Two Articles on Children’s Residential Care, Foster Care & Institutionalisation.
Introduction.
This PDF contains two articles. Both articles claim that Institutionalising and institutionalization are not a simple function of building size or formal status; it is a function of culture, boundaries, language, and the quality of relationships and outcomes. Nevertheless, when systems react to fears about institutionalisation by fragmenting groups into very small, highly staffed units, they can create new institutionalising dynamics: endless staff rotation, loss of peer processes, and a service shaped more by governmental anxieties than by assessed child need.
The core thesis is that institutionalising is a function of culture, language, boundaries, relationships, and outcomes rather than building size or legal form, which is clearly articulated and consistently developed in both pieces.
Emma Blakemore, Sir Martin Narey, Patrick Tomlinson, and John Whitwell (2022) What is Institutionalising for ‘Looked After’ Children and Young People?, in, Journal of Social Work Practice, Taylor & Francis
This article asks: what actually makes a setting institutionalising or de‑institutionalising for a child, regardless of whether it is ‘family’, foster, or residential? It emphasises culture, language, openness/closedness to the community, and quality of experience over the label or size of the setting.
Tomlinson (2026) A Reflection on Family Group Size in Society and Children’s Residential Care
This article shows parallel trends in family size and residential home size. The trend in the UK and Ireland, among other nations, is that family size has significantly decreased over time, and residential care homes are now more likely to have 1-3 living in them than a larger group. The article discusses the developmental consequences for children, the adults working with and caring for them, and children’s residential service providers.