Residential education

ChildrenandYouthServicesReview

journalhomepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Residentialeducationasanalternativeforpromotingpsychosocialand behavioraloutcomesamonghigh-riskyoungMacanesemales

XueWeng,WingHongChui⁎,TaeYeunKim

DepartmentofAppliedSocialSciences,CityUniversityofHongKong,TatCheeAvenue,KowloonTong,HongKongSAR

ABSTRACT

Residentialeducationwhichintegratesbothhomeandschoollifeaimstohelpyouthwhoaresociallyoreconomicallydisadvantaged.UsingMacaneseschoolsamples,thestudyanalyzesthedemographicbackground, personalcharacteristics,andbehavioralproblemsofcurrentandgraduateboardingstudents,togetherwitha controlgroupofstudentsfromanordinaryschool.

Asampleof246malestudents(69currentboarders,37boardinggraduates,and140controls)wassubjected tostatisticalanalysis.Descriptiveanalysesandlogisticregressionswereconductedtoexploretheriskprofileof boardingstudentsrelativetocontrolstudents,whoarefromanordinaryschool,andtoidentifytheprotective factorsthatassociatewithpositivetransitions.

Theresultsindicatethattheboardingstudentscommonlyhadproblematicfamilybackgroundsandshowed higherratesofbehavioralproblemsthanthecontrolstudents.Contrarytoourexpectations,boardingstudents reportedhigherlevelsofschoolcommitmentandself-efficacy.Theregressionresultsindicatethatbeinga boardingstudentisassociatedwithhigherpeerattachmentandgreaterself-efficacy.Inaddition,boarding graduatesreportedlessinvolvementinviolentcrimeandmaintainedhighself-efficacyandschoolcommitment afterleavingresidentialeducation.

Adolescentsreceivingresidentialeducationexhibitedlowincidenceofbehavioralproblemsandpossessed essentialcopingcapabilitiestominimizenegativelifeevents.Our findingssuggestthatresidentialeducation maybeapromisingmeanstoalleviatepsychosocialandbehavioralmaladjustmentandtopromotepositive changeamonghigh-riskyouth.

1.Introduction

Residentialeducationisregardedasaremedialeducationalprogramforat-riskyouthintheUnitedStates(Jones&Lansdverk,2006; Lee&Barth,2009),theUnitedKingdom(Morrison,2007),and NorthernEurope(Jahnukainen,2007).Theterm “residentialeducation” broadlyreferstotheeducationprovidedinresidentialsettings, oftencalled “boardingschools” or “boardingresidences.” Residential educationisa24-hout-of-homeplacementthatintegratesbothhome andschoollifeforyouthwhoaresociallyoreconomicallydisadvantaged(Lee&Barth,2009).

Aconsiderablenumberofresidentialprogramsfortroubledyouth, suchasfostercare,residentialtreatment,andinstitutional/residential carehasbeenusedanalternativetomainstreameductaion.1 Typically, youngpeopleinresidentialsettingspresentwithmultipleexternalizing andinternalizingsymptoms,includingmentalhealthproblems (DuppongHurleyetal.,2009; Erol,Simsek,&Münir,2010),substance abuse(Kepper,Monshouwer,VanDorsselaer,&Vollebergh,2011), severebehavioralproblems(Bernedo,Salas,Fuentes,&García-Martín, 2014; Vanschoonlandt,Vanderfaeillie,VanHolen,DeMaeyer,& Robberechts,2013),andacademicdifficulties(Scholte,1997; Trout, Hagaman,Casey,Reid,&Epstein,2008).Manycomefromproblematic familyenvironmentsfeaturingtroubledfamilyrelations(Frensch& Cameron,2002; Lee&Barth,2009),divorcedparents(Scholte,1997), andparentalincarceration(Hussey&Guo,2002; Lee&Thompson, 2008),andhavebeenexposedtoabuseandneglect(Hussey&Guo, 2002; James,Roesch,&Zhang,2012).

⁎ Correspondingauthor.

Overtheyearstherehasbeenextensivedebateonresidential

E-mailaddresses: wengxue@connect.hku.hk (X.Weng), eric.chui@cityu.edu.hk (W.H.Chui), taeykim@cityu.edu.hk (T.Y.Kim).

1 Therearemanytermsusedinresidentialprograms.Generally,fostercareprovidesresidentialfamilycareforchildrenwhocannotbeadequatelycaredforbytheirfamilies. Residentialtreatmentencompassesavarietyoffacilitiesinwhichchildrenandyouthresideinanonfamilysettingthatprovidescomprehensiveinpatientmentalhealthtreatmentand/or substanceabuseservices.Institutional/residentialcarereferstothenonfamilysettingthatprovidescareandsupportedaccommodationforchildrenandyouthwhodonotneedintensive in-housementalhealthservices.Detailsonthedifferentresidentialprogramscanbereferedto WalterandPetr(2007)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.009

Received15December2017;Receivedinrevisedform3April2018;Accepted3April2018

Availableonline04April2018

0190-7409/©2018ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

programs(Barth,2005; Souverein,VanderHelm,&Stams,2013). Someresearchersarenegativeaboutresidentialprogramsduetotheir lackofcost-effectiveness(DeSenaetal.,2005),theirfacilitationof students'associationwithdelinquentpeers(Dishion,McCord,&Poulin, 1999),andstudents'highlevelsoffailuretoadaptpersonally,socially, andacademically(Manso,García-Baamonde,Alonso,&Barona,2011). Nevertheless,residentialeducationdiffersfromresidentialtreatmentin significantways(Lee&Barth,2009).Basedona “medicalmodel” (Segal,Morral,&Stevens,2014),residentialtreatmentisshort-term andprovideshigh-intensityclinicaltreatment.Residentialeducation, onthecontrary,islong-termandacademicallyoriented.Residential educationprogramsfocusoncultivatingyouthdevelopment,while providingalowlevelofmentalhealthservices(Lee&Barth,2009).

Althoughtheeffectivenessofresidentialcarehasbeenwidelydiscussed(James,2011; Pecora&English,2016),surprisinglyfewresearchstudiesassesstheresidentialeducationconductedinboarding schools(Jahnukainen,2007).Moreover,follow-upstudieshaveshown thathigh-riskadolescentswhohaveleftresidentialinstitutionsperform poorlywhentheyreenterthecommunity(Bullis,Yovanoff,&Havel, 2004; Jahnukainen,2007).Researchonpositiveinstitution-to-communitytransitionsisrelativelyscarce.Especiallyregardingdeinstitutionalization(Jenson&Howard,1998),itisimportanttoexamine thepracticeofresidentialeducationforhigh-riskyouthindifferent culturalsettings.Theresidentialeducationmodeliscomparativelynew inAsiancountries,andnostudyhasbeenconductedintheChinese context.

To fillthisgap,theystudyseekstoexaminetheriskprofileof boardingstudentsattendingresidentialeducationinaMacanesesetting,wherecircumstancesareverydifferentfromWesternsettings.We areinspiredtoexaminewhetherboardingexperienceisrelatedtothe positivechangeinthedevelopmentofhigh-riskyouth.Thestudyexplorestheinfluenceofresidentialeducationbyproposingtworesearch questions:(1)whatarethedemographicbackground,personalcharacteristics,andbehavioralproblemsofMacanesestudentsinresidential educationincomparisontostudentsinmainstreameducation?and(2) whataretheprotectivefactorsrelatedtothepositivetransitionofhighriskyouth?Thestudyisexploratoryinnatureandintendstoprovide implicationsthatresidentialeducationcancomplementthecurrent systemofchildwelfareservices.

2.Methods

2.1.Researchsite

ThecurrentstudywasconductedinMacao,acoastalcityin southernChina.MacaowasacolonyunderPortugueseadministration for>400years(1557–1999).

Itisnowaspecialadministrativeregion(SAR)ofChinathatenjoys ahighdegreeofautonomy.Macaohasapopulationofapproximately 653,100(StatisticsandCensusService,2017),ofwhom92.3%are ethnicChinese(StatisticsandCensusService,2011). Becausemorethan fourcenturiesofPortugueserule,Macaohasservedasameetingplace forEasternandWesterncultures.NowadaysMacanesepeoplehave beenaccustomedtobalancetheirWesternmodernizedlifestylewith traditionalChineseculturalandpractices(Wei,2013).Whilethe umemploymentrateforyoungpeopleinMacaois<2%,itdoesnot necessarymeanthatyouthproblemisnotamajorissueandthepressuretoperformwellinprimaryandsecondaryschoolsisoftenthetop concernamongyoungMacaneseandtheirfamilies(Chui,Cheung, Wong,Sze,&Chin,2016; Wong&Chui,2017).

Thisstudyisindeed firstofitskindtoexamineinwhatwaysresidentialeducationcanpromotepositiveoutcomesamongaselected groupoftroubledyoungpeoplewhoarenotabletoadjustwellto mainstreameducationinMacao.Thesiteofinvestigationofthisstudy wasamale-onlyboardingschool.Theschoolisaccreditedthroughthe MacaoEducationBureauandconsistsofsixprimaryandsecondary

grades.Theschoolprovidessmallclasses(20orfewerstudents), meaningthatthestudent-teacherratioislowerthaninmainstream schoolsinMacao.Boardingstudentsarerequiredtoliveintheschool dormitoryduringthe five-and-a-half-dayschoolweek.Theycanreturn hometolivewithfamilyduringweekends.Theschoolprovidesafamily-stylelivingenvironment.Eachstudentisamemberofa “boarding family” ofapproximately10students,supervisedbyhouseparentsand socialworkers.Hence,boardingstudentsaresocializedtofamilyliving ratherthaninstitutionallife(Lee&Barth,2009).Manyofthestudents comefrom ‘broken'ordysfunctionalfamilieswhereparentscannot providethemwithadequatecareandsupervision,andmosthaveexhibitedbehavioralproblemsandpsychosocialmaladjustments.Some studentswereplacedinboardingschoolduetoencounterswithlaw enforcementagencies.Theprimarygoaloftheboardingschoolispreventioneducationbasedonreason,religion,andcharity.Withparticularemphasisonhelpingyoungpeopleinneed,theboardingstudent iseducatedtobecomeabetterperson,intermsofmoral,intellectual, physical,andaestheticdevelopment.Inaddition,acomparisonsample ofmainstreamstudentswasrecruitedfromaMacaneseboys’ school. Differentfromboardingschoolwherestudentsliveaswellaslearn, mainstreamstudentsattendschoolduringthedayandreturntheir homeafterschool.

2.2.Procedureandparticipants

EthicsapprovalwasobtainedfromTheUniversityofHongKong's HumanResearchEthicsCommittee.Uponapprovalfrombothschools' administrators,parentalandstudentconsentwere firstobtained,witha responserateof95%.Anonymousquestionnaireswereadministeredby trainedresearchassistantstoconsentingparticipantsinaclassroom settingbetweenDecember2011andMarch2012.Thedurationto completethequestionnairewasapproximately30min.Allparticipants areethnicChinese.Thefullsampleconsistsofthreegroupsofstudents: 69currentstudentswhoareattendingboardingschool (M =14.85years, SD =1.54),37graduatestudentswhohaveleftthe boardingschool(M =20.75years, SD =3.64),and140controlstudentswhoareinamainstreamschool(M =13.86years, SD =1.22).

2.3.Measures

2.3.1.Self-efficacyscale

TheGeneralizedPerceivedSelf-efficacyScale(GSES)was firstdevelopedby Schwarzer(1993) andlatertranslatedintoChineseby ZhangandSchwarzer(1995).TheGSEScontainstenitemsthatmeasuregeneralizedself-efficacy, orbeliefsaboutone'sgeneralabilityto performthedesiredbehaviorsinvarioussituations.Exampleitemsinclude “IamconfidentthatIcoulddealefficientlywithunexpected events” and “IcanremaincalmwhenfacingdifficultiesbecauseIcan relyonmycopingabilities.” Studentswereaskedtorateeachitemona 4-pointLikertscalerangingfrom1(Notatalltrue)to4(Exactlytrue). Thehigherthescore,thehigherthedegreeofself-efficacy.Adequate Cronbach's α valueswerereportedinthepresentstudy:with0.83for currentstudents,0.89forgraduatestudents,and0.81forcontrolstudents.

2.3.2.Socialbondsscale

Theoriginalsocialbondsscalewasdevelopedby Chapple, McQuillan,andBerdahl(2005) andlatertranslatedintoChineseby ChuiandChan(2011,2012).Socialbondswithsignificantothers,such asparents,peers,teachers,andlegalauthorities,canpreventadolescentsfromengagingindelinquentbehavior.Thesocialbondsscalein thecurrentstudyhadfoursubscales fouritemscapturingparental attachment(e.g. “Isharemythoughtsandfeelingswithmymother,”), twocapturingpeerattachment(e.g. “Irespectmybestfriend'sopinion abouttheimportantthingsinlife”),threecapturingschoolcommitment (e.g. “Itryhardinschool”),andfourcapturingbeliefinthelegalsystem

Table1

Bivariatecomparisonbetweencurrent,graduate,andcontrolstudents(n =246)a 1.Currentstudents(N =69)2.Graduatestudents(N =37)3.Controlstudents(N =140)Pairwise

a Thesampleforeachanalysisvariesbetween238and246individualsduetoasmallnumberofmissingdata.

⁎ p <.001.

(e.g. “it'sokaytogetaroundthelawifyoucangetawaywithit”). Responseswerescoredona5-pointLikertscale,withhigherscores indicatingstrongersocialbonds.Inthepresentstudy,theCronbach's α valueswere0.65forcurrentstudents,0.53forgraduatestudents,and 0.52forcontrolstudents.

2.3.3.Self-controlscale

Theself-controlscalewasdevelopedby Grasmick,Tittle,Bursik, andArneklev(1993) basedon GottfredsonandHirschi's(1990) original formulationofthesixelementsofself-control:impulsivity,simpletasks, riskseeking,physicalactivities,self-centered,andtemper.Adolescents withlowself-controltendtofollowmomentaryimpulsesandfailto anticipatethenegativeconsequencesofdelinquentbehavior.Thescale contained23itemswitha4-pointLikertscalerangingfrom1(Strongly agree)to4(Stronglydisagree).Exampleitemsinclude “Iliketotest myselfeverynowandthenbydoingsomethingalittlerisky,”“Ioften dowhateverbringsmepleasurehereandnow,evenatthecostofsome distantgoal,” and “Whenthingsgetcomplicated,Itendtoquitor withdraw.” Highervaluesonthescaleindicatelowerlevelsofselfcontrol.Theself-controlscaleshowedhighinternalconsistencyinthe presentstudy.TheCronbach's α valueswere0.78forcurrentstudents, 0.84forgraduatestudents,and0.81forcontrolstudents.

2.3.4.Delinquencyscale

Thedelinquencyscalecontainstwobehavioralproblems three itemscapturingtheftandthreecapturingviolentcrime.Respondents indicatedhowoftentheyhadengagedineachoftheoffencesoverthe last12monthsona4-pointresponsescale,rangingfrom 1(Never)to4 (Manytimes).Samplequestionsincluded, “Haveyouevertakenlittle things(<$20)thatdidnotbelongtoyou?” and “Haveyouever slapped,shoved,orhitanotherstudentatschool?” Ahigherscore

indicatesgreaterfrequencyandseriousnessofbehaviorproblems.In thepresentstudy,theCronbach's α valuesofcurrent,graduate,and controlstudentswere0.69,0.68,and0.63,respectively.

2.3.5.Sociodemographicvariables

Thestudyalsocontrolledforthefollowingsociodemographic characteristicsintheregressionanalyses:students'age,parents'marital status,andparents'criminalhistory.Theparticipants'agewasmeasuredinyears.Parents'maritalstatuswascodedaseithermarriedor separated/divorced/nevermarried.Intermsofparents'criminalhistory,whereatleastoneoftheparentshadacriminalrecord,theywere codedas1;thoseparentswithnohistoryofcrimewhowerecodedas0. Sincethethreevariables,includingthelengthofstayinboarding school,drugabuseexperienceandpreviouscriminalhistoryareonly applicableforboardingstudents,thesewerepresentedinthedescriptiveanalysesandwerenotenrolledinthefurtherregression model.

2.4.Analyticstrategy

StatisticalanalyseswereconductedusingIBMSPSSStatisticversion 23.First,descriptivestatisticsofcurrent,graduate,andcontrolstudents wereconducted.Groupdifferenceinmeanvalueswasevaluatedby one-wayANOVAwithBonferronipost-hocanalysis.The χ2 testwas usedtoassessrelationshipsbetweencategoricalvariables.

Second,logisticregressionswereusedtoexaminewhetherdemographicbackground,personalcharacteristics,andbehavioralproblems cansignificantlydistinguishboardingstudentsfromcontrolstudents. Graduatestudentswereexcludedfromtheregressionanalysisdueto thesmallsamplesize(n=37).Binarylogisticregressionwaschosenas thedependentvariablewasdichotomous(currentstudentsvs.control

students)withindependentvariablesthatcouldbemeasuredascontinuousorcategoricalvariables(Tabachnick&Fidell,2007).Allthe variableswereenteredintothemodelusingtheentermethod.

3.Results

3.1.Descriptiveanalyses

Table1 presentsdescriptivestatisticsincludingpercentages,means, andstandarddeviations.Thesestatistics firstpresenttheriskprofileof boardingstudents.Regardingdemographicvariables,graduatestudents weresignificantlyolder(M=20.75)thanthecurrentandcontrolstudents(M=14.85and13.86).Thereisahighvariationinthelengthof timeamongstudentsintheboardingschool.Thelengthsofstayrange from2monthsto7years(M=2.61years,SD=1.83).Halfofcurrent studentsand18.2%ofgraduatestudentsenrolledintheschool<2 years.Over40%ofcurrentandgraduatestudents(41.2%and45.5%) havebeeninboardingschoolfrom2to4years.Besides,8.8%ofcurrent studentsand36.4%ofgraduatestudentsstayedbetween5and7years. Graduatestudentsweremorelikelythancurrentstudentstohavedrug useexperience(13.5%vs.1.4%).Moreover,over20%ofcurrentand graduatestudents(23.2%and21.6%)reportedahistoryofinvolvement incrime.

Chi-squareanalysesyieldedsignificantdifferencesforparental maritalstatusacrossthethreegroups.Thehighestpercentageofmarriedfathers(93.5%)wasfoundinthecontrolstudents;thehighest percentageofseparated/divorced/never-marriedfathers(36.1%)was foundingraduatestudents.Thedistributionofmother'smaritalstatus followedasimilarpattern.Therewasasignificantlyhigherprevalence ofseparated/divorced/never-marriedmothersamongcurrentstudents (32.3%)andgraduatestudents(36.1%)thanamongcontrolstudents (6.5%).Significantdifferenceswerealsoobservedintermsofparents' criminalhistory:21.7%ofcurrentstudentsand24.3%ofgraduate studentsreportedthattheirparentshadbeenconvicted,incontrastto 10.8%ofthestudentsinthecontrolgroup.Thispatternseemstosuggestthattheparentsofboardingstudentsaremorelikelytobeseparated,divorced,orunmarried,andtohaveacriminalhistory.

Theresultsalsoindicatedsignificantdifferenceinself-efficacyand schoolcommitment.Currentandgraduatestudentsexhibitedsignificantlyhigherlevelsofself-efficacy(M=25.03and26.16)than controlstudents(M=23.07).Likewise,bothcurrentandgraduate studentsweremorecommittedtotheirschool(M=7.43and7.73) thancontrolstudents(M=6.74).Pairwisecomparisonsalsorevealeda significantdifferenceintheirinvolvementinviolentcrime.Current studentsmanifestedsignificantlymoreviolentbehavior(M=5.55), thangraduateandcontrolstudents(M=4.51and4.56).Nosignificant differencewasfoundinself-controlelements.

3.2.Logisticregressioncharacterizingboardingstudents

Followingthedescriptiveanalyses,logisticregressionwasconductedtoexplorethewaysinwhichvariablesmaybedifferentially associatedwithcurrentboardingstudentsrelativetocontrolstudents. Theregressionmodelcorrectlyclassified82%ofparticipants,whichis significantlybetterthanthemodelwithoutcovariates(χ2 (17)=94.74, p< .001). Table2 displaystheoddsratiosandconfidenceintervalsfor eachofthecovariates.Theoddsratioswereusedtointerpretthedegree towhichacovariateincreasesordecreasesthelikelihoodofaparticipantbeingacurrentboardingstudent.Tomaximizecomparability, standardizedlogisticregressioncoefficientsarealsopresentedin Table2.Thefullystandardizedcoefficientsallowforanassessmentof therelativeexplanatorypoweroftheindependentvariablesinaparticularmodel(Menard,2011).2

Table2

Logisticregressioncharacterizingboardingstudents(n =209). 95%CIforoddsratio

Covariates βa OddsratioLowerUpper

Self-effi

R2 =0.38(Cox&Snell),0.53(Nagelkerke).Referencecategoriesareinparentheses.

a β =standardizedlogisticregressioncoefficients.

⁎ p <.05.

⁎⁎ p <.01.

⁎⁎⁎ p <.001.

Sixcovariatesaresignificantlyassociatedwithstudentscurrently receivingresidentialeducation.The firstsignificantcovariateisselfefficacy.Inparticular,participantswithgreaterself-efficacyhadhigher oddsofbeingboardingstudents(β =0.15,OR=1.11).Amongsocial bondelements,participantswithhigherpeerattachmenthadsignificantlyhigheroddsofbeingboardingstudents(β =0.12, OR=1.37).Intermsofself-controlelements,impulsivityistheonly significantcovariatecorrelatingwithcurrentboardingstudents (β =0.18,OR=1.35).Fordelinquenttype,therewasasignificant associationbetweenviolentcrimeandbeingaboardingstudent. Participantsinvolvedinviolentcrimewere1.6timesmorelikelytobe boardingstudents(β =0.23,OR=1.56).Intermsofdemographic characteristics,currentstudentsarerelativelyolderthancontrolstudents.Aone-yearincreaseinagewasassociatedwithatwofoldincrease intheoddsofbeingaboardingstudent(β =0.29,OR=2.15).Finally, comparedtoparticipantswhosefathersweremarried,participants whosefatherswereseparated/divorced/nevermarriedweremore likelytobeboardingstudents.Participantswithseparated/divorced/ never-marriedfatherswereroughlyfourtimesmorelikelytobe boardingstudentsthanthosewhohadmarriedfathers(β =0.27, OR=3.62).Amongthecovariatessignificantlyassociatedwithbeinga currentboardingstudent,age,father'smarriedstatus,andinvolvement inviolentcrimearethethreestrongestinthemodel.

(footnotecontinued)

coefficient,RisthecorrelationbetweentheobservedandpredictedvaluesofthedependentvariableY, sx isthestandarddeviationof x,andslogit(Ŷ) istheestimatedstandard deviationoftheoutcomevariable.Detailsonthecalculationoffullystandardizedcoefficientsareavailablein Menard(2011)

4.Discussionandconclusion

Thisarticlehascomparedcharacteristicsofthreegroupsof Macaneseadolescents thoseattendingboardingschool,thosewho havegraduatedfromboardingschool,andthosewhoareattendingthe mainstreamschool intermsofdemographicbackground,personal characteristics,andbehavioralproblems.

Ingeneral,boardingstudentshaveacomplexriskprofileincludinga problematicfamilybackgroundandbehavioralproblems.Themarital statusofboardingstudents'parentsisoftencomplicated,andtheyare morelikelytohaveencounteredparentalseparationordivorce. Moreover,theirparentsaremorelikelytohavecommittedcrime.In termsofbehavioralproblems,over20%ofboardingstudentsreported druguseexperienceandover10%ofgraduatestudentsreportedpreviouscriminalexperience.Theregressionanalysisalsoindicatedthat currentboardingstudentsareassociatedwithahighlevelofimpulsivityandinvolvementinviolentbehavior.Nevertheless,group comparisonrevealsthatparticipantswhohadgraduatedfromboarding schoolwerelesslikelytoengageinviolentbehaviorthancurrentstudents(see Table1).Onepossibleexplanationisthatgraduatestudents' prosocialbehaviormayhavebeenreinforcedduringtheirtimein boardingschool.

Fromthesocialbondingperspective,family,peers,andschoolare importantagentsofsocializationforadolescents.InChinesecommunities,thefamilytraditionallyplaysanimportantroleinthesocializationprocess(Bond,2008; Deng&Roosa,2007).Macaneseadolescentsareexpectedtobestronglybondedtotheirparents.However, boardingstudentsresideawayfromhomeandseparatefromtheir parents.Inthissense,residentialeducationmaylimittherangeofsocializationandhaveapotentiallynegativeinfluenceonthepsychosocialdevelopmentofboardingstudents.Nevertheless,empiricalstudies onChineseadolescentshavefoundthatanadversefamilyenvironment, suchasharshparentaldiscipline,parent-childconflict,family fighting andarguing,isafertilebreedinggroundforyouthviolenceanddelinquency(Cheung&Cheung,2008; Yang&Hoffmann,1998; Yeh, 2011; Zhang&Messner,1995).Evidencealsoshowsthatfamily members'devianceispositivelyrelatedtoadolescentdeviantbehavior (Cheung,1997; Zhang&Messner,1995).

Interestingly,consideringthattheboardingstudentsincludedinthis studygenerallycomefromproblematicfamilybackgrounds,boarding schoolactuallyhelpeddistancestudentsfromtheirbrokenhomesand “toxic” familyenvironments.(Power,2007).Placedinasafetyand healthyenvironment,boardingstudentsspendasubstantialamountof timewithprosocialteachersandprofessionals,whichisbeneficialto theirpositivetransition.Inthisregard,residentialeducationprovides animportantagentofsocializationforhigh-riskyouth.Our findings suggestthatboardingstudentsdevelopstrongpeerattachmentand schoolcommitmentthroughcloseinteractionswithpeers,teachers,and schoolcounselorsindailylife.

Our findingsalsoindicatethatresidentialeducationdoesnotdiminishstudents'bondswiththeirparents,ascurrentboardingstudents reportedhigherparentalattachmentthancontrolstudents(see Table1).Onepossibleexplanationisthatstudentsinthemainstream educationarecommonlyundertremendousacademicstress.Influenced bytheConfuciantradition,Chineseparentsplacegreatemphasison academicsuccessandexcellence.Thisauthoritativeparentingstylemay leadtomisunderstandingswhichundermineparent-childbonding(Liu, 2011). Incomparison,residentialeducationfocusesonhelpingadolescentsacquireusefulstress-copingskillswhentheyencounternegativelifeevents.Eventhoughboardingstudentsaremorelikelytosuffer fromfamilydysfunction,residentialeducationequipsthemwithessentialcapacitiestominimizethenegativeinfluenceofadversefamily environment.

Moreover,boardingstudentscanreturnhomeduringweekendsand maintaintieswiththeirfamilies.Besideslearningtobecomemoreindependent,theyneedtoconnectemotionallyandcommunicatewith

theirparents,peersandsignificantothers.Evidencehasshownthat properseparationexperiencesnotonlyincreaseadolescents'autonomy butalsostrengthentheiremotionaltiestoparents,particularforadolescentboys(Geuzaine,Debry,&Liesens,2000; Sullivan&Sullivan, 1980).Inaddition, findingssuggestthatfamilyinvolvementisassociatedwithbetterwellbeingofyouthinresidentialcare(Huefner,Pick, Smith,Stevens,&Mason,2015; Palareti&Berti,2010),lowerreadmissionrates(Lakin,Brambila,&Sigda,2004),andhasthemostsignificanteffectonsuccessfuldischargeandcontinuedadaptationafter residentialtreatment(Hair,2005; Walter&Petr,2007).Engaging parentsintheirchildren'sboardingschoollifeseemstobeapromising protectivefactorofpositivetransition.Futurestudiesshouldtakeinto accountfamilysupportandinvolvementwhenexaminingtheeffectof residentialeducationonChineseboardingstudents.

Accordingtothesociallearningperspective,prosocialandantisocialbehaviorcanbelearnedthroughdirectandindirectexperience (Bandura,1973).Asmentionedabove,boardingstudentsaremore likelytogrowupwithparentswhohaveacriminalhistory.Theymay alsohavecloserelationswithpeerswhohavebehavioralproblems. Consequently,boardingstudentsareathighriskofinternalizinginappropriatevaluesandbehaviors.Itisthusimportanttocultivatea prosocialatmosphereforhigh-riskyouth.Residentialeducationcan helpstudentsadjusttosociallyacceptablevaluesandbehaviors.This educationalprocessinvolvesestablishingpersonalidentificationand recognizingsocietalregulations.Adolescentsareeducatedtoconform tosocietalnormsinasupportiveatmosphere.Furthermore,boarding schoolsalsoprovidecontinuingassistanceafterstudentsgraduateand astheyreintegrateintothecommunity.Havingbenefitedfromresidentialeducation,theboardinggraduatesinthecurrentstudydemonstratedlowriskofbehavioralproblemsandbehavedinlinewith socialexpectations.However,itisnoticeablethatbeingacurrent boardingstudentisstillassociatedwithhigherlevelsofimpulsivityand ahigherprobabilityofengaginginviolentactivitiesinthisstudy.Given thesalientpeerinfluenceamongadolescents(Cataldo&Hawkins, 1996),deviancytrainingandanassociationwithdeviantpeers (Dishion,Poulin,&Burraston,2001)isoneofthepossibleexplanations.

Third,itisinterestingthatbothcurrentandgraduateboarding studentsreportedhigherlevelsofschoolcommitmentandself-efficacy thancontrolstudents.Thelogisticregressionindicatedthatadolescents whohadhighpeerattachmentandself-efficacyweresignificantlymore likelytobeboardingstudents.Self-efficacyhasbeenseenasanimportantpsychosocialcopingresourcethatplaysaprotectiverolein individuals'responsestostress(Cicognani, 2011).Self-efficacyrefersto people'sbeliefintheircapabilitytodealeffectivelywithavarietyof situations(Bandura,1977,2006).Accordingto Bandura,Cioffi,Taylor, andBrouillard(1988),perceivedself-efficacyoperatesasacognitive mechanismthroughwhichpeoplereacttostresswithfeelingsofcontrollability.Empiricalresearchhasindicatedthatgreaterself-efficacyis associatedwithbettercopingstrategies(Cicognani,2011; Erozkan, 2013)andlowerlevelsofstressanddepression(Bandura, Graduateorelli,Barbaranelli,&Caprara,1999; Newby-Fraser& Schlebusch,1997).Inthepresentstudy,wefoundthatperceivedselfefficacywashigheramongboardingstudentsthancontrolstudents, whichindicatesthatresidentialeducationprobablystrengthenthe abilitytomanagevariousstressfulevents.Studentswithhighsocial self-efficacymaintainastrongcommitmenttodesiredgoalsandeffectivelysolveproblemsbecausetheyhaveconfidenceintheirowncapabilitytoovercomehardlifetransitions.Inaddition,theboarding graduatesperformedfewerdelinquentactsandmaintainedhighselfefficacyandschoolcommitmentafterresidentialeducation.The findingssuggestthatschoolcommitment,peerattachment,andself-efficacy areimportantprotectivefactorsthatareassociatedwithpositivetransitions.

Thepresentstudyisnotwithoutlimitations.First,thestudyonly enrolledmaleparticipants,limitingtheabilitytogeneralizeresearch findingstoafemalepopulation.Therefore,thestudycannotexamine

thepotentialgenderinfluenceonresidentialeducation.Second,the relativelysmallsamplelimitsthegeneralizabilityofthe findingstothe widerboardingstudentpopulation.Thethreegroupsinthestudyare notcomparableinalotofaspects.Thevariedsamplesizeandage differenceofeachgroup(particularlyforboardinggraduates)may underminetheexplanatorypowerofthemodel.Cautionshouldbe takenwheninterpretingtheresultsofthisstudy.Futurestudiescan benefitfromrecruitingagender-andage-balancedsample.Third,the surveyswereconductedin2011and2012.Itshouldbeacknowledged thatthedataaresomewhatold.Accordingtotheauthors'knowledge,it isstillthe firstofitskindtoexaminetheeffectsofresidentialeducation forhighriskschoolpopulationinMacao.Fourth,thestudyconducted analysesbasedexclusivelyonself-reportsurveys.Participants'answers maynotbehonest,particularlyforthoseconcealingtheiractsofdelinquency,whichmaycauseunmeasuredbiases.Finally,thisstudywas limitedbyitscross-sectionaldesign.Thus,wecannotidentifyfactors thatfacilitatepositivechangeacrosstime.Long-termfollow-upstudies andexperimentaldesignsareneededtoexaminethelong-termeffects ofresidentialeducationonboardingstudents.Inaddition,qualitative researchcancontributetogatheringadolescents'viewsabouttheir experiencesinresidentialeducationandreintegrationintothecommunityfromalifecourseperspective(see Jahnukainen,2007).

Inmanyrespects,boardingschoolcanplayasignificantrolein promotingpsychologicalandbehavioralchangesforhigh-riskyouth. ResidentialeducationinMacaoprovidesaccommodation,education, andmentalhealthservicesforadolescentswithsocialandbehavioral problems.Overall,boardingstudentsdemonstratedhighself-efficacy, indicatingthattheyacquirecopingskillsthatareessentialforhandling stressfullifeevents.Youngpeoplewhohadgraduatedfromboarding schoolreportedlowincidenceofproblembehavior,whichindicatesa positivetransitionbacktosociety.

Nowadaysresidentialprogramsseemtobetrappedinaparadoxical situation.Thoughitsprimaryobjectiveistoprovideat-riskyouthan alternativetomainstreameducationbyofferingthemasafeandcaring environmenttogrowandlearn,residentialprogramshavebeencriticizedforlabellingandstereotypingyouthwhoaremarginalizedand disadvantagednegatively(Calheiros,Garrido,Lopes,&Patrício,2015; Kuznetsova,2005).Thatexplainswhyanumberofparentsandyoung peoplethemselvesarereluctanttobeadmittedtotheboardingschool foritspossiblestigmatizingeffect.Itisworthpointingoutthatthe findingsofthecurrentstudy,whileexploratoryinnature,indicate positiveevidenceofresidentialeducationrelatingtopositivetransitions.Comparedwithotherresidentialprograms,residentialeducation offersapromisingalternativeforhigh-riskyouthtoalleviatetheir psychosocialandbehavioralmaladjustmentandtocultivatepositive change,leadingthemtobecomeindependentyoungadults.

Conflictofinterest

Theauthorsdeclarednoconflictsofinterestswithrespecttothe authorshipand/orpublicationofthisarticle.

References

Bandura,A.(1973). Aggression:Asociallearninganalysis. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall Bandura,A.(1977).Self-efficacy:Towardaunifyingtheoryofbehavioralchange. PsychologicalReview,84(2),191–215. Bandura,A.(2006).Adolescentdevelopmentfromanagenticperspective.InF.Pajares,& T.Urdan(Eds.). Self-efficacyBeliefsofAdolescents.Greenwich,CT:InformationAge Bandura,A.,Cioffi,D.,Taylor,C.B.,&Brouillard,M.E.(1988).Perceivedself-efficacyin copingwithcognitivestressorsandopioidactivation. JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,55(3),479–488

Bandura,A.,Graduateorelli,C.,Barbaranelli,C.,&Caprara,G.V.(1999).Self-efficacy pathwaystochildhooddepression. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,76(2), 258–269

Barth,R.P.(2005).Fosterhomecareismorecost-effectivethansheltercare:Serious questionscontinuetoberaisedabouttheutilityofgroupcareinchildwelfareservices. ChildAbuse&Neglect,29(6),623–625

Bernedo,I.M.,Salas,M.D.,Fuentes,M.J.,&García-Martín,M.Á.(2014).Fosterchildren'sbehaviorproblemsandimpulsivityinthefamilyandschoolcontext. Children andYouthServicesReview,42,43–49 Bond,M.(Ed.).(2008). ThepsyhcologyoftheChinesepeople.HongKong:Chinese UniversityPress Bullis,M.,Yovanoff,P.,&Havel,E.(2004).Theimportanceofgettingstartedright: Furtherexaminationofthefacility-to-communitytransitionofformerlyincarcerated youth. TheJournalofSpecialEducation,38(2),80–94 Calheiros,M.M.,Garrido,M.V.,Lopes,D.,&Patrício,J.N.(2015).Socialimagesof residentialcare:Howchildren,youthandresidentialcareinstitutionsareportrayed? ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,55,159–169

Cataldo,R.F.,&Hawkins,J.D.(1996).Thesocialdevelopmentmodel:Atheoryofantisocialbehavior.InJ.D.Hawkins(Ed.). Delinquencyandcrime:Currenttheories.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress

Chapple,C.L.,McQuillan,J.A.,&Berdahl,T.A.(2005).Gender,socialbonds,anddelinquency:Acomparisonofboys’ andgirls’ models. SocialScienceResearch,34(2), 357–383

Cheung,N.W.T.(1997).Family,school,peer,andmediapredictorsofadolescentdeviant behaviorinHongKong. Journal ofYouthandAdolescence,26(5),569–596

Cheung,N.W.T.,&Cheung,Y.W.(2008).Self-control,socialfactors,anddelinquency:A testofthegeneraltheoryofcrimeamongadolescentsinHongKong. JournalofYouth andAdolescence,37(4),412–430

Chui,W.H.,&Chan,H.C.(2011).Socialbondsandmaledelinquencywhileonprobation:AnexploratorytestinHongKong. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,33(11), 2329–2334

Chui,W.H.,&Chan,H.C.(2012).Anempiricalinvestigationofsocialbondsandjuvenile delinquencyinHongKong. ChildandYouthCareForum,41(4),371–386

Chui,W.H.,Cheung,K.Y.,Wong,C.C.,Sze,Y.C.,Chin,W.T.,&Leung,K.L.(2016). A studyofmentalwell-beingofyoungpeopleinMacaoin2015. Macao:SalesiansofDon Bosco(InChinese)

Cicognani,E.(2011).Copingstrategieswithminorstressorsinadolescence:Relationships withsocialsupport,self-efficacy,andpsychologicalwell-being. JournalofApplied SocialPsychology,41(3),559–578

Deng,S.,&Roosa,M.W.(2007).Familyinfluencesonadolescentdelinquentbehaviors: ApplyingthesocialdevelopmentmodeltoaChinesesample. AmericanJournalof CommunityPsychology,40(3–4),333–344

DeSena,A.D.,Murphy,R.A.,Douglas-Palumberi,H.,Blau,G.,Kelly,B.,Horwitz,S.M.,& Kaufman,J.(2005).SAFEHomes:Isitworththecost?Anevaluationofagrouphome permanencyplanningprogramforchildrenwho firstenterout-of-homecare. Child Abuse&Neglect,29(6),627–643

Dishion,T.J.,McCord,J.,&Poulin,F.(1999).Wheninterventionsharm:Peergroupsand problembehavior. AmericanPsychologist,54(9),755–764

Dishion,T.J.,Poulin,F.,&Burraston,B.(2001).Peergroupdynamicsassociatedwith iatrogeniceffectingroupinterventionswithhigh-riskyoungadolescents. New DirectionsforChildandAdolescentDevelopment, (91),79–92.

DuppongHurley,K.,Trout,A.,Chmelka,M.B.,Burns,B.J.,Epstein,M.H.,Thompson,R. W.,&Daly,D.L.(2009).Thechangingmentalhealthneedsofyouthadmittedto residentialgrouphomecare:Comparingmentalhealthstatusatadmissionin1995 and2004. JournalofEmotionalandBehavioralDisorders,17(3),164–176

Erol,N.,Simsek,Z.,&Münir,K.(2010).MentalhealthofadolescentsrearedininstitutionalcareinTurkey:Challengesandhopeinthetwenty-firstcentury. EuropeanChild &AdolescentPsychiatry,19(2),113–124 Erozkan, A.(2013).Theeffectofcommunicationskillsandinterpersonalproblemsolving skillsonsocialself-efficacy. EducationalSciences,13(2),739–745

Frensch,K.M.,&Cameron,G.(2002).Treatmentofchoiceoralastresort?Areviewof residentialmentalhealthplacementsforchildrenandyouth. Child&YouthCare Forum,31(5),307–339 Geuzaine,C.,Debry,M.,&Liesens,V.(2000).Separationfromparentsinlateadolescence:Thesameforboysandgirls? JournalofYouthandAdolescence,29(1),79–91 Gottfredson,M.R.,&Hirschi,T.(1990). AGeneralTheoryofCrime. Stanford:Stanford UniversityPress Grasmick,H.G.,Tittle,C.R.,Bursik,R.J.,&Arneklev,B.J.(1993).Testingthecore empiricalimplicationsofGottfredsonandHirschi'sgeneraltheoryofcrime. Journalof ResearchinCrimeandDelinquency,30(1),5–29

Hair,H.J.(2005).Outcomesforchildrenandadolescentsafterresidentialtreatment:A reviewofresearchfrom1993to2003. JournalofChildandFamilyStudies,14(4), 551–575

Huefner,J.C.,Pick,R.M.,Smith,G.L.,Stevens,A.L.,&Mason,W.A.(2015).Parental involvementinresidentialcare:Distance,frequencyofcontact,andyouthoutcomes. JournalofChildandFamilyStudies,24(5),1481–1489

Hussey,D.L.,&Guo,S.(2002).Profilecharacteristicsandbehavioralchangetrajectories ofyoungresidentialchildren. JournalofChildandFamilyStudies,11(4),401–410 Jahnukainen,M.(2007).High-riskyouthtransitionstoadulthood:Alongitudinalviewof youthleavingtheresidentialeducationinFinland. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview, 29(5),637–654

James,S.(2011).Whatworksingroupcare? Astructuredreviewoftreatmentmodels forgrouphomesandresidentialcare. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,33(2), 308–321

James,S.,Roesch,S.,&Zhang,J.J.(2012).Characteristicsandbehavioraloutcomesfor youthingroupcareandfamily-basedcare:Apropensityscorematchingapproach usingnationaldata. JournalofEmotionalandBehavioralDisorders,20(3),144–156 Jenson,J.M.,&Howard,M.O.(1998).Youthcrime,publicpolicy,andpracticeinthe juvenilejusticesystem:Recenttrendsandneededreforms. SocialWork,43(4), 324–334

Jones,L.,&Lansdverk,J.(2006).Residentialeducation:Examininganewapproachfor improvingoutcomesforfosteryouth. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,28(10),

1152–1168

Kepper,A.,Monshouwer,K.,VanDorsselaer,S.,&Vollebergh,W.(2011).Substanceuse byadolescentsinspecialeducationandresidentialyouthcareinstitutions. European Child&AdolescentPsychiatry,20(6),311

Kuznetsova,T.I.(2005).Socialstereotypesoftheperceptionofgraduatesofchildren's homes. RussianEducation&Society,47(2),19–30

Lakin,B.L.,Brambila,A.D.,&Sigda,K.B.(2004).Parentalinvolvementasafactorinthe readmissiontoaresidentialtreatmentcenter. ResidentialTreatmentforChildrenand Youth,22(2),37–52

Lee,B.R.,&Barth,R.P.(2009).Residentialeducation:Anemergingresourceforimprovingeducationaloutcomesforyouthinfostercare? ChildrenandYouthServices Review,31(1),155–160

Lee,B.R.,&Thompson,R.(2008).Comparingoutcomesforyouthintreatmentfoster careandfamily-stylegroupcare. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,30(7),746–757

Liu,R.X.(2011).Strainasamoderatoroftherelationshipbetweenparentalattachment anddelinquentparticipation:AChinastudy. InternationalCriminalJusticeReview, 21(4),427–442

Manso,J.M.M.,García-Baamonde,M.E.,Alonso,M.B.,&Barona,E.G.(2011).An analysisofhowchildrenadapttoresidentialcare. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview, 33(10),1981–1988.

Menard,S.(2011).Standardsforstandardizedlogisticregressioncoefficients. Social Forces,89(4),1409–1428

Morrison,C.(2007). Breakingthrough:Howboardingschoolscantransformthelivesof vulnerablechildren. London:RoyalWansteadChildren'sFoundation Newby-Fraser,E.,&Schlebusch,L.(1997).Socialsupport,self-efficacyandassertiveness asmediatorsofstudentstress. Psychology,34(3–4),61–69 Palareti,L.,&Berti,C.(2010).Relationalclimateandeffectivenessofresidentialcare: Adolescentperspectives. JournalofPreventionandInterventionintheCommunity, 38(1),26–40

Pecora,P.,&English,D.(2016).Elementsofeffectivepracticeforchildrenandyouth servedbytherapeuticresidentialcare:Researchbrief.Seattle:CaseyFamily Programs.(RetrievedonApril4,2018),htp://www.casey.org/media/Group-Carecomplete.pdf Power,A.(2007).Discussionoftraumaatthethreshold:Theimpactofboardingschool onattachmentinyoungchildren. Attachment,1(3),313–320 Scholte, E.(1997).Explorationofcriteriaforresidentialandfostercare. JournalofChild

PsychologyandPsychiatry,38(6),657–666 Schwarzer,R.(1993). Measurementofperceivedself-efficacypsychometricscalesforcrossculturalresearch. Berlin:FreieUniversitätBerlin Segal,B.,Morral,A.R.,&Stevens,S.J.(2014). Adolescentsubstanceabusetreatmentinthe UnitedStates:Exemplarymodelsfromanationalevaluationstudy. NewYork:Routledge Souverein,F.,VanderHelm,G.,&Stams,G.(2013). ‘Nothingworks’ insecureresidential youthcare? ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,35(12),1941–1945 StatisticsandCensusService(2011). Resultsof2011populationcensus. Macao:Statistics andCensusService StatisticsandCensusService(2017). Populationestimate. Macao:StatisticsandCensus Service Sullivan,K.,&Sullivan,A.(1980).Adolescent–parentseparation. Developmental Psychology,16(2),93 Tabachnick,B.G.,&Fidell,L.S.(2007). Usingmultivariatestatistics (5thed.).Boston,MA: Pearson/Allyn&Bacon Trout,A.L.,Hagaman,J.,Casey,K.,Reid,R.,&Epstein,M.H.(2008).Theacademic statusofchildrenandyouthinout-of-homecare:Areviewoftheliterature. Children andYouthServicesReview,30(9),979–994 Vanschoonlandt,F.,Vanderfaeillie,J.,VanHolen,F.,DeMaeyer,S.,&Robberechts,M. (2013).Externalizingproblemsinyoungfosterchildren:Prevalencerates,predictors andserviceuse. ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,35(4),716–724. Walter,U.M.,&Petr,C.(2007). Residentialtreatment:Areviewofthenationalliterature. Lawrence,KS:UniversityofKansas.(RetrievedonApril4,2018) https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/0bc5/11d1649ade095657f5c09ef55a68204cbdd2.pdf Wei,C.X.G.(2013). Macao – Theformationofaglobalcity. London:Routledge Wong,M.Y.H.,&Chui,W.H.(2017).Economicdevelopmentandsubjectivewell-being: AcomparativestudyofhopeandpurposeinthelivesofadolescentsinHongKong andMacau. ChildIndicatorsResearch,10(1),247–265 Yang,S.L.,&Hoffmann,J.P.(1998).Amultilevelassessmentofsocialdisorganization theoryinTaipei,Taiwan. JournalofContemporaryCriminalJustice,14(3),222–247 Yeh,K.-H.(2011).Mediatingeffects ofnegativeemotionsinparent-childconflicton adolescentproblembehavior. AsianJournalofSocialPsychology,14(4),236–245 Zhang,J.X.,&Schwarzer,R.(1995).Measuringoptimisticself-beliefs:AChineseadaptationofthegeneralself-efficacyscale. Psychologia,38(3),174–181 Zhang,L.,&Messner,S.F.(1995).FamilydevianceanddelinquencyinChina. Criminology,33(3),359–387