this? So what is it that we’re we’re not doing? And the reason I’m asking you is because you are a man and I am not. I have lived, uh, in environments, certainly within the army, where there’s a lot of male uh or masculinity and a lot of male attitudes, and I’ve raised two boys, but I, I am not a male, so I cannot talk from that perspective. What do you think we’re not doing? We’re not getting right.

Colby: 50:35

So usually this is the last part of the podcast, Kath, and where I acknowledge that I’ve asked a number of questions and it’s your turn to ask me a question and I actually do that routinely in my practice when I’ve asked people a lot of questions.

Colby: 50:57

And, as I’ve said on a previous podcast, all the kids ask me how old I am. That’s their question, which I give them a somewhat vague answer to. Now, what are we not doing for our boys? I think to answer your question would probably take the time of another of our podcasts, but where does one start? Look, I think we’re failing our boys in so many ways.

Colby: 51:42

As a general opening statement, I think that in our society my wife and I often talk about having three boys of our own we’re worried about the way society is going to be for them. For them, I think society has moved to one, to a place of accountability. So men need to be accountable for some of the problematic behaviours that do exist in our society. Men need to understand, for example, the dynamics of intimate partner violence, of intimate partner violence and consent in sexual matters. Our young men need to know all that, but our young men need. We’re not proud. I don’t think we’re proud of our young men as a society.

Colby: 53:12

I think where we’re failing them is that the messages are too much focused, a bit like what you’ve been talking about, not so much outliers, because the rates of domestic or intimate partner violence in our communities, for example, are not insignificant, so I wouldn’t necessarily call it an outlier. It is a significant problem in our community. However, not all men you know the vast majority of men are not perpetrators of intimate partner violence, are not perpetrators of problematic sexual behaviour towards their partners, and I don’t think our boys get that message that we, that they, they get the message that we’re worried about them, we’re worried about their capacity to do harm. Um, they don’t get us get the message so much that we’re, we’re, we’re proud of their achievements, that we’re even proud of differences between what a person, what a male gendered person, can contribute in all aspects of society, and celebrating the distinctions between masculinity and femininity. Sorry, kath, you did ask a question. It could be a very long answer.

Cath: 54:53

It’s a complicated question. It is. I guess it’s like everything else, nuanced. It is very nuanced, multi-faceted.

Colby: 55:04

I think so. If I really would sum it up, it was a question without notice, but that’s okay. Because I love questions, I always promise I’m being able to answer any question put to me. I would put it like this Our boys are exposed from a relatively young age to a lot of concern about masculinity. As such, perhaps yeah.

Colby: 55:38

I think masculinity has become conflated with issues like intimate partner violence and sexual violence, and so the message that they have been given is that to be a man is to be a problem. To be masculine is a problem.

Cath: 56:04

Yeah, absolutely yeah.

Colby: 56:07

The problem with that is that is what we know from attachment, which is if you marginalise people, if you make people feel marginalised in society, in community, then normal social rules and mores the expectations of others have less influence over how they go about approaching life and relationships.

Colby: 56:42

Yeah, yeah yeah, they withdraw psychologically as a defence against being shamed. So I think, to sum up my broader views about this topic, I would say, to the extent that we have marginalized males or made them feel bad and inadequate, or the behavior of a proportion of males, we have in fact contributed to an outcome where we will continue to see problematic behaviours amongst males in our community and we may even see growth in those behaviours of concern in circumstances where the people who are calling out the behaviour would say, well, no, that’s not our intent. Our intent is actually to promote accountability and informed reflection by men about the harms they could potentially commit, so that they can approach life in a much more self-aware way and not commit problematic behaviours. And my concern would be that you’ll never get to that point if you start from a place of it’s a problem being male.

Cath: 58:19

You start from a place of it’s a problem being male. I might change one word in that, because the thing that I found, colby, is it’s you’re the problem. So it’s not being a male is a problem, it’s you are the problem. And for me, that’s to reflect something that a child said in my office and I’ve said this out on social media a number of times I, I don’t want to uh. He was asking a question actually about uh approaching a woman and said I’m not going to bother because I don’t want to be called a rapist.

Cath: 58:50

And I went wow, if that’s the attitude and that’s the fear that young males are holding and and some of it will be conscious and some of it will be unconscious if that’s what we have done as a society is create this feeling that you are the problem, it is no wonder that there is a retaliatory uh um response at the moment, because I think and I’m going to quote my friend here, actually, who I’m going to suggest you talk to at some point as well Lisa Edison, who’s created shame containment theory and she talks about shame. Containment is all about you contain your shame. Shame seeps out and it comes out as rage and it comes out as aggression and it comes out. And if we are continually pointing the finger that you, being male, are the problem, then this contained shame is going to be uncontained and uncontained shame. Is that really primal aggression that comes from a place of well I might as well, anyway, if that’s your and it’s kind of people’s opinions, isn’t it, I guess?

Colby: 1:00:03

And it’s the well, it’s like, almost like the dogs in Seligman’s helplessness experiments.

Colby: 1:00:13

Yeah, if I’m damned if I do, and I’m damned if I don’t, then I might as well just do what I want to do, rather than um do what I want to do, in consideration of how society um thinks about what you want to do, and so I think so that yeah again, not to not to be meaning to be repetitive um and, by the way, I’m always interested in suggestions for interesting people to speak to address here are um are likely to be maintained or even worsened in in circumstances where it is a shame to be male I I’m I’m feeling incredibly sad deep down at the moment as we’re talking about this.

Cath: 1:01:21

I really really feel incredibly sad for the men who are emerging and the males yet to be men. I really worry in terms of, absolutely, we need to address violent behaviour, but also we need to understand where violent behaviour comes from, and I think what we have done is what I call the finger-pointing exercise, and it has never worked in society, and I just wanted to acknowledge, on behalf of those men, I feel incredibly sad that we have done this, yeah, and we society.

Colby: 1:01:54

So I think, if we just bring together a number of threads of our conversation, it is the case that when a problem arises, our society tends to focus too much on the behaviour of concern and too little on the reasons why those behaviours exist, yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:02:20

And that inordinate focus on the behaviour of concern would, in my view, maintain and perhaps exacerbate the behaviour or increase the Now I’m starting to lose my words, Kath Increase the prevalence of the behaviour? Mm-hmm. Yeah, so the very response is a significant part of the problem. Kath, it’s been awesome to speak to you. There’s been so many things that have come out of this conversation that I hope are thought-provoking for people. People can contact you, I guess, via your website.

Cath: 1:03:28

Yeah, probably the easiest way to find out where I am is on TikTok, Instagram.

Cath: 1:03:34

I am on Facebook, but I would certainly say that it’s it’s more of the social media channels and it isn’t always me who’s on the social media channels, because we we put out, because I’m now doing um, I think it’s called micro influencer, because I’m putting out helpful videos for parents um, a lot of it is pre-record, then it gets shared on particular days and times and at the moment I’m doing another blog around, really around this pornography conversation, because I think we also get that one completely wrong. So I once heard a professional say why is porn so horrid? And I thought when did research become values-based Rather than looking at yeah, so people can find you on those mediums that you’ve mentioned.

Colby: 1:04:25

I know that you also have a website, because I was on it earlier, yep, and you’ve got a book coming out which sounds fascinating and I can’t wait to read it myself. So thank you very much for agreeing to be on this fledgling podcast. Thank, you.

Cath: 1:04:45

It was a good conversation. There are things where I was like I don’t think I’ve covered that. I don’t think I’ve covered that I need to do something separate there. But that always happens. So thank you very much, colby.Colby: 1:04:56

No worries.