Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:09:02.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Homes for Children and Young People: The Problem Not the Solution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2018

Frank Ainsworth  and
Patricia Hansen
Frank Ainsworth*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Townsville Campus, Queensland, Australia
Patricia Hansen
Affiliation:
Hansen Legal, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Frank Ainsworth, PhD, Senior Principal Research Fellow (Adjunct), School of Social Work and Community Welfare, James Cook University, Townsville Campus, Queensland 4811, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In every state and territory in Australia, child welfare departments, under various names, maintain or, alternatively, fund group homes for children and young people in the non-government sector. Increasingly, these group homes offer only four places with no integrated treatment or educational services. In that respect they can best be viewed as providing care and accommodation only. Since 2010, following the release of a definition of therapeutic residential care by the National Therapeutic Residential Care Work Group, there has been debate about how to make group homes therapeutic. In 2017, as part of a wider reform effort, New South Wales renamed all their out-of-home care (foster care and residential care) as intensive therapeutic care and ceased using the term residential. The net result is that the group homes in New South Wales will from now on be referred to as intensive therapeutic care homes. This article raises questions about the utility of this renaming and explores whether or not group homes can be therapeutic given the characteristics of the population of children and young people they accommodate, their small size, the staffing complement and the limited job satisfaction with high staff turnover as a consequence of this smallness. All of these factors lead to the well-documented, anti-therapeutic instability of the group home life space.

Keywords

group homesknowledge and skillstherapeutic milieusocial pedagogy
Type
Opinion
Information
Children Australia , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 42 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

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

Ainsworth, F. (1999). Social injustice for ‘at risk’ adolescents and their families. Children Australia, 24 (1), 14–18.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. (2017). For the few not the many: An Australian perspective on the use of therapeutic residential care for children and young people. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 34 (2), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2008). Programs for high needs children and young people. Group homes are not enough. Children Australia, 33 (2), 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2014). Family foster care: Can it survive the evidence? Children Australia, 39 (2), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2015). Therapeutic residential care: Different population, different purpose, different costs. Children Australia, 40 (4), 342–347.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2016). Child protection Australia 2014–15. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2017). Child protection Australia 2015–16. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
Barton, S., Gonzales, R., & Tomlinson, P. (2012). Therapeutic residential care for children and young people: An attachment and trauma-informed model of practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Berridge, D., Biehal, N., & Henry, L. (2012). Living in children's residential homes. Research report RR201. London: Department of Education.Google Scholar
Californian State Legislature (CSL) (n.d.). AB409 (2015); AB1997 (2016). CA: Sacramento.Google Scholar
Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2011). Social pedagogy and working with children and young people. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Children's Bureau (2015). A national look at the use of congregate care in child welfare. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.Google Scholar
Curtis Report (1946). Report into disturbances at Carlton Approved School. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Eurochild (2010). Children in alternative care. National surveys. Brussels: Eurochild.Google Scholar
Find and Connect (FC) (2017). Family group homes. Retrieved from https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/ref/vic/biogs/E000350b.htm Google Scholar
Ford, J., Gonzales, R., & Schoeder, C. (n.d.). From politics to practice: Reforming residential care in California and the field. San Francisco, CA: California Alliance.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Towards a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113 (1), 101–131.Google Scholar
Grietens, H. (2015). A European perspective on the context and content for social pedagogy in therapeutic residential care. In Whittaker, J. K., del Valle, J. F. & Holmes, L. (Eds.), Therapeutic residential care with children and youth: Developing evidenced based international practice (pp. 288–298). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Johnstone, P. (2017 March). Emerging trends and issues in the NSW Children's Court. Presentation at the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies, Sydney.Google Scholar
Kelsey, K. (1962). One flew over the cuckoo's nest. New York: Signet.Google Scholar
McNally, R. J. (2011). What is mental illness? Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
NSW Family and Community Services (FaCS) (2017). Appendix 5: Service Overview – Intensive Therapeutic Care (ITC) (pp. 5–6). Sydney.Google Scholar
Ofsted report (2017). Children's social care data in England in 2017: Main findings. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk Google Scholar
Pecora, P. J., & English, D. J. (2016). Element of effective practice for children and youth served by therapeutic residential treatment and group care. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs.Google Scholar
Polsky, H. W. (1962). Cottage Six: The social system of delinquent boys in residential treatment. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Queensland Government (2013). Report of the Child Protection Committee of Inquiry. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (19 July 2016). California's continuum of reform: Will it produce as promised? San Francisco, CA: The Chronicle of Social Change.Google Scholar
Scull, A. (1977). Decarceration: Community treatment and the deviant. A radical view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Shemmings, D., & Shemmings, Y. (2011). Understanding disorganised attachment. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Trevithick, P. (2000). Social group work: A practice handbook. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Trieschman, A. E., Whittaker, J. K., & Brendtro, L. K. (1969). The other 23 hours. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Usher, J. (1992). Review of substitute care services in NSW. Sydney: Department of Community Services.Google Scholar
Verso Consulting (June 2016). Therapeutic residential care system development: Evidence guide. Melbourne: Verso Consulting.Google Scholar
Victorian Auditor-General's report (2014). Residential care services for children. Melbourne.Google Scholar
Walsh, F. (Ed.) (2003). Normal family processes (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. (30 December 2017). Group homes for foster children on way out in California. VC Star. Retrieved from http://www.vcstar.com Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principles of normalisation in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar