Abstract
Abstract
Background
Despite a global policy push toward the advancement of family- and community-based care, residential care for children and youth remains a relevant and highly utilized out-of-home care option in many countries, fulfilling functions of care and accommodation as well as education and treatment.
Objective
As part of a larger project involving five European countries (Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, and Spain), the objective was “to map” the context and content of residential care in each country, thereby building a foundation for meaningful comparisons and deepened understanding of each system’s inherent logic. Within the context of global deinstitutionalization efforts, the study also aimed to understand factors that hinder or enhance the transformation of residential care.
Method
Using an embedded multiple-case design, data was gathered by each country on its residential care macro context as well as salient variables related to three units of analysis–residential care system/program features, residential care training and personnel, characteristics of youth. Cross-case synthesis was used to summarize and compare cases across relevant dimensions.
Results
The analysis highlighted areas of overlap and singularity, particularly with regard to utilization rates, concepts and methods, workforce professionalization, and characteristics of youth.
Conclusions
Findings provide a more nuanced understanding of how residential care continues to be viewed and utilized in some countries, challenging the ‘residential-care-as-a-last-resort-only’ rhetoric that is currently dominating the discourse on residential care. It further provides an understanding of historical and sociocultural factors that need to be considered when trying to transform services for children, youth, and their families.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Life-span and Life-course Studies,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference102 articles.
1. Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2005). A dream come true – no more residential care. A corrective note. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14(3), 195–199.
2. Ainsworth, F., & Thoburn, J. (2014). An exploration of the differential usage of residential childcare across national boundaries. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12025
3. AKJ (2018). 20 Jahre KomDat Jugendhilfe. Kommentierte Daten der Kinder- & Jugendhilfe, 1, 1–36. Available at: http://www.akjstat.tu-dortmund.de/fileadmin/user_upload/AKJStat/Komdat/2018_Heft1_KomDat.pdf
4. Anglin, J. (2004). Creating “well-functioning” residential care and defining its place in a system of care. Child & Youth Care Forum, 33(3), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CCAR.0000029689.70611.0f
5. Bellonci, C., Holmes, L., & Whittaker, J. (2019). Re-thinking therapeutic residential care (TRC) as a preventive service: Examining developments in the US and England. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2018.1536495
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献