Psychosocial profile of Spanish and Portuguese family preservation users: an analysis of needs and intervention clues

81 PSYCHOSOCIAL PROFILE OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE FAMILY PRESERVATION USERS: AN ANALYSIS OF NEEDS AND INTERVENTION CLUES Lara Ayala-Nunes1 Maria Victoria Hidalgo García2 Lucía Jiménez3 Saul Neves de Jesus4 ABSTRACT At-risk families live under circumstances that hinder their parenting competences, compromising their ability to fulfill their children’s needs appropriately. The complex and multiple-source nature of the adversities that they endure makes family preservation interventions challenging. Because their efficacy largely depends on the extent to which interventions fit participants’ needs and characteristics, the aims of this study were to draw the sociodemographic (individual, family, economic, labor, and child-related variables) and psychosocial profile (negative life events, parenting stress, and psychological distress symptomatology) of Spanish and Portuguese family preservation users while testing the inter-country differences. The results showed that the majority of participants had a low educational level, were unemployed, and were poor. Spanish and Portuguese participants had suffered an average of 5 and 4 negative life events over the past 3 years, respectively, with a high emotional impact. The most common were labor precariousness and economic hardship. Clinical levels of parenting stress were found in 48.1% of the Spanish participants and 39.1% of the Portuguese participants. An important proportion of the participants had clinical levels of psychological distress (Spain = 71.9%; Portugal = 45.8%), indicating the presence of mental health problems. Families’ support needs are discussed and guidelines for interventions aimed at improving parents’ and children’s well-being are outlined. Keywords: At-Risk Families, Psychosocial Profile, Negative Life Events, Parenting Stress, Psychological Distress, Family Preservation, Child Welfare Services. JEL Classification: I30 1. INTRODUCTION Despite the major demographic and societal changes that Western countries have undergone since the beginning of the twentieth century, family still remains the main context for human development. A family can be characterized as a union of people who share a project of common living, with strong feelings of membership, intense and intimate bonds, reciprocity, and dependency. A family promotes and supports children’s and adults’ development, helping children to build their self-esteem and sense of identity, to face challenges, to take 1 Lara Ayala-Nunes, University of Seville, Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Seville, Spain. ([email protected]) 2 Maria Victoria Hidalgo García, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. ([email protected]) 3 Lucía Jiménez, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. ([email protected]) 4 Saul Neves de Jesus, University of Algarve, Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Faro, Portugal. ([email protected]) Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 82 responsibilities, and to make commitments. It is also a safety net that remains available when everything changes and the sense of personal continuity is in jeopardy. Caregivers guarantee the survival and healthy growth of their children, give them love and support, encourage them to interact competently with their environment, and promote children’s socialization (Palacios & Rodrigo, 1998). Unfortunately, some family contexts fail to fulfill children’s basic needs; therefore, children’s development and well-being as well as their accomplishment of age-appropriate developmental tasks are hindered (Rodrigo et al., 2008; Sandler, 2001). Factors like single parenthood, a low educational level, poverty, labor precariousness, and living in a dangerous neighborhood hamper parenting and add further stress to the normal hassles of being a mother or a father (Rodrigo et al., 2009). At-risk families are defined as those that face several adversities that compromise their parenting competence without reaching a severity threshold that requires child out-of-home placement (Hidalgo et al., 2009; Rodrigo et al., 2008). Over the last three decades, interventions with at-risk children and their families have progressively shifted from a deficit-focused, welfare perspective to one of family strengthening and preservation (Hidalgo et al., 2009). Transnational mandates highlight the need for an intervention philosophy with at-risk families that focuses on strengthening their resources while supporting them through a broad range of services that must deliver assistance beyond financial or material resources. Interventions must aim to improve family functioning, prevent child maltreatment, and promote family and child well-being (Bagdasaryan, 2005; Rodrigo et al., 2012a). Thus, the action lines recommended by the Council of Europe have materialized into Recommendation 19 on Policy to Support Positive Parenting (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 2006). The purpose of this recommendation is to urge member states to create and support actively Child and Family Protection Services in each country to assist families declared to be at risk. Furthermore, Recommendation 12 on Children’s Rights and Social Services Friendly to Children and Families posits that “social services for children and families should ensure the protection of children from all forms of neglect, abuse, violence and exploitation by preventive measures as well as through appropriate and effective interventions. These should aim for the preservation of family strength and unity, especially in families facing difficulties” (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, 2011). The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2013) has also exhorted state members to invest in children and families and to evaluate how political reforms affect the most vulnerable, adopting measures to reduce their possible negative effects. In Spain the legal concept of risk was introduced in 1996 by the Law of Child Legal Protection (Ley Orgánica de Protección Jurídica del Menor 1/1996). This law establishes that the best way to ensure child protection is to promote the satisfaction of children’s needs within their developmental contexts of origin. According to this law, in risk situations – meaning those in which the harm for the child is not severe enough to justify the child’s separation from his/her family – interventions must aim to eliminate the risk factors. Subsequently, these aims expanded towards a philosophy based on family strengthening and child wellbeing (Rodrigo et al., 2008). Portugal was one of the first countries in the world to have a child protection law, with the first legal act dating back to 1911, after the implementation of the First Republic (Ministério da Justiça, 1911). However, it was not until 1976 that the fundamental rights of children and youths were enshrined in the country’s Constitution. The law that currently regulates interventions for at-risk children (Lei 147/1999) guarantees the promotion of their rights and protection, ensuring their well-being and optimal development through the Commission of Children and Youths Protection (Comissões de Protecção de Crianças e Jovens, CPCJ). This legal Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 83 act establishes that interventions must be made at an early stage, be proportional, be carried out in a timely manner, and be exerted exclusively by the essential institutions to warrant their effectiveness. Among its principles are parental responsibilities for their children and family preservation. There are many similarities between the Spanish and the Portuguese child protection laws: both claim to prioritize family preservation and children’s best interests; the type of situations that require public powers’ intervention (i.e., when children’s safety, health, education, or development are hindered); the state obligations to protect and support families so that they can fully assume their parental responsibilities; and the priority given to alternative care and family placement when child out-of-home placement takes place. Furthermore, in both countries the laws stipulate individual interventions to eliminate risky situations and the adoption of preventive measures to avoid child vulnerability. Nonetheless, there are also significant differences to be noticed. The Portuguese laws do not distinguish between risky and maltreatment/neglect situations; they only mention children and youths in danger without explicitly differentiating the level of severity of dangerous situations. In addition, they do not overtly declare that institutional placement should be a last resort: a temporary action that should have as short a duration as possible. Unlike the Spanish child protection laws, in Portugal the public administration does not guarantee the objectiveness and impartiality of its protective actions and public powers do not have the obligation to prevent child institutional maltreatment. It thus seems that there is a legal void once a child is placed in an institution. Lastly, in the Portuguese laws, there are no references to state actions aimed at promoting protective factors of the child and his/her family. Therefore, there are still many improvements to be made in child protection legislation, namely in terms of reducing institutional dependency and valuing family as the most adequate environment for children’s development. Institutionalization has deleterious effects on child well-being, and calls for expediting and facilitating alternative family placement and adoption measures in cases in which children cannot safely stay in their families of origin have been repeatedly made without success (Olías, 2014; Palacios, 2010). Not only do the child protection laws in Portugal and Spain present important differences, but also the way in which family preservation services are organized is quite different in each country. In Spain Community Social Services, which have been centralized in the Autonomous Communities since 1987, are responsible for the interventions with at-risk children. In Portugal the enforcement of child protective measures is shared among the CPCJs, Juvenile Court, Social Services, and Health and Education Services. This fragmentation of services hinders comprehensive family care because each institution tends to focus on its own perspective, thereby segmenting the interventions aimed to reduce the problems faced by this population (Matos & Sousa, 2004, 2006). In addition to gaps in child protection legislation and organizational challenges, the European recommendations regarding family support and national legislation concerning children’s rights are not being enforced. Both in Spain and in Portugal, the austerity measures applied after the global financial crisis of 2008 have caused a marked increase in short- and long-term unemployment rates, child poverty rates and working poor rates (i.e. people whose work income is not enough to protect them from poverty) (Caritas Europe, 2013). According to Callan et al. (2011), the austerity measures have impoverished the most vulnerable sectors of the population and homes with children have been particularly affected. With rates of child poverty that have been persistently high for many years and were well above the eurozone average before the global financial crisis (Caritas Europe, 2013; Gradín & Cantó, 2011), the data about family poverty in Portugal and Spain after the 2008 financial collapse are shattering. The austerity measures and structural reforms included Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 84 cutbacks in the health and education areas, salary reductions, freezing pensions, reducing or eliminating social benefits, augmenting VAT and taxes, as well as privatizing basic services in the energy and communication sectors, among others. According to the Caritas Europe report (2013), Spain is the EU country with the second-highest rate of child poverty and had a child at-risk-of-poverty rate of 30.5% in 2014, more than 10 points above the EU27 average (20.2%) (Eurostat, 2015). Likewise, Portugal’s child at-risk-of-poverty rate has been above the EU27 average rate since at least 2005 (when comparable data are available from Eurostat). The 2013 rate is 24.4% (more than 4 points above the EU27; Eurostat, 2015). One must bear in mind that these rates are calculated as the share of persons with a disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold (set at 60% of the national median). As the tendency in both countries is an income decrease for the majority of the population, the poverty threshold is becoming lower, which means that people below the threshold one year may not be considered to be at risk of poverty the next year. In addition, as the national median of income in Portugal is lower than that in Spain, in two households with the same income, a Spanish child can be considered at risk of poverty whilst a Portuguese child can be considered not to be at such risk. Additionally, it is very likely that the child poverty rates are underestimated. This is due to the time lag in the availability of data on comparable poverty measures across Europe and the fact that figures are only available in Portugal up to the 2013 period. According to Caritas Europe (2013), “the human cost of the crisis is impossible to assess fully at this stage as its impact is still unfolding with wave after wave of ad-hoc crisis driven measures and a series of structural measures being implemented in each country.” With this scenario in mind, we can safely state that Southern European families are not being supported to fulfill their children’s basic needs and to exert positive parenting and that measures are not being taken to reduce the negative effects that have arisen from austerity measures on children and families, contradicting the European recommendations. These findings are worrisome, since poverty and unemployment have consistently been associated with an increase in child maltreatment incidence (Azar, 2002), and material deprivation has long-term damaging effects on development (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Magnuson & Duncan, 2002). Therefore, it is not surprising that scholars from Spain and Portugal have expressed a growing interest in these families in the past years (Ayala-Nunes et al., 2014; Ayala-Nunes et al., in press; Byrne et al., 2013; Hidalgo et al., 2010; Jiménez et al., 2009; Matos & Sousa, 2004, 2006; Menéndez et al., 2010; Nunes & Ayala-Nunes, 2015; Nunes et al., 2014; Rodrigo & Byrne, 2011; Rodrigo et al., 2012b; Sousa & Ribeiro, 2005; Sousa et al., 2007). These studies have shown that the majority of at-risk families are headed by parents with a low educational level, precarious jobs, and severe financial hardship. The high percentage of single-parent and blended families is also noticeable. For the aforementioned reasons, they tend to have considerable dependence on social services as income sources (Rodrigo & Byrne, 2011). Furthermore, the mothers in these families report having experienced numerous negative life events (NLEs) with a high emotional impact. These factors are stressful for parents, and often their children suffer the consequences of parenting stress, given that the amount and the quality of the resources available to cope with stressors will determine whether dysfunctional parenting will occur (Farkas & Valdés, 2010). If being a parent under normal circumstances is a difficult task, due to the heterogeneity of children’s characteristics, the complexity of developmental processes, and the constant demands that the caregiver role implies (Crnic & Low, 2002), it is expectable that parenting stress is more intense and burdensome when parents face environmental adversities (Anderson, 2008). In fact, studies conducted mainly with North American samples have shown that experiencing high levels of parenting stress is one of the main psychological characteristics that define at- Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 85 risk families (Anderson, 2008; Raikes & Thompson, 2005). Parenting stress has also been associated with concurrent family conflict, exposure to violence, and other NLEs (Whiteside- Mansell et al., 2007). Furthermore, the relationship between low economic status and elevated incidence and prevalence of mental illness has become increasingly apparent (Murali & Oyebode, 2004). Psychological distress is more prevalent in less affluent populations, given that individuals of low socioeconomic status address NLEs more often and have fewer resources to cope with those events (McLeod & Kessler, 1990). Santiago et al. (2011) observed that poverty-related stress not only was directly related to symptoms of depression and anxiety but also interacted with prior symptoms, contributing to worsening the symptoms of delinquency, attention problems, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed symptoms. The available data showed that at-risk parents tend to have life trajectories with many negative and stressful events, such as child and adulthood maltreatment, substance and alcohol abuse, health problems, emotional disorders, and antisocial behavior (Rodríguez et al., 2006). The deleterious effects of parental mental health problems on child development via negative parenting behaviors have been extensively reported, especially the detrimental impact of maternal depression on children’s attachment formation, cognitive abilities, psychopathology, and behavioral and social problems (Carter et al., 2001; Cummings & Davies, 1994; Dix & Meunier, 2009; Goodman, 2007; Goodman & Gotlib, 1999; Goodman et al., 2011; Gross et al., 2008; Kessler et al., 1997; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009). In Portugal studies have focused mainly on the skills and strengths that characterize at-risk families as well as how they use social welfare services. These studies have shown that the majority of these families had a precarious socio-economic profile (Matos & Sousa, 2004, 2006; Sousa & Ribeiro, 2005; Sousa et al., 2007). Therefore, research has suggested that beyond cultural peculiarities, at-risk families from both countries tend to share some significant characteristics, mainly socioeconomic hardship and intense and prolonged contact with social services. Nonetheless, in both countries there is a significant dearth of evidence about the psychological characteristics that define at-risk families besides socioeconomic hardship. Most existing investigations have focused on the description of their sociodemographical profile, but little is known about other individual and family psychological features (e.g., their history of NLEs, how they experience the demands of parenting, mental health problems). Therefore, obtaining evidence about the psychosocial dimensions of at-risk families is essential to design and implement suitable interventions based on their specific needs. This is an important aspect, since the effectiveness of professional actions depends in part on how they adapt to participants’ needs and characteristics (Hutchings & Webster- Stratton, 2004). The aim of this study was threefold: 1) to characterize at-risk families’ profile regarding individual and family sociodemographic dimensions; 2) to determine at-risk families’ number, emotional impact, and type of NLE, parenting stress levels, and psychological distress symptomatology; and 3) to compare the sociodemographic and psychosocial profiles of Portuguese and Spanish families. 2. METHOD Participants The sample consisted of 249 caregivers (73.5% women) with at least 1 child receiving CWS, 52.6% of whom lived in Portugal and the remaining 47.4% of whom lived in Spain. In most cases (96.0%) the caregivers were the children’s biological parents; therefore, the Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 86 term “parents” will be used throughout the article. The Spanish mothers’ average age was 36.24 years (SD = 9.19) and fathers’ average age was 44.20 years (SD = 9.03), while the Portuguese mothers’ average age was 37.90 years (SD = 7.92) and fathers’ average age was 42.81 years (SD = 9.67). In exceptional cases (2.4%), children were living with the other parent due to a separation but the respondent maintained a close relationship with the child. Only 5.8% of the families had experienced previous child placement. Measures Negative life events: To assess this dimension, the Stressful and Risky Life Events Inventory (SRLEI, Hidalgo et al., 2005) was used. It comprises a list of 16 negative events (e.g., economic pressure, unemployment/labor instability, divorce, domestic violence, substance abuse, etc.), allowing researchers to calculate both the number of stressful situations that the individual or people in their immediate environment have experienced and the emotional impact (1 = low affectation to 3 = very high affectation) of these situations on the participant over the past 3 years. The average emotional impact of each negative life event is calculated by dividing the emotional impact score by the number of NLEs that the individual or people in his/her close environment have suffered. Parenting stress: For parents of children who were 12 years old or younger, we used the short version of the Parenting Stress Index (PSI-SF) by Abidin (1995), a 36-item self-report questionnaire anchored on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The PSI-SF assesses 3 dimensions of stress that are associated with the parenting role: parental distress, parent–child dysfunctional interaction, and the perception of the child as a difficult child. The higher the score on the PSI-SF, the greater the distress associated with the function of parenthood. The parental distress subscale (PD) quantifies an individual’s feelings of discomfort with the parenting role (e.g., “I feel that I cannot handle things”). The parent–child dysfunctional interaction subscale (PCDI) evaluates the extent to which the parent feels that the child meets the parent’s expectations and how the interaction makes the parent feel (e.g., “My child doesn’t giggle or laugh much when playing”). The difficult child subscale (DC) focuses on the child’s characteristics and behaviors that facilitate or restrain the mother (e.g., “My child cries or fusses more often than other children”). The minimum and maximum possible scores on the PSI-SF are 12–60 for each subscale and 36– 180 for the PSI-SF total score. This instrument has been widely used in at-risk populations and has been shown to be reliable and valid (Anderson, 2008; Haskett, Ahern, Ward, & Allaire, 2006; Whiteside-Mansell et al., 2007). In our study the reliability indexes for the 3 subscales were PD α = .83, PCDI α = .81, and DC α = .88 for difficult children in the Spanish sample and PD α = .82, PCDI α = .80, and DC α = .89 in the Portuguese sample. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total PSI-SF was .91 and .92 for the Spanish and Portuguese samples, respectively. Because the PSI-SF can only be used with parents of children up to 12 years old, for parents of adolescents we used the Stress Index for Parents of Adolescents (SIPA; Sheras, Abidin, & Konold, 1998). The SIPA is a 112-item self-report questionnaire that reflects the parenting stress levels experienced by parents of adolescents. It offers scores in 4 distinct domains: adolescent, parent, adolescent–parent relationship, and life stressors. The first domain assesses the level of stress experienced by the parent as a result of his/her adolescent’s characteristics (e.g., “My child has sudden changes of feelings or moods”) and includes subscales on moodiness/emotional liability, social isolation/withdrawal, delinquency/ antisocial behavior, and failure to achieve or persevere. The parent domain measures the stress levels that the parent suffers due to the restraints posed by the parenting role on Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 87 other life roles, his or her spouse relationship, social isolation, and the parental sense of competence (e.g., “Since my child became a teenager, my spouse/partner and I don’t spend as much time together as a couple as I had expected”). The subscales included in this domain are life restrictions, relationship with spouse/partner, social alienation, and incompetence/ guilt. Lastly, the third domain explores the perceived quality of the parent–adolescent relationship through indicators such as communication and affection between them (e.g., “My child comes to me for help more than to other people”). Due to the conceptual overlap of the life stressors domain with the SRLEI (Hidalgo et al., 2005), it was not used in this study. The remaining 90 items are anchored on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The reliability indexes for the first 2 domains were satisfactory for both samples (Spain: adolescent α = .92, adolescent–parent relationship α = .91, parent α = .87; Portugal: adolescent α = .92, adolescent–parent relationship α = 88, parent α = .92). To allow comparisons between the parenting stress levels of parents of children and parents of adolescents, the scores of each subscale were divided by the number of subscale items. The minimum and maximum scores for both scales were 1 and 5, respectively. Psychological distress symptomatology: We used the General Health Questionnaire 28 (GHQ- 28; Golberg & Williams, 1996), a self-report questionnaire of 28 items that aims to detect current psychological problems from participants’ reported symptoms in the last weeks. The items are grouped into 4 subscales with 7 items each: somatic symptoms (SS; e.g., “Have you recently been getting any pains in your head?”), anxiety and insomnia (AI; e.g., “Have you recently lost much sleep over worry?”), social dysfunction (SDY; e.g., “Have you recently felt that you were playing a useful part in things?”), and severe depression (SDE; e.g., “Have you recently found that the idea of taking your own life kept coming into your mind?”). Each item is answered on a 4-point scale, on which higher scores correspond to a greater presence of symptoms. To calculate the GHQ-28 scores, 3 alternative methods can be used, 2 of which were followed in this study: 1) the Likert score correction system, assigning values of 0, 1, 2, and 3 from less to more frequently experienced symptoms, and 2) the GHQ score correction system, which aims to determine the number of symptoms present, assigning values of 0, 0, 1, and 1 to responses. The minimum possible score for each subscale in the Likert correction system is 0 and the maximum is 21. The questionnaire showed satisfactory internal reliability indexes in this study (Spain: SS α = .87, AI α = .90, SDY α = .73, SDE α = .89; Portugal: SS α = .84, AI α = .86, SDY α = .72, SDE α = .90). Socio-demographic data: We designed a socio-demographic questionnaire to collect data on participants’ gender, age, academic level, and immigrant status; family size and structure; employment status; and family income and income sources. In addition, data on the target children’s age, gender, history of school failure, existence of a learning disability, and diagnosis of psychological disorders, as well as previous child placement, were gathered. Procedure This study was part of a larger research project aimed at assessing child well-being in atrisk families. Approval from the Ethics Board of the participating universities was obtained prior to data collection. Rural and urban region-representative child welfare agencies in the Algarve (south of Portugal) and Andalusia (south of Spain) were contacted by letter and subsequently by telephone and asked to collaborate in this project. As a result, 7 agencies from Portugal (Commissions for the Protection of Children and Youth) and 15 from Spain (Community Social Services) participated. The participants’ selection criteria were 1) being enrolled in CWS for family preservation reasons for at least 3 months; 2) having a medium risk profile (i.e., no child out-of-home measures were to be enforced), and 3) not being at a Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 88 critical moment of the intervention. The participants who fulfilled these criteria participated voluntarily in the study and were given an appointment for an interview in CWS facilities by their case manager. Prior to the interview, the participants signed an informed consent form specifying the voluntary nature of their participation, the anonymity and confidentiality of their answers, and the option to leave the study at any stage without receiving any negative consequences. The participants were also informed that the interviewer was external to the agency and that their answers would not be revealed to the personnel of the agency. No monetary incentives were offered. The total administration length of the 4 questionnaires was on average 40 minutes. Confidentiality was a major concern throughout the study to preserve response veracity; therefore, workers from the participating agencies did not have access to participants’ responses. Statistical analysis For the descriptive statistics, the percentage distribution of the qualitative variables and the mean and standard deviation of the quantitative variables are presented. The variables were standardized as Z-scores before calculating Pearson correlations to analyze the associations between scale variables. The independent t-test for scale variables and the Chi-square test for nominal variables were used to calculate the inter-country differences, with p values lower than .05 being considered statistically significant. When significant differences between the groups were observed, Pearson’s r coefficient was used to determine the effect size for the scale variables and Cramer’s V was used for the nominal variables. Pearson’s r coefficient is considered small if ± .1, medium when ± .3, and large if ± .5. Cramer’s V is considered negligible if V < .10, small if ≥ .10 V ≤ .30, medium if > .30 V ≤ .50, and big if V > .50. The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics ® v-20. 3. RESULTS Individual and family sociodemographic data As displayed in Table 1, the educational level was mainly low in both countries: the majority of the participants had not completed school beyond compulsory education, with Portuguese parents having a lower educational level than Spanish parents: χ2 (3) = 9.50, p = .023, Cramer’s V = .20. Only a minority of the sample in each country were immigrants. Regarding the family structure, the participants had on average three children; households consisted of approximately four people, two of them being underage children. The family structure was generally quite similar in the two countries: the majority of families were stable (i.e., the household composition had not undergone recent changes), two-parent, blended, and nuclear in both countries. However, there were significantly more unstable families in the Spanish sample than in the Portuguese sample: χ2 (1) = 32.76, p = .000, Cramer’s V = .36. Concerning respondents’ labor situation, the majority of the Spanish sample were unemployed, while in Portugal 55.5% of the sample had a job when the interview took place, and this difference was statistically significant: χ2 (1) = 26.16, p = .000, Cramer’s V = .32. On average, unemployed participants had been in this situation for more than two years, and less than a fifth were receiving unemployment compensation. The great majority of employed respondents had jobs that required low skills, and a significantly higher proportion of Spanish participants’ jobs were unstable: χ2 (1) = 18.27, p = .000, Cramer’s V = .41 (Table 1). The economic situation was mostly precarious: the vast majority of the Spanish sample lived below the national poverty threshold, and a great proportion of the Portuguese participants were at risk of poverty as well, although the proportion of Spanish families Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 89 living in this situation was significantly higher: χ2 (1) = 25.38, p = .000, Cramer’s V = .32. The monthly family income was quite low in both samples, and welfare payment was the only source of family income for a third of the Spanish sample and almost a fifth of the Portuguese sample, with significant differences emerging: χ2 (2) = 17.45, p = .000, Cramer’s V = .27 (Table 1). Table 1. Sociodemographic parent, family and child variables by country Spain % / M (SD) Portugal % / M (SD) χ2 / t-test Parent and family Educational level ≤ primary school 68.7% 81.7% 9.50* Immigrant 11.9% 17.6% 1.59 Nr. children 2.49 (1.20) 2.42 (1.11) 0.45 Nr. people household 4.03 (1.48) 4.00 (1.44) 0.22 Nr. children in household 1.83 (1.07) 1.91 (0.94) -0.57 Stable 63.5% 93.1% 32.76*** Two-parent 52.5% 62.6% 2.57 Blended 54.8% 52.4% 0.08 Nuclear 76.5% 80.9% 0.71 Unemployed 66.4% 40.5% 26.16*** Time unemployed (months) 35.17 (35.70) 31.35 (21.91) 0.72 Receives unemployment compensation 11.1% 15.1% 1.88 Low skills job 77.5% 68.3% 1.34 Unstable job 65.0% 23.5% 18.27*** Below national poverty threshold 89.5% 61.2% 25.38*** Family income/month (€) 704.41 (542.77) 898.69 (624.50) -2.58* Welfare as only income source 33.3% 19.4% 17.45*** Children Boys 59.6% 70.0% 2.87 Age 9.33 (4.22) 11.03 (4.91) -2.90** School failure 40.2% 69.7% 18.27*** Learning disability 33.6% 35.4% 0.17 Diagnosed psychological disorder 20.5% 21.3% 0.99 * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 Regarding the target child of each family, in both countries they were mostly school-aged boys, although there was a great variance in the children’s age. The proportion of children who had failed at least one year in school was significantly higher in Portuguese families, χ2 (1) = 18.27, p = .000, Cramer’s V = .30, with almost 70% of children having experienced Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 96 exclusively on mothers (e.g., Ayala-Nunes et al., 2014; Menéndez et al., 2010). Another strength is related to the high number of child welfare agencies sampled in each region, both in rural and in urban areas, which contributes to the representativeness of the sample. Future studies should aim to include other individual and family dimensions, such as parental personality and a child problem behavior checklist, as well as other informants (e.g., children, child welfare practitioners, teachers) and alternative measurement instruments (such as observations of parent–child interactions). From our findings, it is possible to draw some conclusions regarding at-risk families’ needs that might be useful for family preservation interventions. Firstly, it is evident that the situation of material deprivation in which these families live jeopardizes adult and child well-being. Therefore, policy makers should promptly recognize and remediate this situation of social exclusion, enabling services to respond adequately to families’ needs in terms of economic support. This support does not solely include financial aid but also guarantees children’s access to an adequate amount of nutritional meals, clothes, housing conditions, educational assistance, cognitive stimulation, toys, learning tools, medical care, and childfriendly environments in which they can safely play. Parents’ low educational level is an obstacle to finding medium-skilled, better-paying jobs; therefore, investing in adult education and vocational training is warranted. Accessible and quality child care services should be available to lower-income families to allow both parents to work and thereby secure a higher family income. It is highly advisable that in Portugal child welfare agencies merge with social services to offer families the support that they need to fulfill their parental responsibilities. Our results have also shown that both parents and people from their close environment have experienced an important number of NLEs in the recent past that had a high emotional impact on them. Thereby, it is not surprising that many parents reported a high number of symptoms of psychological distress. The links between parental mental health problems and poor child care have been solidly established (see Goodman et al., 2011 for a review); therefore, child welfare agencies are compelled to address this issue. A careful, detailed assessment of parents’ life history and psychological assessment thus seems necessary to refine family preservation interventions. Including specialized mental health services, such as individual and family psychological therapy in child welfare agencies, is warranted to tackle parents’ psychological distress. Parenting stress has been one of the most targeted dimensions in parent training group interventions (e.g., Bloomfield & Kendall, 2012), which have been proved to be an effective intervention form with at-risk families (Rodrigo et al., 2012b). Therefore, the delivery of evidence-based, culturally adapted psycho-educational group interventions aiming to improve parenting stress and child-rearing practices is highly advisable for parents in family preservation services. Successful accounts of such interventions have already been reported in Seville (Hidalgo et al., 2014), and their implementation in the Algarve is desirable. These interventions in parenting stress must be sensitive to the age of the children, since our results show that the dimension of parenting with which parents of children report more difficulties is parental distress, while parents of adolescents struggle more with the negative characteristics that they perceive in their sons and daughters. 5. CONCLUSIONS At-risk families receiving family preservation interventions are a vulnerable group with a profile of marked educational, economic, and labor shortcomings. These should be addressed by policy makers and service managers to support parents and guarantee child well-being. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 97 The elevated presence of NLEs both in participants and in their close environment as well as the high proportion of participants with clinical levels of psychological distress symptoms call for specialized psychological services, whilst the high parenting stress levels should be improved through psycho-educational parenting group interventions. Taking into account not only parents’ sociodemographic profile but also psychological individual and family features allows a deeper understanding of family dynamics and support needs, thereby refining interventions and augmenting their possibilities to improve families’ lives successfully. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is financed by National Funds provided by FCT- Foundation for Science and Technology through project UID/SOC/04020/2013. REFERENCES Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index: Professional Manual (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Anderson, L. S. (2008). Predictors of parenting stress in a diverse sample of parents of early adolescents in high-risk communities. Nursing Research. 57(5): 340–350. Arruabarrena, I. & De Paúl, J. (2002). Evaluación de un programa de tratamiento para familias maltratantes y negligentes y familias de alto riesgo. Intervención Psicosocial. 11(2): 213-227. Ayala-Nunes, L., Lemos, I. & Nunes, C. (2014). Predictores del estrés parental en madres de familia en riesgo psicosocial. Universitas Psychologica. 13(2): 15-25. Ayala-Nunes, L., Nunes, C., & Lemos, I. (in press). Social support and parenting stress in at-risk portuguese families. Journal of Social Work. Azar, S. (2002). Parenting and child maltreatment. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Biology and ecology of parenting. (2nd ed., vol II, pp. 231- 252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bagdasaryan, S. (2005) Evaluating family preservation services: Reframing the question of effectiveness. Children and Youth Services Review. 27(6): 615-635. Bloomfield, L. & Kendall, S. (2012). Parenting self-efficacy, parenting stress and child behaviour before and after a parenting programme. Primary Health Care Research and Development. 13: 364-372. Boletín Oficial del Estado (1996). Ley Orgánica 1/1996, de 15 de enero, de Protección Jurídica del Menor, de modificación parcial del Código Civil y de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil. BOE number 15 January 17th 1996. Madrid: Ministry of the Presidency. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology. 53(1): 371-399. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children. 7: 55-71. Byrne, S., Salmela-Aro, K., Read, S., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2013). Individual and group effects in a community-based implementation of a positive parenting program. Research on Social Work Practice. 23(1): 46-56. Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 98 Callan, T., Leventi, C., Horatio, L., Matsaganas, M., & Sutherland, H. (2011). The distributional effects of austerity measures: A comparison of six EU countries. EUROMOD Working Paper Series: EM6/11. Retrieved from https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/ working-papers/euromod/em6-11 Caritas Europe (2013). The impact of the European crisis. A study of the impact of the crisis and austerity on people, with a special focus on Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Retrieved from http://www.caritas.eu/about-caritas-europa/publications. Carter, A. S., Garrity-Rokous, F. E., Chazan-Cohen, R., Little, C., & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2001). Maternal depression and comorbidity: predicting early parenting, attachment security, and toddler social-emotional problems and competencies. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 40(1): 18-26. Chazan-Cohen, R., Ayoub, C., Pan, B. A., Roggman, L., Raikes, H., McKelvey, L., Whiteside- Mansel, L. y Hart, A. (2007). It takes time: Impacts of Early Head Start that lead to reductions in maternal depression two years later. Infant Mental Health Journal. 28(2): 151-170. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2006). Recommendation 19. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1073507 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2011). Recommendation 12. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1872121 Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (2013). Recommendation 112. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf Coyne, L. W. y Thompson, A. D. (2011). Maternal depression, locus of control, and emotion regulatory strategy as predictors of preschoolers’ internalizing problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 20(6): 873-883. Crnic, K. A., & Low, C. (2002). Everyday stresses and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., vol V, pp. 243–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 35(1): 73-112. Dix, T., & Meunier, L. N. (2009). Depressive symptoms and parenting competence: An analysis of 13 regulatory processes. Developmental Review. 29(1): 45-68. Eurostat (2012). At Risk of Poverty Rate by Detailed Age Group, tessi120. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table. do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tessi120&plugin=1 Farkas, C., & Valdés, N. (2010). Maternal stress and perceptions of self-efficacy in socioeconomically disadvantaged mothers: an explicative model. Infant Behavior & Development. 33(4): 654–62. Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1996). Cuestionario de salud general GHQ. (General Health Questionnaire). Guía para el usuario de las distintas versiones. Barcelona: Masson. Goodman, S. H. (2007). Depression in mothers. In S. Nolen-Hoeksema, T. D. Cannon, & T. Widiger (Eds.), Annual review of clinical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 107–135). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews. Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressed mothers: a developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission. Psychological review, 106(3), 458. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 99 Goodman, S. H., Rouse, M. H., Connell, A. M., Broth, M. R., Hall, C. M., & Heyward, D. (2011). Maternal depression and child psychopathology: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 14(1): 1-27. Gradín, C., & Cantó, O. (2011). Why are child poverty rates so persistently high in Spain? The Manchester School. 80(1): 117-143. Gross, H. E., Shaw, D. S., & Moilanen, K. L. (2008). Reciprocal associations between boys’ externalizing problems and mothers’ depressive symptoms. Journal of abnormal child psychology. 36(5): 693-709. Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental Psychology. 39(4): 777-790. Haskett, M. E., Ahern, L. S., Ward, C. S., & Allaire, J. C. (2006). Factor structure and validity of the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 35(2): 302-312. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_14 Hidalgo, M. V., Menéndez, S., López-Verdugo, I., Sánchez, J., Lorence, B. & Jiménez, L. (2014). Programa de Formación y Apoyo Familiar. M.J. Rodrigo (Eds.), Manual Práctico en Parentalidad Positiva. Madrid: Síntesis. Hidalgo, M. V., Menéndez, S., Sánchez, J., López, I., Jiménez, L., & Lorence, B. (2005) Inventario de Situaciones Estresantes y de Riesgo (ISER). Unpublished document, University of Seville, Seville, Spain. Hidalgo, M. V., Menéndez, S., Sánchez, J., Lorence, B., & Jiménez, L. (2010). Intervention with at-risk families: Contributions from a psycho-educational perspective. Psychology in Spain. 14(1): 48-56. Hutchings, J., & Webster-Stratton, C. (2004). Community-based support for parents. In M. Hoghughi & N. Long (Eds.), Handbook of parenting: Theory and research for practice (pp. 334-351). London: Sage. Ingoldsby, E. M., Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E., Schonberg, M., Gilliom, M. & Criss, M. M. (2006). Neighborhood disadvantage, parent-child conflict, neighborhood peer relationships, and early antisocial behavior problem trajectories. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 34(3): 303-319. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE (2014). Las formas de la convivencia. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/ss/Satellite?L=es_ES&c=INECifrasINE_C&cid=1259944407896&p =1254735116567&pagename=ProductosYServicios%2FINECifrasINE_C%2FPYSDet alleCifrasINE Instituto Nacional de Estatística, INE (2014). Famílias nos Censos 2011: Diversidade e Mudança. Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. Jiménez, L., Deković, M., & Hidalgo, V. (2009). Adjustment of school-aged children and adolescents growing up in at-risk families: Relationships between family variables and individual, relational and school adjustment. Children and Youth Services Review. 31(6): 654-661. Kessler, R. C., Davis, C. G., & Kendler, K. S. (1997). Childhood adversity and adult psychiatric disorder in the US National Comorbidity Survey.Psychological medicine, 27(05), 1101-1119. Lei nº 147/99 de 1 de Setembro. Lei de protecção de crianças e jovens em perigo. Diário da República nº 204/99, I série A. Assembleia da República. Lisboa. Nunes, L., García, M. V., Jiménez, L., Jesus, S. N. (2016). JSOD, IV(1), 81-101 100 Magnuson, K. A., & Duncan, J. G. (2002). Parents in poverty. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., vol IV, pp. 95-121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Matos, A., & Sousa, L. (2004). How multiproblem families try to find support in social services. Journal of Social Work Practice. 18(1): 65-80. Matos, A., & Sousa, L. (2006). O apoio das instituções de proteccão social às famílias multiproblemáticas. Revista de Psicologia Social e Institucional. 3(1): 1-23. McLeod, J. D., & Kessler, R. (1990). Socioeconomic status differences in vulnerability to undesirable life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 31(2): 162-172. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist. 53(2): 185-204. Menéndez, S., Hidalgo, V., Jiménez, L., Lorence, B., & Sánchez, J. (2010). Perfil psicosocial de familias en situación de riesgo. Un estudio de necesidades con usuarias de los Servicios Sociales Comunitarios por razones de preservación familiar. Anales de Psicología. 26(2): 378-389. Ministério da Justiça (1911). Lei de Proteção à Infância de 27 Maio de 1911. Murali, V., & Oyebode, F. (2004). Poverty, social inequality and mental health. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment. 10: 216–224. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Depression in parents, parenting, and children: Opportunities to improve identification, treatment, and prevention. In M. J. England & L. J. Sim (Eds.), Committee on depression, parenting practices, and the healthy development of children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nunes, C. & Ayala-Nunes, L. (2015). Famílias em risco psicossocial: desafios para a avaliação e intervenção. Revista de Psicologia da Criança e do Adolescente. 6(1): 95-107. Nunes, C., Jiménez, L., Menéndez, S., Ayala-Nunes, L., & Hidalgo, V. (2014). Psychometric properties of an adapted version of the Parental Sense of Competence (PSOC) scale for Portuguese at-risk parents. Child & Family Social Work. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12159 Nunes, C., Lemos, I., Ayala-Nunes, L., & Costa, D. (2013). Acontecimentos de vida stressantes e apoio social em famílias em risco psicossocial. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças. 14(2): 313-320. OCDE (2015). Family size and household composition. OECD Family Database. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF1_1_Family_size_and_composition.pdf Olías, L. (2014, September 7). El Estado deja a miles de niños sin la oportunidad de tener una familia. El Diario. Retrieved from http://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Espana-lenta- acabar-institucionalizacion-menores_0_299570411.html Palacios, J. (2010, November 3). Los niños invisibles. El País. Retrieved from http://elpais. com/diario/2010/11/03/opinion/1288738812_850215.html Palacios, J., & Rodrigo, M. J. (1998). La familia como contexto y la familia en contexto. In M. J. Rodrigo & J. Palacios (Coords.), Familia y desarrollo humano (pp. 25-44). Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Pérez, J. (2014). El estrés parental en familias en situación de riesgo psicosocial. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain. Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2005) Efficacy and social support as predictors of parenting stress among families in poverty. Infant Mental Health Journal. 26(3): 177–190. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. IV, Issue 1, (2016) 81-101 101 Raya, E. (2004). Exclusión social y ciudadanía: claroscuros de un concepto. Aposta: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 9, 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.apostadigital.com/revistav3/ hemeroteca/raya1.pdf Revilla L., Rios A. A. M., y Castillo L. J. (2004). Utilizacion del Cuestionario General de Salud de Goldberg (GHQ-28) en la deteccion de los problemas psicosociales en la consulta del médico de familia. Atención Primaria. 33: 417-422. Rodrigo, M. J., Almeida, A., Spiel, C., & Koops, W. (2012a) Introduction: Evidencebased parent education programmes to promote positive parenting. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 9(1): 2-10. Rodrigo, M. J., & Byrne, S. (2011). Social support and personal agency in at-risk mothers. Psycosocial Intervention. 20(1): 13-24. Rodrigo, M. J., Byrne, S., & Álvarez, M. (2012b) Preventing child maltreatment through parenting programmes implemented at the social services level. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 9(1): 89-103. Rodrigo, M. J., Maiquez, M. L., Martín, J. C., & Byrne, S. (2008). Preservación familiar. Un enfoque positivo para la intervención con familias. Madrid: Pirámide. Rodrigo, M. J., Martín, J.C., Cabrera, E., & Máiquez, M. L. (2009). Las competencias parentales en contextos de riesgo psicosocial. Intervención Psicosocial. 18(2): 113-120. Rodríguez, G., Camacho, J., Rodrigo, M. J., Martín, J. C., & Máiquez, M. L. (2006) Evaluación del riesgo psicosocial en familias usuarias de servicios sociales municipales. Psicothema. 18(2): 200-206. Sandler, I. (2001). Quality and ecology of adversity as common mechanisms of risk and resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology. 29(1): 19-61. Santiago, C. D. C., Wadsworth, M. E., & Stump, J. (2013). Socioeconomic status, neighborhood disadvantage, and poverty-related stress: Prospective effects on psychological syndromes among diverse low-income families. Journal of Economic Psychology. 32: 218–230. Sheras, P. L., Abidin, R. R., & Konold, T. R. (1998). Stress Index for Parents of Adolescents: Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Sousa, L. & Ribeiro, C. (2005). Percepção das famílias multiproblemáticas pobres sobre as suas competências. Psicologia. 19(1-2): 169-191. Sousa, L., Ribeiro, C., & Rodrigues, S. (2007). Are practitioners incorporating a strengthsfocused approach when working with multiproblem poor families? Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. 17: 53-66. Vallotton, C. D., Harewood, T., Ayoub, C. A., Pan, B., Mastergeorge, A. M., & Brophy- Herb, H. (2012). Buffering boys and boosting girls: The protective and promotive effects of Early Head Start for children’s expressive language in the context of parenting stress. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 27(4): 695-707. Wilson, B. J., & Gottman, J. M. (2002). Marital Conflict, Repair, and Parenting. In: M. H. Bornstein (ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 227-258). Erlbaum. Mahwah. Whiteside-Mansell, L., Ayoub, C., McKelvey, L., Faldowski, R. A., Hart, A., & Shears, J. (2007). Parenting stress of low-income parents of toddlers and preschoolers: Psychometric properties of a short form of the Parenting Stress Index. Parenting: Science and Practice. 7(1): 26-56. doi: 10.1080/15295190709336775 World Mental Health Surveys Initiative (2013). Estudo epidemiológico nacional de saúde mental. 1º relatório. Retrieved from http://www.fcm.unl.pt/main/alldoc/galeria_imagens/ Relatorio_Estudo_Saude-Mental_2.pdf