**2. Residential care: Evolution of the models and typology**

RC has a long history as a resource to attend children and adolescents who, for whatever reason, have no family to protect them. Both the old-fashioned orphanages and the current supervised homes have helped a considerable percentage of minors who were in a situation of vulnerability. With the change of the model of the childhood welfare system that takes place in Europe in the second half of the 20th century, we abandoned the notion that the only possible intervention for unprotected childhood was the charity-based one, where practically the only resource was the enormous residences in which boys and girls were interned because their parents could not (or did not want to) attend their needs. At that not too distant time, children were admitted so that their basic needs would be taken care of within the residences, because they even studied and received medical care without leaving the enclosure. Most of the boys and girls who entered these residences did not leave them until they were of age and, in many cases, they were all alone in a society they were unfamiliar with, because they had grown up within the walls of the institution. Until the first half of the 20th century, the socially constructed image of these children was that of victims of a traumatic situation, and it was thought that they would not be able to develop normally because they had no family, so most of them were predestined to poverty, delinquency, or prostitution. The future granted to these children was social margination. Therefore, there was no social pressure to change the care and opportunities provided to these children, because most of the population had ambivalent feelings towards them, a mixture of compassion and fear. A famous refrain says *"ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente"* [out of sight, out of mind], so it was considered appropriate for these children to be practically locked up in these large residences, concealing them from the public opinion, which did not accept any responsibility for this population other than some beneficial gesture. Thus, there was at this time no kind of external control or supervision of what went on within these institutions, and over time, too many cases of maltreatment and even indiscriminate adoptions, under the suspicion of commercial transactions, have come to light. The characteristics of these large institutions, according to Del Valle and Fuertes (2000), are shown in Table 1.

138 Child Abuse and Neglect – A Multidimensional Approach

from which they had to be separated for their own protection.

Subsequently, the research currently carried out in Spain on the integration in school of children and adolescents who live in RC is analyzed. The results reveal that they have many difficulties to integrate at school and their academic achievements are far below average, and a considerable percentage of these residential children do not even finish compulsory education, and only a token number of them continue post-compulsory education. As will be discussed, education for these children is important for several reasons: 1) Family and school are the two most important contexts for children's development. When one of them is lacking, such as the case of the family for these children, the school should reinforce its compensating role. 2) The school is the main normalized context that allows these children to establish relations of friendship and to enrich their social support networks, both with peers and with adults. 3) Finishing their studies and achieving adequate formation and qualification will allow for better socio-work insertion, once they come of age. This, in turn, will allow them to break out of the vicious circle of social exclusion, because most of the youngsters who drop out of the welfare system when they come of age return to the family

I will conclude by underlining the strengths and future challenges of RC as one more resource within the childhood welfare system. With regard to the strengths, I underscore its modernization, the professionalized care provided to the children, the positive effects it has in many cases and with certain profiles, being able to work with the families so as not to

The challenges of the future involve the capacity to improve these children's academic adjustment—which is usually already impaired when they reach the residential homes and their socio-work insertion when they come of age. One of the topics in RC research that has recently awakened much interest is the transition to adult life, where not all the results of the investigations carried out are positive. Some reflections are made about how to improve these processes. Among other aspects, other administrations, such as the educational administration, should take on a more active role within the childhood welfare system. Only by means of inter-administrative coordination can we provide effective solutions to these future challenges to RC. We shall also address the topic of care for the mental health problems of this population. The studies carried out on this aspect indicate that the prevalence of mental health problems in this collective is much higher than that of

RC has a long history as a resource to attend children and adolescents who, for whatever reason, have no family to protect them. Both the old-fashioned orphanages and the current supervised homes have helped a considerable percentage of minors who were in a situation of vulnerability. With the change of the model of the childhood welfare system that takes place in Europe in the second half of the 20th century, we abandoned the notion that the only possible intervention for unprotected childhood was the charity-based one, where practically the only resource was the enormous residences in which boys and girls were interned because their parents could not (or did not want to) attend their needs. At that not too distant

break the family bonds, as well as its flexibility to combine with other resources.

the population of children and adolescents who live with their families.

**2. Residential care: Evolution of the models and typology** 


**Table 1.** Common characteristics of the charity-model institutions for children

World War II, the most destructive and atrocious war suffered by humanity throughout its history, led to the generalized realization of the rights of human beings. In 1948, the recently created General Assembly of the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although it took more than 40 years to approve the Convention on Rights of the Child. This delay is not casual. Childhood was never granted a voice to claim its rights, easily trampled by adults due to children's inability to assert them and defend themselves from all kinds of aggressions suffered, and which many children still currently suffer. This is vitally important in order to understand that the evolution of modern childhood welfare systems (among which is RC, as it is understood nowadays) has been relatively slow, which is why they are not yet fully developed. Moreover, the adequate social construction of childhood and our responsibility towards children who are not our blood relations are still far from ideal. As noted by Garrido (2001), legislators not only make decisions as a function of research, but particularly, depending on whether their decisions make sense to society and are demanded by it. We should therefore appraise the development of the childhood welfare systems that currently exist from this perspective.

Residential Care as a Resource

of the Childhood Welfare System: Current Strengths and Future Challenges 141

this principle, the large residences have been turned into small homes, with a reduced group of children who carry out many activities outside of the home, thus promoting community integration; and where all the children have a work plan: to return to their families or to another foster family, adoption, or preparation for the transition to adult life in those cases in which they cannot or do not want to return to a family environment. Moreover, in most cases, the staff that works in these resources has adequate training (Del Valle & Fuertes,

**Figure 1.** Evolution of yearly admittances and the total number of children in RC in Spain (Source:

International Foster Care Organisation [IFCO] & Children's Villages, SOS, 2007).

The concern to provide adequate care to this population of children led to the elaboration of quality standards to appraise the work carried out in RC (General Assembly of the United Nations, 2009; Child Welfare League of America, 1991; Del Valle & Bravo, 2007; Redondo, Muñoz & Torres, 1998; Fedération Internationale des Communautés Educatives [FICE],

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total Admittances

One of the recommendations of these standards is to provide individualized treatment in all cases and, in this regard, the existence of very diverse profiles has made it necessary to create centers specialized by profiles, which, moreover, vary according to the country. This leads to the need to define what we mean by RC and what are the modalities. When performing a bibliographic search of the topic children's residential care, studies about boarding schools, centers for children with special educational needs, or even centers for young offenders may be found. We shall use RC to refer to the resources provided for children and adolescents who must be separated from their families for their own protection, because their families cannot meet their basic needs. And we shall only refer to those resources where the children carry out their entire daily activity, excluding day centers in which the children only spend a few hours a day with very clear goals of meeting some specific needs, but from which the children return to their family home every day (Svenlin, 2010). In the case of Spain, according to classification of Bravo and Del Valle (2009),

2000).

Observatorio de la Infancia, 2011).

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

we can find the following types of RC:

As a result of the adherence by most countries to the Convention of Rights of the Child(although there are still a few that have not yet signed it, some of them really surprising), the charity model of children's welfare is beginning to be abandoned. In developed countries, this adherence led to legislative development that provided the foundations of the welfare systems as they are currently known. In the case of Spain, this transition was delayed due to the military dictatorship, which lasted until almost the end of the 1970s. The model sustained by this change disrupted the charity model. Firstly, RC went from being almost the only resource for the welfare of childhood to becoming just one more resource. Adoption and foster care become alternative and preferential measures for children who had to be separated from their families. Moreover, family intervention programs were promoted, which sought to strengthen families so that the children would not have to be separated (Rodrigo, Máiquez, Martín & Byrne, 2008), because one of children's essential rights was established by consensus: the right to grow up in a family, if possible, the family of origin. Nevertheless, in spite of these good intentions and the consensus about the priority that all children grow up in a family setting, in Spain, the implementation of protective measures, such as foster care, developed slower than in other countries like the UK (Colton & Hellinckx, 1995). Although things are changing, and the number of available families is increasing, the number of children who live in RC and the new cases that are admitted each year are surprisingly stable. Figure 1 shows the evolution of RC in Spain during the past few years. Each year, an average of 9000 children enters RC, with a yearly total approximately 15000.

The principle of normalization is established for those cases that must be admitted into RC. The aim is that the lives of children who live in RC should be as similar as possible to the lives of children who live with their families. However, this principle is currently the subject of some debate because, for some authors, to consider normal a situation that should be exceptional can lead to institutionalization (Campos, 2011). Due to the implementation of this principle, the large residences have been turned into small homes, with a reduced group of children who carry out many activities outside of the home, thus promoting community integration; and where all the children have a work plan: to return to their families or to another foster family, adoption, or preparation for the transition to adult life in those cases in which they cannot or do not want to return to a family environment. Moreover, in most cases, the staff that works in these resources has adequate training (Del Valle & Fuertes, 2000).

140 Child Abuse and Neglect – A Multidimensional Approach

welfare systems that currently exist from this perspective.

with a yearly total approximately 15000.

World War II, the most destructive and atrocious war suffered by humanity throughout its history, led to the generalized realization of the rights of human beings. In 1948, the recently created General Assembly of the United Nations approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although it took more than 40 years to approve the Convention on Rights of the Child. This delay is not casual. Childhood was never granted a voice to claim its rights, easily trampled by adults due to children's inability to assert them and defend themselves from all kinds of aggressions suffered, and which many children still currently suffer. This is vitally important in order to understand that the evolution of modern childhood welfare systems (among which is RC, as it is understood nowadays) has been relatively slow, which is why they are not yet fully developed. Moreover, the adequate social construction of childhood and our responsibility towards children who are not our blood relations are still far from ideal. As noted by Garrido (2001), legislators not only make decisions as a function of research, but particularly, depending on whether their decisions make sense to society and are demanded by it. We should therefore appraise the development of the childhood

As a result of the adherence by most countries to the Convention of Rights of the Child(although there are still a few that have not yet signed it, some of them really surprising), the charity model of children's welfare is beginning to be abandoned. In developed countries, this adherence led to legislative development that provided the foundations of the welfare systems as they are currently known. In the case of Spain, this transition was delayed due to the military dictatorship, which lasted until almost the end of the 1970s. The model sustained by this change disrupted the charity model. Firstly, RC went from being almost the only resource for the welfare of childhood to becoming just one more resource. Adoption and foster care become alternative and preferential measures for children who had to be separated from their families. Moreover, family intervention programs were promoted, which sought to strengthen families so that the children would not have to be separated (Rodrigo, Máiquez, Martín & Byrne, 2008), because one of children's essential rights was established by consensus: the right to grow up in a family, if possible, the family of origin. Nevertheless, in spite of these good intentions and the consensus about the priority that all children grow up in a family setting, in Spain, the implementation of protective measures, such as foster care, developed slower than in other countries like the UK (Colton & Hellinckx, 1995). Although things are changing, and the number of available families is increasing, the number of children who live in RC and the new cases that are admitted each year are surprisingly stable. Figure 1 shows the evolution of RC in Spain during the past few years. Each year, an average of 9000 children enters RC,

The principle of normalization is established for those cases that must be admitted into RC. The aim is that the lives of children who live in RC should be as similar as possible to the lives of children who live with their families. However, this principle is currently the subject of some debate because, for some authors, to consider normal a situation that should be exceptional can lead to institutionalization (Campos, 2011). Due to the implementation of

**Figure 1.** Evolution of yearly admittances and the total number of children in RC in Spain (Source: Observatorio de la Infancia, 2011).

The concern to provide adequate care to this population of children led to the elaboration of quality standards to appraise the work carried out in RC (General Assembly of the United Nations, 2009; Child Welfare League of America, 1991; Del Valle & Bravo, 2007; Redondo, Muñoz & Torres, 1998; Fedération Internationale des Communautés Educatives [FICE], International Foster Care Organisation [IFCO] & Children's Villages, SOS, 2007).

One of the recommendations of these standards is to provide individualized treatment in all cases and, in this regard, the existence of very diverse profiles has made it necessary to create centers specialized by profiles, which, moreover, vary according to the country. This leads to the need to define what we mean by RC and what are the modalities. When performing a bibliographic search of the topic children's residential care, studies about boarding schools, centers for children with special educational needs, or even centers for young offenders may be found. We shall use RC to refer to the resources provided for children and adolescents who must be separated from their families for their own protection, because their families cannot meet their basic needs. And we shall only refer to those resources where the children carry out their entire daily activity, excluding day centers in which the children only spend a few hours a day with very clear goals of meeting some specific needs, but from which the children return to their family home every day (Svenlin, 2010). In the case of Spain, according to classification of Bravo and Del Valle (2009), we can find the following types of RC:

 *Immediate Shelter Centers*: These are centers aimed at attending cases of urgent separation from the family, where the child's status and case are appraised, to be subsequently referred to the most appropriate resource for that case. The stay in these centers should be short, a few months at most, although in many cases the stays are unduly prolonged.

Residential Care as a Resource

of the Childhood Welfare System: Current Strengths and Future Challenges 143

more harm? This leads us to review the results of the scientific research on this resource of

The charity-based past of this resource, as well as the lack of research until not long ago, has led to the appraisal of RC and its effect on children more as a function of beliefs than of knowledge. In many cases, this resource has been satanized, even by legislators, and we hear cries advocating the disappearance of RC and its replacement by other measures, such as foster homes, which are considered, per se, to be better than RC. Therefore, it is essential to collect data about the research developed in this field. Given its long past, the research of RC has changed, even as a function of the paradigms and predominant theories of each epoch. Towards the mid 20th century, the works of Spitz on the hospitalism syndrome of institutionalized children and the works of Bowlby about the negative effects of maternal deprivation began to generate a bad image of RC after World War II, a time when society began to be more sensitive about these children. A first effect of these early studies was, on the one hand, to initiate a line of research based on the problems developed by children in RC, and, on the other hand, as a consequence of the former, to generate a psychological intervention model based on an eminently clinical and psychiatric approach. This model was based on the idea that the child was the problem, so the intervention had to focus on the child. The line of research on all the kinds of problems produced by RC generated an enormous quantity of literature. The research method used was mainly to compare children raised in RC with groups of children who had always been with their family, or who had been adopted after living in RC (Chisholm, 1998; Han & Choi, 2006; Harden, 2002; Hodges & Tizard, 1989; Kaler & Freeman, 1994; O'Connor, Rutter & the ERA Team, 2000; Sloutsky, 1997; Tizard & Hodges, 1978; Vorria, Rutter, Pickles, Wolkind, & Hobsbaum, 1998). All these studies coincide that children raised in RC have more emotional, cognitive, social, and even physical problems than children who live with their families or who were sent to foster families or adopted by another family. A review of these studies carried out by Johnson, Browne, and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2006) concludes that, especially for smaller children, spending more than 6 months in RC can have severe consequences for their development. These results have helped to firmly fix the bad image of RC in the political and public opinion. Nevertheless, these results have been questioned mainly due to methodological defects, because they do not differentiate the effects of the prior situation that led the minor to be admitted in RC, nor are there any works that compare the status of the minor upon admittance and at some later date (Del Valle, 2003; Martín, Rodríguez & Torbay, 2007). Although some studies try to identify the problems caused by the prior family situation before the problems produced by the stay in RC (Knuston, 1995; Roy, Rutter, & Pickles, 2000), poorer results are still found in children raised in RC. But in spite of these attempts, there are still shortcomings in the research designs. Firstly, the children's opinion about their stay is not taken into account, and the situation is appraised exclusively from the adults' viewpoint. Secondly, the samples of children in RC came from orphanages of countries that are not particularly distinguished for the quality of their protective systems. And thirdly, a

the welfare system.

**3. Research of residential care** 


As can be seen, there are very diverse profiles, and RC childhood is a very heterogeneous population, but they have one thing in common: they are all neglected minors who have no family setting, and for whom special children's homes are the only available alternative in order to live together with other people. The question is: does RC protect them or does it do more harm? This leads us to review the results of the scientific research on this resource of the welfare system.

## **3. Research of residential care**

142 Child Abuse and Neglect – A Multidimensional Approach

those with fixed 24-hour staff.

be included within this category.

as it was at the beginning of the 21st century.

attention.

unduly prolonged.

 *Immediate Shelter Centers*: These are centers aimed at attending cases of urgent separation from the family, where the child's status and case are appraised, to be subsequently referred to the most appropriate resource for that case. The stay in these centers should be short, a few months at most, although in many cases the stays are

 *RCs for children under 3 years of age*: Although there is a legislative initiative aimed at preventing small children from living in centers, until this intention becomes a reality, the RC network includes this type of children's center because children of these ages

 *Supervised Children's Homes*: Herein are included all the resources in which children of different ages live in a home that is an attempt to imitate a family environment. Within this category are diverse resources, such as those in which the staff work in shifts and

 *Homes to prepare adolescents for independence*: Although the legislation obliges the state to protect minors until they are of age (in Spain, this is 18 years), it is necessary to prepare them for emancipation in all cases in which family reunification is not foreseen. Skills to facilitate social and occupational integration are taught so the adolescents can be independent when they leave the welfare system. As in contemporary society, and more so due to the economic crisis, being economically independent at 18 years of age is practically impossible, resources to attend to youngsters over 18 who have no resources are beginning to appear, so they can continue with their studies. These resources could

 *Homes and centers for adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems*: A change that has recently been observed is the increase in cases of children over 12 years old who enter the welfare system at their parents' request because their parents cannot control their behavior. Although most of the cases occur due to lacks in the parents' educational styles—which indicates enormous lacks in prevention—in many cases, these minors require specialized attention because some of them have even developed mental health problems. These centers are an attempt to respond to this profile with specialized

 *Homes for unaccompanied alien minors*: Due to the economic bonanza in Europe during the years before the current crisis, the phenomenon of immigration emerged, and it was especially visible in frontier countries like Spain. In addition to adults and families, unaccompanied minors with no family references began to arrive. As they were minors in Spanish territory, the law considered them to be the object of protection, but their profile is very different culturally and religiously, and also with regard to language and even to their life goals, so they require special handling. Nevertheless, the crisis has led to a decrease in the migratory flow and the current situation is therefore not as chaotic

As can be seen, there are very diverse profiles, and RC childhood is a very heterogeneous population, but they have one thing in common: they are all neglected minors who have no family setting, and for whom special children's homes are the only available alternative in order to live together with other people. The question is: does RC protect them or does it do

have different needs of attention and care from those of older children.

The charity-based past of this resource, as well as the lack of research until not long ago, has led to the appraisal of RC and its effect on children more as a function of beliefs than of knowledge. In many cases, this resource has been satanized, even by legislators, and we hear cries advocating the disappearance of RC and its replacement by other measures, such as foster homes, which are considered, per se, to be better than RC. Therefore, it is essential to collect data about the research developed in this field. Given its long past, the research of RC has changed, even as a function of the paradigms and predominant theories of each epoch. Towards the mid 20th century, the works of Spitz on the hospitalism syndrome of institutionalized children and the works of Bowlby about the negative effects of maternal deprivation began to generate a bad image of RC after World War II, a time when society began to be more sensitive about these children. A first effect of these early studies was, on the one hand, to initiate a line of research based on the problems developed by children in RC, and, on the other hand, as a consequence of the former, to generate a psychological intervention model based on an eminently clinical and psychiatric approach. This model was based on the idea that the child was the problem, so the intervention had to focus on the child. The line of research on all the kinds of problems produced by RC generated an enormous quantity of literature. The research method used was mainly to compare children raised in RC with groups of children who had always been with their family, or who had been adopted after living in RC (Chisholm, 1998; Han & Choi, 2006; Harden, 2002; Hodges & Tizard, 1989; Kaler & Freeman, 1994; O'Connor, Rutter & the ERA Team, 2000; Sloutsky, 1997; Tizard & Hodges, 1978; Vorria, Rutter, Pickles, Wolkind, & Hobsbaum, 1998). All these studies coincide that children raised in RC have more emotional, cognitive, social, and even physical problems than children who live with their families or who were sent to foster families or adopted by another family. A review of these studies carried out by Johnson, Browne, and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2006) concludes that, especially for smaller children, spending more than 6 months in RC can have severe consequences for their development. These results have helped to firmly fix the bad image of RC in the political and public opinion. Nevertheless, these results have been questioned mainly due to methodological defects, because they do not differentiate the effects of the prior situation that led the minor to be admitted in RC, nor are there any works that compare the status of the minor upon admittance and at some later date (Del Valle, 2003; Martín, Rodríguez & Torbay, 2007). Although some studies try to identify the problems caused by the prior family situation before the problems produced by the stay in RC (Knuston, 1995; Roy, Rutter, & Pickles, 2000), poorer results are still found in children raised in RC. But in spite of these attempts, there are still shortcomings in the research designs. Firstly, the children's opinion about their stay is not taken into account, and the situation is appraised exclusively from the adults' viewpoint. Secondly, the samples of children in RC came from orphanages of countries that are not particularly distinguished for the quality of their protective systems. And thirdly, a relevant fact that usually goes unnoticed was not taken into account: the children who enter RC are the ones who, because of their age or their problems, or simply because they have no extended family, have no other alternative, and they are the most difficult cases and the ones that usually develop more problems at all levels.

Residential Care as a Resource

of the Childhood Welfare System: Current Strengths and Future Challenges 145

45.7

Improves Stays the same Worsens

38.3

34.5

30.8

30.8

32.6

55.3

55.8

50

44.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

41.9

43.6

41.5

43.4

43.6

42.9

48.7

36.7

40.2

39.3

36.5

**Figure 2.** Percentage of minors as a function of the change observed in the diverse dimensions assessed (Reproduced from "Evaluación diferencial de los programas de acogimiento residencial para menores" of E. Martín, T. Rodríguez and A. Torbay, 2007, Psicothema 19(3), 406-412. Copyright: Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos del Principado de Asturias. Reproduced from "Cooperación familiar y vinculación del menor con la familia en los programas de acogimiento residencial"of E. Martín, A. Torbay and T. Rodríguez, 2008, Anales de Psicología 24(1), 25-32. Copyright: Servicio de Publicaciones de la

11.7

14.4

33

29.8

13.6

14.2

14.5

17.3

7.7

23.1

22.6

21.7

**4. Adaptation and academic achievements of children and adolescents in** 

The legislative changes that modernized the RC model near the end of the 20th century granted special relevance to children's and adolescents' social integration as a means to achieve the normalization of this collective and to prevent the perverse effects of

Universidad de Murcia).

Interest to learn at school

External social relations

Disposition to learn

Autonomy in personal care

Autonomy in duties

Minor-family bond

**RC** 

With the change of model produced at the end of the past century, the work has become professionalized, making it possible to achieve a series of assessable goals. Thus, as there were now recoding and assessment instruments, a line of research based on the assessment of the RC programs appeared (Bullock, Little & Milham, 1993; Skinner, 1992). In Spain, some works based on one of these systems was developed: the "Sistema de evaluación y registro en acogimiento residencial" ([System of assessment and recording of RC]; Del Valle & Bravo, 2007). Del Valle and Bravo (2001) found that aspects such as family involvement in the work carried out in the residence or social integration within the community were the most difficult goals to achieve. Martín, Torbay, and Rodríguez (2008) and Martín *et al*. (2007) used this assessment and recording system to conduct a study with repeated measures. They analyzed the degree of goal achievement of the programs at two moments with a 9-month interval. They found that some children improved, others worsened, and others maintained their scores over time (see Figure 2). When analyzing which children improved, they found that the ones who had experienced a situation of more severe maltreatment and who remained in RC for over one year and less than three years obtained the highest benefits. Moreover, if the professionals worked with the family, and the family cooperated with the home in educational tasks, the children obtained more benefits, which no doubt facilitated a possible family reunification. From the above, various aspects are derived that should be underlined. Firstly, when children have been the victims of severe maltreatment, and urgent separation from the family is required, RC can provide them with an adequate and stable setting to recover from some of the negative effects suffered. These effects, which are often emotional instability and behavior problems, impair their good adjustment to foster care. Admittance of these cases in RC would forestall a possible interruption of foster care, thus preventing yet one more separation; we know that the greater the number of changes and interruptions suffered by the children from the time of their admittance into the welfare system, the more emotional sequelae they display.

Secondly, we must qualify the effects of the stay in RC on these children. The results of these studies show that very short and very long stays are the most harmful. If a child enters into RC, it is with one aim, and to achieve it requires a certain time, which is usually not very long. Trying by any means to minimize the time spent by children in RC, independently of whether or not the goals were met, can be harmful, because it could hinder a subsequent family reunification or being admitted into a foster home.

Thirdly, when working coordinately with a family, and the family cooperates with the residence (naturally, in those cases in which it is foreseen that the child will return to the family), the children improve very much, which increases the likelihood of successful reunification. Goals, such as the family's involvement in the children's education and learning educational and care tools, can also be worked on with the family.

Residential Care as a Resource of the Childhood Welfare System: Current Strengths and Future Challenges 145

144 Child Abuse and Neglect – A Multidimensional Approach

ones that usually develop more problems at all levels.

system, the more emotional sequelae they display.

family reunification or being admitted into a foster home.

relevant fact that usually goes unnoticed was not taken into account: the children who enter RC are the ones who, because of their age or their problems, or simply because they have no extended family, have no other alternative, and they are the most difficult cases and the

With the change of model produced at the end of the past century, the work has become professionalized, making it possible to achieve a series of assessable goals. Thus, as there were now recoding and assessment instruments, a line of research based on the assessment of the RC programs appeared (Bullock, Little & Milham, 1993; Skinner, 1992). In Spain, some works based on one of these systems was developed: the "Sistema de evaluación y registro en acogimiento residencial" ([System of assessment and recording of RC]; Del Valle & Bravo, 2007). Del Valle and Bravo (2001) found that aspects such as family involvement in the work carried out in the residence or social integration within the community were the most difficult goals to achieve. Martín, Torbay, and Rodríguez (2008) and Martín *et al*. (2007) used this assessment and recording system to conduct a study with repeated measures. They analyzed the degree of goal achievement of the programs at two moments with a 9-month interval. They found that some children improved, others worsened, and others maintained their scores over time (see Figure 2). When analyzing which children improved, they found that the ones who had experienced a situation of more severe maltreatment and who remained in RC for over one year and less than three years obtained the highest benefits. Moreover, if the professionals worked with the family, and the family cooperated with the home in educational tasks, the children obtained more benefits, which no doubt facilitated a possible family reunification. From the above, various aspects are derived that should be underlined. Firstly, when children have been the victims of severe maltreatment, and urgent separation from the family is required, RC can provide them with an adequate and stable setting to recover from some of the negative effects suffered. These effects, which are often emotional instability and behavior problems, impair their good adjustment to foster care. Admittance of these cases in RC would forestall a possible interruption of foster care, thus preventing yet one more separation; we know that the greater the number of changes and interruptions suffered by the children from the time of their admittance into the welfare

Secondly, we must qualify the effects of the stay in RC on these children. The results of these studies show that very short and very long stays are the most harmful. If a child enters into RC, it is with one aim, and to achieve it requires a certain time, which is usually not very long. Trying by any means to minimize the time spent by children in RC, independently of whether or not the goals were met, can be harmful, because it could hinder a subsequent

Thirdly, when working coordinately with a family, and the family cooperates with the residence (naturally, in those cases in which it is foreseen that the child will return to the family), the children improve very much, which increases the likelihood of successful reunification. Goals, such as the family's involvement in the children's education and

learning educational and care tools, can also be worked on with the family.

**Figure 2.** Percentage of minors as a function of the change observed in the diverse dimensions assessed (Reproduced from "Evaluación diferencial de los programas de acogimiento residencial para menores" of E. Martín, T. Rodríguez and A. Torbay, 2007, Psicothema 19(3), 406-412. Copyright: Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos del Principado de Asturias. Reproduced from "Cooperación familiar y vinculación del menor con la familia en los programas de acogimiento residencial"of E. Martín, A. Torbay and T. Rodríguez, 2008, Anales de Psicología 24(1), 25-32. Copyright: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia).
