Search

This chapter describes the Children and Residential Experiences (CARE) program model, which challenges the notion that effective residential intervention is simply the result of an additive process, as for example in the adoption and integration of ever-greater numbers of evidence-based components. The whole is indeed seen as more than the sum of its parts. To achieve the desired outcomes, children need to have a consistent, congruent experience regardless of the individual staff member or activity. The organization itself must provide the culture, climate, and underlying philosophy that creates the motivation to engage and stay engaged even when it is difficult. Children and staff alike need to feel cared for and about, and appropriately challenged to grow, develop, and thrive.

Background Physical and mechanical restraints used in treatment, care, education, and corrections programs for children are high-risk interventions primarily due to their adverse physical, emotional, and fatal consequences. Objective This study explores the conditions and circumstances of restraint-related fatalities in the United States by asking (1) Who are the children that died due to physical restraint? and (2) How did they die? Method The study employs internet search systems to discover and compile information about restraint-related fatalities of children and youth up to 18 years of age from reputable journalism sources, advocacy groups, activists, and governmental and non-governmental agencies. The child cohort from a published study of restraint fatalities in the United States from 1993 to 2003 is combined with restraint fatalities from 2004 to 2018. This study’s scope has expanded to include restraint deaths in community schools, as well as undiscovered restraint deaths from 1993 to 2003 not in the 2006 study. Results Seventy-nine restraint-related fatalities occurred over the 26-year period from across a spectrum of children’s out-of-home child welfare, corrections, mental health and disability services. The research provides a data snapshot and examples of how fatalities unfold and their consequences for staff and agencies. Practice recommendations are offered to increase safety and transparency. Conclusions The study postulates that restraint fatalities result from a confluence of medical, psychological, and organizational causes; such as cultures prioritizing control, ignoring risk, using dangerous techniques, as well as agencies that lack structures, processes, procedures, and resources to promote learning and to ensure physical and psychological safety.

Children and young people in residential care have often lived lives saturated with loss, neglect, rejection, and traumatic experiences. Children express the pain of trauma in various ways, namely pain-based behaviors manifesting in ways that often leave their care givers confused, frustrated, frightened, angry or exhausted. For residential caregivers to respond to children and young people in a consistent and therapeutic manner, residential environments must provide an ethos of respect, caring, and trust, creating a safe place for children and staff to live and learn together. This paper describes the Children and Residential Experiences (CARE) model, its implementation, and evidence for its effectiveness. CARE is a trauma-informed, principle-based, multi-component program designed to enhance the social dynamics in group care settings and help agencies create a living environment that provides developmentally enriching experiences for children in their care. By incorporating the CARE principles throughout all levels of the organization and into daily practice, the CARE program model has been shown to improve the capacity of staff to establish positive developmental relationships with the children in their care, offer developmentally enriching experiences and a “sense of normality”, and create cohesion and congruence throughout the organization. Through consistent and predictable compassionate and responsive interactions with adults, as well as opportunities to overcome challenges and to experience successful learning opportunities, children can grow, develop and thrive.

Physical and mechanical restraints used in treatment, care, education, and corrections programs for children are high-risk interventions primarily due to their adverse physical, emotional, and fatal consequences. This study explores the conditions and circumstances of restraint-related fatalities in the United States by asking (1) Who are the children that died due to physical restraint? and (2) How did they die? The study employs internet search systems to discover and compile information about restraint-related fatalities of children and youth up to 18 years of age from reputable journalism sources, advocacy groups, activists, and governmental and non-governmental agencies. The child cohort from a published study of restraint fatalities in the United States from 1993 to 2003 is combined with restraint fatalities from 2004 to 2018. This study’s scope has expanded to include restraint deaths in community schools, as well as undiscovered restraint deaths from 1993 to 2003 not in the 2006 study. Seventy-nine restraint-related fatalities occurred over the 26-year period from across a spectrum of children’s out-of-home child welfare, corrections, mental health and disability services. The research provides a data snapshot and examples of how fatalities unfold and their consequences for staff and agencies. Practice recommendations are offered to increase safety and transparency. The study postulates that restraint fatalities result from a confluence of medical, psychological, and organizational causes; such as cultures prioritizing control, ignoring risk, using dangerous techniques, as well as agencies that lack structures, processes, procedures, and resources to promote learning and to ensure physical and psychological safety.

Being invited to write this commentary is a career high. To prepare, I took an old and tattered autographed copy of The Other 23 Hours down from my bookshelf. It had been many years since I had rea...

We are in agreement with some of the points made in the recent article by Tregeagle, ‘Weighing up the evidence and local experience of residential care’ (Children Australia, 42(4), 240–247). For example, there can be no dispute about the high costs of residential placements or that achieving a stable residential environment is very challenging. Table 1 provides a three state cost comparison of residential placements (Ainsworth, 2017).

We evaluated the impact of [FULL PROGRAM NAME], an organization-wide program model implemented in 13 residential child care agencies in one Southeastern state. [PROGRAM] implementation lasted three years and involved the application of six evidence-informed principles throughout the organization in order to create more therapeutic environments and improve the quality of care for children. A wait-list design was used with one cohort of agencies starting [PROGRAM] immediately and a second cohort waiting 12 months before starting, allowing them to serve as a comparison group. Agency staff completed annual surveys assessing curricular knowledge, their beliefs about and their use of practices that reflect a relational approach to care. Using linear mixed models that accounted for clustering within agencies and several important covariates, results showed significant increases in all staff outcomes. [PROGRAM] effects on knowledge and beliefs emerged in Year 1 and [PROGRAM] effects on practice emerged in Year 3. Exploratory analyses showed that the [PROGRAM] effects were evident across all staff demographic and agency subgroups, with evidence of more pronounced effects for some subgroups. Results contribute to an emerging pattern of evidence that [PROGRAM] implementation improves the capacity of agencies to provide effective therapeutic care for children.

The current study examined the effects of implementing a new program model on the quality of relationships between direct care providers and residents in group care agencies. Children and Residential Experiences (CARE), an organization-wide program model that involves a range of structural change and staff-development activities, was implemented in 13 group care agencies in one Southeastern state. CARE implementation lasted three years and involved the application of six evidence-informed principles throughout the organization in order to create more therapeutic environments and improve the quality of care for children. We used a stepped-wedge design in which one cohort of agencies began CARE immediately and a second cohort waited 12 months before beginning, allowing them to serve as a comparison group during the waiting period. Children in each agency were surveyed annually about the perceived quality of their relationships with staff using a new instrument developed for this study. Results of a linear mixed model indicated that after accounting for clustering at the agency and cottage levels and controlling for several important covariates, child perceptions of relationship quality increased significantly in the three years after CARE implementation began. The strength of the CARE effect was stronger for residents with several previous placements, but did not differ by age, gender, race, length of stay, DSS referral, or problem behavior. Results provide evidence that supports the effectiveness of CARE as an intervention to help group care agencies improve the quality of children's daily interactions with caregiving staff, a critical aspect of their experience while living in care. The process requires a long-term commitment and an organization-wide focus on serving the best interests of children.

none 32 si The International Work Group for Therapeutic Residential Care convened an International Summit on ‘Pathways to Evidence-Based Practice’ at Loughborough University (GBR), Centre for Child and Family Research on 27-29 April, 2016 with generous support from the Sir Halley Stewart Trust and in partnership with The European Scientific Association on Residential and Family Care for Children and Adolescents (NLD) (EUSARF), the International Association for Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research on Family and Children’s Services (ITA) (IAOBER) and the Association of Children’s Residential Centers (USA) and with the additional support of Action for Children (GBR) and the National Implementation Service (NIS) (GBR). Membership includes: Lisa Holmes (Chair), Director, Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University (GBR); James K. Whittaker (Co-Chair), Charles O. Cressey Endowed Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, School of Social Work, Seattle (USA); Jorge Fernandez del Valle, Professor of Psychology and Director, Child and Family Research Group, University of Oviedo (ESP); Frank Ainsworth, Senior Principal Research Fellow (Adjunct), James Cook University, School of Social Work and Human Services, Townsville, Queensland (AUS); Tore Andreassen, Psychologist, The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (NOR); James P. Anglin, Professor, Faculty of the School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria (CAN); Christopher Bellonci, Board-Certified Child/Adolescent and Adult Psychiatrist; Associate Professor, Psychiatry Department, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (USA); David Berridge, Professor of Child and Family Welfare, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol (GBR); Amaia Bravo, Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo (ESP); Cinzia Canali, Senior Researcher, Fondazione Emanuela Zancan, Padova (ITA) and President, International Association of Outcome-Based Evaluation and Research in Family and Children’s Services (IAOBER); Mark Courtney, Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago (USA); Laurah Currey, Chief Operating Officer, Pressley Ridge, Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and President, Association for Children’s Residential Centers, (USA); Daniel. L. Daly, Executive Vice President and Director of Youth Care, Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, Boys Town, NE (USA); Robbie Gilligan, Professor of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin IRE), Hans Grietens, Professor, Centre for Special Needs Education & Youth Care, University of Groningen (NLD) and President, European Scientific Association on Residential and Family Care for Children and Adolescents (EUSARF); Annemiek T. Harder, Assistant professor, Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen (NLD); Martha J. Holden, Senior Extension Associate with the Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research and the Principal Investigator and Director of the Residential Child Care Project at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (USA); Sigrid James, Professor, Department of Social Work & Social Ecology, School of Behavioral Health, Loma Linda University, CA (USA); Andrew Kendrick, Professor of Residential Child Care, School of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of Strathclyde (GBR) and Consultant at the Centre of Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland (CELCIS) and the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ) (UK); Erik J. Knorth, Professor, Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen (NLD); Mette Lausten, Senior Researcher at SFI - The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Copenhagen (DNK), John S. Lyons, Senior Policy Fellow at Chapin Hall, University of Chicago, IL (USA); Eduardo Martin, Lecturer at the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife (ESP); Samantha McDermid, Research Fellow, Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University (GBR); Patricia McNamara, Senior Fellow (Honorary), Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne (AUS); Laura Palareti, Assistant Professor in Social Psychology, Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna (ITA); Susan Ramsey, Parent and Former Children’s Mental Health Advocate, The Walker School, Needham, MA (USA); Kari M. Sisson, Executive Director, Association of Children’s Residential Centers (USA); Richard W. Small, Walker Executive Director Emeritus, The Walker School, Needham, MA (USA); June Thoburn, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, University of East Anglia (GBR); Ronald Thompson, Senior Director, Boys Town National Research Institute for Child and Family Studies, Boys Town, NE (USA); Anat Zeira, Professor, School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Head of Research and Evaluation at the Haruv Institute (ISR). Our work group wishes to thank CFRC staffer Laura Dale at Loughborough for extraordinary efforts in producing this statement in record time and for her care and assistance with all phases of our Summit activity. Whittaker, James K; Holmes, Lisa; del Valle, Jorge F.; Ainsworth, Frank; Andreassen, Tore; Anglin, James; Bellonci, Christopher; Berridge, David; Bravo, Amaia; Canali, Cinzia; Courtney, Mark; Currey, Laurah; Daly, Daniel; Gilligan, Robbie; Grietens, Hans; Harder, Annemiek; Holden, Martha; James, Sigrid; Kendrick, Andrew; Knorth, Erik; Lausten, Mette; Lyons, John; Martin, Eduardo; Mcdermid, Samantha; Mcnamara, Patricia; Palareti, Laura; Ramsey, Susan; Sisson, Kari; Small, Richard; Thoburn, June; Thompson, Ronald; Zeira, Anat Whittaker, James K; Holmes, Lisa; del Valle, Jorge F.; Ainsworth, Frank; Andreassen, Tore; Anglin, James; Bellonci, Christopher; Berridge, David; Bravo, Amaia; Canali, Cinzia; Courtney, Mark; Currey, Laurah; Daly, Daniel; Gilligan, Robbie; Grietens, Hans; Harder, Annemiek; Holden, Martha; James, Sigrid; Kendrick, Andrew; Knorth, Erik; Lausten, Mette; Lyons, John; Martin, Eduardo; Mcdermid, Samantha; Mcnamara, Patricia; Palareti, Laura; Ramsey, Susan; Sisson, Kari; Small, Richard; Thoburn, June; Thompson, Ronald; Zeira, Anat

Disruptive and potentially unsafe classroom behaviours such as threatening, bullying, verbal and/or physical assaulting present challenges not only for teachers, aides and other students in the classroom, but potentially for all others in the building as well as the families of those students/pupils involved. These behaviours can greatly influence a student's ability to achieve academic success as well as place undue stress and risk on others in the milieu. Discovering the cause for the behaviours and then developing a plan to help these young people succeed emotionally will greatly increase the probability for improved academic achievement. This chapter will examine the core principles of the Therapeutic Crisis Intervention for Schools (TCIS) programme and present a range of evidence-based responses designed to help build upon and further develop staff skills in preventing disruptive behaviours, de-escalating potential disruptive behaviours, and teach students how to develop less disruptive and more appropriate responses to their lack of or inability to self-regulate. This chapter will contend that the foundation for all interventions and responses presupposes an accurate assessment of risk for the youth(s), the adults, and the environment. That any risk assessment must consider the internal (effects of trauma, ability to self-regulate, cultural issues) and external (organizational culture/climate, level of restrictiveness, caring community, quality of instruction) setting conditions for the youth. The TCIS programme is embedded in the five domains for effective crisis management; leadership and building support, social work and clinical services participation (social workers, psychologists, therapists, nurses), building administration and post crisis response, training and competency standards, and data-driven incident monitoring and feedback.

This paper describes an effort to bridge research and practice in residential care through implementing a program model titled Children and Residential Experiences (CARE). The strategy involves consulting at all levels of the organization to guide personnel to incorporate CARE evidence-based principles into daily practice, and fostering an organizational culture and climate that sustains the integration of CARE principles. CARE aims to promote residential care programs that serve the best interests of children.

Objective This descriptive study examines 45 child and adolescent fatalities related to restraints in residential (institutional) placements in the United States from 1993 to 2003. Method The study team used common Internet search engines as its primary case discovery strategy to determine the frequency and the nature of the fatalities, as well as the characteristics of the children and the adolescents involved. Results Male children and adolescents were over-represented in the study sample. Thirty-eight of the fatalities occurred during or after a physical restraint, and 7 fatalities occurred during the use of mechanical restraints. Twenty-eight of the deaths occurred in a prone restraint. In 25 of the fatalities, asphyxia was the cause of death. Conclusion In the 23 cases in this study where information is available, none of the child behaviors or conditions that prompted the restraint would meet the standard of danger to self or others: the commonly accepted criteria for the use of a restraint. The study points to deficiencies in fatality reporting, recommends reporting fatalities to established state child fatality review boards, and reinforces that restraints be governed by strict protocol and monitoring. The study also urges caution to policymakers in substituting or changing restraint procedures based on the incomplete data reported in this study.

The current study examined the impact of a setting-level intervention on the prevention of aggressive or dangerous behavioral incidents involving youth living in group care environments. Eleven group care agencies implemented Children and Residential Experiences (CARE), a principle-based program that helps agencies use a set of evidence-informed principles to guide programming and enrich the relational dynamics throughout the agency. All agencies served mostly youth referred from child welfare. The 3-year implementation of CARE involved intensive agency-wide training and on-site consultation to agency leaders and managers around supporting and facilitating day-to-day application of the principles in both childcare and staff management arenas. Agencies provided data over 48 months on the monthly frequency of behavioral incidents most related to program objectives. Using multiple baseline interrupted time series analysis to assess program effects, we tested whether trends during the program implementation period declined significantly compared to the 12 months before implementation. Results showed significant program effects on incidents involving youth aggression toward adult staff, property destruction, and running away. Effects on aggression toward peers and self-harm were also found but were less consistent. Staff ratings of positive organizational social context (OSC) predicted fewer incidents, but there was no clear relationship between OSC and observed program effects. Findings support the potential efficacy of the CARE model and illustrate that intervening “upstream” at the setting level may help to prevent coercive caregiving patterns and increase opportunities for healthy social interactions.