An exploration of the differential usage of residential childcare across national boundaries

The use of residential placements for children needing out-of-home care remains controversial. This article considers the discourse of 'residential' and 'institutional' care before describing, mainly through administrative data sources, the wide variations in group-care usage in different jurisdictions. In some countries, its use is minimal, with foster care, kinship care and in some cases, adoption being the preferred options. This is not so in other countries where a high percentage of children in care are in residential placements. There is also diversity in the type of residential services, ranging from small group homes to large institutions. The challenges inherent in making process and outcome comparisons across national boundaries are explored. The authors concur with those who argue for more systematic ways of describing and analysing the aims and characteristics of residential settings. Only then can meaningful comparisons be made between outcomes from group-care regimes in different jurisdictions.

[1]  B. S. Franz.  Children in alternative care , 2016 .

[2]  宮島 清.  Issues of the foster care system in Japan and through guidelines for the alternative care of children , 2012 .

[3]  N. Biehal,et al.  Living in Children's Residential Homes , 2012 .

[4]  M. Courtney,et al.  A guide through the knowledge base on children in out‐of‐home care , 2011 .

[5]  Gabriel Eichsteller,et al.  Social Pedagogy — A New, Familiar Tradition? Some Thoughts on the Special Issue , 2011, Children Australia.

[6]  June Thoburn,et al.  An international classification system for child welfare programs , 2011 .

[7]  David Berridge,et al.  Raising the bar? : evaluation of the Social pedagogy pilot programme in residential children’s homes , 2011 .

[8]  P. Moss,et al.  Social pedagogy and working with children and young people : where care and education meet , 2011 .

[9]  Bethany R. Lee,et al.  Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards , 2011 .

[10]  J. Thoburn.  Achieving safety, stability and belonging for children in out-of-home care. The search for 'what works' across national boundaries , 2010 .

[11]  Clare Tilbury,et al.  Using racial disproportionality and disparity indicators to measure child welfare outcomes , 2009 .

[12]  P. Hansen,et al.  Residential Programs for Children and Young People , 2009 .

[13]  R. Gilbert,et al.  Recognising and responding to child maltreatment , 2008, The Lancet.

[14]  P. Hansen,et al.  Residential programs for children and young people: Their current status and use in Australia , 2009 .

[15]  P. Hansen,et al.  Programs for high needs children and young people: Group homes are not enough , 2008, Children Australia.

[16]  Eastern Europe,et al.  TRANSMONEE 2007 features : data and analysis on the lives of children in CEE/CIS and Baltic states , 2007 .

[17]  I. Sinclair,et al.  Can the corporate state parent , 2006 .

[18]  C. Hamilton-Giachritsis,et al.  Overuse of institutional care for children in Europe , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  R. Barth.  Residential care: from here to eternity , 2005 .

[20]  P. Hansen,et al.  A dream come true – no more residential care. A corrective note , 2005 .

[21]  A. Libby,et al.  Inside the Black Box: what constitutes a day in a residential treatment centre? , 2005 .

[22]  H. Daniels,et al.  Services for troubled adolescents: exploring user variation , 2003 .

[23]  C. Jeffery,et al.  Fairbridge : empire and child migration , 1999 .

[24]  F. Ainsworth.  Social injustice for ‘at risk’ adolescents and their families , 1999, Children Australia.

[25]  F. Ainsworth.  Residential Programmes for Children and Youth: An Exercise in Re-framing , 1985 .