Question

Why is there such a push for male role models for young boys, but not female role models for girls? Is it because there are more "absent" fathers than mothers? What are the actual numbers on this? I was telling a friend's mother about my own childhood and she asked if my younger brother has any male role models, right now. (our dad was killed a year and a half ago) He's 22. In the same story I also talked with her about being thrown out of the house when I was 16 and growing up, for the most part, without a mom. She didn't ask about female role models. Perhaps, because I'm so far beyond it, now? I'm 27. Regardless, this is something I want to spend more time thinking about.

Quick Thought

By letting kids make their own rules to a game (as opposed to instructing them to play the "right" way), they work to discover their rules of the world, their own internal working models, etc. (Piaget's work related to the development of moral reasoning) Plus, I can learn a lot more about a client this way.

Group Work - Solution Focused Therapy

(Readings: Corcoran, J. (2003). Clinical Applications of Evidenced-Based Family Interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Johnson, C. V., Reister, A.E., Corbett, C., Buehler, A., Huffaker, L., Levich, K., & Pena, E. (1998). Group activities for children and adolescents: An activity group therapy approach. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, 8, 2, 71-88.)

My fellow intern sent me an email asking if I’d read the assigned Johnson article, suggesting that we might discuss it and use it to improve the group we’re co-facilitating. At this point, anything to improve the group sounds like a good plan to me, and if it provides a structured opportunity to really use one of these articles, I am all the more for it.

At present, we are running a solution-focused weekly group for five 3rd grade boys. The boys were referred by each of their teachers and met with N. and I individually to establish personal goals for work during the next 6 weeks. We’re about to have our third session and are feeling a bit worse for wear. These boys are lovely and amazing, but also completely wear me out. It’s such a struggle for me to try and find a balance between the kinds of structure I employed as a teacher as compared with the shift in purpose as a school social worker. More often than not, I have to remind myself that I’m not in the classroom and that this fact gives me a lot of freedom. Old habits are hard to break, however.

Our shared concern has been how to use the group curriculum we’ve been given in a way that fits the needs of these boys. As for all groups, setting, duration, and frequency all much be considered. Right now, our timing is off. Well, my timing is off. I can’t seem to fit things in, in an authentic and organic way. I used to be much better with my time management within the context of groups. I’m also wondering if we’re really clear on the purpose, and if N. and I aren’t clear, we can’t expect the group to be. Also, as referenced by Johnson, Reister, Corbett, Buchler, Huffaker, Levich & Pena (1998), the beginning phase of group centers around a search for meaning and these boys are trying on different roles, testing us and establishing who they want to be in this group. Additionally, the relationship between group structure and ego development is a concept worth more time and thought, on my part, and I hope to further my understanding on the interplay soon.

The Corcoran (2003) article is organized in a very accessible way, and the suggested activities are very helpful. I appreciate the concreteness with which the authors are presenting their material. A central question I have when reflecting upon the group is: are we engaging these kids? Most of the activities listed in the SOS (Spell Out) book are not particularly active and for these five boys, that really doesn’t work for them, and N. and I are finding out that it doesn’t really work for us either. I’m still feeling uncertain as to whether or not this group is going to gel. Our plan for next week, however, is to move away from such direct and didactic interventions and work on an art activity, discussing social skills throughout, as they are relevant and opportunities present themselves.

Symbolic Meanings of Toys

Airplane - escape, distance, speed, search, search, freedom, safety, protection, etc.

Animals (wild) - aggression, fear, survival, power, strength, etc.

Animals (domestic) - protection, family, reactions, relations, vulnerability, compliance, dependency, etc.

Baby Bottle - regression, nurturing, coping issues, dependency, babies, siblings, etc.

Ball - interaction, relationships, trust, competition, etc.

Binoculars - perspective, relationship (close/distance), surveillance, hunting, finding, searching, intimacy, self-examination, etc.

Blanket - regression, security, protection, boundaries, etc.

Blocks - defenses, boundaries, construction, limits, rigidity, closure, structure, protection, vulnerability, etc.

Cars - mobility, power, escape, conflict, safety, protection, travel, defenses, etc.

Chalk/Dry-Erase Board - environment, world, creation, emotional expression, contact, pressure, etc.

Clay - aggression, manipulation, creation, control, self-esteem, change, expression, contact, pressure, etc.

Costumes - relationships, communication, anonymity, fantasy, impule, disguise, etc.

• Gloves - avoiding, distance, safety, etc.
• Hats - identity, roles, expectations, fantasy, power, denial
• Masks - relationships, communication, anonymity, etc.
• Sunglasses - hiding, avoiding, distance, etc.
• Wigs - relationships, communication, impulse

Crayons/Paper - creation, contact, resources, problem-solving, etc.

Dinosaurs - past, history, death, power, extinction, fear, conflict, survival, etc.

Doctor's Kit - healing, repair, respect, power, pain, image, crisis, changing, etc.

• Syringe - intrusion, violation, pain, healing, fear, impact, etc.
• Stethoscope - internal feelings, unknown, undisclosed, validation, etc.
• Thermometer - internal feelings, sick/ok-ness, need for help, crisis, etc.
• Blood Pressure - internal issues, anger, calm, state of mind, internalized feelings, etc.
• Operation - crisis, intervention, intrusion, action, risk, resolution, control, vulnerability, etc.

Dishes/Cooking - nurturing, celebration, attention, neglect, demands, etc.

Dolls - identity, self, regression, sibling, anatomy, competition, closeness, friendship, etc.

Dollhouse - family, family interaction/attitude, environment, security, etc.

Fingerpaints - contact, involvement, impact, etc.

Flashlight - control, secrecy, fear, searching, leadership, dependency

Games - competition, competency, structure, resistance, moral reasoning, cooperation, etc.

Grooming - self-image, self-concept, change, validation, caring, nurturing, etc.

Guns - aggression, control anger, hostility, power, death, pain, intrusion, impact, protection, boundaries, etc.

Knife - utensil, aggression, power, defense, protection, intrusion, sexual, etc.

Lights - control, power, secret, escape, hiding, denial, change, etc.

Magic Wand / Crystal Ball - fantasy, wishes, goals, desire, future, etc.

Mirror - self-image, self-concept, memories, past, change, future, etc.

Money/Poker Chips - security, power, control, loss, cheated, etc.

Monster Figure - fear, mystery, protective, secretive, conflict, perpetrator, relationship, revenge, attack, etc.

Musical Instruments - self-expression, internal, communication, creativity, contact, etc.

Paints - distance, expression, inaccessible needs, etc.

Pillow - bed, safety, territory, parent, monster, aggression, relaxation, burden, etc.

Playing Cards - money, control, power, secrets, spontaneity, etc.

Puppets - relationships, communication, anonymity, impulses, disguise, etc.

Puzzles - problem solving, decisions, completion, integration, whole picture, getting-it-together, etc.

Sand - construction, destruction, community, feelings, change, emotional world, creativity, etc.

Teddy Bear - warmth, nurturing, security, companionship, etc.

Telephone - communication, distance, safety, control, power, disconnect, etc.

Water - emotionality, flexibility, freedom, anxiety, orality, sadness, depth, internal, etc.

Adapted from V. Richards, 2007

(note: toys can be a need for or a lack of some feeling, emotional state, or competency. context is always important. nothing is black and white.)

Reading Resources for Grief and Loss with Children

(by no means is this an exhaustive list)

Children Ages 3-8:

Brown, L. K., & Brown, M. T. (1996). When dinosaurs die a guide to understanding death. Boston: Little, Brown.

Curtis, J. L., & Cornell, L. (1998). Today I feel silly & other moods that make my day. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Mundy, M., & Alley, R. W. (1998). Sad isn't bad a good-grief guidebook for kids dealing with loss. St. Meinrad, IN: One Caring Place.

Palmer, P., & Burke, D. O. (1994). I wish I could hold your hand- a child's guide to grief and loss. San Luis Obispo, Calif: Impact.

Silverman, J. (1999). Help me say good-bye: Activities for helping kids cope when a special person dies. Minneapolis: Fairview Press.

Teakle, H. (1993). My daddy died: Supporting young children in grief. New York: HarperCollins.

Thomas, P. (2001). I miss you. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc. (Ages 3-6)

Viorst, J., & Blegvad, E. (1988). The tenth good thing about Barney. New York: Aladdin Books.

Winsch, J. L., & Keating, P. T. (1995). After the funeral. New York: Paulist Press.

Children Ages 9-12:

Clifton, L. (1983). Everett Anderson's good-bye. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Heegaard, M. (1991). When someone has a very serious illness: Children can learn to cope with loss and change. Minneapolis: Woodland Press.

Silverman, J. (1999). Help me say good-bye: Activities for helping kids cope when a special person dies. Minneapolis: Fairview Press.

Smith, D. (1973). A taste of blueberries. Thomas Y. Crowell.

Children 13 and Older:

Agee, J. (1967). A death in the family. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

Alcott, L. M. (2001). Little women. New York: HarperFestival.

Gootman, M. E., & Espeland, P. (2005). When a friend dies a book for teens about grieving & healing. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Pub.

Romain, T., & Verdick, E. (1999). What on earth do you do when someone dies. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

The Dougy Center for Grieving Children. (2004). Helping teens cope with death. Portland, OR: The Dougy Center for Grieving Children.

Recommended for all Ages:

Buscaglia, L. F. (1982). The fall of Freddie the leaf a story of life for all ages. New York, N.Y: Distributed to the trade by Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kroen, W. C., & Espeland, P. (1996). Helping children cope with the loss of a loved one a guide for grownups. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Pub.

Mellonie, B., & Ingpen, R. R. (1983). Lifetimes a beautiful way to explain death to children. New York: Bantam Books.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. New York: Harper & Row.

Rylant, C. (1999). The Heavenly Village. New York: Blue Sky Press.

Lessons That Should Be Learned From the Virginia Tech Mass Murders

From one of my most respected professors. I really admire his work.

Lessons That Should Be Learned From the Virginia Tech Mass Murders

by Ron Avi Astor — May 23, 2007


I’ve been researching school violence worldwide since the early 1980s and I’ve seen how our culture has responded to these tragedies. Unfortunately, some of the most important lessons that need to be learned are often lost in a quest to “understand the perpetrator.” If we hope to reduce future attacks, these are the main lessons we should learn as a culture.


Lesson 1: Students, teachers, and family members are our most important line of defense for saving lives. In almost all mass school shooting events the perpetrator has sent out many messages to friends, family, and peers. These signs follow a similar pattern across many of the shooting situations. This means we need ways to allow these groups to pass information on to the correct places that could address potential danger. Almost all K-12 school murders that have been thwarted were stopped because a student, faculty member, or family member came forward before the event occurred. When these types of lethal events are prevented, our nation should celebrate as heroes the students, teachers, and family members who saved lives. This past year we had one such event in Green Bay. Students were amassing napalm, firearms and had a clear plan to create another Columbine-like massacre. Luckily, one student came forth (many students knew and heard about it), and the school/ authorities took the threat seriously. This tragedy was averted due to the student who heard about the pending attack and the appropriate response from professionals. However, through local media and sometimes the grapevine (and we should have a better way of knowing when these thwarted events occur) it appears that there are dozens of these kinds of student, teacher, and family hero scenarios since Columbine that go unacknowledged in our national consciousness. It sometimes seems that our populous wants to learn after a tragedy occurs but devotes far less effort to understanding how these atrocities have been averted. This hampers our societal learning on how to prevent mass shootings in schools.


Lesson 2: We need to be clear on what to look for. Most of the shooters have been suicidal and homicidal for extended periods of time. The public and media have been trying to frame the cause along one variable (e.g., bullying, mental illness, guns, suicidal behavior, etc.). It’s clearly not ONE variable but the combination of variables. The most important one is threat to self and others. This means that the risk signs we normally look for with suicide could be very helpful in deciding what is a real problem. Has he made threats of suicide/homicide? Does he have a plan? Does he have a target group? Does he have a method? Is he obsessed with weapons, firearms, or explosives? Has he communicated verbally or in writing violent tendencies? Does he have a history of mental illness with violent traits? Does he see himself as a victim with many perpetrators around him? It’s not one of these questions that determine the ultimate risk, rather the combination of all of them that requires the need for speedy intervention. Creating institutional mechanisms that can examine risk variables across multiple categories is critical in assessing the overall risk. A focus on only one or two variables distorts the level of potential risk. Clearly, at Virginia Tech, the perpetrator had been suicidal and reported by his peers; a stalker and reported by his peers; a violence concern to his professor(s) and reported by the professor. So this was not a failure of the cohort to recognize the overall fear and risk involved. Rather, it was a failure of the system to consider (or be aware of) the multiple risks in combination. Part of the reform will require changes in state and federal laws surrounding privacy in high-risk situations, but schools should also change their procedures to inquire and take into account these other multiple variables rather than focus on only one that is presented at that period of time. Most K-12 schools have already informally moved to this kind of swift assessment since the Columbine murders.


Lesson 3: Understanding this act as a form of national terrorism, personal glorification, and a desire for eternal fame. This understanding is critical if we as a society want to reduce the number of such tragedies. The main motivation shooters have in perpetrating these events in the way that they are done is eternal memory and fame. They also want to strike fear into the hearts of every American for many years to come. This means the country should respond to these events as they would to terrorist acts, acts of suicide, and attempts to destroy our morale. Decades of social science research clearly show that glorification of perpetrators in the media right after an event increases the chances of these events happening in the months and years following a saturation of information on perpetrators in the media. A focus on the victims and the pain caused by the tragedy leads to a decrease in copycat events. The public has a right to know information; however, the guidelines and deliberations on what events to show and how to show them should follow similar guidelines surrounding terrorism and suicide. These kinds of guidelines might be helpful to schools in the way they frame the issue to students and faculty. It may encourage a greater alertness and clarity about the need to respond and inform if similar situations appear in their settings. Over time, this type of response may help in reducing the number of copycat events.


Lesson 4. Pre- and post-crisis planning need to include many citizens. Compared with other countries, the United States has very few members of the public trained in how to help and respond in a crisis. Much of my work has been in Israel where most of the people have training in basic crisis principles and response. Hence, in a crisis the EMTs and police have thousands of civilian helpers and allies to help evacuate, secure perimeters, triage, and everyone knows where to go and how to respond in a timely manner. In the United States, the entire immediate crisis response is professionalized to police officers, firefighters, and a small group of crisis workers. There is no reason that all U.S. high school students and college freshmen can’t take basic emergency training courses to increase our national and local capacity to handle disaster events. Clearly, 9/11, the Oklahoma bombing, the many school shootings, Hurricane Katrina, pending earthquakes, and other forms of natural disasters in recent years have shown that our population could be better educated and prepared to be assets in crisis situations. In the same way we educate about CPR or how to use the Heimlich procedure or basic safety classes on riding a bike, or driving a car, we can create short pre-during-post crisis units in health classes (both at the high school and college levels). This would be especially important for schools in high-risk areas (e.g., California with earthquakes). This way our country could have millions of responders rather than populations that feel helpless and are unsure how to respond when the need appears. In the same way that learning CPR and the Heimlich empowers people who learned these skills, basic crisis knowledge could help students feel that they can help and contribute if called upon.

Teachers College Record, Date Published: May 23, 2007
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 14497, Date Accessed: 10/10/2007 11:20:16 PM

Running Groups

I'm losing my thoughts, left and right, with increasing regularity. It's a problem. At any rate, I ran the first session of a solution-focused group for five third grade boys, last week. The intern who will co-facilitate had another meeting to attend, so another intern (at the end of her placement) sat in.

Thus far, this kind of "support" feels to be more of a hindrance than a help. I don't like being observed. In fact, I hate it. I feel much more confident and competent just walking in and doing it on my own. I understand the principle of having a kind of human lifeline in the room is supposed to decrease the anxiety, but that's really not my experience: it makes me want to bolt. I know a lot of it stems from my insecurities and irrational convictions related to my perceptions of constant judgment by others. I'm trying to get over that. This first group, however, also brought up the beginnings of quasi-ethical (perhaps, more ideological) points of contention and reminded me of just how hard it can be to run a group with another person.

For me, when I'm in a teacher's classroom, I try to adhere to his/her version of "appropriate behavior" as much as possible, without sacrificing my own values and ceasing to function as my authentic self (or whatever). It's a different beast, however, when a session is on your turf. This first session was particularly difficult in that the intern with whom I was co-facilitating would only be there the once and I, as previously mentioned, was experiencing my typical anxiety related to the presence, observations, and perceived judgments of my "superiors".

Also: they're boys. Boys after recess. And I'm comfortable with a level of "chaos" that others find infuriating. In my opinion, they weren't horrible at all. Testing, sure; but that's what kids are going to do the first time they're in a new group, with a new adult: test. Of course, I'll sit in on a classroom lesson with my supervisor and the "calling out" and volume that she's OK with makes me want to climb out of my skin. These boys know each other well and this, of course, impacts the dynamics of the group. We discussed group guidelines and they talked over one another regardless. Fairly quickly, they began to police each other, but without any real thought as to how what they said about another child could also be reflected back on themselves. This isn't surprising and while it wasn't my favorite thing, I felt confident that a shift could be made in future sessions.

What threw me was the co-facilitator's response to the kid-on-kid policing: she loved it. She said that it would only become more pronounced and spoke of this as an extremely positive thing. I think I see where she's coming from, in that such self-regulation potentially speaks to group cohesion, but with kids, group process functions a bit differently. Kids calling each other out and putting each other down for not sitting up or talking out of turn doesn't feel right. Maybe it's because there is such a disconnect between what they're saying and what they're doing. To me, it seems more that they reprimand each other for the purpose of gleaning individual attention from the adult facilitators, not because they feel the group suffers from such disregard of agreed upon rules. And the other intern was clear to say that she did not allow for personal put-downs (i.e. "that's stupid" or "shut-up"), but these kids possess not an ounce of tact and when they instruct another child to sit up, it sure sounds like a personal attack.

So, how much of this is just me? Is there a right or wrong? The other intern intimated that best-practice was to let the kiddos work out these issues completely on their own. I have a strong bias toward following the rules by demonstrating the rules, otherwise it feels like this hypocritical free-for-all. I guess I'll see how the group goes this week and what differences there will be with the introduction of N. as co-facilitator. To be continued. . .

Suicide and Self-Injury, Continued

(Ross, S., & Heath, N. (2003). Two models of adolescent self-mutilation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 33, 277-286. )

The gist: "Two models, the hostility and anxiety reduction models, were simultaneously tested in order to determine whether SM in adolescence was characterized by greater feelings of anxiety and hostility" (Ross & Heath, p.1, 2003).

• even after further reading, I still feel unclear regarding the anxiety reduction model and the hostility model - I need to keep working at it
  
• beginning understanding: anxiety reduction model relates to feeling overwhelmed, a need for release and for feelings to stop -- hostility model relates to an inability to express hurt/anger/pain and as such, individual cuts 'to feel'
• state variable - more anxious as a direct result of SI behavior
  
• trait variable - more anxious to begin with, SI somewhat secondary
• seriously, I'm just not connecting with this article and I can't see the relevance of the research - Why is this an assigned article over countless others? - I'll have to come back to it, I suppose

Hurry, J. (2000). Deliberate self-harm in children and adolescents. International review of psychiatry, 12, 31-36.

The gist: This is a British article discussing deliberate self-harm in children and adolescents. In this instance, deliberate self-harm seems to refer to both self-injury as well as parasuicide. Given the year, this article is rather dated in many respects, but I think it serves as an interesting comparison to research, definitions, and practice here in the United States.

• my understanding of parasuicide is as follows: parasuicide refers to repetative, near-lethal behavior that exists without the explicit intend of suicide - driving too fast, dangerous work without the right equipment, binge substance abuse, etc.
• in my mind, parasuicide is not the same thing as self-injury
• parasuicide, deliberate self-harm, uncompleted suicide, attempted suicide - these are sometimes used interchangeably, but don't necessarily mean the same thing - why such messy operationalization?
  
• similar patterns in reporting to child abuse and neglect (i.e. severe underreporting)
• impulsive vs. compulsive behaviors - DSM-IV classifications
  
• the UK seems to lump in SI with everything else. Why?
• N. (Australian) suggests that the Commonwealth tends to lag behind the states by about a year in regard to such things - also made a fine point questioning whether this lumping relates, in part, to differences in health insurance policies - private vs. socialized and so on
• factoring in age and cognitive development
  
• "Adolescents can understand the concept of death cognitively. However, it is not clear that they internalize the end of their own lives, particularly younger adolescents. It would not be uncommon for students even as old as 16 to view death as magical, temporary, and reversible" (Lieberman, Poland, & Cassel, in press)
  

English Learners

So:
I need to learn Spanish.
According to the official data, there are 877 children at my school, 677 of whom are classified as English Learners. The majority of the staff is bilingual and a handful of the classrooms are taught almost expressly in Spanish. The chart paper with brainstorming sessions about Astronomy is covered with words I don’t know. The work stapled to the bulletin boards outside of the class is much the same. Kids ask questions in Spanish and the teacher answers in English. And I love it. But I also have questions.

“Fair play”, my fellow intern N. would say, as she is from Australia and her speech is peppered with a number of other such charming expressions. These kids need the opportunity to learn problem-solving skills and pull apart concepts as much as they can. Not knowing English doesn’t make them stupid. Nevertheless, their tests are in English, they are effectively judged based on their English proficiency, and I wonder when and where that transition is made. I want to talk with the kiddos in Spanish, and in my head I begin to try, but I stop myself from speaking because I don’t remember any more than my numbers, colors, and names of some barnyard animals. This is obviously a problem. I’m realizing that my French is actually more present and accessible than I thought possible, which is a pleasant surprise, but it’s not as if that really helps me in this context. I started a list of phrases/words I’d like to pick up as soon as possible. (“good thinking”, “I like the way you. . . “, “good listening”, “I need you to keep your chair flat”. . . .) Is this going to be enough?

Random sort-of thoughts relating to English Learners in the context of schooling:

• How to approach the subject of difference -- particularly culture and specifically language -- within the context of individual, as well as group sessions

• My thoughts and experiences as a white, monolingual, young woman working in a bilingual school setting
  

• When I'm teaching a lesson in the classroom and a student is reluctant to participate, is it because he/she is shy, does not relate to the subject at hand, isn't listening or does he/she not understand. And if the child does not understand, is it because of my volume, my pacing, my word choice, or is it a language-related barrier? This last bit is a completely new experience for me.
  

• I'm taking a Spanish class at the city college beginning next week and I ask the impressionables to help me at every turn. This builds rapport and trust, but is it going to be enough to really improve my conversational skills?
  

A Systems Approach to the School

1. The system is greater than the sum of its parts. Think of a car that is shiny and new and ready to drive off the dealer's lot. Then picture a pile of car parts -- all the same ones that are in the new car. Given the choice, which would you like to have? Most people would choose the fully assembled car because it is more than just a pile of parts. It is a fully operational system.

2. In a system, all people and all parts of the system are connected. Everyone in the system has a role in how it functions. In other words, it is not likely that there are simply "bad" kids in the school without all the other components of the system (including the parents) making a contribution to their failure or their acting-out, even if that contribution is inadvertent.

[couldn't the same could be said for "good" kids and prosocial behaviors?]

3. The system will always work towards maintaining itself, for better or worse. This state is called homeostasis, meaning that the system, in this case, the school, will strive for some kind of balance. Systems may sacrifice individuals, even whole groups, to achieve that homeostasis.

4. The system will discourage change. In an attempt to keep the balance of the system, the system will discourage change; it will discourage differences or unusual and atypical behaviors. Difference is punished; conformity is rewarded.

5. Interactions between people are circular, not simply a series of causes and effects. To make positive and lasting improvements, we must look at the whole network of interactions between and among people in the organization. For example, expelling a student who acts out will rarely bring an end to the problem; usually someone else will fill that problem role. That is the same as saying A (the acting out) leads to B (getting expelled) leads to C (resolution of the problem), and that is the end of the process. From a systems perspective, that is only a small fraction of what is happening in the system. The interactions that happened before the child acts out at school and the programs and planning that must be put into place after the child is expelled are equally important, and essential to figuring out how the system is functioning.

[in this situation the problem is the behavior and how it is negatively affecting the classroom environment. as such, the point stands that a new student will inevitably rise to step into the abandoned role of "attention-seeker". what is not considered, however, is the additional lack of problem-solving for the initial student whose needs are certainly not met through expulsion.]

6. Some systems have scapegoats. Systems that are not working well, or are unhealthy in some meaningful way, tend to produce scapegoats.

Taken from: Garbarino, J., & Delara, E. (2003). An educator's guide to school-based interventions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.