In my last post, Family First at five: Not much to celebrate, I discussed how the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) made it more difficult to provide residential care (often pejoratively called “congregate care” by the Act’s supporters) for the most troubled foster youth while doing little to ensure the development of alternatives. The result has not been surprising–an exacerbated placement crisis, with foster youth around the nation sleeping in hotels, offices, jails and other inappropriate settings. An important new book provides an international perspective on residential care. It shows that the U.S. ranks very low in the percentage of foster youth that are in residential care, casting doubt on the advisability of trying to further reduce residential placements. The obvious conclusion is that we would do better to increase the quality of residential care by raising standards for staff.

The new book, Revitalizing Residential Care for Children and Youth, is a compilation of research on residential care in 16 high and middle-income countries, edited by James K. Whittaker, Lisa Holmes, Jorge F. Del Valle, and Sigrid James, who are professors at universities in the US, England, Spain, and Germany, respectively.¹ The editors define “residential care” as “any group setting where children spend the night,” encompassing settings that vary in size and function and that operate under the auspices of child welfare, juvenile corrections, or mental health. The 16 countries are viewed through a common template, making comparisons possible. However, there are problems with such comparisons. As explained in the second chapter, countries differ in the terms they use for different types of care and how they define these terms, among other things. The editors’ definition of “residential care” does not ensure that the same facilities are being counted across nations. A small group home with paid staff might be classed as “foster care” in some countries, and some facilities (like those for youth offenders) might be counted in the residential totals for some countries and not others.

Keeping in mind the impossibility of obtaining data that is totally comparable across countries, there appears to be a striking variation between nations in the utilization of residential care for youths who are in out-of-home placements. The editors defined the residential care utilization rate as the proportion of out-of-home care dedicated to residential care rather than family foster care or other types of out-of-home placements. This percentage ranged from seven percent in Ireland and Australia to 97 percent in Portugal, as shown in Figure 29.1, which is reproduced below. The United States had the third lowest residential care utilization rate, with ten percent of children in out-of-home placements being in residential settings. Moreover, the number of children in U.S. residential care fell by about 25 percent between 2015 and 2019. According to the editors, it appears that countries in the low-utilization category have made legislative changes (like FFPSA and California’s Continuum of Care Reform in the US) that have led to drastic reductions in residential care. But the countries with medium utilization rates (between 30 and 55 percent) seem to be focused on improving residential care by strengthening the elements believed to be associated with quality care rather than reducing the utilization of residential care.²

The authors also found great variability in the education and training requirements for residential care staff. These range from no minimum qualification in the United States, Canada and Australia, to high school level (Israel, Argentina and Portugal), to rigorous multiyear vocational training and/or university education in the other countries. A number of countries use both vocationally trained and university educated staff. For example, in Germany, about 70 percent of residential care staff hold a 3.5 to five-year vocational degree as educators (or in fewer cases two years as assistants) and 30 percent have Bachelors’ degrees in social work or “social pedagogy.”³

The editors found that it is countries with lower educational requirements for staff that have turned against residential care and have sought a drastic reduction of its use. Among those countries was, no surprise, the United States, along with Australia and England. In contrast, countries with a high qualification requirement have higher utilization of residential care. This correlation is not surprising. There is no doubt, say the volume’s editors, that “the quality of the services is directly related, in any field, to the qualifications, training and experience of the professionals who provide them.” In child welfare, they argue, “[I]t is difficult to carry out the work without a qualification based on the learning of very diverse theories related to child development, the clinical expressions of trauma, listening and helping techniques, the framework of family relationships, and ecological theories.” The editors suggest the existence of a vicious cycle, where low staff qualifications may led to poor quality and outcomes, which in turn lead to reduced funding, making it harder to recruit well-qualified staff.

Unfortunately, available data do not tell us what proportion of children and youth in residential care in each country are there for time-limited treatment for behavioral issues with a plan to “step down” to a family setting. Available data suggest that a majority or large minority of children and youth in residential care in the middle-utilization countries have a mental health diagnosis, which does necessarily mean that they are in a time-limited therapeutic setting. Most likely, the residential care population in the middle-utilization countries is a combination of youths with issues that require treatment in residential care and those who could be in family foster care if available As one of the editors notes in the introductory chapter, “residential care across the globe …does not seem to be limited to the narrow treatment-oriented and time-limited setting it is generally reduced to in several Anglo-American nations. In fact, in many countries,…., children and youth still spend years in residential care programs.”

The assumption that family foster care is always the better choice unless a child cannot function in such a setting may be unique to the English-speaking countries. Small, family style group homes, whether freestanding or part of a campus of such homes, may be difficult to distinguish from foster homes, especially if they use a house-parent model. In fact, the authors say, some countries classify “a small “family group” home, staffed by paid staff” as a foster home. I have argued in the past that high-quality family-like group homes may be better for children than mediocre or poor-quality foster homes and are especially appropriate for siblings. Indeed, as discussed in the book, France has 28 children’s villages, which are family-like units especially for siblings.

The evidence shared by Whittaker et al. has important implications for the United States. Given our low position on the scale of residential care utilization, one might logically conclude that further lowering the number of children in residential care would be unrealistic. In the two countries with lower residential utilization rates than the United States, Ireland and Australia, news accounts document an urgent need for more foster parents, with young people being separated from siblings, moving from one emergency placement to another for lack of a suitable home, and spending nights at hotels. Instead of trying to bring the residential share of foster care even lower, the U.S. might be better advised to follow the example of countries like Germany and Finland, which are focusing on improving residential care programs rather than eliminating them.

Cross-national comparisons are valuable in many policy areas, and the absence of such comparisons in child welfare debates is particularly unfortunate. Reading this book brings home the lack of international comparisons informing Congress when it passed the FFPSA. As far as I know, the supporters of FFPSA’s drastic restrictions on residential care never referred to other countries’ use of residential options; that’s not surprising as such comparisons may have led to uncomfortable questions about the premise that too many foster children and youth were in residential care.

Some members of Congress who supported the residential restrictions in FFPSA may have been more concerned about budgets than ideological objections to residential care. Improving residential care costs money, while cutting it may appear to help balance budgets. FFPSA was designed to be budget-neutral, so that restrictions for funding of residential care were required in order to offset the increase in spending for services to families. And it apparently did not matter to Congress if those costs were by necessity picked up by states that had no other options: the federal government would see the savings.

Perhaps the federal coffers have benefited from the restrictions on federal funding for residential care, especially because federal spending for the “prevention services” side of Family First has been negligible. But it is hard to believe that states have gained financially from the new law. Spending as much as $2,000 a night for a hotel room complete with staffing and security for foster youth, as Washington State is reportedly doing, cannot possibly be a better use of funds than improving and expanding residential care. And the effects on children and youth are disastrous. One can only hope that state leaders will be brave and smart enough to take the first steps in the direction of revitalizing residential care to be a nurturing and therapeutic environment for children and youth and a field that is a source of pride for its practitioners.

Revitalizing Residential Care for Children and Youth should be required reading for anyone involved in making policy or drafting legislation regarding foster care. But it is probably too much to hope that the anti-residential crusaders will choose to read this important book. They find it more comfortable to continue believing that cutting funds for these programs without providing an alternative will save money and help children at the same time.

Notes

1. The countries studied include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotlad, Spain, and the United States.
2. Portugal, with 97 percent of its out-of-home youth in residential care, is in violation of its own law establishing residential care as the last option for out-of-home care. It appears that the country has not developed the supply of foster parents needed to shift the system toward home-based care. Argentina, with 86 percent of children separated from their families living in residential care, is only in the early stages of developing family-based foster care. In Israel, a system of residential facilities or “youth villages” developed as a means of social integration of immigrant groups, starting with survivors of the Holocaust. This system of residential care operates under the MInistry of Education. A separate child welfare system developed later under the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services, to serve the needs of maltreated children, and 63 percent of the children in this system are also in youth villages.
3. According to the editors, “[s]ocial pedagogy is grounded in a holistic understanding of the person and espouses participation, democratic processes, self-determination, and social and moral education within the context of everyday life as guiding values and principles for practice. Individualization (n contrast to standardization) and professional decision-making are further hallmarks of this approach.”