Repression in Residential Youth Care: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Residential youth care settings should provide youth with safe environments where they are supported and treated. However, there are aspects of residential youth care that threaten its effectiveness, and which may also violate children's rights. Staff members exercise power over the youth, which can be abused to coerce, punish, or limit the autonomy of youth. Currently, the harmful behavior of staff includes repression through such acts as harsh and unfair control, punishment, and lack of autonomy granting. However, research on the exact nature of repression is lacking, which hampers empirical research on repression in residential youth care, and makes it difficult for residential settings to recognize repression and take the right corrective measures. A scoping review of the available literature is conducted from a humanistic, social psychological, and organizational perspective to examine the nature of repression and to provide a valid definition and its antecedents. This article offers implications for preventing, recognizing, and diminishing repression in residential youth care.

Youth climate activists meet environmental governance: ageist depictions of the FFF movement and Greta Thunberg in German newspaper coverage

“…Yet, this underestimation is typical for paternalism. The exertion of paternalism aligns with the literature on the exposure of young people, including Greta Thunberg, to paternalism in the public setting (De Valk et al 2016;Sheleff 1984). In the exposure of young people to paternalist domination, essentialist relations between young and old are reinforced, with young people being portrayed as lacking experience and being unable to see to their own interests as children.…”

Psychometric properties of the Group Climate Instrument (GCI) in individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning

“…'Clients must ask permission for everything') did not load significantly on the repression factor as a result of which it was deleted from the model to improve model fit. This finding may be related to the fact that the repression subscale had relatively lower loadings on the overall climate scale but also to the heterogeneity among the items in order to adequately capture the multifaceted nature of the construct (Van der Helm et al 2011a;Heynen et al 2014;De Valk et al 2016). The finding that this item is unsuitable to measure repression cannot be explained by current research.…”

“…; De Valk et al . ). The finding that this item is unsuitable to measure repression cannot be explained by current research.…”

“…; De Valk et al . ). ‘Atmosphere’, finally, indicates the degree to which structure, security and trust among clients is fostered by both the physical and the social environment within the living group (Van der Helm et al .…”

“…exercising responsibility, choice and decision-making) is essential for clients to be able to develop socially and emotionally (Van der Helm et al 2011a;Ryan & Deci 2017). 'Repression' assesses perceptions of a lack of autonomy that threatens the basic psychological need of connectedness, competence and autonomy: strictness and control, unfair rules, lack of flexibility on the living group and boredom among clients (Harvey 2007;Van der Helm et al 2009;Van der Helm et al 2011a;De Valk et al 2016). 'Atmosphere', finally, indicates the degree to which structure, security and trust among clients is fostered by both the physical and the social environment within the living group (Van der Helm et al 2009;Van der Helm et al 2011a).…”