ABSTRACT
Chapter 4 showed that the research base does not support the elimination of residential care. In this chapter I review five sources of evidence that show that residential care should be a part of a system of care that is responsive to children and youth with different needs. First, McKenzie’s survey research of alumni of mid-20th century residents of children’s homes shows that the homes provided positive, not negative, experiences to most of the youth who resided there. Second, the Duke University Positive Outcomes for Orphans studies and Orphaned & Separated Children’s Assessments Related to their Health & Well-Being Project directly contradict much of the conventional wisdom, showing that well-designed and executed interventions for children and youth can have positive outcomes even in countries that are not wealthy. Third, direct comparisons between group care and alternatives reveal that it is the quality of care children receive that matters, not its site. For children and youth in certain circumstances (e.g., having experienced multiple failed family placements) high-quality residential care can be the best fit. Fourth, comparisons of children and youth when they enter and exit residential care almost always show positive change. Finally, a recent rapid evidence review led the researchers to conclude that it is important to keep an open mind about what residential care can offer children.
