Sociomoral atmosphere, adolescent-staff relationship quality, moral development, prosocial behavior and psychopathology of juvenile delinquents in a Turkish juvenile justice institution : a cross-cultural comparison

Sociomoral Atmosphere, Adolescent-Staff Relationship Quality,

Moral Development, Prosocial Behavior and Psychopathology

of Juvenile Delinquents

in a Turkish Juvenile Justice Institution:

A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Masterscriptie Forensische Orthopedagogiek Pedagogische en Onderwijskundige Wetenschappen Universiteit van Amsterdam Z. Baldemir E. Ipekci Begeleiding: dhr. Prof. dr. G.J.J.M. Stams Proeflezer: Drs. Sanne de Vries

Tweede beoordelaar: Dr. Peer van der Helm Amsterdam, Juli 2014

Table of contents

Abstract

The present study examined adolescent-staff relationship quality, moral development, prosocial behavior and psychopathology in a Turkish Juvenile Justice institution (JJI). Using a sample of 40 male juvenile offenders between the age of 15 and 19 years. Interviews with staff and field observations indicated that the open Ankara JJI showed characteristics of a sociomoral community in which juveniles were treated with respect, and conditions for therapeutic relationship building were satisfied. Unexpectedly, on average, the juveniles did not report high adolescent-staff relationship quality and high levels of prosocial behavior if compared to self-reports of adolescent delinquents from secure (closed) Dutch juvenile justice institutions. Results regarding psychopathology were equivocal. However, the Turkish juvenile delinquents showed positive moral development if compared to their Dutch counterparts. Finally, supportive adolescent-staff relationships were associated with higher levels of both cognitive empathy and prosocial behavior. The discussion focuses on the generalizability of the findings to more individualistic societies and if the method of the Turkish juvenile justice system would be effective in Western countries?

Keywords

Samenvatting

De huidige studie onderzoekt de kwaliteit van de therapeutische relatie, de morele ontwikkeling, het prosociaal gedrag en psychopathologie bij delinquenten in een Justitiële Jeugdinrichting in Ankara. De steekproef bestaat uit 40 mannelijke jeugdige delinquenten tussen de leeftijd van 15 en 19 jaar. Veldobservaties en interviews met medewerkers tonen aan dat er kenmerken van een sociaal-morele gemeenschap aanwezig zijn, waar jongeren met respect behandeld worden en condities voor een positieve therapeutische relatie gecreëerd kunnen worden. Tegen de verwachtingen in kwam er uit zelfrapportages naar voren dat de Turkse jeugddelinquenten in vergelijking met de Nederlandse jeugddelinquenten die in een gesloten inrichting verblijven geen hogere kwaliteit van therapeutische relaties en hogere niveaus van prosociaal gedrag laten zien. Resultaten met betrekking tot psychopathologie waren tegenstrijdig. Echter, in vergelijking met de Nederlandse delinquenten lieten de Turkse jeugddelinquenten een positieve morele ontwikkeling zien. Tot slot kan er geconcludeerd worden dat ondersteunende therapeutische relaties samenhangen met hogere niveaus van cognitieve empathie en prosociaal gedrag. Bediscussieerd wordt of deze bevindingen gegeneraliseerd kunnen worden naar de meer individualistische Westerse samenleving, waaronder Nederland, en of de methode van het Turkse jeugdstrafrecht effectief zou kunnen zijn in Westerse landen?

Introduction

Juvenile recidivism rates are high and increasing in most Western countries. For instance the official juvenile recidivism rate of 2009 in the Netherlands was 57,2% (Wartna et al., 2012). However, in Turkey juvenile official recidivism rates tend to be low and stable, around 4%1, although we should be careful in comparing recidivism rates across countries given that methods of registration, definitions of delinquency and the judicial system may show substantial differences that could well affect recidivism rates. The present study aims to find explanations for favorable recidivism rates in Turkey among juvenile delinquents from the perspective that a collectivistic culture (1) values high quality adolescent-staff relationships in juvenile justice institutions, which have been identified as an important therapeutic factor in (forensic) residential youth care (Karver, Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2006; Van der Helm, 2011), and (2) emphasizes a sociomoral community approach in terms of taking responsibility, showing concern for each other, and providing opportunities for moral reflection (Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989). The present study examines the degree to which a Turkish Juvenile Justice institution in Ankara could be considered as a sociomoral community positively affecting adolescent-staff relationship quality, moral development (empathy and moral reasoning), prosocial behavior and psychopathology.

The Ankara juvenile justice institution

At the moment of research (2008) there were three open juvenile justice institutions in Turkey. Ankara and Elazig are only for boys, and Izmir is a mixed open juvenile justice institution. This study was carried out in the open juvenile justice institution (JJI) of Ankara. The focus of the Turkish JJI is to win back (i.e., reintegrate) juveniles into society (Turkish Ministry of Justice/ Adalet Bakanligi, 2014). Restoring the family ties is important, but it is also important within the institution to create strong bonds with staff members and the society at large. Placement in the institution itself is seen as an intervention by itself, and is thought to result in positive behavioral outcomes and eventually rehabilitation. In the institution no difference is made between the adolescents according to type of crime, age and educational level (Turkish Ministry of Justice/ Adalet Bakanligi, 2014). Each juvenile receives treatment according to his individual needs, while placement in the institution is considered to be the main intervention.

1_{Türk Istatistik Kurumu (TÜIK), 2007}

The expectation is that in the open juvenile justice institution of Turkey staff members are more open and communicative, which makes it possible for them to work on healthy relationships with the adolescents. In the Netherlands, juvenile justice institutions are secure/closed facilities, as is the case in most Western countries. However, Van der Helm et al. (2009, 2011) assume that an open instead of a closed institution facilitates one the most important educational and rehabilitative (sentencing) aims of secure residential youth care, namely, successful reintegration into society through restoring the bond with society that was damaged by antisocial behavior. According to Gatti, Tremblay, and Vitaro (2009), rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents should be a major goal of youth correctional interventions, which is in line with the international convention on the rights of the child2.

In July 2005 the Turkish government has accepted a special child law3. The aim of this law is to protect children who are in need of protection or who are being dragged into crime. For example, it is not allowed to interrogate the child without the presence of an attorney and a social worker. During the examination a lawyer must be present. A juvenile younger than 16 years will not be sentenced more than 7 years. Also, each day will count for two days of detention. A juvenile between 16 and 18 years old will serve 2/3 of his detention time and will not be sentenced more than 12 years. When a juvenile is studying during his stay in a juvenile justice institution, detention can be extended until he is 21 years old.

Individualism and collectivism

Reintegrating the child back into society from the perspective of the child is considered individualistic, but winning the child back to the society from a societal perspective is considered collectivistic. Loose ties among individuals are representing an individualistic society. Individualism is more common within the developed modern societies with a high level of personal freedom and social and geographic mobility. In collectivistic societies individuals belong to strong attached groups that offer protection in exchange for unconditional loyalty. Globally, approximately 70% of the societies are collectivistic. These collectivistic societies are often agricultural in nature, characterized by extended families and a high level of interdependence (Wissink, 2006). In general, Turkish culture can be typified as collectivistic. Within collectivistic cultures, a sense of an individual self is limited. Individuals possess collective selves: their self-esteem as well as self-concept is highly

2 _{Article 40 IVRK}

3_{Article of law: 5395 sayili Cocuk Koruma Kanunu, yayinlama tarihi 15-07-2005, Tertip: 5, Cilt: 44}

dependent on the family reputation, the status, the support and approval that the individual receives from the family.

The Islam plays an important part in the cultural norms and values of Turkey. The social control is stronger and respect is considered to be very important. These factors can act as protective factors. A study by Helal and Coston (1991) showed that in Islamic countries a cohesive family network has been largely preserved. The family network is still very effective, even in modern cities (Serajzadeh, 2002). It provides an important role in the process of socialization and provides social security and support for its members. Turkish parents consider themselves as very responsive and supportive to the needs of their children (Nijsten 1998). Kagitcibasi (1990) described that parenting practices in some collectivistic societies seem to be changing. This change can be explained by urban development and economic growth. The economic value of a child is becoming of less concern, whereas the psychological value of children is more and more emphasized. According to Stark, Kent and Doyle (1982) Islam develops a strong sense of moral community, where religion is an influential social force generating social sanctions (Groves, McCleary, & Newman, 1987), which might contribute to a low crime rate.

Therapeutic Relationship, Moral Development and Prosocial Behavior

Attachment theory provides a descriptive and explanatory framework for understanding interpersonal relationships between human beings. Attachment is first of all an emotional bond with another person. Bowbly (1969) believed that there are four distinguishing characteristics of attachment, namely: proximity maintenance, safe haven, secure base and separation distress. Because the attachment representation is established on the basis of early experiences with close relationships, clients in treatment institutions who often have histories of abuse and neglect are expected to have very insecure attachment representations (Zegers, 2007).

Attachment representations can be regarded as a mediating process between proceeding attachment experiences and forthcoming attachment experiences in new relationships, such as the therapeutic relationship. A Therapeutic relationship is considered to be a part of the therapeutic alliance. Therapeutic alliance can be conceptualized as consisting of three elements: the collaborative relationship, the affective bond, and the client therapist agreement on goals and tasks (Bordin, 1979; Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000). The therapeutic alliance is transactional, which means that both juvenile and therapist characteristics and actions play a role (Karver, Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2005). The current study

focuses on the affective bond between the juvenile and the professional, referred to hereafter as the ‘therapeutic relationship’.

The quality of therapeutic relationships is one of the most important non-specific predictors of treatment success in both outpatient psychotherapy and residential treatment. Furthermore, it is thought to substantially reduce psychopathology (Karver, Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2006). Garrido and Morales (2007) and Van der Helm (2009) showed that when prison staff have a controlling style of working, there is not much space for building therapeutic relationships with the adolescents, and treatment results are not very promising. Zegers (2007) found that after three months of stay in a residential facility no effect of staff on adolescents can be expected when it comes to adolescent attachment representations. If adolescents stayed for a longer period of time, prison staff members who are responsive to the needs of the inmates can build supportive (i.e., secure) inmate-staff relationships that may be characterized as positive therapeutic relationships. In that case, prison staff function as a secure base and safe haven (Zegers, 2007; Zegers, Schuengel, Van IJzendoorn, & Janssen, 2006). On the other hand, therapeutic relationships can be damaged when prison staff is hostile and overly restrictive or repressive (Zegers, 2006; Zegers et al., 2007). These findings underscored the potential relevance of attachment research for understanding barriers to healthy therapeutic relationships in residential treatment. Youths’ positive perceptions of the institutional environment are related to a significant decline in recidivism and externalizing problems when these youths are released over and above individual factors and facility characteristics (Schubert, Mulvey, Loughran, & Loyosa 2012).

In the case of the Juvenile Justice Institution it is reasonable to think that the staff within the justice institution play a role in the development of moral reasoning and empathy of the juveniles. Cohen and Strayer (1996) provided a widely agreed upon definition of empathy, which is the ability to share and understand another’s emotional state and context. Rest, Thomas and Edward (1997) define Moral reasoning as "a psychological construct that characterizes the process by which people determine that one course of action in a particular situation is morally right and another course of action is wrong". Van IJzendoorn (1997) states that although moral reasoning develops through an invariant sequence of stages, children need parents, teachers, and peers to help them move toward a mature level of moral reasoning (Boyes & Allen, 1993; Haan, Langer, & Kohlberg, 1976; Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967; Parikh, 1980; Powers, 1988 in van IJzendoorn 1997).

It is probable that the professionals in the Justice Institutions can play an important role in the development of moral reasoning. The combination of a lack of moral

internalization and a lack of confidence in self and others may lead to serious antisocial and criminal behavior when a network of secure attachment relationships is not available to compensate for the absence of early rewarding attachment experiences. A recent meta-analysis shows that the effectiveness of intervention deteriorates as the amount of coercion increases (Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregards, 2008). In addition, Lipsey (2009) showed that interventions with punishment as the main objective often have counterproductive effects: a significant increase in delinquency is observed instead of a decline in antisocial behavior. According to van IJzendoorn, (1997) neither temperament and cognition nor discipline can create moral beings. Instead, morality emerges from attachment experiences that lead to optimal regulation of negative emotions as well as to the delicate emotional balance between self-confidence and a concern for others.

Both moral development and psychopathology have been shown to be related to delinquency. A meta-analysis by Stams et al. (2006) showed that developmentally delayed moral judgment is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency, even after controlling for socioeconomic status, cultural background, gender, age, intelligence, assessment method, publication bias, institutionalization and period of incarceration. Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) and Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt, Van der Stouwe and Stams (2014) conducted meta-analyses of empathy and offending and found that cognitive empathy was associated with offending, but not with affective empathy. Finally, Vermeiren (2003) and Vermeiren, Schwab-Stone, Ruchkin, De Clippele & Deboutte (2002) showed psychopathology to be related to delinquency.

Also the therapeutic relationship can affect prosocial behavior of the juveniles. Prosocial behaviors are voluntary behaviors made with the intention of benefiting others (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Environmental factors linked to individual differences in children's prosocial behavior include parental modeling of helping behavior and use of inductive discipline (e.g., explaining to children the consequences of their behavior) as opposed to power-assertive discipline (e.g., punishment) (Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). Beyond parental influence, siblings, peers, and schools also may affect prosocial behavior. Positive, warm, and secure teacher-student relationships are associated with children's prosocial behavior too (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006).

Hypotheses

This study examined adolescent-staff relationship quality and moral development, prosocial behavior and psychopathology of juvenile delinquents in a Turkish juvenile justice institution. We hypothesize that the Turkish open juvenile justice institution in Ankara can be considered as a moral community in which juveniles are treated with respect, and conditions for therapeutic relationship building are evident. The second hypothesis is that adolescent-staff relationships are positive in general, and more positive compared to adolescent-staff relationships found in Dutch secure juvenile justice institutions. The third hypothesis is that moral development (empathy and moral reasoning) and prosocial behavior are relatively high and psychopathology relatively low if compared with data from detained juvenile delinquents in Holland, where residential juvenile justice institutions tend to be rather repressive, without much attention paid to moral growth (Van der Helm, 2011). The fourth hypothesis is that therapeutic relationship quality will be positively related with empathy, moral reasoning and prosocial behavior and negatively associated with psychopathology. A positive therapeutic relationship is thought to substantially reduce psychopathology (Karver, Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2006). Cardol, de Jong and Ward (2002) have suggested that increasing patient autonomy would lead to increased motivation to participate in treatment. Also this would fit with theories of intrinsic motivation, that is, that autonomy would lead to being intrinsically motivated, which leads to greater persistence toward behavioral change (Deci, & Ryan, 1987) or in this case prosocial behavior.

Methods

Participants

The sample consisted of delinquent adolescent from 15 to 19 years of age, with a mean age of 16.95 (SD = 1.0). The treatment period for the juveniles in the study was between 1 month and 2 years. A total of 52,5% of the juveniles were sentenced because of robbery, 20% for a sexual offense, 12,5% for murder, 7,5% for attempt to murder and 7,5% for theft. Their educational level at the moment of research was low, having attended vocational training or no education beyond elementary school (17,5 % was illiterate). Also the staff members took part in this research; the head of institution, the psychologist, a social worker, a teacher, the medical doctor and two prison staff members.

Procedure

When this research took place there were 46 juveniles placed in the Ankara juvenile justice institution. After a process of informed consent and a written permission of the Ministry of Justice of Turkey, 40 juveniles voluntarily agreed to participate. They were told that their answers would be treated anonymously and confidentially. The names on the documents were deleted and given a number in SPSS. The questionnaires were administered orally by the researchers with 7 illiterate participants. The other adolescents were asked to fill in the questionnaires (PARA, BES and SDQ) under supervision of the researchers. The moral interview (SRM-SF) was taken orally by the researchers. Also seven members of the staff were interviewed individually.

Measures

In this study the standardized questionnaires were used in order to address the research questions regarding Therapeutic Relationship, Moral Development and Prosocial Behavior. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews were taken to assess the relationships between the staff-inmates and the juveniles and the moral climate of the institution.

The Psychological Availability and Reliance on Adult (PARA) is developed to assess the basic elements of attachment (Zegers & Schuengel, 2006), affective bond (7 items), reliance on adult (6 items) and psychological availability (6 items). Juveniles filled in the forms about one of the staff members with whom the adolescent had most contact. Participants were asked to respond to each of the 19 items on a 4-point Likert scale. For example, “My mentor is warm and understanding”. Cronbach’s alpha were .75, .64, and .77 for affective bond, reliance on adult en psychological availability, respectively.

The Basic Empathy Scale (BES) was developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) to asses both affective and cognitive empathy. This instrument is based on four of the five basic emotions, including anger, sadness, fear and happiness. The participants rated themselves on the 20 items using the five-point scale from 1 representing “strongly disagree” to 5 representing “strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .63 for affective empathy, and .78 for cognitive empathy.

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a brief behavioral screening questionnaire that provides balanced coverage of young people’s and children's behaviors, relationships and emotions (Goodman, 1997). This instrument has been designed to meet the needs of educationalists, researchers and clinicians. The SDQ contains 25 items, 10 of which would generally be thought of as strengths, 14 of which would generally be thought of as

difficulties, and one of which is neutral. The 25 items are divided between 5 subscales namely, emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/ inattention, peer relationship problems and prosocial behavior. Cronbach’s alpha for total psychopathology (20 items) was .65, and for prosocial behavior .61.

The Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form (The SRM-SF) was developed by Gibbs et al. (1992) to assess moral reasoning. The questionnaire contains 11 items that elicit evaluations and justifications. Participants evaluate the importance of the main issues, values or institutions that compromise the core of morality and are found in every society and culture, including contract, truth, affiliation, life, property, law and legal justice (Kohlberg, 1984, pp. 189-190, 309; cf Maccoby, 1980, pp. 297-299). Participants explain or justify their evaluation orally. For example: “Think about when you have made a promise to a friend of yours”, answered by: “very important, important or not important”. The answers are compared with moral judgment stages. Interrater agreement was satisfactory, with Kappa beyond .80 for all items. Cronbach’s alpha was .62.

In-depth interviews were held with prison staff in order to assess educational climate, vision, goals, intervention and educational philosophy. Questions such as “what is the vision of the open juvenile justice institution”, “what is your motivation for this work”, “what kind of activities can be found in the institution” and “how would you describe the atmosphere within the institution” were asked. The researchers were offered the possibility to walk independently around for several days to taste the atmosphere and to participate. Field observations by the researchers were performed to describe interactions between inmates and staff.

Plan of analyses

Qualitative data derived from the interviews and field observations were analyzed by means of axial coding (Strauss, & Corbin, 1998) in order to evaluate the degree to which the open juvenile justice institution was characteristic of a moral community. The interview focused on different relevant topics, such as the vision of the institution, the methods used and the social atmosphere in the institution. Subsequently, quantitative data on therapeutic relationship quality, moral development, prosocial behavior and psychopathology is compared with normative data using a series of t-tests. Finally, the relation between adolescent-staff relationship quality and moral development (empathy and moral judgment), prosocial behavior and psychopathology will be examined in simple correlational analyses.

Results

The Ankara Juvenile Justice Institution is a sociomoral community (hypothesis 1)

The institution

Field observations were conducted in the open juvenile justice institution. The juvenile justice institution was not surrounded by high walls or fences, but green trees and flowers. The capacity of the institution was 108 persons; the juveniles stayed in 6-person dorms. An open juvenile justice institution can be defined as a detention center, which is not surrounded with walls and fences. Juveniles can walk in and out by themselves (for example to go to school or work) and there is no special staff to prevent prison breaks. The juveniles were placed in the institution by court order. Until sentence, they had to stay in a detention center. Once placed in the open juvenile justice institution the juveniles have the possibility to complete their study or go to work outside or inside the institution. There are also possibilities for participation in different social activities. Resocialization is the main focus of the institution (Turkish Ministry of Justice/ Adalet Bakanligi, 2014).

The researchers experienced a cozy and open atmosphere and did not have the feeling of being in a detention center. The juveniles were walking around, sitting in groups or were involved in voluntary (social) activities. The former isolation room was used as a stocking room because there was no need for using it. There were possibilities to attend school or work inside or outside the institution. There was no visible hierarchy between the juveniles and the staff. Juveniles and staff were, for example, drinking tea and coffee together in the garden, showing affection. Another example is that the staff consumes breakfast, lunch or dinner together with the juveniles. The contact between the juveniles and the staff seemed rather informal, including the director of the institution.

Therapy

When juveniles enter the institutions they have to attend creative therapy with clay. This therapy is thought to reduce the stress and aggression levels of the juveniles. It also offers the possibility to build relationships with the staff and the other juveniles. Also this therapy is meant to help juveniles in their adaptation to their new environment. Besides this therapy the juveniles receive individual therapies, such as cognitive behavior therapy with the

psychologist and the social workers if indicated. If there is an indication of an addiction4 (45% of the juveniles were addicted to drugs upon entry of the institution), the juvenile follows compulsory treatment targeting substance abuse with involvement of the medical doctor.

Building a therapeutic relationship

Semi-structured interviews were held with staff members working at the open juvenile justice institution. The findings will be described in this part. All of the interviewed staff emphasized the importance of reintegrating these juveniles into society. They defined this as a major part of their work. Therefore, it was considered important to be a positive role model for these children and to work on relationship building, as is illustrated in the following transcripts. The following transcripts are gathered from the director, two depute directors, the psychologist, two social workers, the doctor and two guardians.

“In this juvenile justice system, you have to be a role model for the juveniles. The children who come here are more sensitive, are coming from a different environment, have mostly a low social economic status and are in need of more love and compassion. We have to understand this and give them the care and love they need”.

“It is also important to build trust bonds with the juveniles before you can give criticism to the juveniles”.

“ A large part of the juveniles have experienced lack of love; they need to be approached as if by a parent. As a director I am a doctor, a father, a lawyer, you become everything you can imagine for these children. I am satisfied when I make them happy”.

“The juveniles can be 18-19 years old and could be seen as adults, but we cannot forget that they are still children who are in need love”.

Some staff members mentioned that it is not only detention that the children receive within the institution, but more importantly, they get education to acquire the skills to become productive members of the society.

4_{File information}

“ This institution is not just a juvenile justice institution, but also an educational institution”.

“ It’s important to win the trust of the youngsters to enhance their intrinsic motivation to stay on the right path”.

It emerges that it is important to take part in activities, so the juveniles keep the feeling that they are part of society. Also the juveniles who have a lower class background experience that they can do things in a different way. Another important function of these activities is that the skills learned at the institution can be displayed. Activities are organized by the institution two or three times a month, sometimes even with guests, such as music stars.

Another important view of the institution is to give the juveniles structure in their lives in order to prepare them for life out of the institution. The juveniles have to wake-up at 6 a.m., tidying the bed and take a shower. They are expected to attend to breakfast, lunch and dinner at set times. At 10 p.m. they have to be in their dorms to go to sleep.

Many professionals explain that their motivation to do this work emerges from seeing the changes in the juveniles. They state that the opinions and behavior of the juveniles change, and that this makes them very happy and make it worth doing this work.

In summary, interviews and field observations show that the Turkish open juvenile justice institution in Ankara can be considered as a sociomoral community in which juveniles are treated with respect, and conditions for therapeutic relationship building are evident. We conclude that the first hypothesis is confirmed.

Therapeutic adolescent-staff therapeutic relationships are positive in general (hypothesis 2)

We first conducted frequency analyses based on the PARA cut-off score of 2,5, indicating a positive relationship, to establish percentages of juveniles evaluating their relationship with staff as positive: 53% of the juveniles in the Turkish justice institution experienced an affective bond, 58% said they could rely on staff, and 79% reported staff to be psychologically available. In addition, one sample t-tests were conducted to examine

differences in means, with one-tailed significance. Results showed that on average juveniles did not experience an affective bond with staff, could not rely on staff, but nevertheless considered staff to be psychologically available, t (38) = 2.83, p < .01. Compared with Dutch justice-involved adolescents in secure residential care (Zegers, 2007), the Turkish adolescents evaluated psychological availability of staff as significantly lower than did Dutch adolescents (see Table 1), which proved to be a large difference (d = .75). No difference was found for reliance on adult.

To conclude, although half of the juveniles experienced positive relationships with staff, the hypothesis about relatively positive adolescent-staff relationships could not be confirmed.

Table 1. Comparisons between Juvenile Delinquents in a Turkish and Dutch Juvenile Justice Institution: Therapeutic Relationship Quality, Moral Development, and Psychopathology

Turkey Holland M SD n M SD n t d Psychological availability 2.88 0.84 39 3.41 0.64 74 -3.75* -0.75 Reliance on adult 2.70 0.79 39 2.63 0.73 74 0.47 0.09 Cognitive empathy 4.05 0.79 40 3.50 0.73 59 3.56* 0.73 Affective empathy 3.22 0.90 40 2.70 0.61 59 3.43* 0.72 Sociomoral reasoning 2.61 0.42 36 2.41 0.23 108 3.60* 0.72 Prosocial behavior 8.33 1.74 40 7.83 1.96 360 1.55 0.23 Psychopathology 11.69 5.29 40 10.19 4.55 360 1.94+ 0.32 * p < .001, + , p < .10

Moral development (cognitive empathy and moral reasoning) and prosocial behavior are relatively high, and psychopathology relatively low (hypothesis 3)

It can be derived from Table 1 that juvenile delinquents in the Ankara juvenile justice institution rated higher on empathy and sociomoral reasoning (between instrumental and prosocial moral judgment) than their Dutch counterparts residing in secure juvenile justice institutions (Nas, Brugman & Koops 2005; Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen, & Van der Laan, 2012). The differences were large, with Cohen’s d around .70. The difference for psychopathology just failed to reach significance, indicating a trend that the Turkish juveniles rated higher on psychopathology than did Dutch juveniles in juvenile justice

institutions (Boonekamp, 2010). According to borderline clinical and clinical SDQ cut-off scores, 20% of the Turkish juveniles were classified in the borderline-clinical range and 17.5% in the clinical range, which compares favorably to rates of psychopathology found in detained male adolescents in general, amounting to 70% (Colins et al., 2010). This data was not available of the Dutch juveniles. There were no significant differences in prosocial behavior between the Turkish and Dutch juveniles.

Adolescent-staff relationship quality is positively related to moral development, prosocial behavior and negatively related to psychopathology (hypothesis 4)

Affective bond, reliance on adult and psychological availability all correlated significantly and positively with prosocial behavior, while psychological availability was significantly and positively associated with cognitive empathy (see Table 2). No significant relations were found between adolescent-staff relationship quality and affective empathy, moral reasoning and psychopathology.

Table 2. Correlation between Cognitive Empathy and Prosocial Behavior: Affective Bond, Reliance on Adult and Psychological Availability

Cognitive empathy Prosocial behavior

r n r n

Affective bond .17 39 .38* 39

Reliance on adult .16 39 .30* 39 Psychological availability .34* 39 .36* 39

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which a Turkish Juvenile Justice institution in Ankara could be considered as a sociomoral community positively affecting adolescent-staff relationship quality, moral development (empathy and moral reasoning), prosocial behavior and psychopathology. Moral reasoning, empathy and prosocial behavior were expected to be relatively high and psychopathology was expected to be low compared to data of incarcerated juvenile delinquents in Holland. This expectation was based on the assumption that open juvenile justice institutions in Turkey emphasize rehabilitation and moral development instead of retaliation.

Qualitative evidence was found for the sociomoral community approach in the Ankara Turkish juvenile justice institution. Although supportive adolescent-staff relationship quality proved to be associated with higher levels of both cognitive empathy and prosocial behavior, no evidence was found for high adolescent-staff relationship quality in adolescent self-report questionnaires. Hypotheses about positive moral development were confirmed, which was not substantiated in higher levels of prosocial behavior. Finally, findings with respect to psychopathology were equivocal.

The findings derived from adolescent self-reports showed that the juveniles generally did not have positive relationships with staff. However, satisfactory psychological availability of staff concurred with our qualitative study results of staff availability. It is plausible to suggest that most of the Turkish juveniles had a history of insecure attachment relationships, and therefore have insecure-disorganized working models of attachment that might explain lack of positive outcomes in their affective bond with staff and reliance on staff (Smith, Msetfi, & Golding, 2010). Another possible explanation is that relationship quality was assessed in terms of attachment, with neglect of aspects of the therapeutic relationship that are more task orientated (Shirk & Karver, 2003). Nevertheless, high adolescent-staff relationship quality proved to be associated with both cognitive empathy and prosocial behavior.

It is difficult to explain why no positive effect was found for prosocial behavior given the positive outcomes on moral development. Possibly higher levels of both empathy and social moral reasoning did not result in more prosocial behavior because of cognitive distortions. Beerthuizen, Marinus, Brugman and Basinger (2013) have shown that attitudinal-related processes, such as self-serving cognitive distortions, are important correlates of delinquent behavior. Also cognitive distortions have been shown to hamper the translation of moral cognition in morally relevant behaviors (Helmond, Overbeek, Brigman, & Gibbs, in

press). Moreover, although moral reasoning was relatively high if compared to juveniles socialized in Dutch juvenile justice institutions, moral reasoning was still stage 2/3, that is, partly instrumental and thus immature. Also, prosocial behavior is thought to be modeled by staff, but in this case lack of an effective bond between the adolescents and staff may have set limits to learning by means of behavioral modeling (Hirschi, 1969).

The Turkish juvenile delinquents did not compare favorably with the Dutch incarcerated adolescents on psychopathology. Possibly, the Turkish delinquents may have experienced more negative childhood experiences than their Dutch counterparts (import hypothesis, see Souverein, Van der Helm & Stams, 2013). Notably, the offenses committed by the Turkish juveniles were relatively serious and violent crimes. For instance, 13% of the juveniles committed murder. Nevertheless, the prevalence of psychopathology in the Turkish adolescents proved to be relatively low if compared to international normative data (See Colins et al., 2010). It should be noticed here that the juvenile delinquents in both Turkey and Holland often receive (evidence based) treatments in forensic residential youth care, which has been shown to significantly reduce psychopathology (de Swart et al., 2012).

From 2010, all juvenile justice institutions (JJI) in the Netherlands work with the basic methodology YOUTURN (DJI Dienst Justitiele Inrichting, 2014). This methodology is an integration and extension of two methods: the Social Competency Model (SCM) and EQUIP. The basic methodology has now been developed further. EQUIP is an originally American methodology, it was transformed into a method that is more suitable for the Dutch situation and population in 2012. This new method is called TOPS! and it is a part of YOUTURN (DJI Dienst Justitiële Inrichting, 2014). In Turkey treatment of the juvenile is adjusted to the individual needs of the juvenile, while also placement in the institution serves the goal of rehabilitation.

Limitations

The present study has limitations that must be considered when interpreting the findings. First, this study had a small sample size of only 40 juvenile delinquents residing in one institution for male juvenile delinquents. Although juvenile justice institutions in Turkey must work according to similar principles, it would have strengthened our findings if we also had sampled juveniles from other Turkish juvenile justice institutions. Notably, results cannot be generalized to female delinquents in juvenile justice institutions. Second, we compared the data of this study with the study by Nas et al. (2005), Boonekamp (2010) and the study by van der Helm et al. (2012), not being able to control for differences in age, gender, educational

level, criminal history and ethnicity. Nevertheless, comparisons were made with incarcerated justice-involved juveniles in the same age range, with an overrepresentation of males, which strengthens the validity of the comparison that were made. Third, in this study no data were available on the level of intelligence. We therefore cannot examine to what extent intelligence might have affected research outcomes. For instance, it is well established that individuals with a mild intellectual disability go slower through the different stages of moral reasoning and that there is a so-called ceiling effect with the mild intellectual disabilities group. Most of the individuals with a mild intellectual disability cannot surpass stage 2 instrumental moral reasoning (Langdon, Clare, & Murphy, 2011; Van Vugt et al., 2011). We expect that a substantial part of the juveniles in the Ankara juvenile justice institution had intellectual disabilities given the high rate of illiteracy and low levels of formal education. It should also be considered that most instruments were designed and validated for juveniles in Western (non-Islamic) populations. It is therefore questionable whether these instruments are applicable for juveniles in non-western countries. Also the question rises if our study findings are generalizable to Western more individualistic communities given that the Turkish community is a more collectivistic, which considers juvenile delinquency as a failure of the community, where most Western individualistic societies consider delinquency as a failure of the individual.

Recommendations

We recommend to use standardized observational instruments in addition to the questionnaires that were used in our study. Beside staff interviews, we advise to also conduct in-depth interviews with the juvenile delinquents. To assess adolescent-staff relationship quality, the PARA should be complemented with an instrument developed to assess therapeutic relationship quality from a more task-oriented perspective in order to fully represent adolescent-staff relationship quality. Cognitive distortions should be measured in order to be able to explain discrepancies between moral development and morally relevant behavior. From this perspective, also antisocial behavior should be measured to capture the whole range of morally relevant behaviors. The Islam plays a big role in the perspective on juvenile delinquency, because of the important part the Islam plays in the cultural norms and values of Turkish society in general. Aftercare in such society means that the family, village or neighborhood to which the juvenile returns should all take their rehabilitative responsibilities, which might be considered an important protective element possibly

explaining low recidivism rates in Turkey. Finally, we recommend to conduct longitudinal research.

Conclusion

From the findings of this research we could conclude that the staff members of the open juvenile justice institution in Turkey are relatively open, communicative, and psychological available, which makes it possible for them to work on healthy relationships with the adolescents. The results show also that the Ankara juvenile justice institution can be considered a sociomoral community that cares about the juveniles, and which focuses on rehabilitation instead of retaliation. Notably, supportive adolescent-staff relationship quality proved to be associated with higher levels of both cognitive empathy and prosocial behavior, which shows that the Ankara juvenile justice institution might make a difference for at least some of the Turkish juvenile delinquents by establishing high therapeutic relationship quality. Also the trend in most Western societies, or in this case the Dutch justice system, is to respond to juvenile delinquency with incarceration as a means of punishment from the perspective of retribution. On the other hand, the Turkish juvenile justice system has set itself the main goal to equip the juvenile delinquents with skills to be able to independently function in society5.

Despite study limitations, this study provides unique insight in the (re)socialization of Turkish juvenile delinquents in a juvenile justice institution, which might have far-reaching consequences for treatment of juvenile delinquents in both Turkey and Western countries, where juvenile justice institutions might also focus on rehabilitation from a children’s rights perspective, but may have more difficulties in attuning rehabilitative efforts with the perspective of retaliation.

5_{Cocuk koruma kanuna gore verilen koruyucu ve destekleyici tedbir kararlarinin uygulanmasi hakkinda yonetmelik}

References

Ankara Adalet Bakanligi / Ministry of Justice Ankara. Verkregen op 2 augustus 2014, van: http://www.ankaracocukvegenclik.adalet.gov.tr/kurum%20tan%C4%B1t%C4%B1m%C4%B 1/kurum.html

Beerthuizen, M. G. C. J. ; Brugman, D., Basinger, K. S. (2013). Oppositional defiance, moral reasoning and moral value evaluation as predictors of self-reported juvenile delinquency. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 460-474.

Boonekamp, T. J. (2010). Een onderzoek naar de betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van de SDQ. Master’s thesis: Universiteit van Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/document/354849.

Bordin, E.S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16, 252–260.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Boyes, M. C., & Allen, S. G. (1993). Styles of parent-child interaction and moral reasoning in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 551-570.

Cardol, M., De Jong, B.A., & Ward, C.D. (2002). Cardol M. De Jong BA. Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 970-974.

Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison. Youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988–998.

Colins, O., Vermeiren, R., Vreugdenhil, C., Van den Brink, W., Doreleijers, T., & Broekaert, E. (2010). Psychiatric disorders in detained male adolescents: A systematic literature review. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 255-263.

De Swart, J. J. W., Van den Broek, H., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., Van der Laan, P. H., Holsbrink-Engels, G. A., & Van der Helm, G. H. P. (2012). The effectiveness of institutional youth care over the past three decades: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1818-1824.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. Verkregen op 13 augustus 2014, van:

http://www(.dji.nl)/Onderwerpen/Jongeren-in-detentie/behandeling-zorg-en-onderwijs/Basismethodiek-YOUTURN.

Garrido, V., & Morales, L. A. (2007). Serious (Violent and Chronic) Juvenile Offenders: A systematic review of treatment Effectiveness in Secure Corrections. Campbell Collaboration. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991-998.

Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., & Fuller, D. (1992) Moral Maturity: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.

Groves, W. B., McCleary, R., & Newman, G. R. (1985). Religion, Modernisation, and World Crime. Comparative Social Research 8, 59–78.

Haan, N., Langer, J. & Kohlberg, L. (1976). Family patterns of moral reasoning. Child Development, 47, 1204-1206.

Helal, A. A., & Coston, C. T. M. (1991). Low Crime Rates in Bahrain: Islamic Social Control, Testing the Theory of Synnomie. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,15, 125–44.

Helmond, P., Overbeek, G., Brigman, D., & Gibbs, J. C. (in press). A meta-analysis on cognitive distortions and externalizing problem behavior: Associations, moderators, and treatment effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hoffman, M. L., Saltztein, H. D. (1967). Parent discipline and the child moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 45-57.

IJzendoorn, M. H. van (1997). Attachment, emergent Morality, and aggression: toward a developmental socioemotional model of antisocial behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 703-727.

James, C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., Van der Laan, P. H., & De Roo, A. C. (2013). Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 263-274.

Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476.

Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P. (2006). The development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29 (4), 589-611. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In J. Berman (Ed.),Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 135-200). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2006). Meta-analyses of therapeutic relationship variables in youth and family therapy: The evidence for different relationship variables in the child and adolescent treatment outcome literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 50-65.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124-147.

Maccoby, E. E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Mulvey, E. P., & Schubert, C. A. (2011). Youth in prison and beyond. In B. Feld & D. Bishop (Eds.), Oxford handbook on juvenile crime and juvenile justice. New York, NY: Oxford.

Nas, C., Brugman, D. & Koops, W. (2005). Effects of a multicomponent peer intervention program for juvenile delinquents on moral judgment, distortions, social skills and recidivism. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 11, 421-434.

Nijsten, C. (1998). Opvoeding in Turkse gezinnen in Nederland. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Parhar, K. K., Wormith, J. S., Derkzen, D. M., & Beauregard, A. M. (2008). Offender coercion in treatment: A meta-analysis of effectiveness. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35, 1109-1135. Parikh, B. (1980). Development of moral judgment and its relation to family environmental factors in

Indian and American families. Child Development, 51, 1030-1039.

Powers, S. I. (1988). Moral judgment development within the family. Journal of Moral Education, 17, 209-219.

Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Rest,J., Thoma, S., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 5-28.

Schein, E. H. (1993). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Loughran, T. A., & Loyosa, S. H. (2012). Perceptions of institutional experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 71-93.

Schuengel, C. & Zegers, M. A. M. (2003). Psychological Availability and Reliance on Adult Manual, Free University Amsterdam/ Orthopedagogical Center OGH, Amsterdam/Zetten.

Serajzadeh, S. H. (2002) Islam and Crime the Moral Community of Muslims. Journal of Arabic and Islam studies, 4, 111- 131.

Shrik, S., & Karver, M. S. (2003). Prediction of treatment outcome from relationship variables in child and adolescent therapy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71 (3), 452-464.

Smith, A. E. M., Msetfi, R. M., & Golding, L. (2010). Client self-rated adult attachment patterns and the therapeutic alliance: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 326-337. Souverein, F. A., Van der Helm, G. H. P., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). Nothing works in secure

residential youth care? Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1941-1945.

Stark, R., Kent, L., & Doyle, D. P. (1982). Religion and Delinquency: The Ecology of a ‘Lost’ Relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19, 4–24.

Stams, G. J. J. M., Brugman, D., Deković, M., Van Rosmalen, L., Van der Laan, P. H., & Gibbs, J. C. (2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 697-713.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Klapwijk, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2009). What Works’ for juvenile prisoners: The role of group climate in a youth prison. Journal of Children’s Services, 4 (2), 36-48.

Van der Helm, G. H. P. (2011). First do no harm. Amsterdam: SWP Publisher. Dissertation: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Boekee, I., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Fear is the key. Keeping the delicate balance between flexibility and control in a Dutch youth prison. Journal of Children’s Services, 6, 248-263.

Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. M., Van der Laan, P. H. (2012). Group Climate and Empathy in a Sample of Incarcerated Boys. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1149 - 1160.

Van Langen, M. A. M., Wissink, I. B., van Vugt, E. S., Van der Stouwe, T., Stams, G. J. J. M. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 179-189.

Verhulst, F. C. (2006). Leerboek kinder- en jeugdpsychiatrie. Assen: van Gorcum.

Vermeiren, R., Schwab-Stone, M., Ruchkin, V., De Clippele, A., & Deboutte, D. (2002). Predicting recidivism in delinquent adolescents from psychological and psychiatric assessment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 43, 142-149.

Vermeiren, R. (2003). Psychopathology and delinquency in adolescents: a descriptive and developmental perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 277-318.

Wartna, B. S. J., Tollenaar, N., Blom, M., Verweij, S., Alberda, D. L., & Essers, A. A. M. (2012). Recidivebericht 2012 landelijke cijfers met betrekking tot de strafrechtelijke recidive van justitiabelen uit de periode 2002-2009. Den Haag: WODC.

Wissink, I. B. (2006). Parenting, friendship relations and adolescent functioning in different ethnic groups. Doctoral dissertation: University of Amsterdam.

Zegers, M. (2007). Attachment among institutionalized adolescents: Mental representations, therapeutic relationships and problem behavior. Doctoral dissertation: Free University of Amsterdam.

Zegers, M. A. M., Schuengel, C., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2006). Attachment Representations of Institutionalized Adolescents and Their Professional Caregivers: Predicting the Development of Therapeutic Relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 325-334.

Appendix

Appendix. 1

Semi-structured interview for the staff members

1. What is the vision of the open juvenile justice institution? 2. What activities can be found in the institution?

3. Does your institution offer education or training on the job? 4. What methods do you use?

5. How long have you been working here?

6. How would you describe the atmosphere within the institution? 7. What is your motivation for this work?

8. What are you hoping to achieve?