PubMedDate not supplied
Protection of children and youths after placement must be given increased emphasis because deinstitutionalized care is itself not harm-free and also because the needs of many children for care, control, and treatment are likely to be met in residential facilities for the foreseeable future. However, the diverse and often incompatible views of advocates and providers of child care about the issues affecting the protection of residents in institutions loom as obstacles to planning for the protection of children and youths after placement. Both of the extreme views of institutional abuse and neglect issues deny the need for child protection after placement. The first holds that since the child or youth is being protected and/or treated, no ongoing child protection is necessary. The other view holds that any child protection effort short of closing residential facilities is futile and therefore without merit. Underreporting of abuse or neglect is widespread; accountability of facilities for the protection of residents is, as a result, unevenly established. These conditions are attributable in part to the inadequate statutory base for protecting children in institutions. At the same time, because of the lack of a planned approach to protection within facilities, and between facilities and child protection agencies, residential facilities are likely to suffer negative public exposure when moderate or serious incidents of maltreatment become public. The absence of procedures for facilities themselves to recognize abuse and neglect invites exposure of incidents by staff and residents. The ad hoc manner in which incidents are managed by external agencies often inflicts unwarranted costs on the reputations of residential facilities that in many cases may have only one or two serious incidents a year. Finally, the use of "last resort" placements may be putting some children and youths into situations of unacceptable risk. Despite the existence of differing views in the residential care field, we have identified areas of agreement between the child protection agencies and residential facilities upon which public policy might build. The problem may not be so much that these attitudes exist, as that the states have not responded in a planned and credible way to the problem of institutional abuse and neglect. Nevertheless, development of a planned and credible approach must deal with these areas of difference if protection of children after placement is to be improved.