ABSTRACT
Hobbs' model for the care of emotionally disturbed children is both similar to and different from Feuerstein's (1971) on which the Mechina of Chap. 16 is based. Their similarity is in the optimism that distinguishes both models from traditional group care approaches. Both begin with the assumption that life is to be lived and that the mere designation of disability does not necessitate a moratorium on responsibility. They stress the importance of the group, the therapeutic implications of increasing competence in academic and work pursuits, and the meaning of trust to the vulnerable child.
The divergence of the two models is also significant. Unlike the Israeli programs described in Chapters 14 , 15 , and 16 , Project Re-Ed leads to a rapid return home. Such is neither the aim nor the outcome in the Israeli settings, where familial and environmental incapacity are assumed to be long-term—perhaps permanent. Thus while most Israeli group programs (as well as Soviet boarding school and SOS Kinderdörfer) are predicated on a near-substitution of the child's ecosystem, Project Re-Ed is based on a modification—an expansion—of the environment. Greater capability in the child, his family, or other parts of the milieu are then expected, and Re-Ed withdraws from the scene.
