Stakeholder Perspectives on Therapeutic and Safe Building Design in Residential Care

ABSTRACT Residential care is a form of out‐of‐home care that plays a critical role in supporting vulnerable young people in Australia. However, there is an evidence gap regarding the built environment in this context. This research aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders in residential care in Victoria, Australia, regarding design that can offer home‐like and therapeutic environments, and safe workplaces. A qualitative research design was used, with semi‐structured interviews ( n = 14) and seven focus groups ( n = 30) conducted with key programme and policy stakeholder groups. All data were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim with pseudonyms applied at that time, and analysed using thematic analysis. Ten themes were identified from the data, focused on the importance of home‐like and therapeutic environments, and the provision of a safe workplace. Residential care design was found to influence experiences of safety, comfort and therapeutic intent, with stakeholders emphasising the importance of personalisation, maintenance, occupancy levels and visibility in shaping these outcomes. Together the findings reveal significant opportunities to transform residential care environments through targeted design solutions and systematic redesign across regulatory and operational frameworks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Journal of Social Issues
Published
2026-03-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70106
Primary Topic
Child Welfare and Adoption
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Stakeholder Perspectives on Therapeutic and Safe Building Design in Residential Care

Phillippa Carnemolla, Libby Callaway, Carmen M Schroder, Olivia Crivari
Australian Journal of Social Issues
Child Welfare and Adoption
article

Stakeholder Perspectives on Therapeutic and Safe Building Design in Residential Care

Phillippa Carnemolla, Libby Callaway, Carmen M Schroder, Olivia Crivari
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Residential care is a form of out‐of‐home care that plays a critical role in supporting vulnerable young people in Australia. However, there is an evidence gap regarding the built environment in this context. This research aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders in residential care in Victoria, Australia, regarding design that can offer home‐like and therapeutic environments, and safe workplaces. A qualitative research design was used, with semi‐structured interviews ( n = 14) and seven focus groups ( n = 30) conducted with key programme and policy stakeholder groups. All data were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim with pseudonyms applied at that time, and analysed using thematic analysis. Ten themes were identified from the data, focused on the importance of home‐like and therapeutic environments, and the provision of a safe workplace. Residential care design was found to influence experiences of safety, comfort and therapeutic intent, with stakeholders emphasising the importance of personalisation, maintenance, occupancy levels and visibility in shaping these outcomes. Together the findings reveal significant opportunities to transform residential care environments through targeted design solutions and systematic redesign across regulatory and operational frameworks.

Australian Journal of Social Issues
University of Technology Sydney (AU), Parenting Research Centre (AU), Monash University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Child Welfare and Adoption
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.