What is a careful “social autopsy"? BAM: Becoming A Man

Youth violence is one of Chicago’s most pressing public policy problems, with more than 610 Chicago Public School (CPS) students shot between September 2008 and April 2010. Nationwide, homicide is by far the leading cause of death for blacks ages 10-20, accounting for more than the next nine leading causes combined. A careful “social autopsy” carried out by the University

of Chicago Crime Lab in 2008 revealed that a large share of homicides of Chicago youth stem from impulsive behavior – young people with access to guns, massively over-reacting to some aspect of their social environment. This finding is consistent with a growing body of research showing that “social-cognitive” skills such as impulse control, future orientation, and conflict resolution are predictive of a wide range of key life outcomes. A recent randomized clinical trial, the largest ever conducted with an urban youth population (nearly 2,500 adolescent boys in 18 schools in Chicago), carried out by the University of Chicago Crime Lab in partnership with Youth Guidance, World Sport Chicago and the Chicago Public Schools showed that an intervention called Becoming a Man-Sports Edition (“BAM”): Strengthened social-cognitive skills and generated massive declines in violent crimes by at-risk youth (over 40 percent) during the program year, though the impact faded the following year; Increased the degree to which youth were engaged in school, as measured by school attendance and class credits earned, an impact that lasted through the program year and the year following. If these school engagement impacts persist, we estimate it would improve the high school graduation rate by 5 to 8 percentage points – a large change given that the average graduation rate of the 50 largest urban districts in the U.S. is just 53 percent. The one year of reduced violent crime arrests together with schooling impacts generate benefits from the program that are from 3 to 31 times the $1,100 per youth program costs. Janet and I were enjoying a wonderful dinner at the home of friends. The hosts, Jerry and Linda, were the parents of a terrific young girl who attended our school. Barbie, twelve years old, had significant learning and language problems, and these difficulties often caused social difficulties. Her impulsivity and her inability to monitor her language effectively often created embarrassing situations for Barbie and her family. Barbie joined us for dinner, and the five of us were enjoying an exceptional meal and stimulating conversation. The discussion turned to automobiles. "We're going to get a new car next week! It's s-o-o-o-o beautiful and it has a CD player. It's very fancy…not a cheap car like yours!" Barbie blurted out, excitedly. The table went silent. Jerry was humiliated. Linda was near tears. Barbie, unaware that her comments were offensive, continued her conversation. Jerry erupted. "That is the rudest thing you have ever said, young lady! Leave the table right now and go to your room." Confused, Barbie sheepishly left her seat and went to her bedroom, closing the door behind her. The four of us quietly continued our meal under a pall of embarrassment. Jerry knows me well enough to recognize that I did not approve of his response. He finally broke the uncomfortable silence by saying, "Okay, Rick. I know that I blew that one." "What did I do wrong? What should I have done?" Reluctant to convert the meal into a consulting session, I replied, "We can talk later." "No, really, Rick, I want to know. She's always doing that kind of thing. We punish her, but it doesn't seem to help." "Jerry," I began, "you are wonderful with Barbie. You are her most effective teacher! What if you were trying to teach her the multiplication facts and she said that five times three equaled twenty. Would you have yelled at her and sent her to her room?" "Of course not," Jerry responded. "I would have taught her the right answer so she would know it the next time." "Exactly," I countered. "And that's what you need to do when she makes social errors, too." This incident gave birth to the concept of the "Social Skill Autopsy." This technique is now used in schools and homes throughout North America and has been effective in improving the social competence of thousands of children. The strategy is based upon three basic tenets. 1.Most social skill errors are unintentional. It is universally accepted that a primary need of all human beings is to be liked and accepted by other human beings. Therefore, if a child conducts himself in a manner that causes others to dislike or reject him, can we not assume that these behaviors are unintentional and far beyond the child's control? Why would a child purposefully defeat one of his primary needs? 2.If you accept the premise that the offending behavior is unintentional, it becomes obvious that punishing a child for social skill errors is unfair, inappropriate, and ineffective. 3.Traditional approaches to social skill remediation are not effective. These strategies—role-playing, demonstrations, videotaping, lectures, discussions—seldom have a positive impact on the development of children's social competence. They may have a temporary short-term effect, but the results are seldom lasting and do not often generalize to other settings. The Autopsy approach provides the socially struggling child with an authentic real-life "laboratory" in which he can learn, develop, and apply effective social responses to actual social dilemmas. This authentic approach parallels the LD child's tendency to learn more effectively in practical situations. If you want to teach dining-out skills, conduct the lesson in a restaurant; teach bus etiquette on the bus; and so on. Before outlining the process of the Social Skill Autopsy, it is useful to explain what this process is not. This technique is not intended to be a reprimand, a scolding, or a punishment. Neither should the Social Skill Autopsy be solely controlled by the adult, without input from the child. This strategy should not be viewed as a one-time intervention.Rather, the effectiveness of the Autopsy will be greatly enhanced if the strategy is used frequently. The technique will be ineffective if it is used in a hostile or angry manner. The child should feel secure and supported throughout the Autopsy process. The Autopsy approach has been extremely effective in modifying and improving the social competence of children in a variety of settings. The technique is easy to learn and can be utilized by family members, babysitters, bus drivers, or coaches. By training all of the adults in the child's life, you ensure that he will be benefiting from dozens of Social Skill Autopsies each day. This intensive exposure will foster growth and generalization of the target skills. The success of this strategy lies in the fact that it provides the child with the four basic steps in any effective learning experience: practice immediate feedback instruction positive reinforcement Scolding, reprimanding, and punishing provide none of these elements. Barbie was sent away from the table for her inappropriate remark, but no teaching, learning, or reinforcement occurred. As a result, an important learning opportunity was lost. Nothing occurred to make the behavior less likely to be repeated in the future. Another reason that the Social Skill Autopsy approach is so effective is that it enables the child to clearly see the cause-and-effect relationship between his social behavior and the responses and reactions of others. Children with social skill difficulties often are unable to recognize this relationship and are frequently mystified about the reactions of their classmates, teachers, siblings, and parents. As a child once told me, "People get mad at me all the time and I just don't know why." The Social Skill Autopsy strategy can be a very effective and responsive technique if used properly. It is critical to be mindful that an Autopsy should be conducted as an instructional, supportive, and nonjudgmental intervention. It should be conducted as soon as possible following the offending behavior and should not be viewed—by the adult or the child—as a scolding or negative interaction. Conceptually, the Social Skill Autopsy is based on the idea of a medical autopsy. Webster's dictionary defines autopsy as "the examination and analysis of a dead body to determine the cause of death, the amount of physical damage that occurred, and to learn about the causal factor(s) in order to prevent reoccurrence in the future." The working definition of a Social Skill Autopsy is "the examination and analysis of a social error to determine the cause of the error , the amount of damage that occurred, and to learn about the causal factor (s) in order to prevent reoccurrence in the future." The basic principle is to assist the child in analyzing actual social errors that she has made and to discuss the behavioral options that the child could have utilized in order to have improved the situation. In seminars, I often cite a classic Social Skill Autopsy that I conducted in a dormitory. I was walking the halls of the residence when I heard loud arguing in Tom and Chip's dorm room. I entered the room and inquired about the nature of the argument. "It's Tom!" Chip bellowed. "Yesterday I bought a brand-new tube of toothpaste. Tonight, Tom borrowed it and lost it!" I turned to Tom and said, "Let's autopsy this!" I began by asking Tom to tell me what had happened. He explained that he was unable to find his own toothpaste. He borrowed his roommate's tube, although he was unable to locate Chip in order to get his permission. He went down the hall to brush his teeth in the bathroom. As he was brushing, Jim (a mutual friend of Chip's and Tom's) entered the bathroom and asked Tom if he could borrow the toothpaste. Jim passed it on to yet another student and its current whereabouts was now unknown. The following dialogue took place: LAVOIE: "Okay, Tom, I understand what happened. What do you think your mistake was?" TOM: "I know, Mr. Lavoie. I won't make that mistake again. I promise. I never should have borrowed Chip's toothpaste." LAVOIE: "No, Tom, that wasn't your mistake. It's okay for you and Chip to borrow things from each other occasionally. You are roommates and friends. You borrow his stuff and he borrows yours. That's not a problem." TOM: "Oh, okay. I've got it now. I know my mistake. I shouldn't have lent Jim the toothpaste. I should have told him, ‘No.' " LAVOIE: "Nope, that's not your mistake, either. Chip and Jim are good friends, too. Chip surely would not have minded you lending an inch of toothpaste to his friend Jim. Try again!" TOM: "I've got it! I shouldn't have let go of the tube. I should have squeezed the toothpaste onto Jim's brush and then returned the tube to Chip!" LAVOIE: "Bingo, Tom, you've got it! Our social lesson for the day is not ‘Do not borrow,' it's not ‘Do not lend.' Rather, our lesson is ‘When you borrow something from someone, it is your responsibility to be sure that it is returned. You cannot give that responsibility to anyone else.' Got it?" TOM: "Yup, I've got it!" LAVOIE: "Okay, let's make sure. Suppose you stuck your head into my office and said, ‘Mr. Lavoie, all the kids are playing catch and I don't have a baseball glove. Can I borrow the baseball glove that you keep in your closet?' I say ‘yes' and toss you the glove. While you are playing catch, your dorm counselor comes over and tells you to return to the dorm to finish some chores. As you head off the field, one of the kids asks to borrow the glove because you won't be using it. What are you going to say?" TOM: "I'd say, ‘Sorry, but it's not my glove, so I can't lend it to you. It belongs to Mr. Lavoie. Why don't you come with me while I return it to his office? Then maybe you can ask him to borrow it.' " LAVOIE: "Great! Now, Tom, I want to give you a little social homework. Today you learned that it is important to return what you borrow and that you can't give that responsibility to anyone else. Sometime this week, I want you to use that skill. I will check in with you on Friday and you can tell me how and when you did it!" As you see, the Social Skill Autopsy has five basic and separate stages: 1.Ask the child to explain what happened. You will want to have him start at the beginning, if possible. However, some children give a more accurate and complete accounting of an incident if encouraged to begin with the climax of the event and work backwards. Don't interrupt or be judgmental. You want his clear recollections. 2.Ask the child to identify the mistake that he made . This is an important and interesting part of the Autopsy process. Many times, the child will be unable to determine when and where the error occurred or his interpretation is inaccurate. Tom initially felt that borrowing the toothpaste was his error. It wasn't. Had I merely punished Tom ("Give Chip three dollars for a new tube of toothpaste"), Tom would have erroneously felt that his mistake involved borrowing the toothpaste. Often, a child will get in trouble with an authority figure, but the child will have no idea what he has done wrong. "I got in trouble at practice today." "What did you do?" "I dunno. But I got the coach mad!" How can a child stop repeating a social error if he is unable to determine or understand what the error is? 3.Assist the child in determining the actual social error that he made . Discuss the error and alternate social responses. At this point in the discussion, the adult should avoid using the word should. ("You should have waited your turn," "You shouldn't have asked the principal if he wears a toupee.") Rather, use the word could: "You could have asked if you could take your turn next because Mom was coming to pick you up early," "You could have asked the principal about his new car or complimented his ties." This strategy underscores the concept that children have options in social situations. 4.The scenario is the part of the process wherein the adult creates a brief social story that has the same basic moral or goal as the social faux pas.The scenario should have the same basic solution as the incident. It should require the child to generate a response to the fabricated situation that demonstrates his ability to generalize and apply the target skill. 5.Social homework is strongly recommended by SyracuseUniversity psychologist Arnold Goldstein as a strategy to ensure the mastery and application of the target skill. This step requires the child to use the target skill in another setting and report back to the adult when this had been done. This technique causes the child to seek out opportunities to apply the social skill that he has learned. In the toothpaste scenario, I assigned Tom the task of using the skill of appropriate borrowing. A few days later, he excitedly told me that the dormitory counselor had lent him her large snowman mug when the dorm students had cocoa on a wintry night. As Tom was rinsing out the mug, another student asked if he could borrow it. Tom told him that he was not at liberty to lend the mug, but encouraged his dormmate to ask the counselor if he could use it. Tom's application of the "borrowing concept" demonstrated that he is well on his way to mastering this skill. Children respond very well to this strategy, and, if it is correctly applied, they do not view the technique as a scolding or a reprimand. On the contrary, they come to view the Autopsy as an intriguing and effective strategy designed to improve their social competence. Students actually request Autopsies when they are involved in a social interaction that they do not understand. A fourteen-year-old girl once entered my office and asked, "Mr. Lavoie, can you help me? Last night my sister called me from college and we ended up having a big argument. I know that I said something wrong that made her angry, but I don't know what I did. Can we do an Autopsy on the call?" Remember the Autopsy is: a supportive, structured, constructive strategy to foster social competence a problem-solving technique an opportunity for the child to participate actively in the process conducted by any significant adult in the child's environment (teacher, parent, bus driver) conducted in a familiar, realistic, and natural setting most effective when conducted immediately after the social error It is not: a punishment or scolding an investigation to assign blame controlled/conducted exclusively by an adult a one-time "cure" for teaching the targeted social skill

Why We Vote!

On 25 March 1965, Martin Luther King led thousands of nonviolent demonstrators to the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama, after a 5-day, 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama, where local African Americans, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) had been campaigning for voting rights. King told the assembled crowd: ‘‘There never was a moment in American history more honorable and more inspiring than the pilgrimage of clergymen and laymen of every race and faith pouring into Selma to face danger at the side of its embattled Negroes’’ (King, ‘‘Address at the Conclusion of the Selma to Montgomery March,’’ 121). On 2 January 1965 King and SCLC joined the SNCC, the Dallas County Voters League, and other local African American activists in a voting rights campaign in Selma where, in spite of repeated registration attempts by local blacks, only two percent were on the voting rolls. SCLC had chosen to focus its efforts in Selma because they anticipated that the notorious brutality of local law enforcement under Sheriff Jim Clark would attract national attention and pressure President Lyndon B. Johnson and Congress to enact new national voting rights legislation. The campaign in Selma and nearby Marion, Alabama, progressed with mass arrests but little violence for the first month. That changed in February, however, when police attacks against nonviolent demonstrators increased. On the night of 18 February, Alabama state troopers joined local police breaking up an evening march in Marion. In the ensuing melee, a state trooper shot Jimmie Lee Jackson, a 26-year-old church deacon from Marion, as he attempted to protect his mother from the trooper’s nightstick. Jackson died eight days later in a Selma hospital. In response to Jackson’s death, activists in Selma and Marion set out on 7 March, to march from Selma to the state capitol in Montgomery. While King was in Atlanta, his SCLC colleague Hosea Williams, and SNCC leader John Lewis led the march. The marchers made their way through Selma across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where they faced a blockade of state troopers and local lawmen commanded by Clark and Major John Cloud who ordered the marchers to disperse. When they did not, Cloud ordered his men to advance. Cheered on by white onlookers, the troopers attacked the crowd with clubs and tear gas. Mounted police chased retreating marchers and continued to beat them. Television coverage of ‘‘Bloody Sunday,’’ as the event became known, triggered national outrage. Lewis, who was severely beaten on the head, said: ‘‘I don’t see how President Johnson can send troops to Vietnam—I don’t see how he can send troops to the Congo—I don’t see how he can send troops to Africa and can’t send troops to Selma,’’ (Reed, ‘‘Alabama Police Use Gas’’). That evening King began a blitz of telegrams and public statements, ‘‘calling on religious leaders from all over the nation to join us on Tuesday in our peaceful, nonviolent march for freedom’’ (King, 7 March 1965). While King and Selma activists made plans to retry the march again two days later, Federal District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. notified the movement attorney Fred Gray that he intended to issue a restraining order prohibiting the march until at least 11 March, and President Johnson pressured King to call off the march until the federal court order could provide protection to the marchers. Forced to consider whether to disobey the pending court order, after consulting late into the night and early morning with other civil rights leaders and John Doar, the deputy chief of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, King proceeded to the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the afternoon of 9 March. He led more than 2,000 marchers, including hundreds of clergy who had answered King’s call on short notice, to the site of Sunday’s attack, then stopped and asked them to kneel and pray. After prayers they rose and turned the march back to Selma, avoiding another confrontation with state troopers and skirting the issue of whether to obey Judge Johnson’s court order. Many marchers were critical of King’s unexpected decision not to push on to Montgomery, but the restraint gained support from President Johnson, who issued a public statement: ‘‘Americans everywhere join in deploring the brutality with which a number of Negro citizens of Alabama were treated when they sought to dramatize their deep and sincere interest in attaining the precious right to vote’’ (Johnson, ‘‘Statement by the President,’’ 272). Johnson promised to introduce a voting rights bill to Congress within a few days. That evening, several local whites attacked James Reeb, a white Unitarian minister who had come from Massachusetts to join the protest. His death two days later contributed to the rising national concern over the situation in Alabama. Johnson personally telephoned his condolences to Reeb’s widow and met with Alabama Governor George Wallace, pressuring him to protect marchers and support universal suffrage. On 15 March Johnson addressed the Congress, identifying himself with the demonstrators in Selma in a televised address: ‘‘Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome’’ (Johnson, ‘‘Special Message’’). The following day Selma demonstrators submitted a detailed march plan to federal Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., who approved the demonstration and enjoined Governor Wallace and local law enforcement from harassing or threatening marchers. On 17 March President Johnson submitted voting rights legislation to Congress. The federally sanctioned march left Selma on 21 March. Protected by hundreds of federalized Alabama National Guardsmen and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, the demonstrators covered between 7 to 17 miles per day. Camping at night in supporters’ yards, they were entertained by celebrities such as Harry Belafonte and Lena Horne. Limited by Judge Johnson’s order to 300 marchers over a stretch of two-lane highway, the number of demonstrators swelled on the last day to 25,000, accompanied by Assistant Attorneys General John Doar and Ramsey Clark, and former Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall, among others. During the final rally, held on the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, King proclaimed: ‘‘The end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. And that will be a day not of the white man, not of the black man. That will be the day of man as man’’ (King, ‘‘Address,’’ 130). Afterward a delegation of march leaders attempted to deliver a petition to Governor Wallace, but were rebuffed. That night, while ferrying Selma demonstrators back home from Montgomery, Viola Liuzzo, a housewife from Michigan who had come to Alabama to volunteer, was shot and killed by four members of the Ku Klux Klan. Doar later prosecuted three Klansmen conspiring to violate her civil rights. On 6 August, in the presence of King and other civil rights leaders, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Recalling ‘‘the outrage of Selma,’’ Johnson called the right to vote ‘‘the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men’’ (Johnson, ‘‘Remarks’’). In his annual address to SCLC a few days later, King noted that ‘‘Montgomery led to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960; Birmingham inspired the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Selma produced the voting rights legislation of 1965’’ (King, 11 August 1965).