Summarizing an article - APA Style

Introduction

There appears to be a

renewed level of optimism

within the research and prac-

tice communities with respect

to group and residential care

services offered to young

people and families. Group

care and residential care are

often accessed in the practice

environment as a last resort

(Anglin, 2002; Lee, Bright,

Svoboda, Fakunmoju & Barth,

2011; Whittaker 2011). For

practitioners, the debate over

“last resort” versus “treatment

of choice” (Whittaker, 2011) is

a limited one, as many would

agree that “treatment of

choice” is clearly a better

option. This renewed optimism

is gaining momentum as

service providers invest in

models of care that shorten the

gap between “what we know

and what we do” (Holden,

2009). An emphasis on ‘best

practice’ has resulted in group

care service providers imple-

menting program models that

are utilizing ‘evidence informed

practice’ and ‘evidence based

practice’ within the care envi-

ronment. This momentum,

along with an improved under-

standing of child trauma

ISSN 1705625X Volume 27 Number 3 / 17

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

A Renewed Perspective of Group Care and Residential Treatment:

An Orientation toward Therapeutic Group/Residential Care

Part One – Setting the Context

Establishing Value in the Service System and Initiating the

Construct of Therapeutic Group/Residential Care

Anton Smith, Allen Balser, and Bjorn Johansson

Abstract

In this article the writers offer a historical perspective that identifies themes of connectedness and

describes the social responsibility child and youth care pioneers undertook despite the state’s desire to

move “underprivileged” and marginalized children out of the public eye. Additionally, five waves of group

care development are described. Lastly, the authors offer some definitions of group care and residential

care that are currently gaining traction within the research and practice communities in the western

world. These definitions are built both on factors that differentiate programs as well as defining the

separation of general group care from therapeutic group care. Therapeutic residential care or

therapeutic group care are terms with an agreed upon meaning in the literature and in essence, are

emerging constructs. Throughout this article the terms group care, residential care, and residential

treatment are used in a broad and somewhat inclusive manner to include various group care and

residential programs consistent with the literature.

(Bloom, 1997; Perry &

Szalavitz, 2006), has resulted

in a desire to understand and

improve upon the critical

components of therapeutic

group care.

Criticisms about group care

and residential service have

been typically focused towards

the areas of high service costs,

outcome limitations, and an

overall concern for staff and

client safety (Lee et al., 2011;

Whittaker, 2012; Whittaker &

Pfeiffer, 1994). Although these

criticisms may have some

validity, many of the empirical

studies were one group design.

Several of these critical studies

have overgeneralized group

care and residential care and

do not detail the important

characteristics of the group

care condition (Lee et al.,

2011). A recent example of an

overgeneralization is found

within the article by the Anne E.

Casey Foundation (entitled

“Right Sizing Congregate Care”,

2010) (Whittaker, 2011). In this

article the writers make little

attempt to discriminate

between the levels and types of

group care and utilize

confusing descriptors such as

‘congregate care and institu-

tional care’, terms that have

not been commonly used in

group care since the 19th

century (Whittaker, 2011).

These criticisms have sparked

a wave of interest in the use of

other resources, such as earlier

intervention services, kinship

care, and family based

services.

Few would argue that young

people are served better

through early intervention

services and family based

services. However, there is a

population of young people and

families where group care and

residential services should be

the ‘treatment of choice’ and in

some situations the ‘first

choice’ (Whittaker, 2011).

Often children and families

experience a series of failures

in non-residential alternatives

prior to being referred to group

care and residential services

(Durrant, 1993; Whittaker,

2011). These failures

compound an already

entrenched pessimism, while

adding to the complexity of the

initial referring problems

(Durrant, 1993). A shift in

thinking about residential

service as a ‘last resort’ to a

‘service of choice’ is needed to

effectively serve many of the

young people and families with

complex challenges. It is the

authors’ unwavering belief that

group and residential care has

an important, if not vital, role in

the future of all care services. It

is their hope that this article will

provide a coherent and lever-

aged perspective into the

discussion.

Valuing the Wisdom of Our

Child and Youth Care

Pioneers

In 1601, the first Elizabe-

than Law was established to

assign public responsibility for

needy children by placing them

in Alms-houses (Holden, 2009).

In Ireland unwanted children

were cared for in monasteries

and later in workhouses

(Holden, 2009). Later during

this time period, similar care

was provided through orphan-

ages, reform schools,

Alms-houses and apprentice-

ships in North America (Holden,

2009). Much of the effort

during this time focused on

public safety whereby the

needs of children were

secondary to the public need.

Children were often displaced

by being shipped away to

emerging colonies in other

continents. In North America

they were given train tickets to

the developing west or housed

out of the public eye in strict

disciplinarian facilities (Holden,

2009). It was only in the later

part of the 19th and early 20th

century where an interest in

these children arose from some

of the pioneers of child and

youth care. Johann Pestalozzi

was one of the first pioneers to

actually live within the child’s

life space when he cohabitated

with children from very

deprived backgrounds

(Brendtro, Mitchell and McCall,

2009). He created a stir in

Europe as he educated young

people and reclaimed them to

be solid citizens. His educa-

tional techniques were

grounded in relationships of

love, trust, and gratitude

(Brendtro et al., 2009).

Pioneers such as Mary

Carpenter, Jane Addams, Anna

Freud, Thomas Stephanson,

Thomas Barnardo, and August

Aichorn all echoed themes of

humane treatment, enlight-

ened practice, sustaining

relationship, and the nurturing

of competence and confidence

in children (Brendtro et al.,

18 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 27 Number 3

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

2009; Holden, 2009). Subse-

quent authors such as Becker,

Bettleheim, Brendtro, Durrant,

Fewster, Garfat, Hobbs,

Krueger, Maier, Ness, Polsky,

Treischman, Whittaker, and

Wineman have written founda-

tional works about the field.

These writers and pioneers

have provided a context for the

discipline of child and youth

care. What is most salient in

the evolution of the discipline

and subsequent practice is a

coherent, cohesive thread of

connection. This thread binds

what the pioneers discovered

and what we now more richly

understand from research.

Today’s practitioners are both

student and teacher as they

continue to strengthen these

connections – connections that

evolve, as we collectively chal-

lenge, advocate, support,

research, and develop services

and resources that impact the

lives of the children and youth

who have experienced excep-

tional levels of hardship,

trauma, neglect, and abuse.

The Evolution of Group

Care in Canada

Charles & Gabor (2009)

suggested that the roots of

North American group living

environments for children

followed five distinct waves. The

first wave of residential care,

referred to as the “Moral-

istic-Saviour Era,” started in the

late 18th century and

continued well into the middle

of the 19th century. The

resource began in response to

a moralistic motivation that

believed society had a moral

obligation to provide basic care

to children who had been aban-

doned or orphaned. Further

dispensation was offered to

children who were seen to have

significant mental or physical

disabilities. Provision of these

services was often provided

within an adult population and

blended without consideration

of special need or circum-

stances. Often the motivation

for these paternalistic

programs was to “save the

souls” of young people and this

mission was served by religious

organizations. By similar

process, it was during this time

that mission schools were

beginning to be established in

Aboriginal communities.

During the middle part of

the 1800s and lasting until the

first part of the 20th century,

the second generation of resi-

dential services evolved from a

“Reformation-Rescue” perspec-

tive. Within this paradigm, the

moralistic motivations were still

involved in the care of children.

However, the difference was

the desire to protect and

rescue children. During this

time, formal institutions such

as the early Children’s Aid Soci-

eties as well as preliminary,

rudimentary child welfare legis-

lation developed with a focus

on protecting, reforming, and

training children. It is important

to note these programs were

designed to replace family

involvement and essentially

began institutionalizing care.

A third wave of reform

brought a philosophy referred

to as the “Protection-Segrega-

tion Era,” starting in the late

1800s and lasting until the

1940s. In this time period the

inklings of service specializa-

tion were being applied to

residential services. One legacy

of categorization leading to

segregation was the emer-

gence of the Residential School

System and its subsequent

impact upon the children of

many First Nation communi-

ties. Some other characteristics

of specialization included the

categorizing of care into distinct

areas such as adult, child,

insane, delinquent, orphans,

and poor/homeless. The

philosophy focused on the

impact of one’s environment

setting the stage for a treat-

ment focused perspective.

There was also a growing

awareness that interventions

needed to be adapted to meet

the emerging needs of the

child.

The “Treatment-Intervention

Era” arose in the 1940s and

lasted throughout the 1950s

and was influenced by the

earlier era’s specialization of

client needs and a specialist

approach to treatment. The

greatest change during this

time was the formalizing of

treatment professions with

greater attention to child devel-

opment. A further development

in the specialization movement

was terminology shifting to

describe children requiring

treatment as being “disturbed.”

It was during the latter part of

this era that foster care

systems evolved and many

orphanages were changed into

treatment facilities. Treatment

institutions continued to evolve

ISSN 1705625X Volume 27 Number 3 / 19

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

Within this

paradigm, the

moralistic

motivations were

still involved in

the care of

children.

with the development of

smaller cottage settings and

community-based group

homes. The most important

shift during this era was in the

active use of the milieu as a

vigorous force in the child’s

treatment.

The “Specialization-Interven-

tion Era” evolved from the

1950s treatment interventional

approaches and reached a

peak during the 1970s. During

this time the focus was to

determine what aspects of the

milieu were having a positive

impact upon the child’s life and

how a negative milieu could be

avoided. This thinking began to

generate a shift towards indi-

vidualized treatment programs

that valued the client’s

personal needs.

A “Consumer-Community

Partnership Era” began to

materialize in the 1970s and

continues to evolve today.

Much of the early impetus for

the consumer/community part-

nership finds its roots in the

development of outpatient and

aftercare services that

emerged from residential treat-

ment facilities. These early

attempts at wrapping around

post-care services came from

the realization that there

needed to be smoother and

more effective transitions from

the residential setting into

community. Another significant

development in this time was

the recognition of the role the

client, family, and community

played in treatment success.

Empowered practices, such as

client and family ownership of

the treatment, along with a

client advocacy movement,

ensured the voice of the young

person and family were valued

in the treatment process.

Towards a Definition of

Group/Residential Care

Residential care is a broad

term that encompasses many

different forms of residentially

based placement and treat-

ment services provided to

children and youth with a wide

range of needs. It is a place-

ment option or service at the

intersection of three major

child serving systems: child

welfare, mental health, and

justice. This ‘broad stroke’ defi-

nition has led to the

aggregation of diverse

programs under one umbrella

term, as if group care were a

monolithic construct. Yet, group

care differs significantly along a

range of dimensions including

function, target population,

length of stay, level of restric-

tiveness, and treatment

approach (Leichtman, 2008).

Clear operational distinctions

between different group care

settings do not exist in the

research literature. Group care

is often intended as a place-

ment of ‘last resort’, and as a

response to antisocial charac-

teristics or psychosocial

problems that cannot be

addressed in less restrictive

family-based settings. Since the

emergence of a growing

number of alternative family

and home-based treatment

options, group care has

increasingly been challenged to

justify its place in the treatment

spectrum.

Although residential treat-

ment is now a well-established

therapeutic modality, problems

in defining the concept, with

which pioneers in the field

struggled fifty years ago, are no

less present today. We act as if

there is a consensus on what

the term residential treatment

means, but the concept

remains elusive. It has been

applied to group homes, psychi-

atric hospitals and community

based treatment centres. The

range of what constitutes resi-

dential treatment also includes

those offering comprehensive

treatment for the most

profound psychiatric disorders,

to those treatment programs

with widely differing philoso-

phies and practices.

The term residential treat-

ment began to be used in the

late 1940s. As New Deal

reforms such as Social Security

and Aid to Dependent Children

took effect, the need to institu-

tionalize children for economic

reasons diminished. At the

same time, psychiatry and

social work became increas-

ingly influential disciplines

(Preyde, Frensch, Cameron,

Hazineh, & Burnham, 2010).

As a result of these reforms

institutions that formerly

provided homes for neglected

children, schools for the

retarded, or containment for

delinquents were redefined as

mental health facilities. The

Child Welfare League of

America (as noted in Lee et al,

2011) has stated that:

Group care programs for

youth served by public

20 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 27 Number 3

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

systems share common

features, but also

encompass significant

variation. The purpose of

residential programs can

vary from care and

protection to treatment,

educational emphasis or

detention services. Despite

this enormous program

variability, the terms “group

care”, “residential

programs” and “treatment

facilities” are often used

interchangeably to describe

settings that provide 24

hour care for youth in peer

groups (CWLA, 2004).

While these terms and stan-

dards provide definition to the

dynamics of modern group and

residential care, what is meant

by residential treatment is, in

many ways, less clear now than

it was fifty years ago. At that

time, the term described an

approach to treatment and to

some degree it still does. It is,

however, difficult to specify

precisely what constitutes that

treatment approach – largely

due to residential programs

being oriented around a host of

disparate treatment philoso-

phies, with little attention being

given to articulating the

unifying concepts that underlie

them. Residential treatment

has also been used to denote a

type of facility, yet they differ

markedly in program size, orga-

nizational structure, clientele

served, and practices utilized.

At times it seems residential

treatment is little more than a

label applied to diverse

programs united only by the

distinction that they all provide

in-patient treatment and are

not licensed as hospitals.

The program variations for

group care programs present

significant challenges and

implications for both the prac-

tice and research communities.

From a practice perspective,

group care programs are at

times used as a ‘last resort’

often in instances when a

family setting is deemed inap-

propriate or not available (Lee

et al., 2011). Butler and

McPherson (2007) argue for

the importance of definition for

residential treatment and iden-

tify components that include:

therapeutic milieu, a

multidisciplinary team, delib-

erate client supervision,

intense staff supervision and

training, and consistent clinical

and administrative oversight.

These components require

further definition as they incor-

porate a broad range of group

care programs. Lee et al.

(2011) propose reporting stan-

dards that further identify

program differences in residen-

tial and group care programs.

These reporting components

include: outcomes (program

goal), size of facility and resi-

dences, populations served,

setting and location, program

model, practice elements,

staffing, system influences, and

restrictiveness of setting.

Whittaker (2011, 2012)

views group care and residen-

tial care as suffering from what

he terms ‘benign neglect’ in the

understanding of how

successful residential services

operate. This neglect fails to

fully understand the critical

components or “active ingredi-

ents” of residential/group care,

such as principles, program

models, funding, performance

measurement, and research.

Recent work from Australia

(Versa Consulting, 2011) has

addressed this ‘neglect’ by

identifying key provisions and

features of successful thera-

peutic group care. This includes

the conclusion that therapeutic

residential care (TRC) leads to

better outcomes than general

group care when there is a

program model applying partic-

ular program elements that

underpin practice. This work

also concluded that a thera-

peutic specialist providing

direct clinical oversight is

essential to program success.

Clinical oversight is provided to

front-line staff by a psycholo-

gist, clinical social worker, or

other registered clinical staff.

Some other key features identi-

fied in their conclusions

included enhanced staff

training, a practice theory, and

an augmented staffing model

that reduces staff/client ratios.

Their final conclusion stated

that therapeutic residential

care has a clear and definitive

economic and cost benefit.

A foundational child and

youth care belief proposes that

children have an innate capacity

to grow and develop (Bernard,

2004; Holden, 2009). It is from

this developmental perspective

Henry Maier (1987) defines first

order and second order of

change, within group care envi-

ronments. First order of change

provides conditions for children

ISSN 1705625X Volume 27 Number 3 / 21

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

to progress on a normal path of

development (Holden, 2009;

Maier, 1987) while second order

of change is much more intense

and complex. In a second order

of change process, children are

not only provided with environ-

ments that create conditions for

normal development, but also to

behave, think, feel and learn

differently (Holden, 2009; Maier,

1987). Programs with a second

order of change focus must

have greater competence and

be more adaptive to carry out

meaningful interventions that go

beyond supporting normative

child development (Holden,

2009). Therapeutic Group Care

must, by definition, be focused

on the second order of change.

Maier (1987) emphatically

states that it is essential for

group care programs to be clear

about what order of change they

are focused upon. Given the

need for congruence across

systems of care (Anglin, 2002) it

is crucial that macro systems be

focused on this need for special-

ized developmental care as well.

Three Broad Definitions

for Constructing Practice

and Practice Language

As previously stated, the

definitions for what comprises

a group/residential care spec-

trum of services is dynamic,

variant, and may even be

somewhat arbitrary. This lack of

overall clarity in definition

provided challenges to the

writers of this article and lead

to definitions being shaped by

both research and practice

experience. There may be other

resources that do not fit neatly

into the definitions that have

been crafted, and they are

certainly valid in their own right.

For the purposes of discussion

these definitions are where the

authors “landed” in their prac-

tice grounded analysis. These

definitions are offered in a

broad context and as a start to

organize our thinking and

language as the profession

delves further into specific

differences.

Campus-Based

Therapeutic Care

Generally, the goal of

campus-based therapeutic

care is to return the young

person to a community based

setting (family, independent

living, or community group

living). In a campus-based

facility the group size varies.

Usually their population is 20 to

100 children or youth housed

in a number of residences with

each residence having 4 to 12

occupants. The client charac-

teristics are typically young

people who have a chronic

history of abuse and neglect

and multiple diagnoses (both

psychiatric and psychological).

Many have challenges forming

attachments and engaging the

intimacy of a family with their

overall function ranging from

mental retardation to average

intelligence. Young people

placed in this setting require

programming that is targeted at

what Maier refers to as a

second order of change (1987).

Typically, the youth in this type

of program have struggled in

community settings and require

a setting that promotes efficacy

and regulation through the

program’s ecology. The

program ecology is the strength

of a campus based resource as

it has its own internal ecology

or community that is modified

for children to be successful

and offers a significant greater

amount of attachment opportu-

nities. These programs may be

specialized in their treatment

approach or have a develop-

mental orientation, with the

setting being either rural or

urban. Rural programs may

include an agricultural, wilder-

ness, or ranch component to

their service.

By nature of definition,

campus based facilities are

usually quite comprehensive

with an on-site school, recre-

ational facilities, intensive

activity program using recre-

ation, and adventure based

experiential learning. Common

practice elements may include

family therapy and clinical over-

sight (e.g. a minimum ratio of

one graduate level clinical staff

to 14 young people) and

access to a consulting psychia-

trist. They operate within a

specific program model that is

practice informed and

supported by evidence. Another

important element of

campus-based treatment

includes appropriately

educated and trained care-

givers. Staff ratios will typically

range from 1 staff-1 client to 1

staff-4 clients. Facilities are

generally highly structured and

may be open or closed.

22 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 27 Number 3

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

Therapeutic

Group Care must,

by definition, be

focused on the

second order of

change.

Therapeutic Community

Group Care

The typical goal of thera-

peutic community group care is

to return the young person to a

family, kinship family, foster

family, or to prepare them for

independent living. Program

sizes will vary and are usually

between three and six young

people who live in a residential

setting. One of the features of

smaller, community situated

programs is they are located

within closer proximity of the

client’s family and community.

Additionally, the program may

target the needs of particular

populations and provide a ther-

apeutic program that is tailored

to these needs. Due to the

smaller population of clients

the programs can be fluid in

service parameters such as

age, gender, and develop-

mental capacity and be able to

adapt to emerging system

needs. One of the key capaci-

ties of this program milieu is

the smaller number of clients

and staff the young person will

encounter when compared to

the larger residential

campus-based treatment

program. The smaller group

living environment can

strengthen their relational

capabilities while providing

opportunities for intensive

connections. Another feature of

this service environment is the

overall access to the commu-

nity including neighbours, local

school, stores, and other situa-

tions that can be used to

assess their functioning

capacity, while building their

competence within a

community.

Similar to campus-based

treatment, client characteristics

may include a history of

trauma, abuse and neglect,

multiple diagnoses (both

psychiatric and psychological).

They may also have challenges

forming attachments and

struggle to handle the intimacy

of a family. As with the clients

in campus-based treatment,

the young people being served

in a therapeutic community

group care setting require what

Maier calls second ordered

change (Maier, 1987). Addition-

ally, there are qualifications

similar to those required in

campus-based treatment, with

staff ratios ranging from 1

staff-2 clients to 1 staff-4

clients.

Community Group Care

The overarching goal of

community group care is to

prepare children and youth to

live in either a home or inde-

pendent living situation. These

programs provide a supportive,

nurturing environment, while

maintaining a structured

milieu. While similar in overall

program structure to a thera-

peutic community group care

program, the difference lies

largely within the orientation. A

community group care program

focuses on the overall

nurturing, safety, and security

of a child without an overt

emphasis on therapeutic inter-

vention. The focus of this

program model highlights role

modelling and teaching using

the day to day routines, experi-

ences, and structures as the

catalyst for learning. In many

ways the program functions as

a surrogate home providing

opportunity for parental involve-

ment. The young people placed

within this setting require

programming that is at the first

order of change (Maier, 1987).

Concluding

Statements/Insights

The pioneers of group care

sparked a quest for excellence

which continues today as the

field embraces a continuous

quality improvement commit-

ment, driven by a desire to

produce the right outcomes for

children served. Group care

programs have had a signifi-

cant, if not auspicious history,

along with a rich role caring for

children over the past two

centuries. From the beginning

of formalized group care the

role has undergone several

significant iterations. Change

continues to be an important

theme for group care as the

current climate of political will

has placed group care

programs squarely in the sights

of change. Fortunately, the

historical experience of group

care has demonstrated that

this resource can and will

change.

The relevance of the group

care resource is not where this

debate lies. There are deeper

and perhaps more important

considerations to be explored,

such as what constitutes the

critical components of group

care and how these important

ingredients of care can be

enhanced. What are the overall

ISSN 1705625X Volume 27 Number 3 / 23

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

system benefits of a healthy

spectrum of group care

resources? And finally, what

would optimum care, care that

includes group and residential

care, look like?

Group care and residential

care programs are becoming

more sophisticated in their

delivery of services through

aligning with evidence informed

and evidence based practice.

The research is also providing

evidence that higher-level group

care and therapeutic residen-

tial care are producing some

promising results for children

and families. Defining

higher-level care in the context

of therapeutic group care or

therapeutic residential care

through describing critical

components or active ingredi-

ents of the service promises to

provide the practice community

a framework to explore their

own services. The challenges

will be to establish congruence

across the service system in

shifting the services to be

utilized as ‘treatment of choice’

or ‘treatment of first choice’

and not as a ‘last resort.’

References

Anglin, J.P. (2002). Pain, Normality,

and the struggle for congruence.

U.S.A. The Hawthorn Press.

Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency What

We have Learned. San Francisco,

CA: West Ed Publication Center.

Bloom, S.L. (1997). Creating Sanc-

tuary: Toward the Evolution of

Sane Societies. New York:

Routledge.

Brendtro, L.D. (1999). Heroes and

Pioneers of Child and Youth Care

Work. The International Child and

youth care network. Retrieved

December 10, 2013, from CYC

NET Website:

http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online

/cycol-0499-pioneers.html

Brendtro, L.D., Mitchell, M.L., &

McCall, H.J. (2009) Deep Brain

Learning: Pathways to Potential

with Challenging Youth. Albion,

Michigan: Starr Commonwealth.

Butler, L.S., & McPherson, P.M.

(2007). Is Residential

Retreatment Misunderstood?

Journal of Child and Family

Studies, 16(4), 465-472.

Charles, G., & Gabor, P. (2009). A

Historical Perspective on Residen-

tial Services for Troubled and

Troubling Youth in Canada. The

international Child and Youth

Care Network. Retrieved

December 3, 2013, from CYC-NET

Website:

http:/www.cyc-net.org/reference/

refs-history-canada.html

Durrant, M. (1993). Residential

Treatment: A cooperative Compe-

tency-based Approach to Therapy

and Program Design. United

States of America, W.W. Northon

& Company, Inc.

Holden, M.J. (2009). Children and

Residential Experiences: Creating

Conditions for Change. Cornell

University, Family Life Develop-

ment Center, Beebe Hall, Ithaca,

NY.

Lee, B. R., Bright, C.L., Svoboda, D.V.,

Fakunmoju, S., & Barth R.P.

(2011), Outcomes for Group Care

for Youth: A Review of Compara-

tive Studies. Research on Social

Work Practice, 21(2), 177-189.

Leichtman, M. (2008). The Essence

of Residential Treatment: I. Core

Concepts. Residential Treatment

for Children & Youth, 24(3),

175-196.

Leichtman, M. (2006). Residential

Treatment of Children and Adoles-

cents: Past, Present and Future.

American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 285-294.

Maier, H.W. (1987). Developmental

Group Care of Children and Youth

Concepts and Practice

Binghamton, NY, The Haworth

Press, Inc.

Perry, B.D., & Szalavitz, M. (2006).

The Boy Who was Raised as a

Dog. USA, Basic Books.

Preyde, M., Frensch, K., Cameron, G.,

Hazineh, L., & Burnham Riosa, P.

(2010). Mental Health Outcomes

of Children and Youth Accessing

Residential Programs or a

Home-Based Alternative. Social

Work in Mental Health, 9(1),

1-21.

Versa Consulting Pty Ltd. (2011).

Evaluation of the Therapeutic

Residential Care Pilot Programs:

Final Summary & Technical

Report. Department of Human

Services, Victoria, Australia.

Whittaker, J.K. (2011). Residential

Treatment Services: Is It Time for

a Critical Review? Sounding

Board, 21pp.

Whittaker, J.K. (2012). What Works

in Residential Treatment:

Strengthening Family Connec-

tions in Residential Treatment to

Create an Empirical Based Family

Support Resource. In Curtis, P.A.,

& Alexander, G. (Eds.), What

Works in Child Welfare (pp.

255-265). Washington, D.C.

Whittaker, J.K., & Pfeiffer, S.I. (1994).

Research Priorities for Residential

Group Child Care. Child Welfare,

73(5), 583-601.

Anton Smith is the

Executive Director with

Oakhill Boys Ranch, a

non-profit organization

that offers residential

treatment. He has

completed a Masters

in Social Work (2005)

through Dalhousie

University and a Bachelor

of Social Work (UVIC).

24 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 27 Number 3

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

Bjorn Johansson is a

Director at Wood's

Homes, a Children’s

Mental Health

Centre in Calgary,

Alberta. He has

been with Wood’s

Homes for over 20

years and oversees a

group of community

based residential

programs, day treatment

educational programs, a

foster care network, and

the research department.

He has a BSW and MSW

from the University of

Calgary.

Allen Balser is Executive

Director of Alta Care

Resources, an

organization he

founded 25 years

ago, which

provides group

care, family based

intervention, crisis

intervention, early inter-

vention and supported

access programs and

services. Recently, Allen

completed his Master of

Arts in Leadership from

Royal Roads University.

ISSN 1705625X Volume 27 Number 3 / 25

Relational

Practice Care

&Youth

Child

A Prayer

“No wonder his parents gave up on him!” I thought to myself as I

drove home that night. “He spends his whole day aggravating anyone

he comes into contact with. He lies constantly, he provokes people

ALL DAY LONG, he has an excuse for everything! I swear he must get

some kind of pleasure out of making my life miserable.”

I couldn’t get him out of my mind. I thought about how his mother

had sent him to his grandparents to live when she couldn’t stand his

constant arguing with her. After all, Grandpa had assured her a little

discipline would “straighten him out.” When he repeatedly missed

curfews, and ignored Grandpa, he was sent to a foster home. When

his foster father discovered marijuana in his bedroom and he was

caught shoplifting at the local K-Mart, both in the same month, he

was introduced to the court system. For three years, he got “wrist

slaps” for various offences because, after all, “he’s just a kid." When

he was arrested for taking a joy-ride in a stolen car, his probation of-

ficer decided it was time to get serious." After 90 days in detention, he

was sent to our facility.

His caseworker, who looked more relieved to have him out of her

hair than concerned about his success, repeatedly droned on about

how he needed a place like we had to help him turn his life around, to

give him a second chance.

You’d think he would have appreciated our efforts! His teacher

spent two hours teaching him multiplication, only to watch him tear up

his homework assignment. Another staff member spent hours

supporting him when his grandmother refused to accept a collect

phone call again, only to get spat at when she told him he had to

re-make his bed. To top it off, after I stuck my neck out to get him a

part-time job, he showed his gratitude by arriving late three days in a

row. How many times did he expect people to forgive and forget? No

wonder everybody hated him!

* * *

When I arrived home that night, my dog greeted me at the back door,

her tail wagging a mile a minute. My youngest son proudly showed me

the picture he’d drawn, “just for you, Dad.” My wife set out my

favourite dinner, explaining, “I was thinking about you today.” I finally

understood.

L ord, help me to

realize that the frus-

tration and pain I

feel trying to help

someone who hates

himself is but a small

fraction of what he feels.

After all, he feels like

that every day, all day long.

Charles A. Brinkmann in a long-ago edition of the Journal of Child and

Youth Care (Canada)

Copyright of Relational Child & Youth Care Practice is the property of Relational Child & Youth Care Practice and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.