Mentoring relationship
and treatment motivation in a secure Juvenile
Justice Institution
Master’s thesis Forensische Orthopedagogiek University of Amsterdam
Student: I.T. van Kampen Student number: 10592687 First supervisor: Prof. dr. G.J.J.M. Stams Second supervisor: Dr. G.H.P. van der Helm Amsterdam, June 2015
Abstract
In current research, the transactional relation between mentor-adolescent relationships and treatment motivation in a sample of incarcerated juvenile delinquents is examined. In total, 43 male adolescents who were admitted to a youth correctional facility filled out two
questionnaires for a period of 8 weeks: the shorter Dutch version of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S) and the Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ). The results of the cross-lagged analyses indicate that greater treatment motivation is associated with a more positive mentor-adolescent relationship. Results support the view that client characteristics, such as treatment motivation, may be of more importance than external influences, such as mentoring. This study opens the way to further examine the mechanisms through which the mentor-adolescent relationships facilitates treatment and to shed light on factors related to the development of a therapeutic relationship between mentor and
adolescent in juvenile detention centers.
Keywords: mentor-adolescent relationship, treatment motivation, juvenile
Mentoring relationship and treatment motivation in a secure Juvenile Justice Institution In modern society, juvenile delinquency and criminal offense recidivism constitute important issues; juvenile delinquents are a risk for society (Loeber & Farrington, 1998; Mulder, Brand, Bullens, & Van Marle, 2010). Youth aged between 12 and 23 having committed a serious crime or who are suspected of committing one are detained in juvenile detention centers. Within juvenile detention centers, also called forensic treatment centers, care and treatment is offered (Boendermaker & Van Yperen, 2003; Stevens et al., 2007). A major goal of youth correctional interventions is rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents (Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009).
Recently, a lot of attention has been given to the effectiveness of treatment inside prisons (Van der Helm, 2011). However, effective treatment in institutional youth care, including juvenile detention centers, is still considered a “black box” that has not yet been opened (Axford, Little, Morpeth, & Weyts, 2005; Gendreau, Goggin, French, & Smith, 2006; Van der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2014). Environmental characteristics, such as living group climate, and individual characteristics, such as treatment motivation, are still underresearched (Marshall & Burton, 2010).
One of the most important principles underlying successful rehabilitation is
responsivity (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). Responsivity is one of the “what works” principles of effective judicial interventions, which states that correctional treatment programs should be tailored to offender characteristics, such as learning style, motivation, and the offenders’ living circumstances. Treatment motiation may be considered the core of the “responsivity principle” (Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Andrews et al., 1990). Thus treatment motivation is an important key for treatment effectiveness (Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Olver, Wormith, & Stockdale, 2011; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984). Therefore, it is crucial to focus on
determinants that influence treatment motivation in order to optimize treatment effectiveness in residential settings.
One determinant thay may influence treatment motivation in juvenile delinquents is mentor-adolescent relationships. Not much is known about the influence of mentor-adolescent relationship on treatment motivation. There are studies that focus on effective practice in the field of youth mentoring (e.g., Rhodes, Bogat, Roffman, Edelman, & Galasso, 2002), but not specifically in residential settings. However meta-analytic research shows that having a mentor can significantly reduce behavioural problems and delinquency (Lipsey, 2009). Moreover, meta-analyses examining effects of the therapeutic alliance on treatment outcomes in youth therapy have shown that a positive working alliance is associated with better
treatment outcomes (Karver, Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2006; McLeod, 2011). The present study, therefore, focuses on the relation between mentor-adolescent relationship in terms of working alliance and treatment motivation in a sample of incarcerated juvenile delinquents.
Juvenile Delinquents
As mentioned, youth aged between 12 and 23 who have committed a serious crime or who are suspected of committing one are detained in juvenile detention centers. Juvenile detention centers accommodate youth based on pre-trial detention, juvenile detention or a so-called PIJ-order (PIJ-maatregel), which stands for Placement in a Juvenile Justice Institution (JJI) (Duits & Bartels, 2011). A PIJ-order is imposed if a juvenile commits a serious and violent crime and if the court holds that the juvenile offender needs treatment. Although juvenile justice institutions are restrictive facilities, their purpose is not primarily punitive. In order to attend to the risk juvenile delinquents pose to society, the focus is on rehabilitation and education (Duits & Bartels, 2011; Gatti et al., 2009; Liebling & Maruna, 2005).
In the Netherlands, there are both national and private institutions for juvenile offenders, spread across the country. Currently, there are nine juvenile detention centers, which can hold up to 650 juvenile offenders. The Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency publishes official data on the juvenile detention population. In the past years, the influx of juvenile offenders declined from nearly 2.300 in 2009 to around 1.450 in 2013 (Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen [DJI], 2013).
Juvenile offenders in detention exhibit some of the most severe and pervasive
maladaptive behaviors and are at risk for the most negative developmental outcomes (Atkins et al., 1999; DiFilippo, Esposito, Overholser, & Spirito, 2003; Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schulz, & D’Ambrosio, 2001). Youth in juvenile detention centers often come from dysfunctional families in which parents have (psychological) problems and inadequate parenting skills, and they are more likely than their peers to have witnessed or been
victimized by violence in their homes and communities (Abram et al., 2004; Asscher, Van der Put, & Stams, 2015; Boendermaker & Beijerse, 2008). Mental health problems, psychiatric disorders including substance abuse and psychosocial problems are common among juvenile offenders (Colins et al., 2013; Doreleijers, 2010; Scholte, 1989; Vreugdenhil, Doreleijers, Vermeiren, Wouters, & Van den Brink, 2004). Almost all of them have severe developmental and learning disabilities, accompanied by a mild intellectual disability (Anckarsäter, 2010; Duits & Bartels, 2011; Van der Helm, Van Tol, & Stams, 2013). It is estimated that 66 – 75 percent of adolescents in detention is diagnosed with a behavioral disorder (Colins et al., 2010; Vermeiren, Jespers, & Moffitt, 2006), which manifest itself through antisocial and oppositional defiant behavior (Anckarsäter, 2010). Furthermore, interaction with antisocial peers is distinctive for youth in juvenile detention centers (Nijhof, Van Dam, Veerman, Engels, & Scholte, 2010). Since the majority of youth in detention need treatment, the juvenile justice system should be closely related to treatment facilities. In addition to
preventing recidivism, it is important to guide (detained) juvenile delinquents towards independence by creating a secure base (Rap & Weijers, 2011).
Living Group Climate
One way of establishing a secure base for juvenile delinquents is by creating an open living group climate. Fortunately, much attention has recently been given to the living group climate in secure correctional facilities. Research shows that living group climate is essential in the education and treatment of youth placed in residential settings (Van der Helm, 2011; Van der Helm, Stams, Van der Stel, Van Langen, & Van der Laan, 2012). In most adult prisons, social interaction between inmates is mostly limited to recreation and work and inmates spend a lot of time in their cells. Incarcerated adolescents, however, are placed in supervised living groups. In general, juvenile offenders live in groups, consisting of 8-12 persons, supervised by two or three group workers. The largest part of treatment takes place in the (daily) living group environment (Bastiaanssen, Delsing, Kroes, Engels, & Veerman, 2014).
In instruments that assess climate in adult prisons, support, growth, repression and atmosphere are recurring dimensions (Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011). Since social interaction is used as a therapeutic tool in the supervised living groups, it is necessary to focus on group climate instead of prison climate (Saylor, 1984). To assess group climate in youth prisons and secure residential facilities where inmates reside in living groups, the Prison Group Climate Instrument (PGCI) was developed. The PGCI is based on the four dimensions that constitute (adult) prison climate: support, growth, repression and group atmosphere. These four dimensions together are responsible for the quality of forensic group climate (Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011).
The first dimension, support, refers to the responsiveness of group workers to the needs of the adolescents, and the degree to which group workers invest in building and
maintaining a positive, reciprocal relationship. The second dimension, growth, pertains to facilitation of learning and preparation for a meaningful life both within and outside prison. The dimension repression is characterized by extreme control, injustice, inconsistency of rules and a lack of flexibility. The fourth and last dimension, group atmosphere, concerns the degree to which the physical and social environment foster feelings of safety and trust among adolescents (Van der Helm et al., 2014; Van der Helm, Klapwijk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2009; Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011).
Living group climate can be described as open (rehabilitative) or closed (repressive) (Van der Helm et al., 2009). Characteristics of an open climate are safety and structure on the one hand and a balance between flexibility and control on the other hand. It is a delicate balance, since too much structure or even repression may cause feelings of boredom and hopelessness (White, Shi, Hirschfield, Mun, & Loeber, 2009). However, structure is needed to stabilize personality of adolescents (Van der Helm, Stams, Van Genabeek, & Van der Laan, 2011). This is similar to parenting, a positive development in children comes from a combination of control and warmth (Baumrind, 1971; Scholte & Van der Ploeg, 2000). An open climate is a rehabilitating environment involving support and opportunities for growth (Van der Helm, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011; Ule, Schram, Riedl, & Cason, 2009). In such an environment, incarcerated youth are motivated to connect to others, to take another person’s perspective and show empathic responding (Oettingen, Grant, Smith, Skinner, & Gollwitzer, 2006; Van der Helm et al., 2012). Research has shown that an open climate can stimulate, among other things, an internal locus of control and treatment motivation, and hence contributes to better outcomes (Garrido & Morales, 2007; Van der Helm et al., 2014).
A closed climate is characterized by an extremely asymmetric balance of power, high repression and little support from group workers. Subsequently, opportunities for growth are minimal and the atmosphere is grim and uninviting. Adolescents may feel unsafe, desperate
and bored, and have a lack of future perspective. A closed climate is related to more passive forms of coping, such as avoidance and passive behavior of adolescents (Van der Helm et al., 2009). Research shows that such a climate can foster distrust and reactance, contributing to mutual hostility (Van der Helm, Stams, Van Genabeek et al., 2011). Therefore, a closed climate could hamper treatment motivation and rehabilitation (Schubert, Mulvey, Loughran, & Loyosa, 2012; Van der Helm et al., 2009, 2014).
Group Workers
Daily guidance given by group workers can change adolescents’ behavior positively (Knorth, Harder, Huygen, Kalverboer, & Zandberg, 2010; Leichtman, Leichtman, Cornsweet Barber, & Neese, 2001). Group workers spend most of their time with adolescents and are present during daily situations that may be challenging for those who have behavioral problems. Therefore, they are more likely to influence adolescents’ behavioral development than other staff members (Bastiaanssen et al., 2014; Leichtman et al., 2001; Maier, 1979). The group workers professional behavior is largely determined by the way they set boundaries, handle rules, listen to juvenile delinquents and give feedback (Drost, 2008; Van Binsbergen, 2003; Van der Helm & Klapwijk, 2009). Research suggests that the relationship with group workers is crucial for the way juvenile delinquents develop, for their views and attachment to the outside world, and for the effects of detention on their hopes and expectations for the future (Harvey, 2005). The quality of these relationships is an important predictor of
outcomes for children in residential care (Green et al., 2001; Harder, Kalverboer, Knorth, & Zandberg, 2008).
Group workers’ professional behavior can shape group climate. As mentioned, there is a delicate balance between flexibility and control in a living group climate. Group workers face the daunting task of finding and maintaining such a balance in the face of challenging behavior of juvenile delinquents (Van der Helm, Boekee, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2011). The
influence of group workers can be deciding in creating a more open and supportive or closed and repressive climate (Drost, 2008; Van der Helm, Boekee et al., 2011).
Unfortunately, few studies have investigated the effects of group worker interventions on the outcomes of residential care (Bastiaanssen et al., 2014).
Mentor – Adolescent Relationship
Another topic that is still underresearched, is the influence of mentor-adolescent relationships on the outcomes of residential care. The Youth Custodial Institutions Act
(Beginselenwet justitiële jeugdinrichtingen) states that institutions are charged with the task to
motivate clients to receive help and treatment. In order to achieve that task, the basic method YOUTURN is used in all correctional institutions for juvenile offenders. The method helps juvenile offenders to acquire skills which will enable them to independently function in society. The main focus is on teaching personal responsibility (DJI, 2009). They learn to deal with difficult situations, as well as practical matters, such as handling money.
Perceived support in relationships with significant others is one of the most important predictors of adolescent adjustment (Scholte, Van Lieshout, & Van Aken, 2001). Among other things, it is associated with externalizing behavior, such as substance use and delinquency (Wills & Cleary, 1996; Windle, 1992). To provide support to the adolescents who are detained in juvenile detention centers, every adolescent is assigned a mentor with whom they have weekly meetings. During these meetings, progress the adolescent has made is discussed as well as existing problems. The mentor is responsible for providing information and emotional and practical support and acts as a role model (Boendermaker, Van Rooijen, Berg, & Bartelink, 2013; Schuengel & Van IJzendoorn, 2001). As mentioned, meta-analytic research shows that having a mentor can significantly reduce behavioural problems and delinquency (Lipsey, 2009).
Treatment Motivation
Juvenile delinquents are usually directed for treatment by someone other than themselves and as a result they are typically resistant to change. Research suggests that juvenile delinquents often do not view their criminal behaviors as problematic and are not motivated for treatment (e.g., Duits & Bartels, 2011; Hemphill & Howell, 2000). However, incarcerated juvenile delinquents need a high level of treatment motivation to be able to profit from interventions that target behavioral adjustment both within and outside prison (Van der Helm et al., 2014). Legal frameworks are often required in order to achieve treatment (Duits & Bartels, 2011).
As mentioned in the introduction, it is crucial to focus on determinants that influence treatment motivation in order to optimize treatment effectiveness in residential settings. Research shows that living group climate influences treatment motivation, and that group workers’ professional behavior can shape group climate, and influence behavioral
development of adolescents. The question is whether mentor-adolescent relationship can influence treatment motivation?
Objective of This Study
The objective of this study is to examine longitudinal and bidirectional effects over an 8 week period, between mentor-adolescent relationship and treatment motivation in a sample of incarcerated juvenile delinquents. The sample includes 43 male adolescents. We expect a positive mentor-adolescent relationship to be positivly associated with more treatment motivation.
Method Participants
The present study was conducted in a Dutch youth correctional facility. The sample consisted of 43 male adolescents (M age = 17.1, SD = 1.1) between the ages of 15 and 20. In
total, 33 participants were born in the Netherlands (76,7%), 9 were born abroad (20,9%) and for 1 participant data on ethnicity was missing. The migrant group consists of n = 3 youth from Curacao, n = 2 youth from Suriname and n = 1 from Germany, Ecuador, Irak and
Morocco. The participants were sentenced or taken into custody for crimes. More specifically, 24 adolescents (55,8%) were held at the youth prison based on pre-trial detention, 12
adolescents (27,9%) in juvenile detention, 2 (4,7%) had been given night detention and the remaining five adolescents (11,6%) had been given a PIJ-order, which stands for Placement in a Juvenile Justice Institution. When given night detention, the person is allowed to go to school or work outside the correctional facility, but is required to return at night.
Procedure
The study was conducted between June 2012 and July 2013. Adolescents who were admitted to the youth correctional facility were asked to fill out two questionnaires every week for a maximum of 21 weeks. This method is called a time-series design (Borckardt et al., 2008). In this study, only three waves were included, due to the declining number of participants with each wave.
All respondents participated voluntarily and were assured that the questionnaires would be treated confidentially and processed anonymously. All names were deleted and given a code number in SPSS. As a token of gratitude for their participation, adolescents received a small gift, like a shower gel or an extra phone call.
Measures
In this study two questionnaires were used, one to measure the mentor-adolescent relationship, and the other to measure treatment motivation.
Working Alliance Inventory. The mentor-adolescent relationship is measured by a shorter, Dutch version of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S). The Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) is a self-report measure with 36 items designed to assess the working
alliance construct proposed by Bordin (1979). Bordin theorized that working alliance would grow out of three main aspects: client-therapist agreement on therapy goals, agreement on therapy tasks, and development of a strong bond between client and therapist (Busseri & Tyler, 2003).
Based on a thorough inspection of the WAI items, Tracy and Kokotovic (1989) developed a 12-item short form of the WAI (WAI-S). The items of the WAI-S are rated on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (I do not agree) to 5 (I totally agree). Five items were reverse scored so that a high score on each item indicates a strong bond between mentor and adolescent. Internal consistency estimates (α) for client and therapist WAI-S subscales and total scores are high, ranging from .83 to .93 (Busseri & Tyler, 2003). The reliability analysis of the WAI-S for current research was also performed using Cronbach’s alpha (α), which shows that across all three waves the questionnaire was found to be reliable. The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scale were .81 at Time 1 (M=3.70, SD=.66), .90 at Time 2 (M=3.46, SD=.80) and .92 at Time 3 (M=3.51, SD=.87).
Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire. Treatment motivation was
measured with the Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ). The ATMQ is a shortened version of the Motivation for Treatment Questionnaire (MTQ) developed by Van Binsbergen (2003), which is based on the transtheoretical model of Prochaska and
DiClemente (1983). A major drawback of the MTQ is its length, grammatical difficulty, and cognitive complexity. Therefore, a brief and simplified version of the original MTQ was developed by Van der Helm et al. (2009) to make this list suitable for adolescents with a short span of attention, adolescents who generally have difficulties in comprehending difficult concepts, and/or adolescents with mild intellectual disability (Van der Helm, Wissink, De Jongh, & Stams, 2012). The 11-item ATMQ can be used to validly and reliably (α=.84) assess treatment motivation within secure juvenile treatment facilities. An example of an item is
“My treatment helps me”. The 3-point answering scale used thumbs pictures for better comprehension (Van der Helm et al., 2012).
All items were reverse scored so that a high score on each item indicates a high level of treatment motivation. The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the scale were .75 at Time 1 (M=1.83, SD=.48), .86 at Time 2 (M=1.58, SD=.51) and .88 at Time 3 (M=1.87, SD=.55). Analyses
For the statistical analyses Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) was used. In the first step we explored the
demographic characteristics of the sample with SPSS 23. The demographic characteristics of the sample are described in the Participants section. Furthermore, we looked at the descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities and correlations between the measurement waves. This
information is processed in Table 1. Based on correlations between the measurement waves, we decided to exclude wave 4, and use wave 2, 6 and 8.
To investigate the relation between mentor-adolescent relationship and treatment motivation, the technique structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied using the statistical software package AMOS 20. More specifically, a cross-lagged structural equation model was built. Cross-lagged models are widely used in the analysis of panel data. By panel data we mean data that contain repeated measures of the same variable, taken from the same set of units (in our case individuals) over time. This technique can provide evidence regarding the direction of causality between two variables and can estimate the strenght of the causal effect of each variable on the other (Berrington, Smith, & Sturgis, 2006).
We assessed the fit of the model using the model chi-square, also designated as the generalized likelihood ratio, and a variety of practical model fit indexes (Normed Fit Index [NFI], Comparative Fit Index [CFI], Tucker−Lewis Index [TLI], and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA]). The following cutoff values are indicative of close model fit:
NFI and CFI > .90, TLI > .95, and RMSEA < .06, whereas a non-significant chi-square indicates exact model fit (Arbuckle, 2007; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities and Correlations
M SD α (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. Alliance (T1) 3.70 0.66 0.81 2. Treatment motivation (T1) 1.83 0.48 0.75 .463** 3. Alliance (T2) 3.46 0.80 0.90 .552** .267 4. Treatment motivation (T2) 1.58 0.51 0.86 .330* .669** .403** 5. Alliance (T3) 3.51 0.87 0.92 .565** .412** .483** .470** 6. Treatment motivation (T3) 1.67 0.55 0.88 .414* .572** .411** .760** .455** Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01
Results
The cross-lagged structural equation model is presented in Figure 1, which shows a path diagram for a three wave, two variable cross-lagged structural equation model. The model provides an estimate of the (lagged) effect of each variable of interest on the other. The model parameters of greatest interest in the cross-lagged model are the auto-regressive (.58, .35, .69 and .78) and cross-lagged (.04, .08, .04 and .53) regression coefficients. The auto-regressive parameters determine the stability of the rank ordering of individuals on the same variable over time. As suggested by Gollob and Reichardt, the auto-regression effects were included in order to control for baseline levels for each endogenous variable (Gollob & Reichardt, 1991). The cross-lagged regression parameters, on the other hand, tell us how much variation in one variable at time t1 is able to predict change in the other variable
between times t1 and t2.
The three wave, two variable cross-lagged structural equation model provided a good fit to the data (NFI=.965, CFI=.997, TLI=.983, RMSEA=.026, χ2(4, N=43)=4.332, p=.363). It can be derived from Figure 1 that more treatment motivation at wave 2 was related to a more positive mentor-adolescent relationship at wave 3, which contradicts the hypothesis. The remaining cross-lagged coefficients were non-significant.
Figure 1. The three wave, two variable cross-lagged structural equation model examining
bidirectional effects between mentor-adolescent relationship and treatment motivation.
Discussion
Juvenile delinquents constitute a risk for society and are detained in secure Juvenile Justice Institutions. A major goal of youth correctional interventions is rehabilitation. Treatment motivation is an important key in achieving that. The effects of interventions can be maximized if the specific factors that influence treatment motivation are known.
Knowledge about these factors is therefore very important. A topic that is still underresearched, is the influence of the mentor-adolescent relationship on treatment motivation. This study examined the transactional relation between mentor-adolescent relationships and treatment motivation in a sample of incarcerated juvenile delinquents.
However, we did not find a significant effect of mentor-adolescent relationships on treatment motivation over time, but a significant effect of treatment motivation at wave 2 on mentor-adolescent relationships at wave 3 was found. We consider each of these findings in turn.
First, the positive relation between treatment motivation and mentor-adolescent relationship confirms the idea that client characteristics, such as treatment motivation, may be more important than environmental influences, such as mentoring. Research shows that there are several factors having an effect on the mentor-adolescent relationship, including the client’s expectations of and motivation for treatment (Karver et al., 2008; Karver,
Handelsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2005). Harder, Knorth and Kalverboer (2013) found that greater treatment motivation was associated with more positive relationships between adolescents and group workers. It seems reasonable to assume that this also holds for the relationship between adolescents and their mentor.
Second, there are several possible explanations for the lack of an effect of mentor-adolescent relationships on treatment motivation. First of all, this finding may be explained by the relatively short period of time between measurements (8 weeks), which may be too short for effects to occur. Secondly, studies with larger sample sizes can detect small effects.
Despite the small sample size for a cross-lagged model, the fit indices were very good and had enough statistical power to detect large effects (i.e., all stability paths were significant at p<0.05). However, it must be noted that the small sample size may have weakened the ability to detect bidirectional outcomes (Shaffer, Lindhiem, Kolko, & Trentacosta, 2012). Thirdly, it may be that mentors do not invest as much effort in the mentor-adolescent relationship as they should, due to the high workload they experience. The majority of the mentors did not even completed the mentor version of the questionnaire to measure mentor-adolescent relationship. However, the lack of an effect of mentor-adolescent relationship on treatment motivation confirms the findings of Harder and colleagues (2012), who found that positive relationships
with staff were not associated with improvements in adolescents’ motivation for treatment. The lack of an effect may be due to the peer group which can obstruct the formation of alliances with staff, as indicated by the study of Florsheim, Shotorbani, Guest-Warnick, Barratt and Hwang (2000). Schuengel and Van IJzendoorn (2001) note that this can be “a strong warning against overly optimistic expectations regarding the effect of close mentor relationships with young people compared with the influence of the peer group” (p. 312-313). Limitations
There are some important limitations of this study that need to be acknowledged. A limitation of the present study is that the data were obtained by means of self-report and gives a one-sided view of the relationship between adolescent and mentor. In order to control for bias from the adolescents, the mentors of the adolescents were given the mentor version of the questionnaire to measure mentor-adolescent relationship. However, due to a lack of
completed questionnaires by mentors, we chose to exclude these from this study. The assessment of relationship quality relying on questionnaire self-report may not yield valid scores in juvenile delinquents because of social desirability bias in self- and other-descriptions (Breuk, Clauser, Stams, Slot, & Doreleijers, 2007; Van der Helm et al., 2009)
A second limitation is related to the generalizability and the strength of the study findings. As mentioned, studies with larger sample sizes are more likely to detect small effects that reach the threshold of statistical significance. There was a decrease in sample size with every wave. The small sample size and the inclusion of only one youth prison hampers general conclusions drawn from the study findings. Moreover, because the sample consisted of only male adolescents, it was not possible to test for potential sex differences.
Third, the present study did not examine the development of mentor-adolescent relationships over a long period of time. It might be of great importance to look at the development of the relationship over a longer period of time rather than the quality of the
relationship shortly after admission, especially because Florsheim et al. (2000) found that a positive working alliance assessed in the first weeks of treatment was not associated with treatment progress. The development of the relationship over time seems to be of more importance for obtaining positive outcomes than the quality of the relationship between youth and staff shortly after admission (Florsheim et al., 2000; Harder, Knorth, & Kalverboer, 2013).
Implications for Research and Practice
Notwithstanding the limitations and unexpected results, there are some important implications that can be drawn from this study. Subsequent research should pay more attention to the development of positive relationships between adolescent and mentor in juvenile detention centers since the establishment of a positive relationship with severe delinquent youth is problematic (Florsheim et al., 2000). Research should particularly focus on the treatment skills of mentors that are necessary for building such relationships.
Qualitative research might be preferable to quantitative research when studying this, because of its in-depth and exploratory nature (Harder et al., 2013).
A recommendation for further research is to replicate this study with a larger sample size across multiple youth prisons. Additionally, future studies may include more data by using more measurement waves. Furthermore, it is important to manage a dual approach to examining the mentor-adolescent relationship through the adolescent’s experience of the relationship as well as the mentor’s experience. It may be that other unidentified variables or variables related to the mentor-adolescent relationship or treatment motivation may be driving the significant cross-lagged effect.
Within the context of juvenile detention centers, more attention should be paid to the support for group workers who act as mentors for juvenile delinquents. The support should be focused on the development and maintenance of positive treatment skills, and may consist of
training and supervision (Harder, 2011; Harder et al., 2013). The training should be focused on increasing the likelihood of mentors to be able to sustain relationship-based practice by developing the professionals’ self-understanding and reflective responses (Ruch, Turney, & Ward, 2010).
The results of this study suggest that client characteristics, such as treatment motivation, may be of more importance than external influences, such as mentoring. Therefore, there should be a more explicit focus on improving adolescence treatment motivation. This may be achieved by goal-oriented working and creating a perspective for adolescents who are detained in juvenile detention centers (Klomp, Kloosterman, & Kuijvenhoven, 2004; Van Binsbergen, 2003).
Conclusion
The present study is, to our knowledge, probably one of the first studies to examine the relation between quality of mentor-adolescent relationships and treatment motivation in a sample of incarcerated juvenile delinquents in a Dutch youth prison. The results indicate that greater treatment motivation is associated with a more positive mentor-adolescent
relationship. Research and practice should focus on improving treatment motivation in adolescents and the development of positive relationships between adolescent and mentor in juvenile detention centers. Despite the limitations of this study, it opens the way to further examine the mechanisms through which the mentor-adolescent relationships facilitates treatment and to shed light on factors related to the development of a therapeutic relationship between mentor and adolescent in juvenile detention centers.
References
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth, S. L., McClelland, G. M., & Dulcan, M. K. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 403-410. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.403.
Anckarsäter, H. (2010). Beyond categorical diagnostics in psychiatry: Scientific and
medicolegal implications. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(2), 59-65. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.12.001
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2007). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta- analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Asscher, J. J., Van der Put, C. E., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2015). Gender differences in the impact of abuse and neglect victimization on adolescent offending behavior. Journal
of Family Violence, 30, 215-225. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9668-4.
Atkins, D. L., Pumariega, A. J., Rogers, K., Montgomery, L., Nybro, C., Jeffers, G., et al. (1999). Mental health and incarcerated youth. I: Prevalence and nature of
psychopathology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 193-204.
Axford, N., Little, M., Morpeth, L., & Weyts, A. (2005). Evaluating children’s services: Recent conceptual and methodological developments. British Journal of Social Work,
35, 73-88.
Bastiaanssen, I. L. W., Delsing, M. J. M. H., Kroes, G., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Veerman, J. W. (2014). Group care worker interventions and child problem behavior in residential
youth care: Course and bidirectional associations. Children and Youth Services
Review, 39, 48-56. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.012
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4, 1-102.
Berrington, A., Smith, W. F., & Sturgis. (2006). An overview of methods for the analysis of
panel data. Retrieved from
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQF jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feprints.ncrm.ac.uk%2F415%2F1%2FMethodsReviewPap
erNCRM-007.pdf&ei=eHY3VcOpB-XdywP68IGIBw&usg=AFQjCNGXD59fbiBf6QLOhrYRVgEfY7t1vQ&bvm=bv.910 71109,d.bGQ
Boendermaker, L., Van Rooijen, K., Berg, T., & Bartelink, C. (2013). Residentiële jeugdzorg:
wat werkt? Retrieved from
http://www.nji.nl/nl/Databanken/Databank-Wat-werkt/Onderwerpen/Wat-werkt-in-de-residentile-jeugdzorg
Boendermaker, L., & Van Yperen, T. A. (2003). Kansen in de keten. Een gemeenschappelijk
referentiekader voor de justitiële jeugdinrichtingen. Den Haag: Dienst Justitiële
Jeugdinrichtingen.
Borckardt, J. J., Nash, M. R., Murphy, M. D., Moore, M., Shaw, D., & O’neil, P. (2008). Clinical practice as natural laboratory for psychotherapy research. A guide to case-based time-series analysis. American Psychologist, 63, 77-95. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.77
Breuk, R. E., Clauser, C. A. C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Slot, N. W., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2007). The validity of questionnaire self-report of psychopathology and parent-child relationship quality in juvenile delinquents with psychiatric disorders. Journal of
Busseri, M. A., & Tyler, J. D. (2003). Interchangeability of the Working Alliance Inventory and Working Alliance Inventory, Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 15(2), 193-197.
Colins, O. F., Boonmann, C., Veenstra, J., Van Domburgh, L., Buffing, F., Doreleijers, T. A. H., & Vermeiren, R. R. J. M. (2013). Mental health problems and recidivism among detained male adolescents from various ethnic origins. European Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 22, 481-490. doi:10.1007/s00787-013-0384-z
Colins, O. F., Vermeiren, R. R. J. M., Vreugdenhil, C., Van den Brink, W., Doreleijers, T. A. H., & Broekaert, E. (2010). Psychiatric disorders in detained male adolescents: a systematic literature review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatrie-Revue Canadienne de
Psychiatrie, 55, 255-263.
Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen (2009). Youturn. Den Haag: Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. Retrieved from https://www.dji.nl/Onderwerpen/Jongeren-in-detentie/behandeling-zorg-en-onderwijs/Basismethodiek-YOUTURN/
Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen (2013). JJI in getal 2009-2013. Den Haag: Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. Retrieved from https://www.dji.nl/Organisatie/Feiten-en-cijfers/
DiFilippo, J. M., Esposito, C., Overholser, J. C., & Spirito, A. (2003). High risk populations. In A. Spirito & J. C. Overholser (Eds.), Evaluating and treating adolescent suicide
attempters: From research to practice (pp. 229-261). New York: Academic Press.
Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2010). Vakmanschap is meesterschap: Risico’s van classificatie, risicotaxatie en registratie van delinquente jongeren. Proces, 89, 238-250.
Drost, J. Y. (2008). Residentiële justitiële opvoeding en de houding van jongens ten opzichte
van sociale grenzen (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht: Uitgeverij Agiel.
Duits, N., & Bartels, J. A. C. (2011). Jeugdpsychiatrie en recht: Wetgeving, zorgveld en
Florsheim, P., Shotorbani, S., Guest-Warnick, G., Barratt, T., & Hwang, W. C. (2000). Role of the working alliance in the treatment of delinquent boys in community-based programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 94-107.
Garrido, V., & Morales, L. A. (2007). Serious (violent or chronic) juvenile offenders: A systematic review of treatment effectiveness in secure corrections. The Campbell
Collaboration, 7, 1-46. doi:10.4073/csr.2007.7.
Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Latrogenic effect of juvenile justice. The
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 991-998.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., French, S. A., & Smith, P. (2006). Practicing psychology in
correctional settings: “What works” in reducing criminal behavior. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), The Handbook of Forensic Psychology (3rd edition) (pp. 2-58). New York: Wiley.
Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1991). Interpreting and estimating indirect effects assuming time lags really matter. In L. Collins & J. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of
change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 243-259).
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Green, J. F. R. C., Kroll, L. M. R. C., Imrie, D. M. A., Francis, F. M., Begum, K. M. S. C., Harrison, L. M. R. C., et al. (2001). Health gain and outcome predictors during inpatient and related day treatment in child and adolescent psychiatry. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 325-332.
Harder, A. T. (2011). The downside up? A study of factors associated with a successful course
of treatment for adolescents in secure residential care (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Harder, A. T., Kalverboer, M. E., Knorth, E. J., & Zandberg, T. (2008). Pedagogische kwaliteiten van voorzieningen voor residentiële jeugdzorg. In A. E. M. G. Minnaert,
H. Lutje Spelberg, & H. Amsing (Eds.), Het Pedagogisch Quotiënt (pp. 103-122). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Harder, A. T., Knorth, E. J., & Kalverboer, M. E. (2012). Securing the downside up: Client and care factors associated with outcomes of secure residential youth care. Child Youth
Care Forum, 41, 259-276.
Harder, A. T., Knorth, E. J., & Kalverboer, M. E. (2013). A secure base? The adolescent-staff relationship in secure residential youth care. Child and Family Social Work, 18, 305-317.
Harvey, J. (2005). Young Men in Prison. Surviving and adapting to life inside. Cullompton UK: Willan Publishing.
Hemphill, J. F., & Howell, A. J. (2000). Adolescent offenders and stages of change.
Psychological Assessment, 12(4), 371-381.
Hu, L .T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1-55.
Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2005). A theoretical model of common process factors in youth and family therapy. Mental Health Services
Research, 7(1), 35-51.
Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2006). Meta-analysis 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.
Karver, M. S., Shirk, S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., Crisp, H., Gudmundsen, G., et al. (2008). Relationship processes in youth psychotherapy. Journal of Emotional and
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Klomp, M., Kloosterman, P., & Kuijvenhoven, T. (2004). Get going: Motivating young
people to break out of deadlock. Amsterdam: SWP Publishers.
Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., Huygen, A. N., Kalverboer, M. E., & Zandberg, T. (2010). Residential youth care and treatment research: Care workers as key factor in outcomes? International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 1, 49-67. Leichtman, M., Leichtman, M. L., Cornsweet Barber, C., & Neese, D. T. (2001).
Effectiveness of intensive short-term residential treatment with severely disturbed adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 227-235.
Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). Introduction: the effects of imprisonment revisited. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 1-32). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124-147. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious & violent juvenile offenders; risk factors and
successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maier, H. W. (1979). The core of care: Essential ingredients for the development of children at home and away from home. Child Care Quarterly, 8, 161-173.
Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 141-149.
McLeod, B. D. (2011). Relation of the alliance with outcomes in youth psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 603-616.
Mulder, E. A. (2010). Unraveling serious juvenile delinquency. Risk and needs assessment by
classification into subgroups (Doctoral dissertation). Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mulder, E. A., Brand, E., Bullens, R., & Van Marle, H. (2010). Profiling serious juvenile offenders in juvenile institutions: Change in risk factors in their population.
International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9(2), 93-100.
Nijhof, K. S., Van Dam, C., Veerman, J. W., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2010). Nieuw zorgaanbod: Gesloten jeugdzorg voor adolescenten met ernstige
gedragsproblemen. Pedagogiek, 30(3), 177-191.
Oettingen, G., Grant, H., Smith, P. K., Skinner, M., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2006).
Nonconscious goal pursuit: Acting in an explanatory vacuum. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42, 668-675.
Olver, M. E., Wormith, J. S., & Stockdale, K. C. (2011). A meta-analysis of predictors of offender treatment attrition and its relationships to recidivism. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 79, 6-21. doi:10.1037/a0022200
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing
traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Rap, S., & Weijers, I. (2011). De jeugdstrafzitting: een pedagogisch perspectief. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.
Rhodes, J. E., Bogat, G. A., Roffman, J., Edelman, P., & Galasso, L. (2002). American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 149-155.
Ruch, G., Turney, D., & Ward, A. (2010). Relationship-based social work: Getting to the
heart of practice. Jessica Kingsley, London.
Scholte, E. M. (1989). Jeugd, politie en hulpverlening (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Scholte, E. M., & Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2000). Exploring factors governing successful
residential treatment of youngsters with serious behavioural difficulties. Childhood, 7, 129-153.
Scholte, R. H. J., Van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Perceived relational support in adolescence: Dimensions, configurations and adolescent adjustment.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 71-94.
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. doi:10.1177/0093854811426710
Schuengel, C., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2001). Attachment in mental health institutions: A critical review of assumptions, clinical implications, and research strategies.
Attachment and Human Development, 3, 304-323.
Shaffer, A., Lindhiem, O., Kolko, D. J., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2012). Bidirectional relations between parenting practices and child externalizing behavior: A cross-lagged panel analysis in the context of a psychosocial treatment and 3-year follow-up. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 199-210. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9670-3
Stevens, J., Pommer, E., Van Kempen, H., Zeijl, E., Woittiez, I., Sadiraj, K., et al. (2007). De
jeugd een zorg. Ramings- en verdeelmodel jeugdzorg 2007. Den Haag: Sociaal en
Cultureel Planbureau.
Todis, B., Bullis, M., Waintrup, M., Schulz, R., & D’Ambrosio, R. (2001). Overcoming the odds: Qualitative examination of resilience among formerly incarcerated adolescents.
Ule, A., Schram, A., Riedl, A., & Cason, T. N. (2009). Indirect punishment and generosity toward strangers. Science, 326, 1701-1704.
Van Binsbergen, M. H. (2003). Motivation for treatment: Development of motivation for
treatment in a secure residential facility (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leiden,
Leiden, The Netherlands.
Van der Helm, G. H. P. (2011). First do no harm: Living group climate in secure juvenile
correctional institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: SWP Publishers.
Van der Helm, G. H. P., Beunk, L., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2014). The relation between detention length, living group climate, coping and treatment motivation among juvenile delinquents in a youth correctional facility. The Prison
Journal, 94(2), 260-275. doi:10.1177/0032885514524884
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, 26, 248-263.
Van der Helm, G. H. P., & Klapwijk, M. (2009). Onderzoek naar het pedagogisch milieu in
Forensisch Centrum Teylingereind. Managementversie.
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 correctional centre. Journal of Children’s Services, 4, 36-48.
Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Van Genabeek, M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Group climate, personality, and self-reported aggression in incarcerated male youth.
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 23(1), 23-39.
Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2011). Measuring group climate in a forensic setting. The Prison Journal, 91(2), 158-176.
Van der Helm, G. H. P., Stams, G. J. J. M., Van der Stel, J. C., Van Langen, M. A. 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 der Helm, G. H. P., Van Tol, N., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2013). De invloed van het
orthopedagogisch klimaat in de residentiële justitiële jeugdzorg: recidivevermindering door opvoeding, behandeling en scholing. University of Amsterdam.
Van der Helm, G. H. P., Wissink, I. B., De Jongh, T., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2012). Measuring treatment motivation in secure juvenile facilities. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology. doi:10.1177/0306624X12443798
Vermeiren, R. R. J. M., Jespers, I., & Moffitt, T. (2006). Mental problems in juvenile justice populations. Child Psychiatric Clinics of North-America, 15(2), 333-351.
Vreugdenhil, C., Doreleijers, T. A. H., Vermeiren, R. R. J. M., Wouters, L. F., & Van den Brink, W. (2004). Psychiatric disorders in a representative sample of incarcerated boys in the Netherlands. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43(1), 97-104.
White, H. R., Shi, J., Hirschfield, P., Mun, E. Y., & Loeber, R. (2009). Effects of institutional confinement for delinquency on levels of anxiety and depression among male
adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 295-313.
Wills, T. A., & Cleary, S. D. (1996). How are social support effects mediated? A test with parental support and adolescent substance use. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 973-952.
Windle, M. (1992). A longitudinal study of stress buffering for adolescent problem behaviors.
