Closing the Research to Practice Gap in Therapeutic Residential Care

Abstract

Residential care continues to be a significant sector in child and family services in the United States and across the world (Thoburn & Ainsworth, 2015). Current estimates for the United States indicate that there were more than 50,000 youth served in these settings in 2013 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). These youth tend to have more significant risk factors than youth treated in less restrictive placements. For example, a study by Pottick, Warner, and Yoder (2005) found that approximately 63% of youth in group care settings had dual clinical diagnoses compared with 50% of those in foster care; 30% in group care and 12% in foster care attempted or threatened suicide; 21% reported substance abuse compared with 10% in foster care; and 57% of youth in group care had impaired psychological and social functioning compared with 40% in foster care. In addition, the prevalence of serious emotional and behavioral problems among children in residential care settings appears to be on the increase (Duppong Hurley et al., 2009). Studies have also suggested that children served in residential settings have significant risks in other areas such as educational disabilities (Trout, Hagaman, Casey, Reid, & Epstein, 2008; Trout, Hagaman, Chmelka, et al., 2008) and physical health problems (Nelson et al., 2011). While many high-risk youth are served in residential care, during the past two decades there have been numerous concerns voiced regarding residential care such as the high cost of care, minimal development of residential theory and research evidence, general lack of integrating family and community supports, unclear youth placement criteria, minimal aftercare services, and possible iatrogenic effects (e.g., Annie E.

Improving Persuasive Science Writing for Secondary Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Educated in Residential Treatment Facilities

“…Now, with corroborating findings from three independent research teams and according to WWC guidelines (Kratochwill et al, 2010), SRSD potentially can be considered an evidence-based practice for use in RTFs with students with EBD. Social validity was also high among all participants, which is especially important given the pressing need to establish service provider-university partnerships in an effort to implement evidence-based practices in RTFs (Thompson, Hurley, Trout, Huefner, & Daly, 2017). Based on standards for single-case design research set forth by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2014), the study can be classified as having positive effects (i.e., a functional relation was established for at least 75% of participants).…”

“…Therefore, preparing students with EBD to write persuasive arguments related to science gives them an advantage in the postsecondary world. Finally, for staff working in RTFs who may be overwhelmed with the needs of their students and are short on time for professional development (Thompson et al, 2017), the SRSD online program (Writing to Learn, 2017) and its self-paced modules offer an efficient way of improving one's knowledge of systematic and effective writing instruction. Result from this study demonstrate that a science teacher can complete the training and then deliver whole-class instruction to groups of students with EBD.…”