Residential youth care settings should provide youth with safe environments where they are supported and treated. However, there are aspects of residential youth care that threaten its effectiveness, and which may also violate children's rights. Staff members exercise power over the youth, which can be abused to coerce, punish, or limit the autonomy of youth. Currently, the harmful behavior of staff includes repression through such acts as harsh and unfair control, punishment, and lack of autonomy granting. However, research on the exact nature of repression is lacking, which hampers empirical research on repression in residential youth care, and makes it difficult for residential settings to recognize repression and take the right corrective measures. A scoping review of the available literature is conducted from a humanistic, social psychological, and organizational perspective to examine the nature of repression and to provide a valid definition and its antecedents. This article offers implications for preventing, recognizing, and diminishing repression in residential youth care.

With the elaboration of the ICF scheme and the model of Van Dijk, expanded with ICF terms, the gap between the terminology used by professionals in health care, and the terminology used by professionals in occupational medicine is partly filled.

When risky child and family circumstances cannot be resolved at home, (temporary) 24-h out-of-home placement of the child may be an alternative strategy. To identify specific placement risks and needs, care professionals must have information about the child and his or her family, care history, and social-cultural characteristics at admission to out-of-home care. However, to date information on case characteristics and particular their similarities and differences across the three main types of out-of-home settings (namely foster care, family-style group care, and residential care) is largely lacking. This review compiles and compares characteristics of school-aged children of average intelligence and their families at the time of each child’s admission to one of the three care modalities. A scoping review technique that provides a broad search strategy and ensures sufficient coverage of the available literature is used. Based on the 36 studies included, there is consensus that the majority of normally intelligent children in care demonstrate severe developmental and behavioral problems. However, the severeness as well as the kinds of defining characteristics present differ among the children in foster care, family-style group care, and residential care. The review also identifies several existing knowledge gaps regarding relevant risk factors. Future research is recommended to fill these gaps and determine the developmental pathway in relation to children’s risks and needs at admission. This will contribute to the development of an evidence-based risks and needs assessment tool that will enable care professionals to make informed referrals to a specific type of out-of-home care when such a placement is required.

To overcome fragmentation in support for children and their families with multiple and enduring problems across life domains, professionals increasingly try to organize integrated care. However, it is unclear what facilitators and barriers professionals experience when providing this integrated care. Our systematic review, including 55 studies from a broad variety of settings in Youth Care, showed that integrated care on a professional level is a multi-component entity consisting of several facilitators and barriers. Findings were clustered in seven general themes: 'Child's environment', 'Preconditions', 'Care process', 'Expertise', 'Interprofessional collaboration', 'Information exchange', and 'Professional identity'. The identified facilitators and barriers were generally consistent across studies, indicating broad applicability across settings and professional disciplines. This review clearly shows that when Youth Care professionals address a broad spectrum of problems, a variety of facilitators and barriers should be considered. Registration PROSPERO, registration number CRD42018084527.