Osborn and Bromfield state that residential care may be the ideal option for some children in out-of-home care. This supports the conclusions of Bath (1998) and Barber and Gilbertson (2001) who found comparable health and well being outcomes across groups of foster/kinship and residential care.
The “continuum of care” requires a range of placement options to meet the diverse needs of children. It is suggested that for children with extreme behavioural-emotional responses a residential setting may provide the support, structure and therapeutic intervention that they need. There is a call in Australia for more research into innovative options for out-of-home care for children.
A meta-analysis of 9 Australian studies comparing foster/kinship and residential care between 1994 and 2006 concluded across the studies that for children with highly unstable placements, residential care might be more suitable. Their vulnerability to placement breakdown may exacerbate behavioural-emotional responses. A reasonable long-term option for sibling groups, high placement instability, and those moving on to independent living could well be some form of residential care.
Residential care needs to be recognised for the benefits that it can bring to some children with special needs. Child protection agencies need to explore a mix of out-of-home options. Evaluation of residential care options can bring significant change. The aim is to be better able to place a child in a matched environment early in the placement process. This protects secondary trauma; confusion, self-blame and aggression/dis-affective behaviours and cognitions.
The elements that characterise care (i.e., levels of discipline, routine, autonomy and free time) rather than the type of care (foster or residential) could be the determinate of how restrictive a placement will be. Instead of first placing a high needs child within a home setting, and risk multiple breakdowns and subsequent trauma, utilise residential care. Currently, many residential facilities in Australia do not actively implement and monitor intervention theories and models.
“A greater use of treatment foster care involving specially trained foster carers whose remuneration and training is commensurate with the difficulty of the task they are undertaking” is also called for by Osborne and Bromfeild.
Literature highlights the real need to address the limited number of care options available for children and young people with high support needs in Australia (Delfabbro & Osborn, 2005; Delfabbro et al., 2005; Flynn et al., 2005). However, at present, few conclusions can be drawn about what constitutes “appropriately designed residential and specialised models of care”.
What are your thoughts on residential care for children in out-of-home care?
For further information on Foster care and its many isues, please read:
We are Not Victims, We are Survivors
Praise for New South Wales for Creativity Regarding Foster Care






