Residential Group Climate
A Scoping Review
Masterscriptie Forensische Orthopedagogiek Graduate School of Child Development and Education Universiteit van Amsterdam S. M. (Sarith) Posma 10673792 Supervisor: G. J. J. M. (Geert-Jan) Stams Second Supervisor: E. M. A. (Ellen) Eltink Amsterdam, 27 October 2016
Abstract (EN)
Research on residential group climate shows a broad variety of terminology, definitions and dimensions, which causes difficulties in comparing results of empirical studies. Unambiguous language use and a uniform definition is needed to clarify the effects of residential group climate on residents’ outcomes. This study provides a definition of residential group climate that is well supported by theory, and distinguishes six theoretically supported dimensions of residential group climate: repression, structure, autonomy, group atmosphere, support and deprivation. These dimensions are compared with the dimensions assessed in existing questionnaires for residential group climate. The results show an underrepresentation of the discussed dimensions in the available questionnaires, and an overrepresentation of features and dimensions that are not supported by theory on residential group care. It is recommended that a new questionnaire for measuring residential group climate be developed.
Introduction
In recent years research on group climate in residential (youth) institutions is on the rise (Souverein, Van der Helm, & Stams, 2013). The terminology to describe group climate in residential institutions is diverse (for an overview, see Boone, Althoff, & Koenraadt, 2016), and ranges from the commonly used term ‘social climate’ (inter alia: Langdon, Cosgrave, & Tranah, 2004; Schalast, Redies, Collins, Stacey, & Howells, 2008; Toch, 1978; Tonkin, 2016; Wilkinson & Reppucci, 1973) to ‘ward atmosphere’ (Moos, 1974; 1989). In research on group climate in correctional institutions, the term ‘prison social climate’ is often used (Casey, Day, & Reynolds, 2016; Ross, Diamond, Liebling, & Saylor, 2008; Saylor, 1984). Notably, the terminology that is used to designate group climate in residential institutions may not be specific for this context, but is also used to describe group climate in other (non-residential) social contexts, such as schools or residences for the elderly (Lemke & Moos, 1987; Mainhard, Brekelmans, Den Brok, & Wubbels, 2011; Martin, Papworth, Ginns, & Malmberg, 2015).
Most research on group climate in residential institutions focuses on social climate (Tonkin, 2016), which partly has its roots in organizational climate, with the emphasis on the social interaction within the organization. Gilmer (1966, p. 57, cited in Hoy, 1990) defined an organizational climate as ‘those characteristics that distinguish the organization from other organizations and that influence the behavior of people in the organization.’ In the context of correctional institutions, Moos (1989) defines social climate as the material, social and emotional state of a certain unit and the interaction between these components, where Ajdukovic (1990) defines social climate as ‘a set of properties or conditions relating to the internal environment of an organization, as they are perceived by its members’ (p. 422). More recently, Day, Casey, Vess and Huisy (2012) used a definition of social climate in prisons in
their research, which was informed by therapeutic aims and was derived from research on social climate of forensic psychiatric wards by Schalast et al. (2008).
Schubert, Mulvey and colleagues (Mulvey, Schubert, & Odgers, 2010; Schubert, Mulvey, Loughran, & Losoya, 2012) have defined the social climate within correctional youth institutions as the adolescents’ perception of the institutional experience and functioning during placement. The terminology, definitions and dimensions of group climate in research on residential youth care are mostly derived from studies on social climate within institutions for adults, and show considerable differences among studies (Boone et al., 2016; Tonkin, 2016; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011). It is, therefore, difficult to compare the results and implications of these studies. Without uniformity, it is impossible to clarify the effects of positive and negative group climate on residents’ outcomes.
The theoretical background of the research on residential institutions can be found in five major approaches, namely: (1) Goffman’s theory of total institutions and the risk of hospitalization; (2) Foucault’s theory of discipline; (3) Merton’s theory of deviance (i.e., structure versus anomy); (4) Attachment theory; (5) Clemmer’s prisonization theory, including its further development in terms of Sykes’ import and deprivations hypotheses.
Goffman (1961) considered residential institutions as total institutions, because all aspects of life take place under the same authority within the residential facility. Most of the activities are joined activities and take place during the day in the company of residents (i.e., inmates, clients, or patients). These daily activities follow a tight schedule and are imposed by formal rules to fulfill the aims of the institution, which results in a loss of the responsibilities of the residents (Goffman, 1961). Most things will be taken over by the institution and its staff, and therefore the residents are not required to make choices anymore, which may result in hospitalization (Goffman, 1961). The negative effects of hospitalization often appear when residents start taking care of themselves, because they have been deprived of their autonomy
for a long time and they suddenly need to act autonomously. Goffman (1961) also discusses the unequal distribution of power between residents and staff, which may result in repression.
Foucault (1975) discussed Bentham’s (n.d.) idea of the panopticon to clarify modern discipline in, among other things, residential institutions. The panopticon allows a higher degree of observation and control, and is a way to obtain power of the minds of those with no authority (Bentham, n.d.). Discipline and structure are conserved by means of a strict daily routine and rules, while all behavior of residents is observed. The structure ensures that residents are malleable and manageable and that they arrange themselves to the standards of the institution (Foucault, 1975). Nowadays, there are different resources available to allow for observation and control, such as security and staff, and technological resources. With observation and control being important aims in residential institutions, it causes the resident’s autonomy to diminish or even to be lost. This is a problematic issue, because the right amount of autonomy should be granted to residents, so they are able to learn (De Valk, Kuiper, Van der Helm, Maas, & Stams, 2016).
Being controlled may provoke different reactions in residents of residential institutions, such as stress and strain. Societal or institutional goals may pressure an individual to conform and the perceived strain triggers a choice between different modes of adaptation. Merton (1968) distinguishes five modes. Conformity occurs when the approved goals are pursued through available and approved means. Innovation entails the use of unapproved means to pursue approved goals. Ritualism occurs when the approved means that are used to achieve goals are rejected. When the individual rejects both the goals and the means, retreatism occurs. However, when the goals and means are rejected and the individual tries to replace them, it is called rebellion. Residents make a choice between these modes of adaptation that conforms with the behavior of fellow residents. According to Merton (1968), it is important that the necessary means are available to accomplish the institutional goals.
These means are often presented through the daily structure. Discontinuity between goals and means is evident in ritualism and innovation, which are both instances or normlessness (i.e., anomy).
Placement in a residential institution results in separation from primary attachment figures, while the lack of continuity and stability of resident-staff relationships may hamper the development of new (secure) attachments (Souverein et al., 2013) that may protect against psychopathology. Notably, insecure attachments have been shown to be a high risk factor for the development of later psychopathology (Colonnesi et al., 2011; Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, & Roisman, 2010; Groh, Roisman, Van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Fearon, 2012; Hoeve et al., 2012). Many of the residents of residential institutions have a history of adverse childhood experiences, resulting in insecure attachments, which makes it difficult to engage in new supportive relationships (Zegers, Schuengel, Van IJzendoorn, & Janssens, 2006). Still, some residential institutions have been shown to be able to provide a supportive context, providing residents the means to have positive attachment experiences with staff members or even fellow-residents (Souverein et al., 2013).
All human behavior is influenced by individual characteristics as well as environmental features (Lewin, 1936). The unique residential context is thought to negatively affect the adjustment to the institutional environment (deprivation hypothesis, Sykes, 1958). Clemmer (1940, p. 279) introduced the term prisonization, which he described as ‘the taking on, in greater or lesser degree, of the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary’ by prisoners. It is important to keep in mind that residential group climate is not only dependent on the group features itself, but that the individual characteristics of the residents may also have influence. The import hypothesis states that individual characteristics and experiences define a large amount of the adaption to and perception of residential climate
(Innes, 1997; Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Residents also influence each other, in both positive and negative ways. The process in which residents reinforce each other in delinquent or aggressive behavior is known as deviancy training (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999).
One of the aims of residential institutions is to realize behavioral change in the residents, rather than proceed with the negative behavior. Placement in a residential institution can be ‘a life-changing’ situation, which causes residents to make changes in their behavior. This change towards positive behavior is known as desistance (McNeill, 2009; Soyer, 2014). Residents in residential institutions often are expected to complete certain tasks in society, while they often do not have the skills to fulfil these tasks. The social competence model states that by easing the tasks the proper skills can be taught. The focus within residential institutions lies towards learning skills for living, school and leisure time (Slot & Spanjaard, 2009).
Most residential youth institutions consist of three environments (living, school and leisure time) and thus may be regarded as total institutions (Goffman, 1961). For each of these three environments, adequate perspectives are designed, which form the basis of the long-term goals for treatment and/or detention. These three environments are the basic elements within residential institutions, and therefore shape three different climates present in a residential institution. A distinction can be made between secure/semi-secure/correctional and open residential institutions. The former include all three environments at the same location and the latter, the open institutions, include only the group climate within the residential institution. In open residential institutions only a small part of the leisure time takes place within the institution and the rest takes place at e.g. sports clubs or social hangouts in society. Also, the residents visit school within society.
Within residential institution, three different climates can be distinguished: residential group climate which is applicable for all residential institutions, (residential) leisure climate and (residential) school climate. Furthermore, there are two additional climates that need to be discussed. First, treatment climate should be seen as a part of all three climates discussed above, because (most of) the treatment goals and perspectives that are determined for residents are focused on these three environments. In addition, it is important to focus on the therapeutic alliance between the residents and the social workers and/or therapists. A good therapeutic alliance has a positive effect on the satisfaction of the forensic services and the residential group climate in the institution (Bressington, Stewart, Beer, & MacInnes, 2011; Gilburt, Rose, & Slade, 2008). Therefore, secondly, work climate is a separate climate, which covers the climate as perceived by the staff of residential institutions. Work climate has to be seen separately from the residential climates, since it is not part of the living conditions of the residents and it is not perceived by the residents. Figure 1 and Figure 2 present the visualization of the different climates present in residential institutions.
Figure 2. (Residential) climate in open residential institutions
Most research on residential group climate has focused on a specific kind of residential institution, e.g. correctional institutions, secure institutions or forensic psychiatric institutions, and retain a terminology which is suitable for that particular institution. This research focusses on residential group climate as a whole, within all sorts of residential institutions, from groups in open, semi-secure and secure institutions.
The current study
There is a lot indistinctness on the terminology, definition and dimensions of residential group climate. It is therefore merely impossible to compare studies on their results and implications. In addition, a caveat of this diversity is that the positive and/or negative effects of residential group climate are not comparable. Most initial research was focused on prison group climate (Moos, 1968a, 1968b; Wilkinson & Reppucci, 1973). In the years that followed multiple questionnaires were developed to monitor residential group climate, each with different dimensions (for an overview of the different questionnaires, see Tonkin, 2016).
Boone et al. (2016) made an attempt to conceptualize residential (living) group climate in both youth and adult custodial institutions and came up with a definition and six factors that are thought represent residential group climate. They distinguished between contact with staff and detainees, autonomy, contact with the outside world and family relationships, safety, meaningful daily activities and physical well-being. Their study regarded residential group
climate as a specification of the catch-all term social climate. Where social climate is applicable to a diverse variety of organizations, residential group climate is merely present in institutions that provide temporary or permanent residency to those in need for treatment, either imposed or by own choice. They provided a functional definition of residential (living) group climate in custodial institutions (page 145): “the aspects of the involuntary residential
stay in correctional institutions which have an impact on the well-being and/or behavior of the occupants during and after their stay”.
The definition provided by Boone et al. (2016) does not cover the full concept of residential group climate that follows from scientific literature as outlined in the introduction of this scoping review. I therefore propose the following definition after having consulted Van der Helm (personal communication, October 27th 2016; Stams & Van der Helm, in press): residential group climate is ‘the quality of the social and physical environment in terms of the provision of sufficient and necessary conditions for physical and mental health, well-being and personal growth of the residents, with respect for their human dignity and human rights as well as (if not restricted by judicial measures) their personal autonomy, aimed at participation in society’ (see Stams & Van der Helm, in press).
We discussed five theoretical approaches on residential institutions, from which six dimensions of residential group climate can be derived. The first dimension that can be distinguished is Repression. Both Goffman (1961) and Foucault (1975) discuss the risks of a repressive climate as a result of, respectively, authority and control. The second dimension is
Structure, which importance is discussed by Goffman (1961) and Merton (1968). Both
accentuate that structure is needed for personal development. The third dimension is
Autonomy. Goffman (1961) discusses the importance of autonomy during residency, because
in society the residents will have to take care of themselves and act autonomously. Foucault (1975) points out that extensive control has a negative effect on the autonomy of residents.
The fourth dimension Group atmosphere derives from Merton (1968) and Tuckman (1965), who focuses on perceived strain and the way peers contribute to decisions about adaptation. Group atmosphere can have positive effects, such as peer support (Sekol, 2013), or negative effects, such as deviancy training (Dishion et al., 1999). The fifth dimension is Support, which is largely derived from attachment theory, which emphasizes that the interpersonal relationship with the staff is important for the development of the residents, since the staff take over the role of the parent in residential institutions. The sixth dimension is Deprivation. Goffman (1961) and Foucault (1975) discuss the basic needs of which residents are deprived when in a residential institution.
Most questionnaires mentioned by Tonkin (2016) and Boone et al. (2016) were developed for measuring group climate in penitentiaries for adults. The structure in penitentiaries for adults differs considerably from residential institutions for youth. The major aim of prisons for adults is punishment using incarceration, with a smaller role for rehabilitation to reduce the risk of recidivism. Adult prisons are therefore inherently repressive, although no unnecessary suffering should be added to the imprisonment (Boone et al., 2016). Prisons for juveniles focus primarily on rehabilitation and education, because adolescents should not be held fully accountable for their norm-transgressive behavior and have the right to be educated (Boone et al. 2016; Mulvey & Schubert, 2011; Mulvey et al., 2010; Van der Helm et al., 2011). The focus of this research is on the dimensions used to measure residential group climate of residential institutions for adolescents.
By means of a scoping review (Mays, Roberts, & Popay, 2001), which maps the key concepts underlying research on residential group climate in residential youth care, this study examines the dimensions that are part of residential group climate, while a further theoretical foundation for these dimensions and the underlying features is ought to be found. These
dimensions are discussed and compared to dimensions measured in existing questionnaires for residential group climate.
Method
A scoping review (Grant & Booth, 2009; Mays et al., 2001) was conducted to analyze and critically evaluate the available research literature on the dimensions of residential group climate. We identified six different dimensions of residential group climate that will be further analyzed in this review: repression, structure, autonomy, group atmosphere, support and deprivation. For this review, different sources were used to identify relevant research: search of electronic databases, a manual search of leading journals and search through the reference lists of the included studies.
The following databases were searched to identify relevant studies on residential group climate and the associated dimensions: UvA CataloguePlus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Since there is a large variety of terms used to refer to residential group climate and its dimensions, a broad range of search terms was used to come to an extensive collection of results. Based on the theoretical framework outlined in the introduction of this thesis, a distinction was made between the following dimensions: (a) Repression, with the search terms “repression, control, coercion, authority and (soft) power”, (b) Structure, with the search terms “structure, control, activities and (clarity of) rules”, (c) Autonomy, with the search terms “autonomy, liberty, freedom, proxemics and personal space”, (d) Group atmosphere, with the search terms “atmosphere, environment, social interaction, peers, safety, privacy and trust”, (e) Support, with the search terms “(social) support, therapeutic relation/alliance, collaboration, (instrumental) help, bond, affection, responsive, availability, trust, attachment and characteristics”, and (f) Deprivation, with the search terms “deprivation, living conditions, (lack of) interaction, (lack of) privacy, (lack of) attention, boredom and anxiety”. The search terms ‘privacy’, ‘control’ and ‘trust’ pertain to two dimensions. In Group
Atmosphere privacy has a more positive emphasis and in Deprivation it is the lack of privacy
which attains a more negative emphasis. The same counts for control, which has a negative emphasis in Repression and a more positive emphasis in Support. In Support trust is found in the relation between the adolescent and the social worker. In Group Atmosphere the focus lies on trust among peers. All searches were specified with either “youth, adolescents, children and/or residential (care/facility)”.
First, the studies found were selected by title and abstract, and then added to Mendeley Desktop to create an overview of the relevant full texts. Second, the following inclusion criteria were used (1) the studies had to be in English or Dutch, (2) the studies should focus on Western countries and/or cultures, (3) the subject of the studies had to be the climate within a group in a residential facility, and (4) the studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If studies showed results not applicable to youth in residential groups, they were excluded from the review. The reference lists of the found studies were searched to find any missing relevant studies. The full texts of the newly found, relevant studies were also added to Mendeley Desktop. Finally, the different studies were placed in separate groups in Mendeley Desktop to give a clear overview of the information per dimension of residential group climate. Some of the studies were used for multiple dimensions.
The dimensions were compared with dimensions assessed in eight questionnaires that purport to measure residential group climate: (1) The Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES; Schalast, Redies, Collins, Stacey, & Howels, 2008), (2) the Measuring the Quality of Prison Life for prisoners questionnaire (MQPL; Liebling, Hulley, & Crewe, 2012), (3) the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI; Wright, 1985), (4) the Prison Group Climate Instrument (PGCI; Van der Helm et al., 2011), (5) the Prison Survey (Henneken-Hordijk & Van Gemmert, 2011), (6) the Questionnaire de Climat de Groupe en Centre de Réadaptation (Mathys, Lanctôt, & Touchette, 2013; Stams, 2014), (7) the Styve/MacKenzie questionnaire
(Styve/MacKenzie; MacKenzie, Wilson, Styve, & Gover, 2001; Styve & MacKenzie, 2003), and (8) the Ward Atmosphere Scale (WAS; Moos, 1989). In addition, a further theoretical foundation is given of the different features of the dimensions.
Results Repression
Residents are subjected to the power of the institution and are therefore limited in their actions (Goffman, 1961). Most aspects of institutional power are represented by the authority of the staff, since they can determine the privileges for the residents and decide which deviant behaviors will be reported (Crewe, 2011b). Furthermore, residents are under the continuous supervision of the staff. The basic split in authority (i.e., power misbalance) allows staff to act in ways that are perceived as unfair or unjust by the residents (Goffman, 1961). People can easily change their controlling behavior, both positively and negatively, in a way that suits the role they are fulfilling (The Stanford Prison Experiment; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). On the other hand, people are easily tempted to obey those with authority (Milgram
Experiment; Milgram, 1963, 1974). It is, therefore, wise that authority is examined (and
assessed) from both the staff’s and the residents’ point of view.
Authority figures may use intimidation or force to coerce the residents into activities or treatment (Haney et al., 1973). Coercion is the power an authority figure has to force compliance upon residents by threatening with sanctions (Geller, Fisher, Grudzinskas, Clayfield, & Lawlor, 2006; Snow & Austin, 2009). Souverein et al. (2013) discuss that coercion is a way to obtain structure and control and can transform into repression due to the power imbalance between staff and residents. Sanctions may be inflicted by staff to modify behaviors of residents (Toch, 2008; Toch & Kupers, 2007), but it has shown to be ineffective and has negative results for the bond between staff and residents (De Valk et al., 2015, 2016;
Fluttert, 2010). Also, the effectiveness of interventions decreases as the degree of coercion increases (Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008). In contrast, non-coercive therapeutic environments enhance the development of cognitive and interpersonal skills and positive outcomes of treatment (American Association of Children’s Residential Centers, 2014; Lipsey, 2009).
Crewe (2011b) discusses a system of rewards and punishments called soft power. Rewards for those who show discipline and punishments for those who have trouble regulating themselves. This system justifies the punishments, since the residents are responsible for achieving their own rewards. According to Nye (2004), soft power is a way to use persuasion and attraction to stimulate the residents to pursue their goals, in contrast with coercion, which can be described as ‘hard power’. The use of hard power, such as coercion and sanctions, may cause suppressed, unjustified and intrusive feelings with the residents.
Authority, coercion and soft power, the three features that characterize repression in residential institutions, are not assessed in one single questionnaire. However, these features are mentioned in different questionnaires. Out of the eight examined questionnaires, the PGCI is the only questionnaire that purports to assess repression. In the PGCI, repression entails features of ‘harsh and unfair control, a weak organizational structure, no flexibility, incremental rules, little privacy, extreme boredom, and (frequent) humiliation of inmates’ (Van der Helm et al., 2011). However, the PGCI shows two problems in the conceptualization of repression. First, the definition the PGCI gives of repression is too broad, since it not only includes features of repression, but also of structure (a weak organizational structure and no flexibility) and deprivation (little privacy and extreme boredom). Subsequently, it does not satisfy the definition of repression given by De Valk et al. (2016), which entails repression being a transactional processes between residents and authority figures, where the authority figures act in a harmful way towards the residents, which is affected and mediated by
intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of the authority figures. Second, the items measuring repression in the PGCI do not entirely correspond with the conceptualization. The PGCI does entail features of authority and coercion. As for authority, it only focusses on the perceptions of authority used by staff and not the residents’ sensitivity for authority.
Two more questionnaires, the MQPL and WAS, also measure features of repression. The MQPL contains a set of dimensions concerning professionalism, which entails four dimensions regarding aspects of the staff’s work, including ‘staff professionalism’ and ‘fairness’. Staff professionalism entails the competence and confidence of the staff while using their authority, but excludes the residents’ sensitivity for authority. The concept of fairness includes the legality and proportionality of punishments, which measures whether soft power is present. The problem with these MQPL dimensions is that even though the features of authority and soft power are measured, the dimensions in which they are measured also contain other aspects of staff’s work. The WAS involves a dimension measuring staff control, which is focused on the extent to which necessary measures are used to control the residents. This dimension entails items that assess both authority as used by staff and coercion, but like the other questionnaires it lacks items on the residents’ sensitivity to authority, and therefore authority is not completely measured.
Repression: Conclusions
Repression occurs in residential institutions when the staff misuse their authority by forcing actions upon residents. Using coercion or even applying threatened sanctions causes negative outcomes for not only the interventions, but also for the bond between staff and residents. A questionnaire to measure the residential group climate should contain a dimension on repression, which should entail items on authority, coercion and soft power. The questionnaires show an underrepresentation of repression, and therefore none of the
questionnaires provide a complete view on repression. For an overview of the features of repression in the compared questionnaires see the Appendix, Table 1. The construction of a new dimension on repression, containing all features, is advised to measure residential group climate.
Structure
According to Kok (1997) effective treatment and personal development are only possible in a structured residential group climate. This structure is given by the daily routine which should contain a certain consistency and predictability, so the residents know what is expected of them. Meanwhile, balance is needed between the strictness of the daily routine and flexibility of the staff in maintaining this daily routine. Flexibility helps residents in learning how to deal with different perspectives and shifts of expected events (Slot & Spanjaard, 2009).
During the daytime activities, which are part of the daily routine, the residents are expected to complete a variety of tasks, during which they acquire and develop skills. The activities are therefore an opportunity for personal development (Liebling & Arnold, 2004). During this development, the residents also learn self-confidence and self-reliance (Molleman, 2014), a process that is supported by getting feedback on actions (Slot & Spanjaard, 2009). The daytime activities in the residential institution can be seen as possibilities to practice with the skills needed in society.
A clear set of rules and boundaries is needed to create a secure environment in which learning can take place in various situations (Rauktis et al., 2009). Rules provide clarity on what is acceptable behavior and necessary predictable structure (Soenen, D’Oosterlinck, & Broekaert, 2013). In order to avoid a strict culture based on countless and a broad variety of rules, most residential institutions have a number of basic rules, completed with agreements. The distinction between rules and agreements lies in the fact that rules are made one-sided,
and agreements are made two-sided and have multilateral possibilities. A rule is ‘a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular situation’ (Rule, n.d.). An agreement is ‘an arrangement by which people agree about what is to be done’ (Agreement, n.d.). Clarity of rules and agreements are needed in order for development to be possible (Rauktis et al., 2009; Soenen et al., 2013). In addition, residents indicate that honest and righteous rules, which are always administered in the same way, contribute to their treatment (Soenen et al., 2013).
Structure can be offered in residential institutions through a predictable daily routine, where flexibility by the staff in this routine is possible. With rules and agreements supporting the daily routine and corresponding activities, the residents are able to develop in a secure and educational environment. Also, providing an educational culture with a structured base contributed to reducing recidivism (Lipsey, 2009; Parhar et al., 2008) and gaining stabilization and rehabilitation of psychiatric problems (Van der Helm, Stams, Van Genabeek, & van der Laan, 2012).
Structure in residential institutions is featured by consistency and predictability, scheduled events and clarity of rules. Of the examined questionnaires, two have dimensions called ‘structure’, the PEI and Styve/MacKenzie. The structure dimension of the PEI measures whether the institution has orderly and scheduled events and clear-cut rules, which should be consistent and predictable. The PEI entails all three features that are part of the structure in residential institutions, except for possibilities for flexibility during the day. In the Styve/MacKenzie, the structure dimension is mainly focused on the formality of the daily routine, such as consistency. In addition, it includes interactions with other residents and staff, which is, from a theoretical point of view, not a feature of structure. Second, the Styve/MacKenzie is not explicit in mentioning the clarity of rules as a feature of structure.
The daily activities are not included in the structure dimension, but are measured in a separate dimension ‘activity’.
In the WAS two dimensions are distinguished that measure features of structure. First, ‘order and organization’, which entails the importance of order and structure in the daily routine. However, the actual activities during the day are not taken into account. Second, ‘program clarity’, which focusses on the explicitness of rules and procedures, and whether residents understand what is expected of them during the day. Both the QCGCR and the Prison Survey have items measuring clarity of rules. In the QCGCR these items are part of a dimension measuring educational practices, and in the Prison Survey, these items are included in the ‘Rules and Rights’ dimension. In the Prison Survey, the scheduled daily activities are concisely included. However, the primary focus of the activities lies in the satisfaction with the activities, and not the fact that they are scheduled and the form in which they take place.
Structure: Conclusions
According to the previously discussed evidence on structure in residential institutions, it is advised that a questionnaire measuring the residential group climate should contain a dimension covering structure. For an overview of the features of structure in the compared questionnaires see the Appendix, Table 2. Taking into account the compared questionnaires, it can be concluded that the structure dimension of the PEI provides a good basis. This dimension should be complemented by items measuring the degree of flexibility of the staff in dealing with the daily routine to obtain a dimension containing all features of structure in residential institutions.
Autonomy
Sykes (1958) mentions that psychological pains of imprisonment can be just as painful and damaging as physical maltreatment. Among other things, these psychological pains include the loss of liberty and freedom to decide on own actions, in other words, the loss of autonomy (Crewe, 2011a). The difference between liberty and freedom lies in the degree of external control. ‘Freedom is a state of being capable of making decisions without external control’ and ‘liberty is freedom which has been granted to people by external control’ (De Valk et al., 2016; Waverly, 2011). In residential institutions, external control is of great influence on the autonomy of the residents. Therefore, it is only fair to say that pure freedom is rarely present in residential institutions, but the residents encounter a certain degree of liberty to choose their actions.
According to self-determination theory, people have three basic psychological needs that support, both intrinsic and extrinsic, motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). One of these basic psychological needs is autonomy, which gives residents the possibility to determine actions according to their own willingness and choice. Even though residential institutions have rules and boundaries, residents have the liberty to act by their own choice, as long as it is with respect to these rules and boundaries. Residents should be granted the right amount of autonomy, so they are able to learn, which stimulates their personal development (De Kogel & Nagtegaal, 2008; De Valk et al., 2016).
Proxemics is valuable for the organization of space and spatial layout in the institution (Hall, 1963). Ulrich (1991) developed the Theory of Supportive Design, which assumes that perceived autonomy in influenced by the spatial layout of a building. By giving residents a private room and/or giving them control over functional aspects such as the light or temperature, the perceived autonomy will be enhanced. Aside from proxemics, the autonomy dimension should contain features of liberty and self-determination.
Three out of five questionnaires that measure features of autonomy contain an ‘autonomy’ dimension, the MQPL, WAS and Prison Survey. The MQPL focusses on the feelings of agency and self-determination in the residents and leaves out the features of proxemics. The WAS describes autonomy as to what extent residents can be self-sufficient and independent in their decision-making. Therefore, the WAS does not contain all features belonging to autonomy, similar to the MQPL. The autonomy dimension of the Prison Survey focusses merely on the self-dependence of the residents and includes one item on the freedom of movements, whereby the attempt is made to measure proxemics in residential institutions. The features of liberty are not present in this dimension. It is therefore concluded that even though these dimensions claim to measure autonomy, not all features of autonomy are included.
In the other two questionnaires, the PEI and Styve/MacKenzie, features of autonomy are part of the dimensions that is called ‘freedom’. In the PEI the focus lies on the conditions that allow autonomous choices to be made, even with the minimal restrictions that are present in residential institutions. Only the feature of proxemics is not accounted for in the PEI. The Styve/MacKenzie describes freedom as the ability for residents to have a choice in the activities and movement. This questionnaire is thereby similar to the MQPL and the WAS, since proxemics on autonomy are not measured. The designation of the dimension freedom in the PEI and Styve/Mackenzie is, in light of the definition of freedom, a remarkable choice. First, since residents of residential institutions are always subject to external control, it is difficult to speak of true freedom for the residents. Second, the dimensions of these questionnaires both entail features of self-determination and the PEI includes restrictions as well. Therefore, the dimension is wider than just the concept of freedom.
Autonomy: Conclusions
In measuring residential group climate autonomy is a major factor, since granted autonomy is necessary for residents to develop and gain personal growth, which is, in the end, the aim for all residents. For an overview of the features of repression in the compared questionnaires see the Appendix, Table 3. Of the compared questionnaires the PEI seems to contain the most features of autonomy. Suggested is that items on proxemics will be added and that the dimension should be renamed to autonomy. Perceived autonomy for residents can be characterized as basic autonomy, where enough personal space and opportunities are provided for personal growth.
Group Atmosphere
Adolescent residents influence each other in both positive and negative ways, which may, in particular, have an important impact on their identity development (Meeus & Deković, 1995). Positive influences involve peer support or help and peer acceptance and friendships (Cardoos, Zakriskie, Wright, & Parad, 2015; Sekol, 2013; Wulf-Ludden, 2013), which may provide a sense of safety (Drenkhahn & Morgenstern, 2016; O’Donnel & Edgar, 1999; Van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013). A negative influence is deviancy training, a process in which residents reinforce each other’s’ antisocial behavior, increasing the problem behavior that is already present. Another form of negative social interaction is relational aggression, such as social exclusion or rejection (Voulgaridou & Kokkinos, 2015). Another example of negative social interaction is the lack of respect for one’s personal and private space in the residential institution (Van der Helm, 2011).
Remarkable is that all of the questionnaires assessing group climate assess aspects of group atmosphere. The PGCI, the only questionnaire with a ‘group atmosphere’ dimension, measures feelings of safety and trust among residents concerning both the social and the
physical environment. The PGCI is one of two questionnaires that measures all aspects of group atmosphere, including positive and negative peer interactions, respect for personal and private space and feelings of safety. However, some items of the atmosphere dimension not only tap relationships among residents, but also among residents and staff. The MQPL distinguishes between physical and psychological safety. The MQPL only focusses on the feelings of safety and lacks items concerning the interactions among residents. The EssenCES focusses on the residents’ cohesion, whether they support and care for each other, and perceived threat or aggression. The EssenCES does not include items on negative interactions among residents. Both the MQPL and the EssenCES do not include items on respect for personal and private space. The Prison Survey assesses positive interaction and feelings of safety in terms of ‘interaction detainees’ and ‘safety’. The items measuring interactions among residents are noteworthy all positive, whereas items on negative interaction are lacking. The QCGCR similarly focusses on positive interactions and feelings of safety, and contains items measuring negative interactions among residents regarding physical, verbal and relational violence.
Both the PEI and Styve/MacKenzie mention the risk of being attacked or injured by other residents, with the PEI adding that adequate protection is needed to feel safe and respect for privacy and personal space contributes to more positive feelings towards other residents. In addition, both questionnaires assess opportunities for and the quality of social interactions among residents. The PEI measures all aspects of group atmosphere spread over three different dimensions, namely, social stimulation, safety and privacy. The Styve/MacKenzie measures social interactions among residents as part of the ‘care’ dimension, which not only entails the interactions among residents, but also between residents and staff. The WAS also assesses a ‘care’ dimension in terms of help and support among residents and the support of
staff. In fact, group atmosphere in the PGCI, WAS and Styve/MacKenzie is confounded with the support dimension of group climate.
Group atmosphere: Conclusions
Group atmosphere concerns the social interactions among residents. Positive interactions contribute to a positive group atmosphere and vice versa. Positive interactions also have an impact on the perceived feelings of safety. With all residents having their own background and problems, negative interactions are easily formed. It is, therefore, important that positive interaction among residents is stimulated and that the benefits of positive interaction, such as feelings of safety and comfort, are known among the residents. In addition, mutual respect for each other’s space and properties and mutual support define a positive group atmosphere. Group atmosphere is measured in all available questionnaires (see Appendix, Table 4). Of these questionnaires, only the PGCI and PEI measure all aspects of group atmosphere, although the PGCI provides a one-dimensional assessment of group atmosphere and does not distinguish between the sub-dimensions social stimulation, safety and privacy. Moreover, the PGCI is confounded with the support dimension (staff-resident relationships).
Support
In residential youth facilities, where therapeutic aims should dominate, the support dimension may have much in common with the concept of therapeutic alliance, although support pertains to the alliance between all staff members and residents within a unit or institution and should not entail individual staff-resident relationship quality.
According to Luborsky (1976), therapeutic alliance between residents and staff develops in two phases. First, the resident needs to belief in the staff as potential helpers, where the staff provide for supporting, warm and caring relationships. Second, the resident
needs to invest and have faith in the process itself, show commitment to treatment and must be willing to change. According to Bordin (1979), the therapeutic alliance includes three features: agreement on goals, tasks and the development of bonds. The former two can be seen as collaborative aspects of the therapeutic alliance and the latter as an affective aspect (Horvath, 2001; Luborsky, 1976).
The dimension of support may be considered as the collective therapeutic alliances between staff members and residents. The willingness of residents to engage in supportive relationships with staff depends on several factors. First, residents may be against placement in the institution and lack treatment motivation, since most placements are involuntary (Holmqvist, Hill, & Lang, 2007; Mørch, Snoek, & Syse, 1998). Second, residents may have developed problems with authority figures, which complicates relationships with staff (Van der Helm et al., 2013). Third, the treatment goals are usually determined by others than the residents, which may cause a goal conflict if the residents do not agree (DiGiuseppe, Linscott, & Jilton, 1996).
Rogers (1951) mentions three core conditions under which the therapeutic relationship shows progression. First, he emphasizes the importance of congruence and authenticity in the interactions. Second, a certain empathic understanding must be present in the interaction. Third, unconditional positive regard is necessary during a genuine and involved interaction. Youth have mentioned not giving up on them as an important quality for staff (Manso, Rauktis, & Boyd, 2008). In addition to Rogers’ conditions, the staff need to be available for questions and support (Horvath, 2001). Furthermore, they need to be responsive in their interaction towards the residents, so the residents feel like someone is listening to them (Manso et al., 2008). From an attachment perspective, staff may function as a secure base and save haven, providing positive attachment experiences for the juveniles (Zegers et al., 2006).
Residents tend to seek support of a trusted adult within the institution, because it is a stressful environment (Zegers et al., 2006). First, this alliance is at a basic level to help cope with being placed in an institution, and later on, it becomes a model for future relationships (Zegers et al., 2006). As stated by Luborsky (1976), the staff need to show a warm and supporting attitude towards the residents for them to be willing to invest in the alliance. In a study by Manso et al. (2008), youth ranked qualities and behaviors of staff and they prioritized caring as the most important quality and behavior.
Similar to the group atmosphere dimension, all questionnaires tend to measure some aspects of support. However, none of the questionnaires measures all aspects. As previously discussed, the WAS and Styve/MacKenzie confound support and group atmosphere, which makes it difficult to assess support with these questionnaires. The WAS only measures non-affective aspects of support (tasks/goals), whereas the Styve/MacKenzie also contains items covering the affective bond between staff and residents. The EssenCES has a separate dimension for support by staff, but only addresses affective support. In the Prison Survey interactions with staff are measured. This dimension mainly consists of items measuring instrumental help and the items on affective support only measure trustworthiness in staff, while other features of affective support are absent. The QCGCR focusses on the quality of the relationship between residents and staff as well as on positive attitude and supportive presence of staff. Both collaborative and some affective features of support are present in this questionnaire, but trustworthiness of staff is lacking.
The MQPL, PGCI and PEI measure affective and collaborative features of support. In the MQPL these features are divided into two dimensions, ‘staff-resident relationships’ and ‘help and assistance’, measuring respectively affective and collaborative support. Similar to the MQPL, the PEI has also divided the features of support into two dimensions. The support dimension of the PEI focusses on collaborative support, whereas the dimension focused on
emotional feedback addresses the affective features of support. In the PGCI these features are part of one dimension of predominantly affective support.
Support: Conclusions
Based on the foundations of therapeutic alliance set by Bordin (1979), support within a residential institution can be characterized as a collaboration between staff and residents, where the affective aspects of the alliance and the personal characteristics of the staff affect the collaboration. Apart from instrumental help or collaborative support, a support dimension should contain items assessing affective support, including warmth, availability and responsiveness of staff, and whether staff members can be seen as a secure base and safe haven (Schuengel, & Van IJzendoorn, 2001; Zegers et al., 2006). Since all questionnaires tend to measure support by staff, or at least features of this support, it can be assumed that support is a major issue in residential institutions. For an overview of the features of support in the questionnaires, see the Appendix, Table 5.
We argue that the support dimension of residential group climate should contain both collaborative and affective support. Out of the compared questionnaires, the MQPL and PEI seem to give the best representation of support, although the features are spread in two dimensions in these questionnaires. It is therefore not possible to obtain a complete representation of support from these questionnaires.
Deprivation
The deprivation theory (Sykes, 1958) states that being in a residential institution deprives the resident of basic needs and necessities, which result in tensions and stagnation or even deterioration in personal growth (Gover, MacKenzie, & Armstrong, 2000; Parisi, 1982). To achieve personal growth in residential institutions, the residents should be made aware of their
own responsibilities in their developmental process (McNeill, 2009; Molleman & Van der Broek, 2014; Ward & Maruna, 2007).
One of the basic needs that is limited by being in a residential institution is social interaction with family and friends. In residential institutions have fixed days and times at which phone calls or visitation take place. Residents who have frequent visitors or phone calls show less negative and inadequate behavior and retain stronger social bonds with their family and friends (Cochran, 2012; Wolff & Draine, 2004), which protects against deprivation. Also, contact with family and friends does not only have positive effects on behavior shown inside the institution, but residents who have frequent contact with their family and friends are less likely to re-offend or fall back into old behavior (Cochran, 2012).
Goffman (1961) discusses that residents have the tendency to develop passive behavior while adapting to the residential institution and the present rules. They tend to become bored due to a lack of meaningful activities, which is described as institutionalized behavior (Pfeiffer et al., 2009). The longer residents stay within residential institutions, the more they will become institutionalized. De Swaan (1989) described the process of proto-professionalization, a special case of institutionalization, which implies that residents adopt the professional concepts and attitudes used by the personal of the institutions.
Despite the importance of perceived deprivation by residents as mentioned by Goffman (1961) and Foucault (1975), none of the questionnaires have a separate dimension to measure deprivation. However, the repression scale of the PGCI contains items that assess deprivation, but in fact incorrectly confounds deprivation and repression (Heynen, Van der Helm, Cima, Stams, & Korebrits, 2016; Van der Helm et al., 2011).
Deprivation: Conclusions
Deprivation in residential institutions can be seen as a living condition that hampers personal growth, one of the major goals of residential care for juveniles. The distinction with repression lies in the degree of actions taken. Residential institutions make for deprivation to take place, since being in a residential institution deprives residents of their basic needs. One may argue that deprivation is counteracted, when residents perceive the structure, autonomy, group atmosphere and support in a positive manner, and low levels of repression.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to provide some conceptual clarity in research on residential group climate in general, and more particularly on residential group climate in juvenile institutions, both secure and non-secure. The theoretical analysis of residential group climate (in juvenile institutions) resulted in a new definition, which is in accordance with a human rights perspective and therefore both descriptive and prescriptive, and six dimensions of residential group care. Residential group climate is ‘the quality of the social and physical environment in terms of the provision of sufficient and necessary conditions for physical and mental health, well-being and personal growth of the residents, with respect for their human dignity and human rights as well as (if not restricted by judicial measures) their personal autonomy, aimed at participation in society’. Notably, high quality of residential group climate satisfies both therapeutic and rehabilitative aims. I consider the following six dimensions to be consistent with my definition of residential group climate: repression, structure, autonomy, group atmosphere, support, and deprivation.
Repression is characterized by staff who misuse their authority to obtain compliance
of residents through the use of coercion or even applied threatened sanctions. A mild form of repression is soft power, a system of rewards and punishments, where the residents are held
responsible for their own achievements. Structure in residential institutions is offered through consistency and predictability of the daily routine and scheduled events. However, a degree of flexibility by the staff is encouraged to enable personal growth of the residents and their well-being. Rules and agreements support the daily routine and corresponding activities. Autonomy is the granted liberty to residents to determine their own actions, with respect for the rules. In addition, (control over) private space should be facilitated in order for autonomy to be strengthened. Group atmosphere is characterized by the social interactions, both positive and negative, among residents. Peer support and acceptance, friendships and a sense of safety are representative of positive interactions, whereas negative interactions entail deviancy training, (relational) aggression and lack of respect for one’s personal and private space. Support within residential institutions is a collaboration between residents and staff. Instrumental help, the affective aspects of the alliance and the personal characteristics of staff influence this collaboration. ffective support is the warmth, availability, trustworthiness and responsiveness of staff. Deprivation entails conditions that hamper personal growth, such as limited contact with family and friends, lack of meaningful activities and institutionalization. The problem with deprivation is, that it is in the nature of residential institutions, because residents may be deprived of basic needs by being in the residential institution.
The discussed dimensions have been compared to the dimensions and the underlying features of the existing questionnaires that measure residential group climate. The questionnaires that are currently available show diversity in not only the number of dimensions, but also in the specific dimensions that are measured (Tonkin, 2016). There seems to be an underrepresentation of the features in the questionnaires covering the discussed dimensions, since there is only one dimension, Group atmosphere, that can be fully measured with the existing questionnaires. With the five other dimensions, all questionnaires fail to measure one or multiple aspects. Aspects of Deprivation are even absent in all
questionnaires, except for the PGCI, in which deprivation is an aspect of Repression. It is remarkable that many of the questionnaires measure dimensions with underlying features that are not based on the theoretical framework of residential care. With this in mind, it can be said that there is an overrepresentation of dimensions and features, which do not have theoretical basis in both theoretical literature and research on residential care. It can be concluded that none of the questionnaires measure the entire concept of residential group climate.
Some of the questionnaires measure outcome oriented dimensions, like personal growth (WAS, PGCI and MQPL). These outcome oriented dimensions may not assess concurrent group climate as perceived by residents or staff, but the results of both group climate and applied behavioral interventions. Second, it seems that the conceptualization of certain dimensions or features are not comparable. This is the case, for example, with the dimension of support. The Styve/MacKenzie and WAS measure the support and care of both resident-staff and resident-to-resident interactions, whereas the MQPL, PGCI and PEI focus on the support within resident-staff interactions.
The fact that Deprivation is not measured in any of the questionnaires raises the question as to whether it should even be measured. However, Deprivation has shown to be present in all residential institutions (Foucault, 1975; Goffman, 1961), and it therefore seems important to focus on how staff and institutions deal with the residents’ feelings of being deprived. The four positive dimensions (Structure, Autonomy, Group Atmosphere and Support) show ways to prevent Deprivation. Future researchers are encouraged to question whether Deprivation is a separate dimension, whether it is a given fact of residential care, a static factor that cannot be affected, or a dynamic factor that can be changed in interventions focusing on the enhancement of residential group climate.
The present study only discusses the dimensions of residential group climate. Boone et al. (2016) discuss, apart from the dimensions, the determinants of residential group climate.
These determinants are conditions for creating a positive climate. Boone et al. (2016) distinguish three determinants; the exterior and interior building design, professionality and composition of the staff, and the residents’ group composition. An interesting topic for future research is critically examining the determinants for residential group climate and obtaining theoretical support for these determinants.
The literature does not only vary on the terminology of residential group climate, but there are also different views on the use of dimensions. Four of the examined questionnaires measure residential group climate through dimensions (MQPL, PEI, PGCI and QCGCR). The other four questionnaires mention the use of scales (EssenCES, Prison Survey, Styve/MacKenzie and WAS). The review by Tonkin (2016) complicates this even further, since he divides the questionnaires into higher order factors and scales. In their attempt to conceptualize residential group climate, Boone et al. (2016) also discuss that residential group climate can be measured through several factors. A factor is a single element, ‘something that helps influence a result’ (Factor, n.d.) and can, therefore, not include multiple features as seen in the results. Furthermore, scales are ‘standards for measuring or judging’ (Scale, n.d.), such as a rate from one to ten, or the Likert scale which specifies levels of agreement or disagreement of respondents. However, a dimension covers an amount of related features that have an effect on something (Dimension, n.d.). These definitions support the claim that residential group climate should be measured through dimensions.
A limitation of this review is that not all existing questionnaires were taken into account, but only those eight that are commonly used and have been reviewed in English or Dutch. The review by Tonkin (2016) distinguishes twelve different questionnaires to measure residential group climate. Six questionnaires were left out, because they were either questionnaires that measured staff’s perceptions of the climate, such as the Staff Measuring the Quality of Prison Life questionnaire (SQL; Crewe, Liebling, & Hully, 2011), or the
questionnaires were insufficiently reliable and valid. A second limitation is that the focus of the review, residential institutions, is a broad construct and therefore it is difficult to find literature that relates to these institutions as a whole. Often the literature focused on a specific kind of residential institution, which makes it difficult to generalize those conclusions to all residential institutions.
This study provides clarity on the definition of residential group climate as perceived by the residents of residential institutions. Also, it has become evident what the dimensions of residential group climate are and how they are constructed. The examination of the existing questionnaires in this study results in the conclusion that none of the questionnaires are sufficient and comprehensive enough to measure residential group climate. Deprivation is absent in all of the existing questionnaires and repression is only measured in one questionnaire, but not adequate enough.
Further theoretical and qualitative research is needed on the separate dimensions of residential group climate, except for repression, since an extensive research on this dimension is already available (De Valk et al., 2016). Secondly, it is advised that a new questionnaire should be developed containing all dimensions that have an impact on residential group climate. Even though none of the existing questionnaires are comprehensive enough for measuring residential group climate, their dimensions may be used as either an example or a foundation on which further implementation of dimensions can take place.
References
Agreement [Def. 3]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agreement.
Ajdukovic, D. (1990). Psychosocial climate in correctional institutions: Which attributes describe it? Environment & Behavior, 22(3), 420-432.
American Association of Children’s Residential Centers (2014). Creating non-coercive environments. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 31(2), 114-119.
Bentham, J. (n.d.) The works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the superintendence of his executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh : William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 4. Boone, M., Althoff, M., & Koenraadt, F. (2016). Het leefklimaat in justitiële inrichtingen.
Groningen: Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16(3), 252-260.
Bressington, D., Stewart, B., Beer, D., & MacInnes, D. (2011). Levels of service user satisfaction in secure settings – a survey of the association between perceived social climate, perceived therapeutic relationship and satisfaction with forensic services.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(11), 1349-1356.
Cardoos, S. L., Zakriski, A. L., Wright, J. C., & Parad, H. W. (2015). Peer experiences in short-term residential treatment: Individual and group-moderated prediction of behavioural responses to peers and adults. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
43(6), 1145-1159.
Casey, S., Day, A., & Reynolds, J. (2016). The influence of incarceration length and protection status on perceptions of prison social climate. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 43(2), 285-296.
Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston: The Christopher Publishing House. Cochran, J. C. (2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship
between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 433- 440.
Colonnesi, C., Draijer, E. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., Van der Bruggen, C. O., Bögels, S. M., & Noom, M. J. (2011). The relation between insecure attachment and child anxiety: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 630- 645.
Crewe, B. (2011a). Dept, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment
& Society, 13(5), 509-529.
Crewe, B. (2011b). Soft power in prison: Implications for staff-prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 455-468.
Crewe, B., Liebling, A., & Hulley, S. (2011). Staff culture, use of authority and prisoner quality of life in public and private sector prisons. Australian & New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, 44(1), 94-115.
Day, A., Casey, S., Vess, J., & Huisy, G. (2012). Assessing the therapeutic climate of prisons.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(2), 156-168.
De Kogel, C. H., & Nagtegaal, M. H. (2008). Toezichtprogramma’s voor delinquenten en
forensisch psychiatrische patiënten: Effectiviteit en veronderstelde werkzame mechanismen. Meppel: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.
De Swaan, A. (1989). Zorg en de staat. Welzijn, onderwijs en gezondheidszorg in Europa en
de Verenigde Staten in de nieuwe tijd. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
De Valk, S., Kuiper, C., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Maas, A. J. J. A., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2016). Repression in residential youth care: A scoping review. Adolescent Research
De Valk, S., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Beld, M., Schaftenaar, P., Kuiper, C., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2015). Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of the evidence. Journal of Children’s Services, 10(1), 3-16.
DiGiuseppe, R., Linscott, J, & Jilton, R. (1996). Developing the therapeutic alliance in child- adolescent psychotherapy. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 5(2), 85-100.
Dimension [Def. 2]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimension.
Dishion, T., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm. Peer groups and problem behaviour. American Psychologist, 54(9), 755-764.
Drenkhahn, K., & Morgenstern, Ch. (2016). A European perspective on inmates’ perceptions of safety. In C. Reeves (Ed.), Experiencing imprisonment: Research on the
experiences of living and working in carceral institutions. London: Routledge.
Factor [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factor.
Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A., &
Roisman, G. I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behaviour: A meta-analytic study. Child
Development, 81(2), 435-456.
Fluttert, F. A. J. (2012). Management of inpatient aggression in forensic mental health
nursing: The application of the Early Recognition Model. Utrecht: University of
Utrecht.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.
Geller, J. L., Fisher, W. H., Grudzinskas, A. J., Clayfield, J. C., & Lawlor, T. (2006). Involuntary outpatient treatment as ‘deinstitutionalized coercion’: the net widening concerns. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29, 551-562.
Gilburt, H., Rose, D., & Slade, M. (2008). The importance of relationships in mental health care: a qualitative study of service users’ experiences of psychiatric hospital admission in the UK. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 92-104.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situations of mental patients and other
inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Gover, A. R., MacKenzie, D. L., & Armstrong, G. S. (2000). Importation and deprivation explanations of juveniles’ adjustment to correctional facilities. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(4), 450-467.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. Groh, A. M., Roisman, G. I., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., &
Fearon, P. (2012). The significance of insecure and disorganized attachment for children’s internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 83(2), 591-610.
Hall, E. T., (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behaviour. American
Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003-1026.
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 30, 4-17.
Henneken-Hordijk, I, & Van Gemmert, A. A. (2011). Gedetineerd in Nederland 2011. Een
survey onder gedetineerden in het Nederlandse gevangeniswezen. Den Haag: Dienst
Justitiële Inrichtingen.
Heynen, E., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Cima, M., Stams, G. J. J. M, & Korebrits, A. (2016, February 12). The relation between living group climate, aggression, and callous- unemotional traits in delinquent boys in detention. International Journal of Offender
