Phillip Barker (1988) says that in our time residential treatment will continue to be needed in three circumstances: for the protection of the community; for the protection of the young person; and for those who may pose no threat to themselves or others, but whose behaviour is so disturbed as to be more than community resources can deal with.

This suggests that our youth care program may on one hand be an agent of social control, and on the other hand offer individual protection -- while in between these extremes it would provide training and help towards competence and autonomy. Our task, then, would seem to be to progressively reduce the need for either containment or protection and to prepare the young person for re-entry into society.

It is important for us to distinguish between these roles. For example, when society asks a particular program to admit a youth who is acting out destructively or anti-socially, we have a period in which we act in loco parentis when we accept responsibility for containment and training. We don’t let that person out on to the streets this afternoon, but we do know that we are already working towards the afternoon when we can. Similarly, for the youngster admitted for protection against danger and abuse, we are already working towards building personal strengths and skills so that reintegration into family and community will soon be safe and possible.

Neither containment nor protection are permanent. Both are meant to lead back to life, and our job is always to steer the middle and forward driving path.

Barker, P. (1988) The future of residential treatment, in Schaefer, C. and Swanson, A. (eds.) Children in residential care: Critical issues in treatment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.