ABSTRACT
The two cases in this chapter illustrate two themes this book will challenge: the conventional wisdom that residential care for all children and youth is an unequivocal evil and the idea that research shows that to be fact. The first case describes a United States Senate hearing, “No Place to Grow Up,” that was a precursor to the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 (FFPSA). The hearing relied on anecdotal reports to support an anti-residential care position, not on empirical research. The second case is a story about a journalist’s article on the problems presented by the FFPSA for children’s homes and the response the article received from an influential lobbyist who considers all residential care harmful to children. A detailed critique of the research that lobbyist offered in support of his position shows how weak the evidence in support of the conventional wisdom is.
