Listen to thisThe debate surrounding residential care for children has never been more urgent. As we enter 2025, fundamental questions demand our attention: What do we stand for? How can we refocus our priorities in the face of powerful forces pushing for the dismantling of residential care systems? And most importantly, how can we, as practitioners, academics, and policymakers, unite to ensure that our work reflects the best interests of the children we serve?
This editorial builds on a discussion I initiated in the February 2020 issue of this journal, revisiting the core issue of deinstitutionalisation and the essential role of residential care in child welfare. A recent incident underscores this urgency: a senior professor of international acclaim was disinvited from delivering a keynote speech at a European UNICEF-supported conference for challenging the notion that ‘residential child care is inherently harmful.’ This reflects a troubling intolerance for diverse perspectives in our field. The anti-residential care agenda, driven by tunnel-visioned ideologies, often disregards nuanced discussions, evidence, and, crucially, the voices of children themselves.
UNICEF’s Keeping Families Together in Europe envisions “zero children in institutional care in Europe by 2030.” While this goal is well-intentioned, it risks erasing vital services without understanding the diverse realities of child welfare worldwide. Similarly, the UNICEF White Paper on Small-Scale Residential Care adopts a Western-centric lens, prioritising optics over evidence. Its recommendations fail to consider the complexities of child welfare systems, particularly in resource-limited settings.
Crafting policies at metaphorical "coffee tables," removed from the lived realities of practitioners, undermines the diverse needs of children globally. The figures presented in UNICEF’s documents even suggest that eliminating residential care by 2030 is highly unlikely. Yet, the unwavering commitment to this agenda persists despite its lack of robust evidence and potential harm to children.
The challenge before us is not only one of academic discourse but also of ‘moral integrity’. The debate has been hijacked by ‘ideologies’ that falsely equate family-based care with ‘good’ and residential care with ‘bad.’ This binary framing neglects evidence showing that residential care can offer stability, safety, and a sense of community for children who cannot thrive in family-based settings. While a loving family environment is ideal, it is not always achievable or appropriate. Additionally, foster care, theoretically perfect, is not without limitations. Placement breakdowns, abuse, and identity struggles often leave children more vulnerable than they would be in well-run residential settings. Residential care provides a structured environment where children can build lasting relationships, develop a sense of identity, and access the emotional support they need to thrive.
What is particularly troubling is the unwavering commitment of these anti-residential care groups to dismiss the positive contributions that well-run residential care can make to the lives of children. The narrative these groups propagate paints all residential care as abusive, harmful, and inherently detrimental to children’s development. This is a dangerous oversimplification. Over the past two decades, these negative narratives have spread far and wide, especially in Europe and increasingly in other parts of the world. They have successfully undermined the credibility of residential care, portraying it as a ‘haven of abuse’ despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Research and lived experiences contradict the sweeping generalisations of anti-residential care narratives. Most residential care facilities enable children to thrive, improving mental health, educational attainment, and social skills. Researchers such as Bruce Henderson have meticulously reviewed over 600 peer-reviewed studies, revealing that critiques often misuse research from severely deprived infant institutions to discredit modern residential care for older children and adolescents in well-managed facilities.
Tuhinul Islam and Leon Fulcher's extensive global comparative research, spanning 71 countries, has consistently warned against the potentially harmful impacts of aggressive deinstitutionalisation. Frank Ainsworth’s analysis of deinstitutionalisation movements in Australia provides cautionary tales of dismantling residential care without viable alternatives. Together with James Anglin, Mark Smith, Zoë Kessler, Kwabena Frimpong-Manso, and others, this body of work underscores the value of residential care when delivered with care, compassion, and professionalism.
Practitioners and colleagues worldwide have also privately shared countless success stories—of children overcoming adversity, thriving in residential care, and emerging as confident, well-rounded individuals. These stories, rooted in cultural and ethical practices, highlight the resilience and transformative potential of residential care. Yet these voices remain largely unheard amid the cacophony of anti-residential campaigns.
The anti-residential care agenda is backed by well-funded organisations that rely on outdated theories, such as attachment theory and total institutionalisation theory, to advance their narratives. These theories are often misrepresented, omitting critiques about their over-claimed neuroscientific provenance in child welfare contexts.
This movement’s success stems not from the strength of its arguments but from its unity, resources, political and media power and relentless campaigning. Meanwhile, our sector remains fragmented and hesitant to challenge these narratives publicly. Conferences and academic forums often avoid addressing the systemic issues propelled by these groups, leaving glaring gaps in dialogue.
So, where does that leave us? As practitioners, academics, and advocates, we cannot remain silent. To do so would be to tacitly accept flawed narratives that threaten the future of residential care. We must unite, share our success stories, and advocate for an inclusive, evidence-based approach that reflects the diverse needs of children.
This does not mean rejecting ‘family-based care’, but recognising it is not the ‘only solution’. Policies must be rooted in research and compassion, ensuring that residential care remains a viable option for children who need it. The push for deinstitutionalisation, championed by UNICEF and their allies, must be critically examined. It is essential that we resist this ideological movement as we have the ‘evidence, the experience, and the moral authority’ to challenge the prevailing narrative, which has proven to be more harmful than beneficial in many contexts. It is time to allocate resources for robust research and advocacy to counter misinformation and promote the positive impacts of residential care.
The fight to protect residential care is not about resisting change but ensuring that change is informed, compassionate, and evidence-based. By raising our voices and standing firm in our convictions, we can ensure that the next generation of children can access the best possible care, whether family-based or residential. Let us not allow political agendas to dictate the future of child welfare.
Let 2025 be the year we unite, reclaim the narrative, and refocus our priorities on what truly matters: the well-being and future of every child and young people in our care.
References
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2005). A dream come true - no more residential care: A corrective note. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14(3), 195-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2005.00359.x
Henderson, B (2024) Challenging the conventional wisdom about residential care for children and youth: A good place to grow. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003435709
Islam, T and Fulcher, L (2021) Residential Child and Youth Care in a Developing World. African Perspectives. Cape Town: CYC-NET Press.
Islam, T and Fulcher, L (2018) Residential Child and Youth Care in a Developing World. Asian and Middle East Perspectives. Cape Town: CYC-NET Press.
Islam, T and Fulcher, L (2017) Residential Child and Youth Care in a Developing World. European Perspectives. Cape Town: CYC-NET Press.
Islam, T and Fulcher, L (2016) Residential Child and Youth Care in a Developing World. Global Perspectives. Cape Town: CYC-NET Press.
