Our final issue of the year is a double-issue containing nine articles that are highly diverse in many respects. Five of the nine articles are from outside the U.S. (Israel, Netherlands, Australia and Canada) reflecting the increasingly international scope of Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. I am very pleased with this development as it is also reflective of our growing international Editorial Board and our concerted efforts to become an attractive platform for international work on residential care.
The nine articles include conceptual papers and empirical work, including qualitative studies, quantitative analyses and mixed methods studies. Research methods employed ranged from qualitative phenomenological exploration to program evaluation and analysis of national administrative data. The residential care settings that are the focus of these articles encompass therapeutic residential care, residential treatment, residential education, correctional institutions and transition services for youth with episodes in residential care. Articles addressed the unintended adverse consequences when a child welfare system significantly reduces access to residential care, but they also remind us of the continued serious struggles that young people with prior episodes in residential care face even after they have left these settings.
We included articles in this issue that address methods and settings that are controversial, such as studies on youth in boot camps and secure correctional institutions, as well as an article describing the causes and the process and function of the ‘shutdown’ method. While some reviewers have expressed concerns about inclusion of such articles, I do feel that excluding inquiry of controversial methods would mean turning a ‘blind eye’ to residential care practices that do exist and would ultimately not be of benefit to the hundreds and thousands of youth that continue receiving services in such settings. While there are certainly ethical arguments to be made against the use of highly restrictive care on the grounds of its potential for abuse and evidence for adverse developmental outcomes as well as considerations of human rights and sound child welfare policy, the need for such settings and the effect of setting and method on outcomes are, in the end, valid empirical questions to be pursued.
In this context, it deserves reminding that outside the Anglo-American context, residential care continues to play a far more diverse and significant role in many child welfare systems. Family-based out-of-home care options may be less available in these systems because they have not been sufficiently built up or because of policy and cultural barriers. ‘Care’ rather than ‘treatment’ may still be the emphasis, which has a number of implications for the types of children and youth referred to residential care, the problems addressed, and the program models and interventions used. Which of these systems actually serve their children and youth best, is difficult to determine. Cross-country comparisons are always confounded by the complex policy and socio-cultural contexts that shape child welfare systems and notions about child care. Being very familiar with the child welfare system in the U.S., I am constantly reminded that findings from U.S. residential care studies cannot be easily generalized, cautioning us to listen and learn from our colleagues who have a deep understanding of the residential care systems in their respective countries. In this spirit, I want to encourage continued dialogue about the role and potential of residential care in various contexts.
Residential Treatment for Children and Youth has had a successful year with a significant increase in submissions. I certainly hope that this trend will continue and welcome your submissions. In this final issue of 2017, I particularly want to welcome the many new Board Members we have added this year. Their work as reviewers is invaluable and my job would be impossible without them.
With gratitude and wishes for a peaceful 2018.