Skip to main content
Log in

A Comparison of Two Caregiving Models in Providing Continuity of Care for Youth in Residential Care

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Child and Youth Care Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on a research study that examined differences in two care giving models (houseparent vs. child care worker) in providing continuity of care for youth in residential placement. Continuity is defined as interactions by caretakers with youth in care that are predictable, appropriate, and occur over an extended period time in order to establish a pattern on which youth can depend and anticipate. The house parent model assumes that a “family like” environment is needed in residential care, and can be best maintained by live-in workers referred to as house parents. The child care worker model uses rotating shift workers to staff residential units. Data for this research were collected in a residential facility that used both models, and are drawn from the staffing patterns in 16 cottages. The continuity of care was based on the longest tenure of a caregiver in a cottage and is reported as the ratio of the number of months that a cottage had the same caregiver(s). Continuity in the cottages ranged from .31 to 1.0. Cottages with house parents had higher levels of continuity than those residences with child care workers, but only at a level that approached significance (P < .138). However, child care workers had significantly more turnover than did house parents. The boy’s continuity ratio suggests boys on average had the same caretaker 75% of the time while the comparable percentage for girls was 57%. Girls were significantly more likely to have child care workers than house parents, and more likely at a level near significant to experience turnover among care givers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achenback, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Check List, 4/18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington. Vt: University of Vermont, Department of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, J. P. (2002a). Creating an extrafamilial living environment: The overall task of a group home. Child and Youth Services, 24(1–2), 79–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, J. P. (2002b). Pain, normality, and the struggle for congruence: reinterpreting residential care for children and youth. Child and Youth Services, 24(1–2), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armudsen, G., Pecora, P. J., Payne, V. H., & Szatkiewicz J. P. (1999). An intake profile of children in long-term care using the Child Behavior Check List. Seattle, Washington: Casey Family Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Berrick, J. D., & Albert, V. (1994). From child abuse to permanency planning. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrick, J. D. (1993). Group care for children in California: Trends in the 1990’s. Child and Youth Care Forum, 22(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, D. L., Schmidt, M. D., & Spellman, D. F. (1998). The boys town residential treatment Center: Treatment implementation and preliminary outcomes. Child and Youth Care Forum, 27(4), 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interoganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service system. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 401–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, R., Litrownick, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: Disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and the number of placements. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(10), 1363–1373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pecora, P., & Gingerich, W. (1981). Worker tasks and knowledge utilization in group child care: First findings. Child Welfare, 60(4), 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. (1983). Mitigating turnover of child care staff in group care facilities. Child Welfare, 62(1), 63–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. (1980). Youth corrections group homes in Utah: Final report. Salt Lake City, Utah: John Short and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. K., Stormshak, E., Chamberlain, P., & Whaley, R. B. (2001). Placement disruption in treatment foster care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(3), 200–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra, J. (1998). “Residential child care”: Sounds clear enough, doesn’t it? Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Residential care: Some high-risk youth benefits, but more study needed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahler, R. G. (1994). Child conduct problems: Disorders in conduct or social continuity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loring Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, L., Landsverk, J. & Roberts, A. A Comparison of Two Caregiving Models in Providing Continuity of Care for Youth in Residential Care. Child Youth Care Forum 36, 99–109 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-007-9033-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-007-9033-3

Keywords

Navigation