NO 1701
The Contribuion of Child and Youth Care Workers
In this paper, much attention has been devoted to the
responsibilities of group workers, but what their precise share in the
'production' of behavioural improvement is cannot be given on the basis of
empirical research. What we do know is that their work substantially impacts
on the quality of care for the children being looked after. In a residential
setting this quality involves not only physical-material matters, but also
pedagogical and psychological care. This is expressed in aspects such as the
provision of emotional security, the promotion of a positive attitude
towards one another, the protection of privacy, the stimulation of cognitive
development, paying attention to the individual child, the correction of
unacceptable behaviour, et cetera (see also Anglin, 2002). This type of
'basic care' (Knorth, 2005) given to children and young people is the
professional field of the residential workers. If they do not perform their
work properly, the quality of residential care is immediately threatened.
Going by the views articulated by children in residential care, there is no
reason to assume that group workers are malfunctioning on a large scale.
However, one aspect that does emerge from the above-mentioned studies is
that they are in a vulnerable position — they perform difficult and
occasionally very trying work but do not always receive fitting esteem and
reward for this (see also Lindsay, 2002). This increases the chances of them
leaving the job, with the consequent discontinuity in the care of the
children as an unwanted result.
We are firmly of the view that the profession of residential worker deserves a much higher status than it currently enjoys in many countries, certainly in the Netherlands. A stronger professional identity is needed. This could be achieved by placing greater emphasis on residential work in higher vocational and academic training (Bachelor's and Master's degree programmes), by introducing a system of remuneration and accreditation that better reflects the huge responsibilities associated with working with demanding children, and by improving the public image of the residential sector as a whole. Comparative research (cf. Petrie et al., 2006) can show the benefits that will result for care workers and children.
Our overview also showed that the personality, or the psychological 'make-up', of the care worker plays a major role in job performance. This is notably present in features such as stress resistance, psychological availability to children, ability to win confidence, and preferable social patterns of interaction. Research has indicated that the quality of the primary process in residential care is essentially co-determined by the composition of the personal qualities of the residential staff. The question that then arises is how these personal attributes either reinforce or weaken the treatment outcome achieved through the provision of a needs-based combination of care and treatment. Research into adult mental health care reveals major differences in the working methods and outcomes of different professionals. Wampold and Brown (2005), for example, found that clients assisted by professionals who were rated unfavourably by clients and colleagues on a number of personal attributes * made significant improvements in only 20% of cases, whereas positively rated therapists achieved a favourable outcome for 80% of their clients. We do not know whether this also holds true for residential youth care. We believe that this is a pressing area for further research.
* These are attributes such as open, warm,
non-judgemental, friendly, interested involved, clear, attentive, flexible,
affirming, encouraging, reliable, reflective, focused on client feedback,
and avoiding negative interactions, accusations
and a disparaging manner.
ERIK KNORTH, ANNEMIEK HARDER, ANNE-MARIE HUYGHEN, MARGITE KALVERBOER
and TJALLING ZANDBERG
Knorth, E.J., Harder, A., Huyghen, A., Kalverboer, M.E. and Zandberg, T. (2010). Residential Youth Care and Treatment Research: Cre Workers as Key Factor in Outcomes. Intenational Journal of Child & Family Welfare 2010/1-2, pages 49-67
References
Anglin, J.P. (2002). Pain, normality, and the struggle for congruence.
Reinterpreting residential care for children and youth. Binghampton,
NY: The Haworth Press.
Knorth, E.J. (2005). What makes the difference? Intensive care and treatment
for children and adolescents with serious problem behaviour. Kind en
Adolescent, 26 (4), 334-351 (in Dutch).
Lindsay, M. (2002). Building a professional identity: The challenge for
residential Child and Youth Care. In E.J. Knorth, P.M. van den Bergh, & F.
Verheij (Eds), Professionalization and Participation in Child and Youth
Care: Challenging understandings in theory and practice (pp.75-86).
Aldershot, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Petrie, P., Boddy, J., Cameron, C., Wigfall, V., & Simon, A. (2006)
Working with children in care: European perspectives. Maidenhead
(UK)/New York: Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.
