Children in Residential Care: Support Must Address the Whole Need
Updated: Oct 14
Written by Tanyah Cain, Cain MindSYNC, in collaboration with Folket vs. Barnevernet.
Purpose and position: This article argues for a substantial need for research into lived experience. Research gaps must prompt closer scrutiny of child welfare practice; they must not be used to dismiss children’s and parents’ accounts. Intrusive decisions and substantial resource use demand better knowledge about the decision-making basis, adapted support and actual outcomes. Experiences shared with FvsB help formulate questions to investigate; they are not presented as representative prevalence estimates.
The practical question is where children and families experience gaps between assessment, promised support and the help actually delivered. We need to examine relevant alternative explanations, suitable adaptations and whether intervention changes life for the better.
At the heart of it
AI-generated illustration. The image does not depict a real event.
Children in residential child welfare may have intersecting needs involving mental health, school, substance use, relationships, and safety. Support should be planned for the individual child and coordinated with services around them.
What does the evidence show?
A 2025 Norwegian rapid review found a limited number of studies about children and young people in residential child welfare. Studies described issues including mental health, school, and substance use, while none of the included studies explicitly examined the needs children themselves say they have. This points to gaps in knowledge; it does not mean that needs are identical or that all institutions work the same way. The child’s own goals and experiences should therefore inform planning. Daily routines, education, health care, leisure, and contact with important people should be considered together. Institutions need clear boundaries, while care also needs to be relational and individualized.
Questions that can strengthen support
What matters most to the child right now? Who follows up on school and health? How can the child speak up if something feels unsafe? Are measures reviewed with the child and changed as needs change?
Evidence note
The 2025 review identifies limited research and gaps in direct knowledge about children’s own needs. The recommendations here are professional implications, not proven effects of one institutional model.
Comments