Welcome to the 2021 edition of Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. The past year has been a time of unprecedented challenges. The pandemics of Covid-19 and racial injustice have shone a light on inequalities and how much work is needed to create a society that supports health and safety for all, especially those facing marginalization. I want to commend all the residential providers who are providing high-quality care that creates a space for young people to feel safe and valued.
The journal has expanded in pages this year, thanks to the growth in submissions. We continue to welcome papers from around the world that expand our understanding of residential practice. The journal remains focused on disseminating new knowledge about residential interventions, as well as identifying how programs can better serve the youth in their care. The papers in this issue add to these conversations.
This issue of the journal begins with a paper that tests an intervention facilitated by direct care staff. Grijalva and Vasquez present findings from KINNECT, a movement-based skill-building group. Two papers in this issue explicitly elevate the voices of young people to better understand their preferences. Graham and Johnson consider the views of young people in the UK who are receiving therapy for their trauma and what advice they have for therapists and caregivers. Mihalo and team similarly explore youth views on psychotropic medication. Understanding youth needs in residential programs is essential for quality care. In a study from Greece, Iraklis considers the importance of family contact for youth in care. Charles and team assess the relationship between youth personality features and their behavioral challenges in a residential program. Findings from these studies have implications for residential care programming. Finally, I am pleased to feature a methods-oriented paper that tackles a common problem for researchers and program evaluators. Stevens and team present a solution for how to create equivalence between two different standardized instruments or versions. Considering how often a program may switch assessment tools or have data on different measures, this new methodological approach should be of great value to the field.