{"id":32064,"date":"2023-10-18T16:59:21","date_gmt":"2023-10-18T16:59:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caseyfamilyv2.wpengine.com\/ending-group-placements-principles\/"},"modified":"2026-03-24T22:00:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T22:00:56","slug":"principios-de-ubicacion-de-grupos-de-finalizacion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.casey.org\/es\/ending-group-placements-principles\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00bfC\u00f3mo podemos acabar con la necesidad de colocar a los ni\u00f1os en hogares colectivos en el \u00e1mbito del bienestar infantil?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

Our focus should be on every child being with a family. I\u2019m more convinced of that now than ever. That doesn\u2019t mean children need families: that means every single child needs a family.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

— David Sanders, Executive Vice President, Systems Improvement, Casey Family Programs<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n

<\/p>\n

Children belong in families, not facilities.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

When compared to children placed in group and institutional settings, children in family-based settings have fewer placements, spend less time in out-of-home care, and are more likely to be placed with their siblings and near their community.2<\/sup><\/a> Community-based and-home-based services for youth at risk of entering residential treatment facilities also have been shown to result in better outcomes<\/a> for youth, in addition to costing less.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In contrast, group and institutional placements3<\/sup><\/a> generally produce poorer outcomes<\/a> for youth than family-based settings \u2014 including higher rates of delinquency4<\/sup><\/a> lower test scores,5<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0lower high school graduation rates,6<\/sup><\/a> and delayed permanency. A breakthrough 2021 report<\/a> that focused on young people\u2019s direct experiences of group and institutional placement in foster care concluded that these settings often fail to offer consistent, caring relationships and actually prevented<\/em> them from building the sort of relationships that are necessary for healing, returning to community, and successfully transitioning to adulthood. Young people frequently described group and institutional placements as punitive, prison-like, and traumatic. Unnecessary placement in group and institutional placements for children in foster care is harmful and more often impacts young people of color. Black and multiracial youth continue to be overrepresented<\/a> in these settings. Therefore, ending the need for group placements is a key strategy for reducing disproportionate harm to young people of color in the child welfare system<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

During the past 10 years in the U.S., both the number and percentage of youth in foster care living in group or institutional placements have decreased by about one-third.7<\/sup><\/a> Yet in 2021, about 9% of young people in foster care (nearly 39,000 youth) were placed in a group home or an institution. The percentage is highest among older youth, with more than 30% of young people in foster care ages 13 to 18 living in facilities at any given time. An even higher percentage of older youth experience an institutional stay at some point during their time in foster care.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This brief describes a set of key principles and values that child protection agencies and their partners should adopt to decrease the need for harmful group and institutional placements. The principles seek to operationalize what is known to work in child welfare, such as kinship care, child and family engagement, prevention supports for families, and cross-sector collaboration \u2014 all of which are designed to keep young people safe with their family or in family-like settings. The four key principles are:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Children thrive with family.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  2. Youth and family voice must be central to all decision-making.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  3. Children and families need a culturally responsive, community-based continuum of both traditional and non-traditional support.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  4. Systems must work together to support children and families.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    <\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    The brief also offers questions for consideration to help child protection agencies further explore how they might apply these principles to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of young people in their communities, while also acknowledging that ending the need for group placements is cross-systems work requiring commitment from multiple agencies. For additional information regarding the key levers and strategies to reduce group placements, please explore videos, discussion guides, and other resources at Ending the Need for Group Placements<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n

    Let youth be more vocal in saying what they need \u2026 being able to voice where they feel protected, who they feel protected with, what protection looks like. It is different for everyone based on their circumstances and the trauma they\u2019ve been through. Group placements are not the best place for children to be brought up in. Family is the best option.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    — Winther Polk, 2022 Outstanding Young Leader \u2013 FosterClub, Children\u2019s Library Associate, Chicago Public Library<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
    \n
    \n\n \n

    Background<\/h2>\n \n \n \n

    <\/p>\n

    Children and youth referred to out-of-home care should be placed in families. Placement in group settings for children and youth involved with child welfare is only appropriate on a time-limited basis and when clinically or medically necessary \u2014 with the assessment of necessity strictly defined, and the group care is limited to short-term, high-quality specialized treatment9<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0offered through Qualified Residential Treatment Programs<\/a> (QRTPs) or the behavioral health system.10<\/sup><\/a> Unfortunately, a 2015 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report<\/a> found that over 40% of children in institutions did not have a clinical reason to be in an acute-care setting. Many young people who have experienced group placement report that it was their first placement in foster care. Others have said that they ended up in institutional placements because caseworkers believed there were no other placement options for them, not because such placements would be best for them.11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Young people can, and in most cases should, receive effective behavioral treatment in families and family-like settings through therapeutic foster care<\/a>, wraparound services<\/a>, and mobile response and stabilization services<\/a>. Institutional group placements are a vastly inadequate substitute for life with a family. All young people need consistent, nurturing adults<\/a> in their lives to form healthy attachments and develop positive social and emotional skills. Residential care facility staff and professionals rotating in shifts, even with the best of intentions, cannot provide that kind of consistency for youth. Unfortunately, many young people who have experienced group placements have reported uncaring relationships with staff, some of whom have been \u201cunkind, cruel, untrustworthy, or indifferent.12<\/sup><\/a> Group and institutional placements also may curtail or prevent the development of supportive, sustained relationships with peers due to restrictions they place on age-appropriate activities and technology use.13<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

    \n
    \n\n
    Principle 1<\/span><\/div>\n \n

    Children thrive with family<\/h2>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
    \n
    \n
    \n

    For most kids in group placement, the mental health issue is that they\u2019ve been removed from the people they love. We need to do everything in our power to make sure these kids get back to their parents or their loved ones.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    — Edwin Daye, Parent and Family Support Partner, Iowa Department of Human Services<\/cite><\/figcaption>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n
    \n
    \n\n \n \n \n \n

    <\/p>\n

    It is well established in scientific research<\/a> that healthy brain development for young children requires consistent, supportive, and responsive relationships with at least one parent or caregiver. That need for family support doesn\u2019t end at early childhood. All youth recovering from the effects of trauma and family separation, regardless of age, need the care and love of family and community. Therefore, every effort should be made to keep children safe with their families (including siblings) and, if extra support is needed, that support should be provided in the child\u2019s own home and community.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    When a child cannot remain at home or with parents, kinship care<\/a> \u2014 formal placement with relatives (by blood or marriage) or others who the child and family identify as \u201cchosen family\u201d \u2014 should always be explored as the first option for placement<\/a>, before foster care with strangers and certainly before group placement. Numerous research studies<\/a> have established the advantages of kinship care. Compared to non-relative care, kinship care yields greater placement stability, lower rates of re-abuse, better behavioral health, and a higher likelihood of permanency.14<\/sup><\/a> Placement with kin (as defined by the child or family) can be an important element of treatment and recovery for children who have experienced family separation and other trauma, and keeps them connected to their community and their culture, which are critical protective factors.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    An argument often is made that young people who require group placement have no family or nowhere else to go, but research has found that this often is a myth.15<\/sup><\/a> Almost without exception, youth living in group placements have supportive people in their lives<\/a> who could provide them a healing environment, but those people are either unaware of their placement or required to overcome unnecessary structural barriers to have the youth live with them. These barriers exist as a result of administrative or bureaucratic policy decisions or financial hurdles that with proper support could be overcome. Examples of unnecessarily exclusionary obstacles that can unduly get in the way of a kinship placement \u2014 and do not reflect the kin\u2019s desire or ability to provide a child with a safe and loving home \u2014 include the caregiver\u2019s living out of state, family status (such as existing family composition, work schedules, etc.), prior criminal record, housing status (including square footage requirements, room requirements, housing quality), or lack of adequate financial resources. Child protection agencies should do everything possible to eliminate such barriers to kinship placement by waiving non-safety-related licensing requirements<\/a>, creating supports specifically for these purposes, and connecting families to all supports available (financial and\/or therapeutic) to make the kinship placement safe and sustainable.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    The Michigan<\/strong> Department of Health and Human Services, with support from the Harvard Kennedy School\u2019s Government Performance Lab, created a set of administrative roadblocks and tools to change practice<\/a> at the moment of referring a child to residential placement, which contributed to a sharp decline in referrals and entries to residential programs. Connecticut<\/strong> reduced its reliance on group and institutional placements for children under age 12 by nearly three-quarters between 2012 and 2020,16<\/sup><\/a> in part by advancing a kin-first culture<\/a>, implementing a child-by-child review process<\/a>, and creating administrative barriers to placing children in residential settings.<\/a> The state reinvested its $90 million per year savings in additional home- and community-based support services.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    As institutional placements are utilized less and for shorter lengths of time, most agencies will need to identify, prepare, and support kin, as well as culturally appropriate resource family homes for young people who cannot be with their own families. Youth with more complex needs, including those stepping down from short-term QRTP stays, require kin and resource caregivers with additional training and support.17<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Kin and other resource caregivers should be encouraged to work in partnership with the youth and the youth\u2019s family<\/a>, including providing coaching, advocacy, and even respite care after children return home.<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Questions to consider:<\/strong><\/p>\n