Residential education

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Residential education as an alternative for promoting psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among high-risk young Macanese males

T

⁎

Xue Weng, Wing Hong Chui , Tae Yeun Kim Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR

A B S T R A C T

Residential education which integrates both home and school life aims to help youth who are socially or economically disadvantaged. Using Macanese school samples, the study analyzes the demographic background, personal characteristics, and behavioral problems of current and graduate boarding students, together with a control group of students from an ordinary school.

A sample of 246 male students (69 current boarders, 37 boarding graduates, and 140 controls) was subjected to statistical analysis. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were conducted to explore the risk profile of boarding students relative to control students, who are from an ordinary school, and to identify the protective factors that associate with positive transitions.

The results indicate that the boarding students commonly had problematic family backgrounds and showed higher rates of behavioral problems than the control students. Contrary to our expectations, boarding students reported higher levels of school commitment and self-efficacy. The regression results indicate that being a boarding student is associated with higher peer attachment and greater self-efficacy. In addition, boarding graduates reported less involvement in violent crime and maintained high self-efficacy and school commitment after leaving residential education.

Adolescents receiving residential education exhibited low incidence of behavioral problems and possessed essential coping capabilities to minimize negative life events. Our findings suggest that residential education may be a promising means to alleviate psychosocial and behavioral maladjustment and to promote positive change among high-risk youth.

1. Introduction Residential education is regarded as a remedial educational program for at-risk youth in the United States (Jones & Lansdverk, 2006; Lee & Barth, 2009), the United Kingdom (Morrison, 2007), and Northern Europe (Jahnukainen, 2007). The term “residential education” broadly refers to the education provided in residential settings, often called “boarding schools” or “boarding residences.” Residential education is a 24-h out-of-home placement that integrates both home and school life for youth who are socially or economically disadvantaged (Lee & Barth, 2009).

A considerable number of residential programs for troubled youth, such as foster care, residential treatment, and institutional/residential care has been used an alternative to mainstream eductaion.1 Typically,

⁎

young people in residential settings present with multiple externalizing and internalizing symptoms, including mental health problems (Duppong Hurley et al., 2009; Erol, Simsek, & Münir, 2010), substance abuse (Kepper, Monshouwer, Van Dorsselaer, & Vollebergh, 2011), severe behavioral problems (Bernedo, Salas, Fuentes, & García-Martín, 2014; Vanschoonlandt, Vanderfaeillie, Van Holen, De Maeyer, & Robberechts, 2013), and academic difficulties (Scholte, 1997; Trout, Hagaman, Casey, Reid, & Epstein, 2008). Many come from problematic family environments featuring troubled family relations (Frensch & Cameron, 2002; Lee & Barth, 2009), divorced parents (Scholte, 1997), and parental incarceration (Hussey & Guo, 2002; Lee & Thompson, 2008), and have been exposed to abuse and neglect (Hussey & Guo, 2002; James, Roesch, & Zhang, 2012).

Over the years there has been extensive debate on residential

Corresponding author.

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

1 There are many terms used in residential programs. Generally, foster care provides residential family care for children who cannot be adequately cared for by their families.

Residential treatment encompasses a variety of facilities in which children and youth reside in a nonfamily setting that provides comprehensive inpatient mental health treatment and/or substance abuse services. Institutional/residential care refers to the nonfamily setting that provides care and supported accommodation for children and youth who do not need intensive in-house mental health services. Details on the different residential programs can be refered to Walter and Petr (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.009 Received 15 December 2017; Received in revised form 3 April 2018; Accepted 3 April 2018 Available online 04 April 2018 0190-7409/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

X. Weng et al.

programs (Barth, 2005; Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013).

Some researchers are negative about residential programs due to their lack of cost-effectiveness (DeSena et al., 2005), their facilitation of students' association with delinquent peers (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999), and students' high levels of failure to adapt personally, socially, and academically (Manso, García-Baamonde, Alonso, & Barona, 2011).

Nevertheless, residential education differs from residential treatment in significant ways (Lee & Barth, 2009). Based on a “medical model” (Segal, Morral, & Stevens, 2014), residential treatment is short-term and provides high-intensity clinical treatment. Residential education, on the contrary, is long-term and academically oriented. Residential education programs focus on cultivating youth development, while providing a low level of mental health services (Lee & Barth, 2009).

Although the effectiveness of residential care has been widely discussed (James, 2011; Pecora & English, 2016), surprisingly few research studies assess the residential education conducted in boarding schools (Jahnukainen, 2007). Moreover, follow-up studies have shown that high-risk adolescents who have left residential institutions perform poorly when they reenter the community (Bullis, Yovanoff, & Havel, 2004; Jahnukainen, 2007). Research on positive institution-to-community transitions is relatively scarce. Especially regarding deinstitutionalization (Jenson & Howard, 1998), it is important to examine the practice of residential education for high-risk youth in different cultural settings. The residential education model is comparatively new in Asian countries, and no study has been conducted in the Chinese context.

To fill this gap, they study seeks to examine the risk profile of boarding students attending residential education in a Macanese setting, where circumstances are very different from Western settings. We are inspired to examine whether boarding experience is related to the positive change in the development of high-risk youth. The study explores the influence of residential education by proposing two research questions: (1) what are the demographic background, personal characteristics, and behavioral problems of Macanese students in residential education in comparison to students in mainstream education? and (2) what are the protective factors related to the positive transition of highrisk youth? The study is exploratory in nature and intends to provide implications that residential education can complement the current system of child welfare services.

grades. The school provides small classes (20 or fewer students), meaning that the student-teacher ratio is lower than in mainstream schools in Macao. Boarding students are required to live in the school dormitory during the five-and-a-half-day school week. They can return home to live with family during weekends. The school provides a family-style living environment. Each student is a member of a “boarding family” of approximately 10 students, supervised by houseparents and social workers. Hence, boarding students are socialized to family living rather than institutional life (Lee & Barth, 2009). Many of the students come from ‘broken'or dysfunctional families where parents cannot provide them with adequate care and supervision, and most have exhibited behavioral problems and psychosocial maladjustments. Some students were placed in boarding school due to encounters with law enforcement agencies. The primary goal of the boarding school is prevention education based on reason, religion, and charity. With particular emphasis on helping young people in need, the boarding student is educated to become a better person, in terms of moral, intellectual, physical, and aesthetic development. In addition, a comparison sample of mainstream students was recruited from a Macanese boys’ school.

Different from boarding school where students live as well as learn, mainstream students attend school during the day and return their home after school.

2. Methods

2.3.1. Self-efficacy scale The Generalized Perceived Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) was first developed by Schwarzer (1993) and later translated into Chinese by Zhang and Schwarzer (1995). The GSES contains ten items that measure generalized self-efficacy, or beliefs about one's general ability to perform the desired behaviors in various situations. Example items include “I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events” and “I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.” Students were asked to rate each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Exactly true).

The higher the score, the higher the degree of self-efficacy. Adequate Cronbach's α values were reported in the present study: with 0.83 for current students, 0.89 for graduate students, and 0.81 for control students.

2.2. Procedure and participants Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Hong Kong's Human Research Ethics Committee. Upon approval from both schools' administrators, parental and student consent were first obtained, with a response rate of 95%. Anonymous questionnaires were administered by trained research assistants to consenting participants in a classroom setting between December 2011 and March 2012. The duration to complete the questionnaire was approximately 30 min. All participants are ethnic Chinese. The full sample consists of three groups of students: 69 current students who are attending boarding school (M = 14.85 years, SD = 1.54), 37 graduate students who have left the boarding school (M = 20.75 years, SD = 3.64), and 140 control students who are in a mainstream school (M = 13.86 years, SD = 1.22).

2.3. Measures

2.1. Research site The current study was conducted in Macao, a coastal city in southern China. Macao was a colony under Portuguese administration for > 400 years (1557–1999).

It is now a special administrative region (SAR) of China that enjoys a high degree of autonomy. Macao has a population of approximately 653,100 (Statistics and Census Service, 2017), of whom 92.3% are ethnic Chinese (Statistics and Census Service, 2011). Because more than four centuries of Portuguese rule, Macao has served as a meeting place for Eastern and Western cultures. Nowadays Macanese people have been accustomed to balance their Western modernized lifestyle with traditional Chinese cultural and practices (Wei, 2013). While the umemployment rate for young people in Macao is < 2%, it does not necessary mean that youth problem is not a major issue and the pressure to perform well in primary and secondary schools is often the top concern among young Macanese and their families (Chui, Cheung, Wong, Sze, & Chin, 2016; Wong & Chui, 2017).

This study is indeed first of its kind to examine in what ways residential education can promote positive outcomes among a selected group of troubled young people who are not able to adjust well to mainstream education in Macao. The site of investigation of this study was a male-only boarding school. The school is accredited through the Macao Education Bureau and consists of six primary and secondary

2.3.2. Social bonds scale The original social bonds scale was developed by Chapple, McQuillan, and Berdahl (2005) and later translated into Chinese by Chui and Chan (2011, 2012). Social bonds with significant others, such as parents, peers, teachers, and legal authorities, can prevent adolescents from engaging in delinquent behavior. The social bonds scale in the current study had four subscales—four items capturing parental attachment (e.g. “I share my thoughts and feelings with my mother,”), two capturing peer attachment (e.g. “I respect my best friend's opinion about the important things in life”), three capturing school commitment (e.g. “I try hard in school”), and four capturing belief in the legal system 515

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

X. Weng et al.

Table 1 Bivariate comparison between current, graduate, and control students (n = 246)a.

1. Current students (N = 69)

2. Graduate students (N = 37)

3. Control students (N = 140)

Pairwise

14.85 (1.54)

20.75 (3.64)

13.86 (1.22)

2>1>3

34 (50.0%) 28 (41.2%) 6 (8.8%) 1 (1.4%) 16 (23.2%) 15 (21.7%)

6 (18.2%) 15 (45.5%) 12 (36.4%) 5 (13.5%) 8 (21.6%) 9 (24.3%)

– – – – – 15 (10.8%)

1>2 2>1 2>1

40 (61.5%) 25 (38.5%)

20 (57.1%) 15 (42.9%)

128 (92.8%) 10 (7.2%)

3>1>2 2>1>3

44 (67.7%) 21 (32.3%) 25.03 (5.83)

23 (63.9%) 13 (36.1%) 26.16 (5.60)

129 (93.5%) 9 (6.5%) 23.07 (4.79)

3>1>2 2>1>3 1 > 3, 2 > 3

12.41 (3.75) 4.68 (1.24) 7.43 (2.39) 10.71 (2.66)

10.78 (3.21) 4.43 (1.01) 7.73 (1.87) 11.08 (3.39)

12.09 (3.52) 4.39 (1.43) 6.74 (1.78) 10.07 (2.63)

10.93 (2.28) 9.57 (2.32) 10.41 (2.91) 7.36 (1.79) 11.04 (2.49) 10.51 (2.32)

10.69 (2.08) 10.25 (2.44) 10.56 (2.34) 7.08 (1.36) 11.44 (2.37) 11.11 (2.28)

10.17 (2.23) 9.42 (2.57) 11.25 (2.52) 6.84 (2.11) 11.73 (2.20) 10.74 (2.31)

4.55 (2.10) 5.55 (1.91)

4.30 (1.63) 4.51 (1.59)

4.58 (1.67) 4.56 (1.74)

Mean (SD) or N (%) Demographics Age (years)⁎ Length of stay < 2 years 2 to 4 years 5 to 7 years Drug abuse experience⁎ Criminal history Parents' criminal history⁎ Father's marital status⁎ Married Separated/divorced/never married Mother's marital status⁎ Married Separated/divorced/never married Self-efficacy⁎ Social bonds Parental attachment Peer attachment School commitment⁎ Belief Low self-control Impulsivity Simple tasks Risk seeking Physical activity Self-centered Temper Delinquency Theft Violent crime⁎ a ⁎

1 > 3, 2 > 3

1 > 3, 2 > 3

1 > 2, 3

The sample for each analysis varies between 238 and 246 individuals due to a small number of missing data. p < .001.

(e.g. “it's okay to get around the law if you can get away with it”).

Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating stronger social bonds. In the present study, the Cronbach's α values were 0.65 for current students, 0.53 for graduate students, and 0.52 for control students.

indicates greater frequency and seriousness of behavior problems. In the present study, the Cronbach's α values of current, graduate, and control students were 0.69, 0.68, and 0.63, respectively.

2.3.5. Sociodemographic variables The study also controlled for the following sociodemographic characteristics in the regression analyses: students' age, parents' marital status, and parents' criminal history. The participants' age was measured in years. Parents' marital status was coded as either married or separated/divorced/never married. In terms of parents' criminal history, where at least one of the parents had a criminal record, they were coded as 1; those parents with no history of crime who were coded as 0.

Since the three variables, including the length of stay in boarding school, drug abuse experience and previous criminal history are only applicable for boarding students, these were presented in the descriptive analyses and were not enrolled in the further regression model.

2.3.3. Self-control scale The self-control scale was developed by Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) based on Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original formulation of the six elements of self-control: impulsivity, simple tasks, risk seeking, physical activities, self-centered, and temper. Adolescents with low self-control tend to follow momentary impulses and fail to anticipate the negative consequences of delinquent behavior. The scale contained 23 items with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 4 (Strongly disagree). Example items include “I like to test myself every now and then by doing something a little risky,” “I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some distant goal,” and “When things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw.” Higher values on the scale indicate lower levels of selfcontrol. The self-control scale showed high internal consistency in the present study. The Cronbach's α values were 0.78 for current students, 0.84 for graduate students, and 0.81 for control students.

2.4. Analytic strategy Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistic version 23. First, descriptive statistics of current, graduate, and control students were conducted. Group difference in mean values was evaluated by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis. The χ2 test was used to assess relationships between categorical variables.

Second, logistic regressions were used to examine whether demographic background, personal characteristics, and behavioral problems can significantly distinguish boarding students from control students.

Graduate students were excluded from the regression analysis due to the small sample size (n = 37). Binary logistic regression was chosen as the dependent variable was dichotomous (current students vs. control

2.3.4. Delinquency scale The delinquency scale contains two behavioral problems—three items capturing theft and three capturing violent crime. Respondents indicated how often they had engaged in each of the offences over the last 12 months on a 4-point response scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 4 (Many times). Sample questions included, “Have you ever taken little things (< $20) that did not belong to you?” and “Have you ever slapped, shoved, or hit another student at school?” A higher score 516

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

X. Weng et al.

students) with independent variables that could be measured as continuous or categorical variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). All the variables were entered into the model using the enter method.

Table 2 Logistic regression characterizing boarding students (n = 209).

95% CI for odds ratio Covariates

3. Results

Self-efficacy Social bonds Parental attachment Peer attachment School commitment Belief Low Self-control Impulsivity Simple tasks Risk seeking Physical activity Self-centered Temper Delinquency Theft Violent crime Demographics Age Father's marital status (married) Separated/divorced/never married Mother's marital status (married) Separated/divorced/never married Parents' crime commission (No/ uncertain) Yes

3.1. Descriptive analyses Table 1 presents descriptive statistics including percentages, means, and standard deviations. These statistics first present the risk profile of boarding students. Regarding demographic variables, graduate students were significantly older (M = 20.75) than the current and control students (M = 14.85 and 13.86). There is a high variation in the length of time among students in the boarding school. The lengths of stay range from 2 months to 7 years (M = 2.61 years, SD = 1.83). Half of current students and 18.2% of graduate students enrolled in the school < 2 years. Over 40% of current and graduate students (41.2% and 45.5%) have been in boarding school from 2 to 4 years. Besides, 8.8% of current students and 36.4% of graduate students stayed between 5 and 7 years.

Graduate students were more likely than current students to have drug use experience (13.5% vs. 1.4%). Moreover, over 20% of current and graduate students (23.2% and 21.6%) reported a history of involvement in crime.

Chi-square analyses yielded significant differences for parental marital status across the three groups. The highest percentage of married fathers (93.5%) was found in the control students; the highest percentage of separated/divorced/never-married fathers (36.1%) was found in graduate students. The distribution of mother's marital status followed a similar pattern. There was a significantly higher prevalence of separated/divorced/never-married mothers among current students (32.3%) and graduate students (36.1%) than among control students (6.5%). Significant differences were also observed in terms of parents' criminal history: 21.7% of current students and 24.3% of graduate students reported that their parents had been convicted, in contrast to 10.8% of the students in the control group. This pattern seems to suggest that the parents of boarding students are more likely to be separated, divorced, or unmarried, and to have a criminal history.

The results also indicated significant difference in self-efficacy and school commitment. Current and graduate students exhibited significantly higher levels of self-efficacy (M = 25.03 and 26.16) than control students (M = 23.07). Likewise, both current and graduate students were more committed to their school (M = 7.43 and 7.73) than control students (M = 6.74). Pairwise comparisons also revealed a significant difference in their involvement in violent crime. Current students manifested significantly more violent behavior (M = 5.55), than graduate and control students (M = 4.51 and 4.56). No significant difference was found in self-control elements.

Odds ratio

Lower

Upper

1.11

1.01

1.22

−0.06 0.12⁎ 0.08 0.03

0.94 1.37 1.15 1.04

0.82 1.01 0.93 0.86

1.07 1.87 1.42 1.24

0.18⁎ −0.08 0.02 0.08 −0.11 −0.10

1.35 0.89 1.03 1.15 0.84 0.85

1.06 0.72 0.84 0.90 0.67 0.67

1.70 1.11 1.27 1.46 1.05 1.07

−0.02 0.23⁎⁎⁎

0.96 1.56

0.75 1.22

1.23 1.99

0.29⁎⁎⁎

2.15

1.51

3.04

3.62

1.41

9.28

0.02

1.14

0.39

3.27

0.03

1.36

0.43

4.30

0.15

0.27

⁎

⁎⁎

R2 = 0.38 (Cox & Snell), 0.53 (Nagelkerke). Reference categories are in parentheses. a β = standardized logistic regression coefficients. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

Six covariates are significantly associated with students currently receiving residential education. The first significant covariate is selfefficacy. In particular, participants with greater self-efficacy had higher odds of being boarding students (β = 0.15, OR = 1.11). Among social bond elements, participants with higher peer attachment had significantly higher odds of being boarding students (β = 0.12, OR = 1.37). In terms of self-control elements, impulsivity is the only significant covariate correlating with current boarding students (β = 0.18, OR = 1.35). For delinquent type, there was a significant association between violent crime and being a boarding student.

Participants involved in violent crime were 1.6 times more likely to be boarding students (β = 0.23, OR = 1.56). In terms of demographic characteristics, current students are relatively older than control students. A one-year increase in age was associated with a twofold increase in the odds of being a boarding student (β = 0.29, OR = 2.15). Finally, compared to participants whose fathers were married, participants whose fathers were separated/divorced/never married were more likely to be boarding students. Participants with separated/divorced/ never-married fathers were roughly four times more likely to be boarding students than those who had married fathers (β = 0.27, OR = 3.62). Among the covariates significantly associated with being a current boarding student, age, father's married status, and involvement in violent crime are the three strongest in the model.

3.2. Logistic regression characterizing boarding students Following the descriptive analyses, logistic regression was conducted to explore the ways in which variables may be differentially associated with current boarding students relative to control students.

The regression model correctly classified 82% of participants, which is significantly better than the model without covariates (χ2 (17) = 94.74, p < .001). Table 2 displays the odds ratios and confidence intervals for each of the covariates. The odds ratios were used to interpret the degree to which a covariate increases or decreases the likelihood of a participant being a current boarding student. To maximize comparability, standardized logistic regression coefficients are also presented in Table 2. The fully standardized coefficients allow for an assessment of the relative explanatory power of the independent variables in a particular model (Menard, 2011).2 2

β

a

(footnote continued) coefficient, R is the correlation between the observed and predicted values of the dependent variable Y, sx is the standard deviation of x, and slogit(Ŷ) is the estimated standard deviation of the outcome variable. Details on the calculation of fully standardized coefficients are available in Menard (2011).

The formula is β = b(sx)(R)/slogit(Ŷ), where b is the unstandardized logistic regression

517

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

X. Weng et al.

4. Discussion and conclusion

their parents, peers and significant others. Evidence has shown that proper separation experiences not only increase adolescents' autonomy but also strengthen their emotional ties to parents, particular for adolescent boys (Geuzaine, Debry, & Liesens, 2000; Sullivan & Sullivan, 1980). In addition, findings suggest that family involvement is associated with better wellbeing of youth in residential care (Huefner, Pick, Smith, Stevens, & Mason, 2015; Palareti & Berti, 2010), lower readmission rates (Lakin, Brambila, & Sigda, 2004), and has the most significant effect on successful discharge and continued adaptation after residential treatment (Hair, 2005; Walter & Petr, 2007). Engaging parents in their children's boarding school life seems to be a promising protective factor of positive transition. Future studies should take into account family support and involvement when examining the effect of residential education on Chinese boarding students.

According to the social learning perspective, prosocial and antisocial behavior can be learned through direct and indirect experience (Bandura, 1973). As mentioned above, boarding students are more likely to grow up with parents who have a criminal history. They may also have close relations with peers who have behavioral problems.

Consequently, boarding students are at high risk of internalizing inappropriate values and behaviors. It is thus important to cultivate a prosocial atmosphere for high-risk youth. Residential education can help students adjust to socially acceptable values and behaviors. This educational process involves establishing personal identification and recognizing societal regulations. Adolescents are educated to conform to societal norms in a supportive atmosphere. Furthermore, boarding schools also provide continuing assistance after students graduate and as they reintegrate into the community. Having benefited from residential education, the boarding graduates in the current study demonstrated low risk of behavioral problems and behaved in line with social expectations. However, it is noticeable that being a current boarding student is still associated with higher levels of impulsivity and a higher probability of engaging in violent activities in this study. Given the salient peer influence among adolescents (Cataldo & Hawkins, 1996), deviancy training and an association with deviant peers (Dishion, Poulin, & Burraston, 2001) is one of the possible explanations.

Third, it is interesting that both current and graduate boarding students reported higher levels of school commitment and self-efficacy than control students. The logistic regression indicated that adolescents who had high peer attachment and self-efficacy were significantly more likely to be boarding students. Self-efficacy has been seen as an important psychosocial coping resource that plays a protective role in individuals' responses to stress (Cicognani, 2011). Self-efficacy refers to people's belief in their capability to deal effectively with a variety of situations (Bandura, 1977, 2006). According to Bandura, Cioffi, Taylor, and Brouillard (1988), perceived self-efficacy operates as a cognitive mechanism through which people react to stress with feelings of controllability. Empirical research has indicated that greater self-efficacy is associated with better coping strategies (Cicognani, 2011; Erozkan, 2013) and lower levels of stress and depression (Bandura, Graduateorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Newby-Fraser & Schlebusch, 1997). In the present study, we found that perceived selfefficacy was higher among boarding students than control students, which indicates that residential education probably strengthen the ability to manage various stressful events. Students with high social self-efficacy maintain a strong commitment to desired goals and effectively solve problems because they have confidence in their own capability to overcome hard life transitions. In addition, the boarding graduates performed fewer delinquent acts and maintained high selfefficacy and school commitment after residential education. The findings suggest that school commitment, peer attachment, and self-efficacy are important protective factors that are associated with positive transitions.

The present study is not without limitations. First, the study only enrolled male participants, limiting the ability to generalize research findings to a female population. Therefore, the study cannot examine

This article has compared characteristics of three groups of Macanese adolescents—those attending boarding school, those who have graduated from boarding school, and those who are attending the mainstream school—in terms of demographic background, personal characteristics, and behavioral problems.

In general, boarding students have a complex risk profile including a problematic family background and behavioral problems. The marital status of boarding students' parents is often complicated, and they are more likely to have encountered parental separation or divorce.

Moreover, their parents are more likely to have committed crime. In terms of behavioral problems, over 20% of boarding students reported drug use experience and over 10% of graduate students reported previous criminal experience. The regression analysis also indicated that current boarding students are associated with a high level of impulsivity and involvement in violent behavior. Nevertheless, group comparison reveals that participants who had graduated from boarding school were less likely to engage in violent behavior than current students (see Table 1). One possible explanation is that graduate students' prosocial behavior may have been reinforced during their time in boarding school.

From the social bonding perspective, family, peers, and school are important agents of socialization for adolescents. In Chinese communities, the family traditionally plays an important role in the socialization process (Bond, 2008; Deng & Roosa, 2007). Macanese adolescents are expected to be strongly bonded to their parents. However, boarding students reside away from home and separate from their parents. In this sense, residential education may limit the range of socialization and have a potentially negative influence on the psychosocial development of boarding students. Nevertheless, empirical studies on Chinese adolescents have found that an adverse family environment, such as harsh parental discipline, parent-child conflict, family fighting and arguing, is a fertile breeding ground for youth violence and delinquency (Cheung & Cheung, 2008; Yang & Hoffmann, 1998; Yeh, 2011; Zhang & Messner, 1995). Evidence also shows that family members' deviance is positively related to adolescent deviant behavior (Cheung, 1997; Zhang & Messner, 1995).

Interestingly, considering that the boarding students included in this study generally come from problematic family backgrounds, boarding school actually helped distance students from their broken homes and “toxic” family environments. (Power, 2007). Placed in a safety and healthy environment, boarding students spend a substantial amount of time with prosocial teachers and professionals, which is beneficial to their positive transition. In this regard, residential education provides an important agent of socialization for high-risk youth. Our findings suggest that boarding students develop strong peer attachment and school commitment through close interactions with peers, teachers, and school counselors in daily life.

Our findings also indicate that residential education does not diminish students' bonds with their parents, as current boarding students reported higher parental attachment than control students (see Table 1). One possible explanation is that students in the mainstream education are commonly under tremendous academic stress. Influenced by the Confucian tradition, Chinese parents place great emphasis on academic success and excellence. This authoritative parenting style may lead to misunderstandings which undermine parent-child bonding (Liu, 2011). In comparison, residential education focuses on helping adolescents acquire useful stress-coping skills when they encounter negative life events. Even though boarding students are more likely to suffer from family dysfunction, residential education equips them with essential capacities to minimize the negative influence of adverse family environment.

Moreover, boarding students can return home during weekends and maintain ties with their families. Besides learning to become more independent, they need to connect emotionally and communicate with 518

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

X. Weng et al.

the potential gender influence on residential education. Second, the relatively small sample limits the generalizability of the findings to the wider boarding student population. The three groups in the study are not comparable in a lot of aspects. The varied sample size and age difference of each group (particularly for boarding graduates) may undermine the explanatory power of the model. Caution should be taken when interpreting the results of this study. Future studies can benefit from recruiting a gender-and age- balanced sample. Third, the surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2012. It should be acknowledged that the data are somewhat old. According to the authors' knowledge, it is still the first of its kind to examine the effects of residential education for high risk school population in Macao. Fourth, the study conducted analyses based exclusively on self-report surveys. Participants' answers may not be honest, particularly for those concealing their acts of delinquency, which may cause unmeasured biases. Finally, this study was limited by its cross-sectional design. Thus, we cannot identify factors that facilitate positive change across time. Long-term follow-up studies and experimental designs are needed to examine the long-term effects of residential education on boarding students. In addition, qualitative research can contribute to gathering adolescents' views about their experiences in residential education and reintegration into the community from a life course perspective (see Jahnukainen, 2007).

In many respects, boarding school can play a significant role in promoting psychological and behavioral changes for high-risk youth.

Residential education in Macao provides accommodation, education, and mental health services for adolescents with social and behavioral problems. Overall, boarding students demonstrated high self-efficacy, indicating that they acquire coping skills that are essential for handling stressful life events. Young people who had graduated from boarding school reported low incidence of problem behavior, which indicates a positive transition back to society.

Nowadays residential programs seem to be trapped in a paradoxical situation. Though its primary objective is to provide at-risk youth an alternative to mainstream education by offering them a safe and caring environment to grow and learn, residential programs have been criticized for labelling and stereotyping youth who are marginalized and disadvantaged negatively (Calheiros, Garrido, Lopes, & Patrício, 2015; Kuznetsova, 2005). That explains why a number of parents and young people themselves are reluctant to be admitted to the boarding school for its possible stigmatizing effect. It is worth pointing out that the findings of the current study, while exploratory in nature, indicate positive evidence of residential education relating to positive transitions. Compared with other residential programs, residential education offers a promising alternative for high-risk youth to alleviate their psychosocial and behavioral maladjustment and to cultivate positive change, leading them to become independent young adults.

Bernedo, I. M., Salas, M. D., Fuentes, M. J., & García-Martín, M.Á. (2014). Foster children's behavior problems and impulsivity in the family and school context. Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 43–49.

Bond, M. (Ed.). (2008). The psyhcology of the Chinese people. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., & Havel, E. (2004). The importance of getting started right: Further examination of the facility-to-community transition of formerly incarcerated youth. The Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 80–94.

Calheiros, M. M., Garrido, M. V., Lopes, D., & Patrício, J. N. (2015). Social images of residential care: How children, youth and residential care institutions are portrayed?

Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 159–169.

Cataldo, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.). Delinquency and crime: Current theories. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapple, C. L., McQuillan, J. A., & Berdahl, T. A. (2005). Gender, social bonds, and delinquency: A comparison of boys’ and girls’ models. Social Science Research, 34(2), 357–383.

Cheung, N. W. T. (1997). Family, school, peer, and media predictors of adolescent deviant behavior in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(5), 569–596.

Cheung, N. W. T., & Cheung, Y. W. (2008). Self-control, social factors, and delinquency: A test of the general theory of crime among adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(4), 412–430.

Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. (2011). Social bonds and male delinquency while on probation: An exploratory test in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2329–2334.

Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. (2012). An empirical investigation of social bonds and juvenile delinquency in Hong Kong. Child and Youth Care Forum, 41(4), 371–386.

Chui, W. H., Cheung, K. Y., Wong, C. C., Sze, Y. C., Chin, W. T., & Leung, K. L. (2016). A study of mental well-being of young people in Macao in 2015. Macao: Salesians of Don Bosco (In Chinese).

Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping strategies with minor stressors in adolescence: Relationships with social support, self-efficacy, and psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(3), 559–578.

Deng, S., & Roosa, M. W. (2007). Family influences on adolescent delinquent behaviors: Applying the social development model to a Chinese sample. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 333–344.

DeSena, A. D., Murphy, R. A., Douglas-Palumberi, H., Blau, G., Kelly, B., Horwitz, S. M., & Kaufman, J. (2005). SAFE Homes: Is it worth the cost? An evaluation of a group home permanency planning program for children who first enter out-of-home care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(6), 627–643.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755–764.

Dishion, T. J., Poulin, F., & Burraston, B. (2001). Peer group dynamics associated with iatrogenic effect in group interventions with high-risk young adolescents. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (91), 79–92.

Duppong Hurley, K., Trout, A., Chmelka, M. B., Burns, B. J., Epstein, M. H., Thompson, R. W., & Daly, D. L. (2009). The changing mental health needs of youth admitted to residential group home care: Comparing mental health status at admission in 1995 and 2004. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(3), 164–176.

Erol, N., Simsek, Z., & Münir, K. (2010). Mental health of adolescents reared in institutional care in Turkey: Challenges and hope in the twenty-first century. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(2), 113–124.

Erozkan, A. (2013). The effect of communication skills and interpersonal problem solving skills on social self-efficacy. Educational Sciences, 13(2), 739–745.

Frensch, K. M., & Cameron, G. (2002). Treatment of choice or a last resort? A review of residential mental health placements for children and youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 31(5), 307–339.

Geuzaine, C., Debry, M., & Liesens, V. (2000). Separation from parents in late adolescence: The same for boys and girls? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(1), 79–91.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29.

Hair, H. J. (2005). Outcomes for children and adolescents after residential treatment: A review of research from 1993 to 2003. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(4), 551–575.

Huefner, J. C., Pick, R. M., Smith, G. L., Stevens, A. L., & Mason, W. A. (2015). Parental involvement in residential care: Distance, frequency of contact, and youth outcomes.

Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(5), 1481–1489.

Hussey, D. L., & Guo, S. (2002). Profile characteristics and behavioral change trajectories of young residential children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(4), 401–410.

Jahnukainen, M. (2007). High-risk youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving the residential education in Finland. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(5), 637–654.

James, S. (2011). What works in group care?—A structured review of treatment models for group homes and residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 308–321.

James, S., Roesch, S., & Zhang, J. J. (2012). Characteristics and behavioral outcomes for youth in group care and family-based care: A propensity score matching approach using national data. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(3), 144–156.

Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth crime, public policy, and practice in the juvenile justice system: Recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43(4), 324–334.

Jones, L., & Lansdverk, J. (2006). Residential education: Examining a new approach for improving outcomes for foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(10),

Conflict of interest The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

References Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., & Brouillard, M. E. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stressors and opioid activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 479–488.

Bandura, A., Graduateorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 258–269.

Barth, R. P. (2005). Foster home care is more cost-effective than shelter care: Serious questions continue to be raised about the utility of group care in child welfare services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(6), 623–625.

519

Children and Youth Services Review 88 (2018) 514–520

X. Weng et al.

Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(6), 657–666.

Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy psychometric scales for crosscultural research. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.

Segal, B., Morral, A. R., & Stevens, S. J. (2014). Adolescent substance abuse treatment in the United States: Exemplary models from a national evaluation study. New York: Routledge.

Souverein, F., Van der Helm, G., & Stams, G. (2013). ‘Nothing works’ in secure residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 1941–1945.

Statistics and Census Service (2011). Results of 2011 population census. Macao: Statistics and Census Service.

Statistics and Census Service (2017). Population estimate. Macao: Statistics and Census Service.

Sullivan, K., & Sullivan, A. (1980). Adolescent–parent separation. Developmental Psychology, 16(2), 93.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Trout, A. L., Hagaman, J., Casey, K., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2008). The academic status of children and youth in out-of-home care: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9), 979–994.

Vanschoonlandt, F., Vanderfaeillie, J., Van Holen, F., De Maeyer, S., & Robberechts, M. (2013). Externalizing problems in young foster children: Prevalence rates, predictors and service use. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4), 716–724.

Walter, U. M., & Petr, C. (2007). Residential treatment: A review of the national literature.

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. (Retrieved on April 4, 2018) https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/0bc5/11d1649ade095657f5c09ef55a68204cbdd2.pdf.

Wei, C. X. G. (2013). Macao – The formation of a global city. London: Routledge.

Wong, M. Y. H., & Chui, W. H. (2017). Economic development and subjective well-being: A comparative study of hope and purpose in the lives of adolescents in Hong Kong and Macau. Child Indicators Research, 10(1), 247–265.

Yang, S. L., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1998). A multilevel assessment of social disorganization theory in Taipei, Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14(3), 222–247.

Yeh, K.-H. (2011). Mediating effects of negative emotions in parent-child conflict on adolescent problem behavior. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14(4), 236–245.

Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale. Psychologia, 38(3), 174–181.

Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (1995). Family deviance and delinquency in China.

Criminology, 33(3), 359–387.

1152–1168.

Kepper, A., Monshouwer, K., Van Dorsselaer, S., & Vollebergh, W. (2011). Substance use by adolescents in special education and residential youth care institutions. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(6), 311.

Kuznetsova, T. I. (2005). Social stereotypes of the perception of graduates of children's homes. Russian Education & Society, 47(2), 19–30.

Lakin, B. L., Brambila, A. D., & Sigda, K. B. (2004). Parental involvement as a factor in the readmission to a residential treatment center. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 22(2), 37–52.

Lee, B. R., & Barth, R. P. (2009). Residential education: An emerging resource for improving educational outcomes for youth in foster care? Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 155–160.

Lee, B. R., & Thompson, R. (2008). Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family-style group care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(7), 746–757.

Liu, R. X. (2011). Strain as a moderator of the relationship between parental attachment and delinquent participation: A China study. International Criminal Justice Review, 21(4), 427–442.

Manso, J. M. M., García-Baamonde, M. E., Alonso, M. B., & Barona, E. G. (2011). An analysis of how children adapt to residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1981–1988.

Menard, S. (2011). Standards for standardized logistic regression coefficients. Social Forces, 89(4), 1409–1428.

Morrison, C. (2007). Breaking through: How boarding schools can transform the lives of vulnerable children. London: Royal Wanstead Children's Foundation.

Newby-Fraser, E., & Schlebusch, L. (1997). Social support, self-efficacy and assertiveness as mediators of student stress. Psychology, 34(3–4), 61–69.

Palareti, L., & Berti, C. (2010). Relational climate and effectiveness of residential care: Adolescent perspectives. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 38(1), 26–40.

Pecora, P., & English, D. (2016). Elements of effective practice for children and youth served by therapeutic residential care: Research brief. Seattle: Casey Family Programs. (Retrieved on April 4, 2018), htp://www.casey.org/media/Group-Carecomplete.pdf.

Power, A. (2007). Discussion of trauma at the threshold: The impact of boarding school on attachment in young children. Attachment, 1(3), 313–320.

Scholte, E. (1997). Exploration of criteria for residential and foster care. Journal of Child

520