Search

RESUMEN: Antecedentes: el acogimiento residencial es una medida compleja y que ha sido objeto de intensos debates en muchos países. Sin embargo, no existen muchos estudios sobre la evaluación de la calidad de estos servicios y mucho menos que hayan tenido en cuenta la opinión de los niños y jóvenes que los reciben. Método: en este estudio se entrevista a 209 jóvenes entre 11 y 20 años, que se encuentran en 21 hogares de acogimiento residencial, acerca de su satisfacción con la atención que reciben. Estos hogares de acogida se diferencian en tres tipos de programas que se compararán: preparación para la vida adulta (PAL), acogimiento terapéutico para problemas de conducta (TRC) y programas generalistas sin perfil específico (GRC). El instrumento empleado es una entrevista que recoge valoraciones cuantitativas y cualitativas. Resultados: los resultados muestran una tendencia a valoraciones con promedios positivos en prácticamente todos los aspectos, destacando el apoyo y la vinculación con los educadores que los atienden. Por otra parte, los jóvenes en TRC muestran puntuaciones más bajas en casi todos los aspectos, mientras que los jóvenes en PAL presentan las más altas. Conclusiones: se discutirán las principales implicaciones para la práctica desde esta perspectiva de los jóvenes. ABSTRACT: Background: Residential child care is a very complex measure and has been the subject of heated debate in many countries. However, there is a paucity of studies that examine quality assessments of these services, much less that have asked the children and young people receiving those services about their own evaluations. Method: This study interviewed 209 young people between 11 and 20 years of age, in 21 residential facilities, about their degree of satisfaction with the care they receive. These residential facilities are differentiated into three types of programs that will be compared: preparation for adult life (PAL), therapeutic care for behavioral problems (TRC) and general programs for children and young people without any specific profile (GRC). The instrument used is an interview that includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments. Results: The results show a trend toward positive average scores on practically all aspects, highlighting the support from as well as the connection they feel with the educators who care for them. On the other hand, young people in TRC displayed lower scores on almost all aspects evaluated while those in PAL were the most positive. Conclusions: The main implications for the practice will be discussed from these youths? perspective

This qualitative study examines the emerging field of therapeutic residential care for young people in Out of Home Care. Inconsistent service quality and outcomes are persistent concerns in residential care. Consequently, it is increasingly used as a last resort for children removed from parents in Australia and internationally. Therapeutic residential care intends to reverse this trend by improving practice and outcomes. International efforts in developing therapeutic care principles and models have begun in earnest. However, very little is known about how this knowledge is being translated into practice. This study addresses this knowledge gap, embarking on a new line of inquiry into the implementation of therapeutic residential care in the state of New South Wales, Australia. It draws on the first-hand experiences of those directly involved including young people, residential care managers, clinicians, caseworkers, team leaders and direct care practitioners across three residential care organisations. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the needs, challenges and opportunities young people and practitioners face in therapeutic residential care and contributes invaluable insights into the development of this nascent service initiative. Findings showed that young people in therapeutic residential care are impacted by peer victimisation, ambiguous loss and placement instability, pointing to their need for safety and relational permanency with practitioners and families. Practitioners, to a large extent, recognise these needs, framing therapeutic residential care from a trauma-informed care perspective. However, different interpretations exist on what this entails in practice, leading to conceptual ambiguity and inconsistency. Frontline practice of therapeutic care is further affected by frequent critical incidents, causing a paradox in which practitioners attempt to provide trauma-informed care in a potentially re-traumatising environment. Restoring safety becomes a primary practice component, along with program-oriented routines, boundary-driven relationship-based practice and family support. Implementing these practices in therapeutic residential care is constrained by time and financial pressures, and insufficient clinical support, leading to inadequate placement assessment and matching. Strategies to mitigate these implementation barriers are identified. This study concludes that therapeutic residential care needs to be underpinned by an ecological framework, enabling it to be designed as a whole-of-system approach to care.