A day for sharing ideas from practice and research about group size in residential childcare

On 6th December 2002 the York Group (so-called because of its links with York University) held its second York Day - a day seminar, packed with papers and discussion, about residential childcare.

Professor Ewan Anderson, who leads the Group, has now identified eighteen different sorts of residential childcare and one of the real strengths of the day was that the invited audience included workers and researchers from a very wide range of settings - educationalists from boarding schools, managers of children’s homes and units for disturbed children and those with special needs, people working in the penal system, staff from the health sector, and so on. The interplay provided invaluable insights into the shared issues and the differences between the settings.

The day was examining the question of the size of residential childcare establishments. Why were they of certain sizes? What was the effect of size on the quality of their practice? What were the unforeseen side-effects of sizes? Were there critical thresholds in size which affected the nature of groups and what they could achieve? What factors indicate that establishments should be bigger or smaller? What about smaller units within larger ones? What impact does size have on a child or young person entering an establishment?

The question of size is clearly a key issue, but one which in the past has not been addressed sufficiently. People have often made assumptions that larger units are more institutional, but are they? People have argued for economies of scale in larger units, but do they also have economic arguments against them, such as the Ringelman effect? People have often compared residential care unfavourably with “family life”, but what is the normal family? Have children and young people ever been asked what they like or want? To what size of unit do people feel allegiance? What are the symbols which draw members of groups together and give coherence and meaning to their groups?

This Special Issue includes a number of the papers given on the day, and thanks are due to their authors for permission to publish. The speakers had a wide range of experience, and comparisons were made with the Roman army legions and their internal structure, the modern army, boarding schools, secure training centres, the National Health Service and a host of other types of unit.

There were interesting similarities, such as the appropriate size for a basic unit, which varied from six to eight, perhaps made up of two sub-units of four, though the Home Office was quoted (in former Children’s Department days) as stating this was too small as it was not enough to make up a football team.

Most research had suggested that size had little impact on the quality of service, whether in schools or in residential care, though Ian Sinclair’s work in children’s homes had suggested that smaller homes had been more successful in helping children to adjust socially. The size of staff teams was also seen to have had an impact, as a shared sense of purpose was vital to success.

During the day, participants argued for personal space, a sense of belonging, cohesion, positive peer groups, optimum staff groups (i.e. neither under nor overstaffing), stability of group membership, maintaining safety for group members, matching group sizes to tasks, creating vision, reflexivity, and team-building.

Ewan Anderson and his colleagues on the York Group are to be congratulated on the day’s programme and the sharing of ideas which it enabled. Next year the theme is the length of stay of children and young people in residential care. It should be interesting.