Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:52:29.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unfounded assumptions and the abandonment of ‘at risk’ youth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Frank Ainsworth
Frank Ainsworth*
Affiliation:
Edith Cowan University, School of International Cultural & Community Studies, Joondalup Campus, Perth, WA 6027. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At a recent New South Wales forum about the future of residential care, various speakers cited what they thought were the key themes that should guide thinking about the development of future residential programs for ‘at risk’ youth. The themes were that these programs must be small, local and, somewhat less confidently, that they should only be used as a ‘last resort’ when all other ways of addressing the care and treatment needs of these young people have been tried. It was also noted that funding for programs should reflect the level of staff expertise required when programs are treatment rather than accommodation focussed, although what this might mean in practice was not explored. These are all themes that are part of any discussion about the future of the residential component of the out-of-home care system.

The contention of this paper is that these themes are based on unfounded assumptions. When used in service planning to guide future services these assumptions contribute to the abandonment of ‘at risk’ youth to either no service or services that are less than adequate. The themes are explored by applying them to services in other sectors that also deal with ‘at risk’ youth, namely, health, education and criminal justice. The conclusion is that these themes should be replaced with others that will enable community service organisations to develop more appropriate services for ‘at risk’ youth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , 2003 , pp. 24 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Association of Children's Welfare Agencies (2001) Finding a place: A forum on the role and future of residential care in out-of-home care, Sydney, October 17, 2001.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. (1999) ‘Social injustice for “at risk” youth and their families’, Children Australia, 24, 1, 14–18.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. (2001) ‘After ideology: The effectiveness of residential programs for “at risk” youth’, Children Australia, 26, 2, 11–18.Google Scholar
Bath, H. (1998a) Missing the mark; Contemporary out-of-home care services for young people with intensive support needs, Sydney: Association of Children's Welfare Agencies.Google Scholar
Bath, H. (1998b) Therapeutic crisis management: Training manual, Canberra: Marymead Child and Family Centre.Google Scholar
Child Welfare League of America (1998) National survey of public and private residential group care facilities and their capacities, Washington, DC. (available at www.cwla.org/programs/groupcare/nationalsurvey.htm).Google Scholar
Clark, R. (1997) A review of intensive out-of-home care services, Deakin Human Services, Deakin University, Geelong.Google Scholar
Community Services Commission (2001) Out-of-home care and the role of SAAP, Issues paper 1, September, Sydney.Google Scholar
Fecser, A. F. & Long, N. J. (2000) Life space crisis intervention, Hagerstown, MD: Institute for Psychoeducational Training (available at www.air.org/cecp).Google Scholar
Forde, L. (1999) Commission of inquiry into abuse of children in Queensland institutions, Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
Friman, P.C., Osgood, D.W., Smith, G., Shanahan, D., Thompson, R.W., Larzelere, R. & Daly, D.L. (1996) ‘A longitudinal evaluation of prevalent beliefs about residential treatment for troubled adolescents’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 3, 299–324.Google Scholar
Gibbs, J., Potter, G. & Goldstein, A.P. (1995) Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through a peer helping approach, Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
Mendes, P. (2001) ‘The Forde report: An overview’, Children Australia, 26, 2, 37–38.Google Scholar
Sinclair, I. & Gibbs, I. (1998) Children's Homes: A study in diversity, Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Vorrath, H.H. & Brendtro, L. (1985) Positive peer culture, (2nd edn.) New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar