EDITORIAL All in the Family? J i m Whittaker (1979, 1981, 1988) was among the first of the leaders in our field to begin to redefine residential group care in the context of family services, and the article by Frank Ainsworth (1996) in this issue of the Forum contributes to the same stream of thinking. This is not only a politically useful refraining in an era when the idea of family preservation and reunification resonates better than that of residential group care; it also reflects the convincing conclusion that growing up in competent natural families is the best option that we as a society can provide for our children and youth. Certainly we welc o m e - a s we s h o u l d - - a n y t h i n g that will enable us to facilitate such outcomes for the young people in our care. Yet we must, here as always, ever be alert to the allure of seeming panaceas and avoid being lulled into accepting as sufficient what m a y actually be only partial solutions. It is undoubtedly true that we have often been overly critical and rejecting of the natural parents of m a n y of those in group care and too pessimistic about their prospects of becoming successful parents. B u t it is also true that significant numbers of the young people we serve will not be able to return to their natural homes or even to live with other relatives as the kinship care models currently being promoted would anticipate. We m u s t not sacrifice them and their futures on the altar of family preservation. The young people who find themselves in this situation are not limited to true orphans, whose numbers appear to be growing again as a consequence of the spread of AIDS, drug addiction, urban violence, and other social problems. There are others in group care, most of whom are more than routinely challenging, whose parents are simply too troubled and/or disorganized, for a variety of reasons, to want or to be able to raise them. Some parents have disappeared, leaving their children behind to be raised by others or to live on the streets. There are also those whom we choose, for a variety of reasons, not to send back to their families and communities of origin. Things seem likely to get worse, because changes currently under consideration in public policy regarding programs that comprise the Child & Youth C a r e F o r u m , 25(1), F e b r u a r y 1996 © 1996 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

3

4

Child & Youth Care Forum

so-called "safety net" or welfare system promise to increase the kinds of family stress t h a t lead to growing numbers of children needing outof-home care (Wattenberg, 1995). For most young people in these categories, adoption or at least foster family care are viewed as the solutions of choice. Anything b u t residential group care! Yet there will always be some young people for whom even these approaches do not fit, those for whom congregate living arrangements of some sort will be the best or only viable ones we can provide, and it would be both ethically and professionally irresponsible for us to give up on them because of the life circumstances in which they fred themselves. With regard to these youth, saying that group care is too expensive, intrinsically ineffective, or even abusive is simply a copout! Nor can we in good conscience reject it because it m a y end up serving some who could be served better in their own or substitute families. Rather, we m u s t monitor the system in such a w a y as to assure as best we can that t h a t does not happen. B u t there is more. A system of residential group care services that is directed only toward parent training and family reunification will, on at least two counts, fail those young people who will not be going home. First, its focus, even if unintentionally, will be on those who do have the potential to go home; they will receive more attention, and the program will emphasize the kinds of things t h a t can facilitate a successful return home rather than those that can enhance developm e n t in the context of long-term congregate living. In addition, some elements of such programs will be discouraging to those who know t h a t they will not be able to return home, sapping the motivation t h a t could support and sustain their positive development. As important as it is for us to do all we can to promote and sustain healthy family reunification whenever the situation permits, we m u s t also not allow ourselves to abandon those young people who depend on us the most in the service of those for whom family-based solutions can be attained. J.B.

References Ainsworth, F. (1996). Group care workers as parent educators. Child and Youth Care Forum, 25(1), 17-28. Wattenberg, E. (1995). Editorial comment. Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare News, Fall, 3-4. Whittaker, J. (1979). Caring for troubled children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Whittaker, J. (1981). Family involvement in residential treatment: A support system for parents. In A. Maluccio & P. Sinanogh (Eds.), The challenge of partnership:

E

~

5

Working with parents of children in foster care (pp. 67-88). New York: Child Welfare League of America. Whittaker, J. (1988). Family support and group child care: Rethinking resources. In G. O. Carman & R. W. Small (Eds.), Permanence and family support: Changing practice in group child care (pp. 29-55). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.