1 2 18 th Iaps Conference Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation July 7 – 10....

transcript

18th Iaps Conference

Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation

July 7 – 10. 2004Vienna - Austria

Meggie MAALOUF Lebanon

Children housing relationships

in differently structured welfare institutions

- IN LEBANON -

Comparative StudyComparative Study

Purpose of this study

• Determine a child’s ability to cope on his new environment (socially & physically) :

• Evaluate environmental conditions that promote children well-being when living away from their original homes and families.

Problematic Conditions• The early social and physical environment that

the home provides for the child has a marked impact on his emotional expressions. So, valorized housing places & things become full in positive affects and constitute, subsequently a field of attachment.

• When the child is forced to move far from the parental house and to relocate to Welfare homes, does his/her environmental experience change, and does it differ from one to another type of welfare home ??

Theoretical basis

• Construct with reference to :

–The person’s interaction with the home environment

–Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980}

–Place attachment (bonds) (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983; Low, 1992)

Two types of Lebanese children welfare homes

• SOS Children’s villages

• Children’s Welfare institutions

Welfare institutions are classified into five categories

Babies0-5 years

Youth14-25 years

Children5-14 years

Delinquent persons

Elderly

Welfare institutions environment

• 200 Housings

• 24 547 children between the ages of 0 and 14 years.

• Capacity.

• Type of activities : Collectiveness (eating, studies, recreation, sports, games)

• Living room, dining room, bedrooms, etc… are used unanimously.

SOS Children’s Villages

• Physical Environment :

• Number – Structure• Houses’ architecture (large, very spacious,

well-designed, well-equiped and furnished)• Outside houses : gardens, playground, sports

ground, theater, workshops.

• Social Environment • Educative team (Personnel project for every

child).

Methodological procedure

Investigation by questionnaire

Drawing of a house-Scale Evaluation-

Commentary of drawing

Observation

Themes of Drawing’s scale

- Home hospitality- Home sadness, isolation- Self investment in the home versus

detachment- Socialization- Sense of security : feeling secure versus

unsafe- Position of drawing on paper- Etc…

From Questionnaire & Commentary

• Eg. for checking Environmental attachment:

• Name the place where you feel comfortable and secure (favorite place).

• What does this place make you think about ?• Would you like to own the house you drew ?• Who does the house belong to ?• Which is you favorite room ?• With who would you like to live in the home?

Eg. from elements for checking home hospitality

- A door- A chimney or the equivalent- A light- A balcony- A stairs / steps- Open or large pathway- Environment : persons, vegetation, animals- Open spaces (windows, skylight, bulls’eye).- Well designed interior (curtains, furniture)

Types of variables

S.O.S. Villages

Welfare institutions

Female 35 % (14) 57,9 % (55)

Male 65 % (26) 42,1 % (40)

Christian 77,5 % (31) 43,2 % (41)

Muslem 22,5 % (09) 56,8 % (54)

Sample Characteristics

Sibling of origin compositionNumbers S.O.S.

villagesWelfare institutions

0 - 2 children 22,5 %

2 – 4 children 22,5 % 20.0 %

4 – 6 children 30,0 % 22,1 %

6 – 8 children 25,0 % 22,1 %

8 – 10 children 15,8 %

10 and over 20,0 %

Sibling members at welfare homes

Number S.O.S. Village

0 – 2 persons 43 % 67 %

2 – 4 persons 37 % 23 %

4 – 6 persons 20 % 10 %

Reasons for parental absence

Reasons* S.O.S. Villages

Death 68 % 37 %Parental conflicts / Separation

40 % 33 %

Diseases 15 % 24 %

Other (imprisonment, kidnapping, sudden disappearance)

15 % 07 %

The most important reasons for being away from family.

Length of residence

Residential age S.O.S. Village

2 – 4 Years 57 % 45 %

4 – 6 Years 25 % 28 %

6 Years and over 18 % 27 %

Residential mobility

S.O.S. Village

Once 67 % 39 %

Twice 28 % 50 %

Three times 5 % 11 %

RESULTSRESULTS

Environmental behavior is differently expressed in

each of those two housings.

Sense ofprivacy

Personalspace

Avoidanceof place

SOS Villages

Welfareinstitutions

0102030405060708090

Sense offreedom

Sense ofbelonging

Desire toown ahouse

Personalgadgets

SOS Villages

Welfare Institutions

The commentary on the drawings reveals

that socialization, self investment,

satisfaction and feeling of security

are higher in Welfare institutions than in SOS villages.

Security Socialization Residentialunsatisfaction

Selfinvestment

SOSVillages

WelfareInstitutions

Study reveals an Environmental attachment

- Home- Home- Places considered as home- Places considered as home- Relatives’ homes- Relatives’ homes- Home range- Home range

Home Attachment

Attachment towards S.O.S. Villages

Local residence 30% 5%

Future home 60% 8%

Parental home 20% 70%

Attachment to places considerd asHome

Places as home S.O.S. Villages

S.O.S or Institutions 30%

Home of origin (birth place) ***

12% 24%

Relatives’ home 12% 65%

***Home of origin, birth place, refers to

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

(family, friends, relatives)

POSITIVE EXPERIENCES

Personal experiencesChildhood memories

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

One’s own homeRelatives homes

Birth place

Attachment to home range

Home range

S.O.S. Villages

1- Sports ground /playground 12% 50%

2- Water spaces : sea, lake, pool, etc…

80% 09%

3-Verdant places / greenery 02% 32%

4- Cultural places 6% 11%

Attachment to places inside home

S.O.S. villages

Bedroom

70 %Dining room

Library 13%

Other places

Bedroom

17%Dining room

Library 15%

Other places

Favorite places according to GENDER

BOYSBOYS

Dining room

Playground

Sports ground

Functional spaces

Cultural space Relative’s houses Native place

Bedroom

Favorite places Characteristics

»BOYS

• GIRLS

• Social activities

• Play

• Media

• Privacy / Intimacy• Isolation• Culture• Emotion and affectivity

Unpleasant places are related to

• Functionality*

• Restrictiveness

• Unsatisfaction (Geographic conditions, fear, sadness)

• Loss of family

The results reveal two Types of attachment

• Generic attachment (McAndrew)

• Geographic Attachment (Stokols & Shumaker)

Generic Attachment(Based on the Environmental Qualities)

• Strong bonds with a certain characteristics which can be found in various places (water…)

Geographic Attachment

• To have a strong bonds with a specific places (parental home…),

Why ??? !!!

• While children are living in welfare institutions, do they express strong

bonds to family housings?

• Do they feel attached to deserted and distant places such as parents, sibling and relatives’ homes ?

Given the perfect physical environment home in Villages,

Why do SOS children invest themselves emotionally into

imaginary places like a future home?

SOCIAL CLIMATE

A large part of these results draw our attention to the specific role

of the SOCIAL CLIMATE

in the emergence of attachment bonds

Frequent signs of place attachment have been the

existence of social relationships in the family home environment and

the neighborhoods.

The results, showing that the social attachment is greater than the physical one, highlight a new

process

Residential Social Hope

Lacking family support and being away from the parental home,

The CHILDRENare able to develop positive relationships to their original

home (4 points)

<<< Residential Social Hope

1 To remain connected to the family ROOTS

2 To be assured

that the PARENTAL HOME always EXISTS

3To live with the HOPE to RETURN definitively to the Home of origin

or to the relatives’ ones.

4To Believe in Social

Environmental CARE and LOVE

(parents, sibling, relatives, neighborhoods)

Thank you for your attention

1 2 18 th Iaps Conference Strategies for Environmental Research and Implementation July 7 – 10....

Documents