Commentary on residential group care.

Priorities in Child Welfare Current federal legislation identifies three goals for the child welfare system: safety, permanence, and family and child well-being. Unfortunately, child well-being becomes subordinate to the more easily achievable and measurable goal of permanence - returning children to the biological family, facilitating an adoption, or placing them with relatives. Most people assume that permanency leads to child well-being. However, there is little research, if any, documenting the development of children after permanency is established. Certainly some children fare better, but many do not. Permanency, then, while a valuable means to the end, should not be the primary goal. The focus on permanence adversely affects the potential outcomes that could be achieved. Instead of viewing time in foster care as a significant developmental window for a child who has undoubtedly suffered, foster care becomes a "parking lot" where children are safely held pending more permanent arrangements. Cost and safety become the most important considerations while little attention is paid to improving child development and well-being. The Current State of Residential Group Care Residential group care, when done well, is one of the strongest links in the foster care system. High-quality residential group care surpasses the inconsistencies inherent with family foster care when group care: * includes appropriate supervision; * integrates the child's family; * uses well- trained staff to deliver practices that are supported by research; * incorporates effective treatment and therapeutic interventions (either through its own staff or by contract); * facilitates the child's education; * exposes children to an array of experiences; * monitors and documents the child's progress; and, * nurtures spiritual development, interests, and passions. Unfortunately, the current child welfare system and funding structures often make achieving these ideals cost prohibitive. And, discerning quality is not easy. Valid measures exist - achieving accreditation, using a well-articulated model of care, demonstrating appropriate financial management - but they are insufficient. Too often, we rely on even less meaningful measures, such as the percentage of children discharged to a less restrictive environment or the appearance of the facility where children are placed. At the same time, several factors weaken the perceived value of group care. Because too many facilities provide less than optimal care, effective providers are often unfairly characterized by the poor performers. In addition, research on outcomes for group care is both limited and generally discouraging (Barth, 2001; Whittaker, in press). Evidence suggests that grouping troubled youth together may allow sustained and pervasive behavioral issues to fester; this idea holds particular relevance for teenagers, who naturally are influenced by their peers. Finally, critics of group care believe that all children deserve a family, especially if they are younger than 13. Few can disagree. Adding to the problem, it is too easy in many states to be licensed as a group home. As a result, many states are saturated with these providers. This abundance of providers creates a market in which referring agencies can direct children to facilities based on cost and convenience, rather than quality and effectiveness. The Challenge for Residential Group Care It is easy to understand why group care is under siege. The child welfare system values placing children in families, assumes that permanence leads to good outcomes and is, by necessity, sensitive to costs. Group care loses on all three criteria to family foster care and other more "permanent" placement options. Group care is far more expensive than foster care, adoption, or kinship placements, so even though these alternatives suffer from many of the same issues as group care, they have the advantage of costing less. …