An exploration of the differential usage of residential childcare across national boundaries

TLDR

The use of residential placements for children needing out‑of‑home care remains controversial, with some countries favoring foster or kinship care while others rely heavily on residential settings that range from small group homes to large institutions. The article examines how the terms “residential” and “institutional” care are used and explores the challenges of comparing group‑care usage across jurisdictions using administrative data. The authors analyze administrative data to identify and address challenges in comparing process and outcome metrics across national boundaries. They argue that systematic description and analysis of residential settings’ aims and characteristics are necessary to enable meaningful comparisons of outcomes across jurisdictions.

Abstract

The use of residential placements for children needing out‐of‐home care remains controversial. This article considers the discourse of ‘residential’ and ‘institutional’ care before describing, mainly through administrative data sources, the wide variations in group‐care usage in different jurisdictions. In some countries, its use is minimal, with foster care, kinship care and in some cases, adoption being the preferred options. This is not so in other countries where a high percentage of children in care are in residential placements. There is also diversity in the type of residential services, ranging from small group homes to large institutions. The challenges inherent in making process and outcome comparisons across national boundaries are explored. The authors concur with those who argue for more systematic ways of describing and analysing the aims and characteristics of residential settings. Only then can meaningful comparisons be made between outcomes from group‐care regimes in different jurisdictions.