The Social Climate in Residential Care; Views from residents and staff leaders

EUSARF SYMPOSIUM: Multiple perspectives on improving practices in residential care Abstract: The Social Climate in Residential Care - Views from residents and staff leaders Abstract: The social climate in residential care... [ view full abstract ]

EUSARF SYMPOSIUM:
Multiple perspectives on improving practices in residential care

Abstract:

The Social Climate in Residential Care
- Views from residents and staff leaders

Abstract:
The social climate in residential care can be understood as a comprehensive and complex domain; a kind of a puzzle with many pieces to be fitted together. The quality of the social climate is important for the well-being of children and young people in care, and for the outcome of treatment.

In a national study from Norway, finished in 2015, 397 residents (12 to 18 years old) and 142 leaders from 86 institutions completed a questionnaire (COPES – Community Oriented Programs Environment Scale) about how they perceived the social climate of their institution. We have used the form R (Real) which measures perceptions on current program environment. COPES measures the social climate on three dimensions: 1) Relationship, 2) Personal Growth and 3) System Maintenance; each consisting of underlying subscales (with a total of 10).

Data showed that the mean scores for residents as well as staff were positive, compared to norms derived from other studies. However, the leaders scored more positively on all dimensions compared to the residents. The biggest difference was on the relationship dimension. We will focus in the presentation on this dimension; because of the difference, but also because it is an important profes-sional tool in social and therapeutic work with clients in different settings. The relationship dimension in COPES consists of the subscales: 1) Involvement, 2) Support and 3) Spontaneity. The leaders scored higher than the residents on all three subscales (significance p<.005 (leaders), p<.001 (residents)), however both informant groups scored highest on subscale “Support”, and lowest on “Involvement”.

Other research also shows similar differences. The following explanations will be discussed: Different expectations about the residential care setting (home – placement), the relational involvement of the staff (parent-substitute - professional), individual core values, and asymmetric and bureaucratic structure of the institution with respect to power and participation.

Author: Torill Tjelflaat, University of Science and Technology, Norway;
torill.tjelflaat@ntnu.no
Co-author: Tormod Rimehaug, University of Science and Technology, Norway;
tormod.rimehaug@ntnu.no