This study explores the perceptions of formerly institutionalized adults in Portugal regarding the challenges they faced after leaving residential care. It aims to understand the feelings experienced upon leaving the institution; to infer the facilitating and inhibiting factors of post-institutionalization transition, and to outline proposals for improving support during this transition. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adults aged 24 to 39. The first and second-order categories were identified within three thematic axes. Results highlighted that the cessation of care was essentially remembered with negative feelings. Facilitating factors included academic commitment, social support, having or going to start a professional activity, and the transition to an independent living apartment emerged as facilitating factors. Poor functional skills, economic struggles, limited reality understanding, lack of formal support during the transition out of institutions, and social stigma emerged as inhibiting factors. Multiple personal and contextual factors influenced coping with transition challenges, emphasizing the need for qualified support and investment in promoting autonomy and self-confidence.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite
Abrunhosa, F., Novo, R., & Prada, A. (2024). Adult’s perceptions after residential care: facilitating and inhibiting factors. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.17979/reipe.2024.11.2.10399
Fernanda Abrunhosa, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança: https://www.ipb.pt Bragança, Portugal
Rosa Novo, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança: https://www.ipb.pt Bragança, Portugal
Ana Prada, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança
Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar em Educação e Desenvolvimento (CITED), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança: https://cited.ipb.pt/ Bragança, Portugal
Abrunhosa, Novo, and Prada: Adult’s perceptions after residential care: facilitating and inhibiting factors
The transition from residential care to independent living is often abrupt (; ), shifting from a structured and supportive environment, leading to unrealistic expectations
(). While some perceive this coming out as freedom, many former foster youth are unprepared
for this change, lacking the maturity, skills, and resources for independent living
(; ; ; ; ). The loss of supportive relationships can exacerbate feelings of abandonment, anxiety,
and uncertainty about the future (). This transition is even more difficult for those without consistent family support
(; ). Due to this quick and often unsupported transition, they face higher risks of homelessness,
substance abuse, lower academic achievements, unemployment, poverty, or incarceration
(; ). Although this transition is challenging, research has expanded to include resilient
and successful paths (; ), recognizing the post-institutionalization transition as an idiosyncratic process
of adjustment over time.
This study adopts Bronfenbrenner and Morris' bioecological model (2006), providing
a comprehensive framework for understanding the multiple individual factors and environmental
contexts interacting over time to influence human development. Drawing on reviewed
literature on post-residential transition, facilitating and inhibiting factors are
then outlined within this theoretical model.
The biopsychological characteristics of the person influence development by shaping
the direction and intensity of proximal processes throughout life (). Young people with cognitive and socio-emotional difficulties or exposure to traumatic
situations may require specialised support, which can influence this transition (). Engagement in escape behaviours during care and experiencing loneliness, fear,
and abandonment (), along with early care abandonment (), immaturity () and lack of functional skills (; ; ; ) can inhibit transition. Conversely, talents nurtured during residential care, altruism,
positive self-concept, beliefs and religious practices promoting personal agency,
and the ability to overcome challenges emerge as protective factors ().
Microsystems, the immediate environments of direct interactions, significantly impact
an individual's growth (). Support figures in the family context and friendship context facilitate the transition
(), while lack of social support poses risks (). Many youths lack social support beyond formal care relationships (; ; ), highlighting the need for individualised support for successful transitions (; ; ; ; ; ; ). Supportive adults are vital emphasising the importance of enduring relationships
over more independence (; ). Engaging youth in decision-making and developing independent living skills and
qualifications are also protective factors (; ; ).
In the institutional context, professionals who build trusting and supporting relationships
are crucial for a successful transition (; ; ; ; ; ; ). Conversely, professionals treating their role as merely a job, high caregiver-to-youth
ratios, instability, and turnover hinder emotional bonds and transition (). Limited exposure to external realities and overprotection also obstructs the transition
process (; ; ).
The mesosystem comprehends the interconnections between different microsystems (). Employment post-residential care is crucial both financially and psychosocially,
strengthening self-sufficiency and self-esteem (; ; ; ). However, unemployment, lack of transitional housing, and insufficient post-institutionalization
support are inhibiting factors (). Programs that facilitate a gradual transition and relationships with specialized
professionals are identified as facilitating factors (; ; ; ; ; ).
The macrosystem refers to the broadest level of environmental influences on human
development, including ideologies, cultural values, economic conditions, laws, and
social policies (). State financial support can serve as a protective factor in the transition (). Although Portugal lacks research (; ) and specific legislation or services concerning the post-institutionalization period,
international studies have explored the benefits of transition support programs (; ; ).
In this context, this study explores the perceptions of adults who were formerly institutionalized
in residential care in Portugal, with the following aims: to understand the feelings
experienced upon leaving the institution; to infer the facilitating and inhibiting
factors of post-institutionalization transition, and to outline proposals for improving
support during this transition. This qualitative and exploratory study was conducted
using semi-structured interviews to capture participants’ subjective experiences,
adopting a hermeneutic approach for interpreting individual constructs, and a dialectical
method to compare these with the researchers’ and theoretical constructs ().
Method
Participants
Criteria for participation included being 18 or older, having received residential
care in institutions located in the north and interior of Portugal, and participating
voluntarily. Two institutions, one for boys and one for girls, from these regions
were selected for convenience, with their names omitted for ethical considerations.
Those under 18 years old or from different areas were excluded.
As illustrated in Table 1, all the eligible 18 adults participated, comprising eight males and ten females,
aged between 24 and 39 years (M = 31.0; SD = 3.7). Marital status varied among the participants, with nine being married or
in a civil union, and nine being single. Only one interviewee held dual nationality
(Portuguese and Spanish), while the rest were Portuguese nationals. Six participants
had one child, and one had two children. After transitioning out of residential care,
eleven individuals had completed the 12th grade (high school), four held a higher education degree (bachelor's degree), two
had finished the 9th grade, and one had completed the 6th grade. Currently, nine participants have attained higher education degrees (bachelor's
or master's), seven completed the 12th grade (high school), and two have finished the 9th grade. Upon leaving residential care, nine interviewees were either employed or about
to start working, while the remaining nine were not working, with two still being
minors. Presently, fifteen participants were employed full-time, two were working
and studying simultaneously, and one was unemployed. When leaving the institution,
all interviewees had accommodation. Six of them (IM-3, IM-4, IM-5, IM-6, IM-7, and
IM-8) transitioned to independent living apartments, four (IF-2, IF-3, IF-5, and IF-6)
rented apartments alone or with a fellow institution colleague (IM-1), and seven returned
to their family context (IM-2, IF-1, IF-4, IF-7, IF-8, IF-9, and IF-10). The length
of stay in residential care ranged from 6 to 19 years, indicating an extended period.
Only two participants (IF-9 and IF-10) left residential care before reaching the legal
age limit, due to family reunification.
Table 1Socio-demographic characterization of the participants
1 IF-2 finished the first year of the master’s degree
2 IF-8 was a finalist for a degree
Instrument
For data collection, a semi-structured interview was chosen, whose script was prepared
based on the literature review (; ; ). It encompassed questions addressing: a) sociodemographic characterization, (age,
marital status, professional status, education level, nationality, and household);
b) the post-institutionalisation period, covering the moment of departure (age and
educational level upon leaving, circumstances leading to departure, emotional experiences,
support received during the transition, and the role of supporters) and the initial
period outside the institution (challenges encountered, coping strategies, and sources
of support); c) current experiences, including personal and professional life projects,
present difficulties, and sources of support; and d) recommendations for autonomisation
and transitioning out of care, incorporating insights from personal experiences, and
suggestions for enhancing autonomy and transition from residential care.
Procedure
Two residential care homes agreed to help in the identification of potential interviewees,
who no longer institutionalised there. Participants were selected based on the institutions'
recommendations and through the snowball effect during interviews. Identified adults
were contacted, informed about the study’s purpose, and consented to voluntary participation
and audio recording. Confidentiality of the data was ensured during the collection
and disclosure process. Interviews sessions were scheduled based on participants’
availability, either in person or virtually, from January to March 2023.
Data analysis
The data treatment technique used was content analysis (). After audio recording the interviews, they were transcribed in their entirety.
Subsequently, they were coded for analysis, using the letter I to refer to the interview,
F for female, and M for male. The digit in the identification indicated the number
of interviewees (IM-1, IF-1...). Thematic analysis was conducted, guided by pre-established
axes (I. Post-institutionalization period; II. Current experiences, and III. Recommendations
for autonomisation and transitioning out of care). A deductive procedure was performed
manually, leading to the identification of first and second-order categories. Thematic
tables were created to synthesize interview content, and frequency counts were applied
to similar references within episodes, ensuring accurate representation. A comprehensive
reflective analysis of the data was then undertaken.
Results
The results are presented and discussed based on the thematic axes and the analysis
of the identified first and second-order categories.
Thematic axis: I. Post-institutionalization period
Within this thematic axis, three first-order categories are analysed, along with their
second-order categories (Table 2).
Table 2Thematic axis I. Post-institutionalization period, first and second-order categories.
First-order categories
Second-order categories
A. Feelings experienced upon leaving residential care (f = 17)
A1. Sadness (f = 7)
A2. Well-being (f = 5)
A3. Loneliness (f = 2)
A4. Helplessness (f = 1)
A5. Anxiety (f = 1)
A6. Relief (f = 1)
B. Difficulties perceived after leaving residential care (f = 18)
B1. Limited functional skills (f = 7)
B2. Absence of institutional support figures (f = 5)
B3. Economic difficulties (f = 2)
B4. Limited knowledge of the surrounding reality (f = 2)
B5. Difficulty in self and hetero regulation of behaviour (f = 1)
B6. Social stigma (f = 1)
C. Resources for an autonomous life (f = 26)
C1. Support from institutional adults (f = 8)
C2. Support from family (f = 7)
C3. Transition to an independent living apartment (f = 5)
C4. Support from peers (f = 3)
C5. Financial autonomy (f = 3)
Feelings experienced upon living residential care
This first order category concerns the feelings and emotional reactions recalled upon
leaving residential care. Six second-order categories were deduced.
"A1. Sadness" emerged as the prominent second-order category, mentioned by four male
and three female participants, suggesting that leaving residential care involves the
loss of close, stable, and secure relationships with professionals and peers: “When
I left, at the time, I felt a little sad (IM-3)”. Given the quality and extended duration
of residential care, participants experienced feelings of sadness in response to loss
or separation from significant bonds and routines (; ; ).
Although less frequent, category “A2. Well-being” appeared in the reports of three
men and two women. Participants noted feeling good and remembered leaving residential
care as an achievement of a personal goal: “I felt good (IM-1)” and “I felt good because
I knew that at some point I had to leave” (IF-2).
There were few references to categories "A3. Loneliness" (f = 2), "A4. Helplessness" (f = 1), and "A5. Anxiety" (f = 1), which emerged only in responses of female interviewees, highlighting the significance
of the institution as their primary source of support. Leaving residential care likely
resulted in loss of the structured routines and familiarity, leading to uncertainty
in adapting to life outside the institution, especially without meaningful social
connections:
It was loneliness. It wasn't easy, I didn't have friends, and the family I had closest
to me lived within a 20 km radius. (IF-6)
It was a bit strange because I lived there for 18 years, I was used to those routines,
it was the life I knew, it's all strange to leave a small town (...) It was strange,
and the home [the institution] was the support I had. (IF-5)
When I left, I felt anxious and apprehensive at the same time. (If7)
Interestingly, only one male interviewee expressed feelings related to the category
"A6. Relief", stating: “I felt relieved (...) [because] I have my space, my life,
without these [institutional] rules” (IM-2). Leaving residential care can symbolize
independence, autonomy, and freedom (), contrasting with the structured and rule-based environment of residential care.
Overall participants, especially female interviewees, predominantly reported experiencing
negative emotional reactions upon leaving the residential care, although individual
experiences varied.
Difficulties perceived after leaving residential care
This first-order category describes the challenges or constraints that participants
retrospectively remember in the immediate period after leaving residential care. Six
second-order categories were identified.
Allusions to category "B1. Limited functional skills" were mentioned by four male
interviewees and three females: “The biggest difficulties were really in dealing with
these bureaucratic aspects, in taking the responsibility of making contracts, paying
bills, and doing household shopping” (IF-7). Females may have been socialized to assume
domestic and caregiving roles, potentially acquiring practical skills earlier or more
frequently. Also, their ability to handle bureaucratic aspects may have been underdeveloped
due to limited opportunities during institutionalization (; ; ; ).
References to category “B2. Absence of institutional support figures” were only found
in five female interviewees: “We lived in the same house with a group of friends who
considered themselves family and were always there (...) We had those people whom
we considered as family, and then they were no longer there” (IF-8). The data indicate
that they lived with a group of peers and received the support of professionals who
became like a family to them. Leaving the institution often results in a loss of significant
social support (), a concern primarily raised by female interviewees, who may establish closer bonds,
intensifying the sense of loss or separation.
The category “B3. Economic difficulties” was mentioned only by two male interviewees,
who referred to the vulnerability and challenges they faced in transitioning to independent
living, without sufficient resources or support: “It happened that I didn't have a
place to sleep, didn't have anywhere to eat, or didn't have money to eat” (IM-2).
Male interviewees lacked familiar support that could have assisted during times of
economic difficulties.
The category "B4. Limited knowledge of the surrounding reality" was exclusively cited
by two female interviewees: “There's a certain protection; we are girls, and we spend
all that time without knowing the reality outside” (IF-3). Probably, females exhibited
limited awareness of their surroundings, likely due to overprotection ().
The category "B5. Difficulty in self and hetero regulation of behaviour" was evident
in the report of only one female interviewee: “We thought we were already grown up
(...); it was a period of quite a rebellion when we returned home” (IF-9). Overcoming
this difficulty depended solely on professional intervention, stressing the crucial
need for support for both youth and families during the post-institutionalization
transition ().
Within the category "B6. Social stigma", one male cited the stigmatized perception
of ex-institutionalized young people: “To be basically rejected (...) Outside, we
have not seen the way they raise us inside (...) I wanted to rent a house, and some
didn't want to rent to me because I lived in an institution” (IM-2). These difficulties
are also addressed in the literature (; ; ).
Resources for an autonomous life
This first-order category refers to the essential skills and (in)formal supports necessary
for a successful transition after residential care. Five second-order categories had
emerged and are explained below.
The most cited second-order category, "C1. Support from institutional adults", was
reported by seven female and one male interviewees: “If I needed any support, I just
had to call [the institution], and the fact that we talked was already good, they
would advise me” (IF-4). Female participants notably acknowledged the relevance of
institutional support, likely reflecting their greater dependence on these professionals.
This gender trend was also evident in the category “C2. Support from family" (f = 7). In the study, six female interviewees emphasized family support as an essential
resource for establishing an independent life, with only one male mentioning it:
Once in a while, my father would send me 100 or 150€ to help me with something. (IM-4)
When I left, I had the support of my family, my mother, and my sister (...) My sister
has always been my haven, the support was in all matters, particularly in the specific
situation, emotionally, essentially. (IF-8)
Regarding category “C3. Transition to an independent living apartment", only five
male interviewees indicated having this opportunity: “The [independent living] apartments
(...) helped prepare for the post-institutionalization, for a normal life, for what
comes next, for what exists beyond an institution” (IM-7). This option was unavailable
to girls in the study’s geographical area.
Interestingly, the category "C4. Support from peers" was mentioned only by three male
interviewees, especially while living together: “My colleague from the institution
and I left at the same time, and we went to live together (...) I prefer washing the
dishes, but I watched how it was done” (IM-3). The category "C5. Financial autonomy"
was highlighted by only two female and one male participants, probably because were
either employed or about to start professional activity upon leaving residential care:
I have always been very frugal and managed my finances well, but perhaps that was
my greatest challenge (...) I made money and saved it for emergencies (...) I had
to apply for RSI [Social Insertion Income]. (IM-4)
I went to work, I was independent (...) When you leave, it's important to have a job
and a means of subsistence. (IF-1)
Overall, female interviewees predominantly emphasized support from the family microsystem
and adults from their foster care, while male interviewees focused on support from
institutionalized peers.
Thematic axis: II. Current experiences
Concerning this thematic axis, three first-order categories were inferred, along with
their respective second-order categories (Table 3).
Table 3Thematic axis II. Current experiences, first and second-order categories.
First-order categories
Second-order categories
D. Current projects and expectations (f = 17)
D1. The desire for stability and professional recognition (f = 7)
D2. Acquisition of own housing (f = 4)
D3. Investment in qualification (f = 3)
D4. Desire to start a family (f = 3)
E. Current difficulties (f = 12)
E1. Financial difficulties (f = 7)
E2. Personal management (f = 4)
E3. Difficulty in obtaining employment (f = 1)
F. Significant figures in the present (f = 33)
F1. Family (f = 18)
F2. Friends (f = 9)
F3. Employees of the foster care institution (f = 4)
F4. Work colleagues (f = 2)
Current projects and expectations
This first order category captures the future goals and aspirations of the participants.
Four second-order categories emerged.
The second-order category "D1. The desire for stability and professional recognition"
was the most frequently mentioned, reported by six female and only one male interviewees.
Notably, half of the female interviewees were already parents, contrasting with only
25 percent of the male interviewees. This is in line with previous research (; ), which suggests that women often prioritize motherhood and seek a partner over their
professional objectives. In this study, possibly due to their stage in the family
life cycle, probably females, can now prioritize investing in a professional career:
It's like this, now I have my life stabilized, it's just me and my son (...) On a
professional level, I have been in this job for three years, and so far, I have been
doing well, so I hope to continue. (IF-10)
This gender disparity can likewise elucidate why only three male interviewees mentioned
the categories “D2. Acquisition of own housing" and “D4. Desire to start a family”.
Male participants may currently prioritize different goals, placing a stronger emphasis
on acquiring their own home and starting a family. The scarce mention of the category
“D3. Investment in qualification” (only two female and one male interviewees) can
be attributed to the emphasis on education qualification facilitated both during and
after residential care, a factor highlighted in another study ().
Current difficulties
This first order category explores the ongoing challenges participants face, that
can impact their ability to achieve stability and independence in adulthood. Three
second-order categories were inferred.
"E1. Financial difficulties" was the most frequently second-order category mentioned,
described by one male and six female interviewees:
Difficulties... for example, I need to apply for a loan... Like, who am I going to
ask to be my guarantor? Because usually, people choose their parents, and not having
them is a problem... And because I'm a little girl, I feel difficulties. (IF-3)
Of course, the situation in the country where we live, the lack of recognition for
the profession, and the low salaries. (IF-8)
The country's economic instability and lack of family support emerged as critical
factors contributing to increased vulnerability, particularly among female participants
with dependent minors.
On the other hand, difficulties related to "E2. Personal management" were the second
most reported difficulties, particularly, by three male and one female interviewees.
Male participants may not have been adequately prepared by the structure and routine
provided in residential care to develop personal time management skills and functional
competencies:
The biggest difficulty is managing my time. (IM-4)
Right now, I don't have a project (...) I feel a bit disoriented about the next step.
In the institution, I had the support of a psychologist, and it was easier for me
to adapt and talk to her to set new goals (...) Currently, another big difficulty
is cooking; it's complicated. (IM-8)
Only one female interviewee was currently unemployed, reiterating the "E3. Difficulty
in obtaining employment": “My biggest difficulty is finding work” (IF-6).
Significant figures in the present
This first order category identifies the individuals who play crucial roles in the
current lives of participants. Four second-order categories were identified: " F1.
Family" (eight males and ten females), “F2. Friends" (seven females and three males),
"F3. Employees of the foster care institution" (three females and one male) and "F4.
Work colleagues (two males). Regardless of gender, participants highlighted the significant
role of the family in their current lives: “The most important people are my wife
and my son, my siblings, my mother, and my father too” (IM-3) and “My daughter, my
partner/husband, my sisters also have some importance (...) my mother (IF-5). However,
friendships and relationships with professionals from their time in residential care
were emphasized by the female interviewees:
There are staff members with whom I still maintain contact. (IF-4)
My friends who grew up with me in the foster care home, but also those who took the
course with me and others I met throughout my professional life. (IF-5)
Additionally, male interviewees underlined the importance of peers in their work environment:
“I have my boss/teacher who opened all these doors for me to get where I am, I have
my work” colleague (IM-4).
Thematic axis: III. Recommendations for autonomy and transitioning out of care
In this axis, a first-order category "Improvements related to post-institutionalization
transition" (f = 23) highlights participants’ suggestions for enhancing support and resources to
promote youths’ autonomy and transition from residential care. Five second-order categories
were also identified (Table 4).
Table 4Thematic axis III. Recommendations for autonomy and transitioning out of care, first
and second-order categories.
First-order categories
Second-order categories
G. Improvements related to post-institutionalization transition (f = 23)
G1. Call for formal support upon leaving the institution (f = 12)
G2. Promotion of functional autonomy (f = 4)
G3. Qualification of human resources (f = 4)
G4. Investment and trust in personal resources (f = 2)
G5. Clarification of the reason for placement in residential care (f = 1)
Among these second-order categories, only "G1. Call for formal support upon leaving
the institution" (seven females and four males), “G2. Promotion of functional autonomy"
(three females and one male), and "G3. Qualification of human resources" (three females
and one male) were more prominent:
I think the institution should be more present, not all the time, but a call, to know
how the present is going. (IF-4)
At the time when I was there, we didn't have it, in the final part there would have
been, I think there were technicians and psychologists. Maybe if we had initially
had a follow-up (...) We were not accompanied, we had the Sisters and the employees
who were part of the institution there. (IF-5)
Despite limited references, female participants emphasised the need for ongoing specialized
professional support, and to enhance opportunities within residential to promote functional
autonomy and self-sufficiency after leaving residential care, as also highlighted
by . Additionally, in less frequency, the category of "G4. Investment and trust in personal
resources" emerged in the reports of two male interviewees: “People should believe
in their abilities, and we are all capable of achieving something beyond what we believe”
(IM-2). Male participants suggested investing in and having confidence in individual
resources and potential. Also, although rare, the category "G5. Clarification of the
reason for placement in residential care" was notable in the report of one female
interviewee:
I think they should have explained or tried to explain better what happened to me
from the beginning... At the age of 15, I ran away from the institution for three
months because I got in touch with my mother and ran away to be with her. Do I regret
it? Yes, I do, but I also didn't fully understand what was happening. (IF-4)
Conclusions
In this study most adults, particularly females, recalled negative feelings upon departure,
suggesting that residential care was perceived as a close and familiar environment.
The data indicate numerous factors influencing the post-institutionalization transition,
including education level (secondary or higher). Emotional and instrumental support
from adults within the institution upon leaving was recognised as a facilitator, particularly
among the female interviewees, consistent with findings by . Conversely, many male interviewees did not consider the adults from their residential
care as significant figures currently. Informal networks, notably the family microsystem,
played a pivotal role both at the time of departure and currently. A noteworthy finding
is the role of peers as support figures upon leaving the institution, as highlighted
by male participants, while female participants acknowledged peer support in their
current lives. In the exosystem context, transitions to independent living apartments,
supervised by professionals facilitated the acquisition of independent living skills
and pursuit of educational goals. Engaging in professional activities upon leaving
also emerged as a facilitator. At the macrosystem level, there was limited mention
of state support, specifically the Social Insertion Income, a form of financial assistance
for individuals in extreme poverty in Portugal.
Regarding inhibiting factors in the transition, the majority mentioned the lack of
functional skills for independent living, challenges that are well-documented in the
literature (; ; ; ; ). Economic difficulties and limited knowledge of the surrounding reality were also
highlighted, albeit less frequently, consistent with previous studies (; ; ). Male interviewees emphasized economic challenges upon leaving, potentially due
to less family support, while females exclusively mentioned unfamiliarity with the
surrounding reality. Economic difficulties were also emphasised by female interviewees
currently. Considering the exosystem, like other studies (; ), the absence of formal support figures in the post-institutionalisation transition
was noted, particularly by the female interviewees. At the macrosystem level, social
stigma emerged as a significant barrier to the transition (; ), particularly in hindering access to housing rentals.
The study’s focus on adults recalling their experiences between 2002 and 2020 warrants
a cautious interpretation of the data. It solely gathered perspectives from adults
without incorporating interviews with their families or professionals. Future research
should prioritize longitudinal studies to comprehensively explore the complex interplay
between personal and distal variables that influence adaptation to the post-institutionalization
transition.
The findings of this study carry implications for both practice and future research.
They highlight residential care's role in fostering independent living skills and
the importance of robust support networks during this transition. Family involvement
should be promoted whenever possible, and conditions conducive to family reunification
should be fostered to facilitate the (re)establishment of relationships and the resumptions
of parental roles (). Formal support at the time of leaving the institution is needed to address the
multiplicity of socio-emotional difficulties and needs, consistent with existing literature
(; ; ; ). It is essential to invest in services and public policies that meet the needs of
young people during the post-institutionalization transition, safeguarding potential
situations of vulnerability and social exclusion.
References
1
ALDERSON, Hayley; SMART, Deborah; KERRIDGE, Gary; CURRIE, Graeme; JOHNSON, Rebecca;
KANER, Eileen; LYNCH, Amy; MUNRO, Emily; SWAN, Jacky & MCGOVERN, Ruth (2023). Moving
from ‘what we know works’ to ‘what we do in practice’: An evidence overview of implementation
and diffusion of innovation in transition to adulthood for care experienced young
people. Child & Family Social Work, 28, 869-896. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12998
2
AMADO, João (2014). Manual de investigação qualitativa em educação (2th Ed.). Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.
3
ARIZMENDI, José & ALMEIDA, Ana (2017). Reunificação familiar e acolhimento residencial
em Portugal-Norte: visões dos intervenientes. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicologia y Educación, 5. https://doi.org/10.17979/reipe.2017.0.05.2371
4
ARTAMONOVA, Alyona; GUERREIRO, Maria das Dores & HÖJER, Ingrid (2020). Time and context
shaping the transition from out-of-home care to adulthood in Portugal. Children and Youth Services Review, 115, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105105
5
BARDIN, Laurence (2016). Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70.
6
BERZIN, Sthephnie C; SINGER, Erin & HOKANSON, Kimberly (2014). Emerging Versus Emancipating:
The Transition to Adulthood for Youth in Foster Care. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(5), 616-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414528977
7
BRONFENBRENNER, Urie & MORRIS, Pamela A. (2006). The bioecological model of human
development. In Richard. M. Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development: Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 1) (6th Ed.) (pp. 793-828). John Wiley & Sons.
8
CAMERON, Claire; HOLLINGWORTH, Katie; SCHOON, Ingrid; VAN SANTEN, Eric; SCHRÖER, Wolfgang;
RISTIKARI, Tiina; HEINO, Tarja & PEKKARINEN, Elina (2018). Care leavers in early adulthood:
How do they fare in Britain, Finland and Germany? Children and Youth Services Review, 87, 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.031
9
CASSARINO-PEREZ, Luciana; MONTSERRAT, Carme & CASTELLÀ SARRIERA, Jorge (2020). Fatores
protetivos e de pisco na transição entre o acolhimento institucional e a vida adulta.
Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 20(1), 142-167. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2020.50794
10
CUENCA PARÍS, M. Elena; CAMPOS HERNANDO, Gema & GOIG MARTÍNEZ, Rosa M. (2018). El
tránsito a la vida adulta de los jóvenes en acogimiento residencial: El rol de la
familia. Educación XX1, 21(1), 321-344. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/706/70653466015.pdf
11
DOUCET, Melanie M.; GREESON, Johanna K. P. & ELDEEB, Nehal (2022). Independent living
programs and services for youth 'aging out' of care in Canada and the U.S.: A systematic
review. Children and Youth Services Review, 142, 106630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106630
12
FERNÁNDEZ-SIMO, Deibe & CID-FERNÁNDEZ, Xosé M. (2018). Análisis longitudinal de la
transición a la vida adulta de las personas segregadas del sistema de protección a
la infancia y a la adolescencia [Longitudinal analysis of the transition to adulthood
of people separeted form the Child and Adolcescent Welfare System]. Bordón, 70(2), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2018.54539
13
FERNÁNDEZ-SIMO, Deibe; CID-FERNÁNDEZ, Xoxé M. & CARRERA-FERNÁNDEZ, María V. (2022).
Socio-educational support deficits in the emancipation of protected youth in Spain.
Child Youth Care Forum, 51, 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-021-09631-3
14
FUREY, Rosemary & HARRIS-EVANS, Jean (2021). Work and resilience: Care leavers' experiences
of navigating towards employment and independence. Child & Family Social Work, 26(3), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12822
GRADAÍLLE, Rita; MONTSERRAT, Carme & BALLESTER, Lluís (2018). Transition to adulthood
from foster care in Spain: A biographical approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 89, 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.020
18
GREESON, Johanna K. P. (2013). Foster youth and the transition to adulthood: The theoretical
and conceptual basis for natural mentoring. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467780
19
GUNAWARDENA, Nathali & STICH, Christine (2021). Interventions for young people aging
out of the child welfare system: A systematic literature review. Children and Youth Services Review, 127, 106076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106076
20
HÄGGMAN-LAITILA, Arja; SALOKEKKILÄ, Pirkko & KARKI, Suyen (2020). Integrative review
of the evaluation of additional support programs for care leavers making the transition
to adulthood. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 54, 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2020.05.009
21
HARDER, Annemiek T.; MANN-FEDER, Varda; OTERHOLM, Inger & REFAELI, Tehila (2020).
Supporting transitions to adulthood for youth leaving care: Consensus based principles.
Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105260
22
HLUNGWANI, Joyce & VAN BREDA, Adrian D. (2020). Female care leavers' journey to young
adulthood from residential care in South Africa: Gender-specific psychosocial processes
of resilience. Child & Family Social Work, 25(4), 915-923. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12776
23
JAIROT GARCÍA, Mercé; SALA ROCA, Josefina & ARNAU SABATÉS, Laura (2015). Jóvenes tutelados
y transición a la vida independiente: indicadores de éxito. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 26(2), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.26.num.2.2015.15218
24
KOTHARI, Brianne H.; BLAKESLEE, Jennifer & MILLER, Rebecca (2020). Individual and
interpersonal factors associated with psychosocial functioning among adolescents in
foster care: A scoping review. Children Youth Services Review, 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105454
25
LÓPEZ, Mónica; SANTOS, Iriana; BRAVO, Amaia & VALLE, Jorge F. (2013). El proceso de
transición a la vida adulta de jóvenes acogidos en el sistema de protección infantil.
Anales de Psicología, 29(1), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.1.130542
26
MARTÍN, Eduardo; MONTESERRAT, Carme & CROUS, Gemma (2023). Transitioning to adulthood
from a gender perspective: young care leavers after 25 years of age. Revista de Educación, 399, 151-172. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2023-399-565
27
PINHEIRO, Micaela; MAGALHÃES, Eunice & BAPTISTA, Joana (2022). Adolescents’ Resilience
in Residential Care: A Systematic Review of Factors Related to Healthy Adaptation.
Child Indicators Research, 15(3), 819-837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021-09883-4
28
PINHEIRO, Micalea; MAGALHÃES, E., CALHEIROS, Maria M. & MACDONALD, Diana (2024). Quality
of Relationships Between Residential Staff and Youth: A Systematic Review. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 41, 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00909-6
29
REFAELI, Tehila (2020). Needs and availability of support among care-leavers: A mixed-methods
study. Child & Family Social Work, 25(2), 412-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12697
30
SHPIEGEL, Svetlana; SIMMEL, Cassandra; SAPIRO, Beth & QUIROZ, Silvia R. (2021). Resilient
Outcomes among Youth Aging-Out of Foster Care: Findings from the National Youth in
Transition Database. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 16(4), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2021.1899098
31
SILVA, Ana D.; OLIVEIRA, Kelly & MARQUES, Cátia (2019). Autonomização de jovens em
acolhimento residencial: Discursos e significados. Configurações [Online], 23. https://doi.org/10.4000/configuracoes.7305
32
STORØ, Jan (2016). Which transition concept is useful for describing the process of
young people leaving state care? A reflection on research and language. European Journal of Social Work, 20(5), 770-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1255879
33
WENDT, Bruna; DULLIUS, Luana & DELL’ AGLIO, Débora (2017). Imagens sociais sobre jovens
em acolhimento residencial. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 37(2), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-3703004012016
34
ZAPPE, Jana G.; PATIAS, Naiana D.; PATRÍCIO, Joana N.; CALHEIROS, Maria M.; GARRIDO,
Margarida V.; LOPES, Diniz & DELL AGLIO, Débora D. (2017). Imagens sociais de famílias
com filhos em acolhimento e em contexto familiar: Um estudo entre Brasil e Portugal.
Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 17(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2017.34771
