and reach thousands of daily visitors
24 MARCH 2010
NO 1558
Residential settings, their size
Most comparative studies in the area of residential education have failed to find a clear correlation between the size of establishment, placement outputs (i.e., the number of children who graduate) and child outcomes once other factors are taken into account. To our knowledge, only one study (Sinclair and Gibbs, 1998) challenges these findings.
Although size may not be important for outcomes, it clearly produces its own problems of structure and communication. The message from organizational theory is that size does not become important until the organizational demands of the institution displace its primary functions, such as when welfare or education aims are displaced by a concern for process or administration.
Size is a tool in institutional management and has to be used intelligently to produce benefits. If the significance of size is considered for different types of residential institutions, some general conclusions emerge. For example, in Western countries, larger institutions may be able to draw on more resources, and offer a broader choice of activities and treatment opportunities. Large institutions can be especially effective if they are subdivided into smaller living groups and if there are good relationships between staff and residents.
On the other hand, if the aims of the establishment are measured by performance, a certain size might be necessary to achieve the desired range of programs or certain cost efficiencies. Although large institutions may benefit from economies of scale, large size also has costs such as heavy administrative structures and an undue focus on process and bureaucracy. There is also frequent confusion between size and function. Large institutions may be difficult to run but can be stimulating for young people. Coleman and Hendry (1999) stress the benefits of a variety of experiences for children and adolescents (e.g., a well-defined supportive family structure, a bigger peer group, and broader opportunities for exploration).
Studies of the relationship between size and outcomes suggest that size is in itself less significant than the way an establishment is managed. Evidence about classroom size in the U. S. for example, shows that a reduction of class size to around 20 does help younger children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, but only under conditions necessary for effective implementation. For example, teachers must know how to take advantage of the opportunities that small size offers.
In summary, the evidence considered suggests that the question set in the title of this paper is too general to be useful. A more fruitful approach may be to view size as a means to other ends. A three-stage approach might be more helpful to policy makers and practitioners in considering the size of an establishment. The first is to determine the aims of the residential institution. Are the aims to promote child development, to shelter, to treat behavior problems, to control, or to educate? The outcomes sought will naturally differ in particular historical periods (Parker 1988) but it is possible to chart them, whether in terms of societal expectations or what staff believe they can achieve for children (Brown et al., 1988; Dartington Social Research Unit, 1998).
The second stage is to decide what practices are known from research to promote these aims. Here, there is more information in some areas than others (Bullock, Millham, and Little, 1993, Department of Health, 1998). For example, there is more research on approaches to reducing anti-social behavior than on managing family contacts.
The third stage is to ask what organizational features (including processes and culture) facilitate these desired practices (Dartington Social Research Unit, 1999) and what structures and training need to be put in place to achieve them. Inevitably size will be one of these considerations. This approach has the advantage of moving away from seeking general effects of size, a perspective that has been found to be limited. It introduces size as an important variable at a particular stage of planning. Hopefully this will lead to better decisions about the organizational aspects of residential institutions and better outcomes for children. The strength of this approach is that it enables policy makers and practitioners to consider size as an important variable – not in its own right – but at a particular stage in planning.
S. CHIPENDA-DANSOKHO AND THE CENTRE FOR SOCIAL POLICY
Chipenda-Dansokho, S.and
The Centre for Social Policy. (2003). The determinants and influence of
size on residential settings for children. International Journal of
Child and Family Welfare, 6, 3. pp.72-73.
REFERENCES
Bullock, R.; Millham, S. and Little, M. (1993). Residential care for children: A review of the research. London: HMSO.
Brown, E; Bullock, R.; Hobson, C. and Little, M.(1998). Making residential care work: Structure and culture in children's homes. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Coleman, J. and Hendry, L. (1999). The nature of adolescence. London: Routledge.
Dartington Social Research Unit. (1998). Structure, culture and outcome: How to improve residential services for children.
Dartington Social Research Unit. (1999). Matching needs and services.
Department of Health. (1998). Caring for children away from home: Messages from research. Chichester: Wiley and Son.
Parker, R. (1988). An historical background. In National Institute for social workA, Residential care: The research reviewed (pp. 1-38). London: HMSO.
Sinclair, L. and Gibbs, I. (1998). Children's homes: A study in diversity. Chichester: Wiley and Son.
