defining the phrase "kids at risk"

Motek

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:20 pm

This thread is about the phrase "kids at risk," defining it.

I read the following definition in "Off the Derech":

Quote:

"kids at risk" usually refers to a population marked not only by abandonment of observance but also by engagement in socially delinquent activities such as vandalism, theft, substance abuse, promiscuity, and running away from home

this definition drives me nuts because if a kid is doing that, then the kid is NOT AT RISK any longer, but has crossed the line!

if a person is at risk of, let's say, an allergic reaction to certain foods, he will avoid peanuts, dairy products and fish (or whatever triggers the reaction). You wouldn't describe someone allergic to nuts who ate nuts, turned red, blew up, was gasping for air, as AT RISK of an allergic reaction!

agree? disagree?

amother

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:25 pm

Sadly speaking from my own experience.

Sometimes as a parent, it takes until a child does something so drastic to open your eyes.. Until then your in denial, I know I have been in denial with my daughter for a really long time. She's 7 1/2 but she despirately needs help. It's a work in progress. But I admit she finally did something that it shook me to the core and I cannot take it anymore. This summer I am, sadly, despirately searching for a summer camp to take her off of my hands (so I can get a break)

Flowerchild

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:32 pm

maybe I am nuts I dont know but to me a "kid at risk" is a child who is being neglected by parents, teachers and society so because no one cares or starts to care less about this child he/she becomes a kid at risk. does it make sense at all? a person/kid does not become at risk for no reason something in the enviorment of that child caused him/her to be that way. hope it makes sense

Motek

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:38 pm

happyone wrote:

I fully agree with you Motek. (for a change Wink

) I believe ALL teenagers are "at risk" these days.

sorry, but we don't fully agree since - here goes, another thing that drives me nuts:

that line, "ALL teenagers are at risk"

if that's the case, then the phrase is useless ...

Those who work with kids in trouble can enumerate for you specific RISK FACTORS.

Think of risk factors in connection with health - if a person is overweight, smokes, never exercises, and has a family history of heart disease, they are at GREAT RISK of heart disease.

If a person is slim, eats well, exercises, has no family history of heart disease, they are NOT AT RISK of heart disease.

Or a person might have SOME factors that put them at a lower or high risk level.

But does it make sense to say that all human beings are at risk of heart disease? It's true that anybody, even someone with no risk factors, can drop dead of a heart attack, but there is no point in talking about "risk" or "risk factors" if we are going to say that everybody is at risk.

amother

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:42 pm

Crayon210 wrote:

If she's got problems, why would you send her away (where there will likely be less supervision)?

mother with 7 1/2 year old.

A. I am looking for a camp that will help build up her self esteme and self worth. She was abused by my ex husband.

B. I have two boys, that B"H are doing beautifully! (My youngest does not remember the abuse B"H and my middle child realizes we are safe now so he's making tremendous progress!) It really upsets her to see them succeed where she is struggling.

C. Yes I agree that "at risk kids" come from somewhere. I know where my daughter's issues come from and she's working on them through therapy.

Yet, I deserve a break from her scandals! My boys deserve a break from her manipulation, we are healing also.

Motek

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:45 pm

I am sorry amother, to hear of what you have to contend with (I believe you have written about this in another thread). By the way, 7 and 1/2 is generally considered too young to send to sleepaway camp.

If I may ask, please, respectfully, can we talk about the phrase "kids at risk" in this thread?

happyone

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 1:51 pm

Yes, Motek. all people are at risk for heart disease if: they don't watch what they eat, don't' exercise etc... Not saying they will get heart disease but without proper care we all are at risk. The risks are greater if someone already is overweight, has high cholesterol etc...

all children are at risk unless they are loved, nurtured, mechanech properly etc...
the children with higher risks are of course those from dysfunctional homes (which can be defined as having more than one person Smile

), those from single parent homes, children that have experienced a trauma in their life, abused children , learning disabled children etc..

But our children, under normal circumstances are "at risk" too! It's up to us to see to their chinuch, friends, and outside influences.
unfortunately today, we see children from top homes 'off the derech' .
in some cases it was internet access, in some it was neighbors and friends and so on..

Motek

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 3:12 pm

amother - I understand that your daughter is at risk. This thread is about DEFINING that term.

happyone wrote:

Yes, Motek. all people are at risk for heart disease if: they don't watch what they eat, don't' exercise etc.

that IF makes quite a bit of difference!

Quote:

Not saying they will get heart disease but without proper care we all are at risk.

again, you are qualifying it and by qualifying it you are saying we are NOT ALL at risk!

Quote:

The risks are greater if someone already is overweight, has high cholesterol etc...

but of course!

Quote:

all children are at risk unless they are loved, nurtured, mechanech properly etc...

What is the point of the statement when you qualify it with the word "unless"? Confused

Surely you don't think ALL children aren't loved, nurtured and properly educated, ergo, not ALL children are at risk, certainly not equally so!

Quote:

the children with higher risks are of course those from dysfunctional homes

for some reason you want to start off by saying "all children are at risk" and then go on to say that some are at higher risk than others

I don't see the point in that.

Why not say, one is at risk IF the following risk factors are present?

Quote:

those from single parent homes, children that have experienced a trauma in their life, abused children , learning disabled children etc..

nu? so are children from two-parent homes who have not experienced a trauma, who haven't been abused, who don't have learning problems, at risk?

Quote:

But our children, under normal circumstances are "at risk" too!

You mean, by virtue of their being alive???? Then the phrase is meaningless and we may as well chuck it.

Ruchel

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 3:43 pm

Motek wrote:

This thread is about the phrase "kids at risk," defining it.

I read the following definition in "Off the Derech":

Quote:

this definition drives me nuts because if a kid is doing that, then the kid is NOT AT RISK any longer, but has crossed the line!

I agree. I think people in these cases say "at risk" to be politically correct.

rosehill

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 6:18 pm

Risk is the statistical probabilty of a particular occurance from 1-100%.
Anyone can drop dead from a heart attack, but one who is thin, has good cholesterol/BP levels etc, would be at a very LOW RISK, whereas an overweight, smoker with family history, etc, would be at a very HIGH risk.
So the first person may have, say a 5% chance of a heart attack, whereas the second may have a 90% chance, but nobody is immune.
Same with our children going off the Derech. Nobody is immune. Everyone is "at risk", but that being a relative term, some are at more risk than others.
Perhaps the question can be defined as "What makes a child at more risk than average of going of the Derech"?

Motek

Thu, Jun 15 2006, 10:22 pm

Quote:

Anyone can drop dead from a heart attack, but one who is thin, has good cholesterol/BP levels etc, would be at a very LOW RISK

Why would you say he's at risk at all? A risk is a likelihood of something happening. If a risk is negligible, we don't bother mentioning it.

And by the same token one can say, "anybody is at risk", in the positive sense, or better put, "has the potential," of growing up to be a tzadik or tzadekes. So?

Quote:

Perhaps the question can be defined as "What makes a child at more risk than average of going of the Derech"?

happyone gave quite a few answers to that question

rosehill

Fri, Jun 16 2006, 2:52 pm

Quote:

If a risk is negligible, we don't bother mentioning it.

I disagree.
Certainly when allocating resources, we need to triage, and those at "higher risk" will have greater needs.
But when we are talking about an issue as important as our children's futures, we must be aware that there are no guarantees, and we must remain constantly vigilant

Quote:

And by the same token one can say, "anybody is at risk", in the positive sense, or better put, "has the potential," of growing up to be a tzadik or tzadekes. So?

So let's start a thread about this. I, for one, need all the help I can get!!!

Motek

Fri, Jun 16 2006, 7:46 pm

rosehill wrote:

But when we are talking about an issue as important as our children's futures, we must be aware that there are no guarantees, and we must remain constantly vigilant

Being aware, yes. But to call all children "at risk" seems to me counter-productive. And being constantly vigilant doesn't mean the children are at risk, does it? It means you are trying to prevent them from moving into that category.

Like if a person is slim, non-smoker, eats well, exercises, no family history - on a spiritual level he should be aware that there are no guarantees and as the mishna says, "repent the day before you die" (and nobody knows when that will be), but as far as health is concerned, there is no reason for him/her to give much thought about heart disease, I don't think.

Quote:

And by the same token one can say, "anybody is at risk", in the positive sense, or better put, "has the potential," of growing up to be a tzadik or tzadekes. So?

Quote:

So let's start a thread about this. I, for one, need all the help I can get!!!

go ahead, start one (I'm not sure about what exactly) Smile

Inspired

Sat, Jun 17 2006, 8:08 pm

"At risk" in this context generally means at risk of leaving the yeshiva system. "At risk" kids are usually in some sort of yeshiva but are exhibiting behaviors that show that they may be on their way out (of yeshiva) and, later, off the derech. When they are no longer in any type of yeshiva and are doing other things (chillul shabos, promiscuity, drugs, treif) they are beyond "at risk". Hope that clears that up for you.