Treatment effectiveness in a youth detention centre:
an open versus a closed regime
Masterscriptie Forensische Orthopedagogiek,
Pedagogische en Onderwijskundige Wetenschappen, Universiteit van Amsterdam
Student: P. van den Berg Studentnummer: 10283889
Begeleiding: prof.dr. G.J.J.M. Stams en dr. G.H.P. van der Helm Amsterdam, oktober 2013
Table of contents Abstract p. 2 Introduction p. 3 Method p. 9 Results p. 11 Discussion p. 21 Conclusion p. 24 References p. 25
Abstract
This thesis evaluated possible differences in group climate, social information processing skills, depression, anxiety, stress and aggressive behaviour problems among incarcerated juvenile male delinquents who are treated in a facility with a closed regime (NBI) or an open regime (BBI). From both facilities three youngsters were included and filled in questionnaires every week for a time-period of eight weeks. The youngsters within the BBI experienced a more positive group climate. However, they reported to have less developed social information processing skills, more depression, anxiety, stress and aggressive behaviour problems. Explanations for these results are that the youngsters in the BBI are further in their trajectory and therefore have better self-reflection skills. They might also experience higher rates of anxiety and stress prior to release and return to the community.
Introduction Juvenile delinquency
Delinquency refers to officially registered unlawful behaviour. Juvenile delinquency constitutes serious problems for the society (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Current juvenile statues, enacted in 1965, allow for young people between the ages of 12 and 18 years to be processed in juvenile courts (Carlie, 1997). Most of the crimes are committed by males, while about 20% are committed by girls (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie [MVJ], 2011). In the Netherlands, approximately 18400 male youngsters were arrested in the year 2011. About 6800 had to perform community service or pay a fine, generally because they committed less severe offences such as vandalism or shoplifting. The remaining 11600 boys (63% of those arrested) were placed in youth detention centres, with or without compulsory treatment (MVJ, 2011).
Juvenile offenders who are sentenced to youth detention centres with compulsory treatment have been convicted of a serious crime, most of the times with an aggressive nature (e.g., murder or rape) and are often found to be seriously mentally disturbed (Carlie, 1997). Specifically male adolescents seem to experience substantial mental needs and their mental health assessment should be continued during detention and after discharge, followed by adequate and targeted interventions (Colins et al., 2010). The incarceration of juvenile delinquents is not only meant for punishment, but the detention centres are also aimed at the same basic goal – to prepare the young offenders as effectively as possible for their return into the community (Carlie, 1997); also called: Rehabilitation. In this thesis, we refer to this group of delinquent youngsters who are all sentenced to a long-term incarceration and all need a ‘rehabilitation-process’ before they are released. In this thesis we want to evaluate the effectiveness of this rehabilitation-process in a youth detention center in the Netherlands.
The youth detention center ‘De Hartelborgt’ is a state institution (operated by the Dutch government) with different facilities. Although these facilities differ in their approach, they have the same goal: to prepare the youngsters as effectively as possible for their return into the community. In this thesis we will discuss and compare two facilities that are seated within this detention center, where in one of the two facilities there is an open regime, while the other has a closed regime.
The incarceration and treatment of the youngsters starts within the latter described facility (from now on called NBI; normaal beveiligde inrichting). In this facility the focus of treatment lies on learning those skills that are needed when the youngsters rehabilitate into
society. These skills are first of all: learning from and getting insight into the risk factors for committing (another) crime, and these factors are different for all youngsters. Next, the youngsters are provided with skills to cope with and handle these risk factors. Examples of these handling skills are: controlling their aggressive behaviour, quitting substance abuse, enhancing social skills and decreasing cognitive distortions. During their treatment these skills will be trained and evaluated within the NBI until the youngsters have proved that they have managed these skills. The next step is that the youngster will go on leave (outside the juvenile detention centre) under supervision of group workers. With this guided leave, their rehabilitation trajectory has started. During these leaves, the youngsters can build up their skills within the society. They are starting to get in contact with social life outside the detention centre again. Under guidance of the group workers the youngster will also start with searching for work or education and a place to live after their incarceration. During their treatment within the NBI the youngsters will more frequently have these guided leaves and at the end of their trajectory in the NBI they will have leaves without any supervision. When the youngsters have found a suitable way to fill in their weekly days with, for example, work or education and if they have proven that they are capable of unsupervised leaves and their skills have been positively evaluated they can be transferred to a BBI. In other words: if they have proven to be capable of ‘handling’ the given freedom in a responsible and structured way they are ready to be transferred within the juvenile detention centre to a facility with a open regime.
In this second facility (from now on called BBI; beperkt beveiligde inrichting) the youngsters can move more freely within the detention centre and facility and their stay is aimed first of all at rehabilitation into the society. The activities are focused on the outside world, to which the youngsters will return. The skills that are learned within the NBI, such as handling aggressive and criminal impulses and controlling addictions, are then tested and developed further to such a level that the youngsters can become self-supportive in their lives after their punishment. The youngsters have more frequent leaves without supervision and spend their time more outside the walls of the detention centre then inside the walls. It is common that some of the youngsters (who are far in their rehabilitation trajectory) will only spend the night and the weekends within the detention centre and spend most of their daily activities outside. The new social network, including work, education and a living environment are sustained and broadened where possible. The process by which these incarcerated youngsters gradually move to a more open regime is called ‘the phasing of detention’.
It is argued that for these specific juveniles who committed a crime with an aggressive nature and who are seriously mentally disturbed, youth care with a closed regime can be more effective than youth care with an open regime, because the first may be the best option for youth who need a structured and (highly) supervised environment (Anglin, 2004). Treatment in youth care with a closed regime can create a positive reaction and improve the psychological wellbeing of these young people (Garrett, 1984; Knorth, Harder, Zandberg, & Kendrick, 2008; Scherrer, 1994). However, De Swart and coworkers indicate that youth care with a closed regime can be equally effective as youth care with an open regime (De Swart et al., 2012). Effectiveness can be defined by the fact that the youngsters have more developed skills and experience less problems.
To evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation-trajectories, it seems important to examine the differences between juveniles incarcerated in a BBI compared to those incarcerated in a NBI. Because the youngsters incarcerated in the BBI are almost prepared for successful rehabilitation, we suggest that they have developed better skills and have less behaviour problems compared to the youngsters incarcerated in the NBI. To specifically examine this suggestion, we first want to describe different constructs of treatment outcome, such as group climate, social information processing skills, the presence of depression, anxiety and stress, as well as aggressive behaviour problems. And next, we want to evaluate the outcome of these different constructs between the youths in both facilities. We hypothesize that the youngsters in the BBI will have more developed skills and experience less problems in all these areas.
Group climate
Young people in Dutch youth detention centres are treated in living groups consisting of eight to ten youngsters who all have similar problems and are supervised by trained group workers (Van der Helm, Klapwijk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2009; Witvliet, 2009). These youngsters cannot leave the group, and cannot avoid each other or their group workers (Van der Helm, et al., 2009; Witvliet, 2009). Fraley and Roberts (2005) propose a transactional model where the personality of the youngsters has an effect on the living group (the social environment), which in its own turn influences the personality of the youngsters. Therefore, in assessing treatment success/ successful rehabilitation, it seems necessary to assess group processes that are of influence. If group processes are assessed, characteristics of the group workers, therapeutic alliance and group climate are considered to affect the effectiveness of treatment and rehabilitation (Marshall & Burton, 2010).
Group climate is defined as the social environment of the youth detention centre and can be ‘open’ (Lipsey, 2009; Parhar, et al., 2008) or ‘closed’ (Van der Helm, et al., 2009). Group workers can shape the group climate (Drost, 2008; Van der Helm, et al., 2011). An open group climate means that there is sufficient support from group workers, that there are opportunities for growth, that there is a safe atmosphere, that affiliation/relationships are fostered, each other’s perspectives are taken in to account and that there is empathy (Van der Helm, 2011). An open group climate is associated with greater treatment motivation. Incarcerated young people are then more motivated to connect to others, to take another person’s perspective, show empathic responses (Oettingen, Grant, Smith, Skinner, & Gollwitzer, 2006) and elicit pro-social behaviour (Janzing & Kerstens, 2005). When we relate group climate to the two facilities of The Hartelborgt, we expect that the youngsters in the BBI will experience an open group climate. Because they are further in their rehabilitation trajectory, we suggest that they will depend less on the group workers, and because they have more responsibilities they might have a relatively high treatment motivation. On the other hand, we expect that the youngsters in the NBI will experience a closed group climate. A closed (also called repressive) group climate (Toch, 2008; Toch & Kupers, 2007; Van der Helm, et al., 2011) is characterized by an unbalanced use of power, a great dependency on the group workers, lack of respect, an emphasis on punishment and aggression, boredom, hopelessness, fear, and lack of protection (Harvey, 2006; Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Little, 1990; Wright & Goodstein, 1989). A closed group climate is mostly thought to provide a secure environment for those youngsters with severe mental and behavioural problems (Anglin, 2004). However, it also forcers a dependency on group workers and causes a lack in autonomy and responsibility among the youngsters (Harvey, 2006; Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Little, 1990). Therefore, a closed group climate can result in low self-worth, anxiety and aggression among the incarcerated youngsters (Ostrowsky, 2010; Thomaes, 2007).
Social information processing skills
Aggressive behaviour can be elicited by specific social situations (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969; Matthys, Cuperus, & Engeland, 1999). Examples are situations of social disadvantage, competition, problems with authority, and dependency on others (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969; Harvey, 2006). When we want to explain aggressive, delinquent behaviour the construct of social information processing (SIP) is important (Akhtar & Bradley, 1991; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Gifford-Smith & Rabiner, 2004; Huesmann, 1997). When the young offenders are confronted with their delinquent behaviour, they most of the
time express deviant interpretations of the social interaction relevant to their (criminal) behaviour. Juvenile delinquents do not “use” these interpretations as rationalizations of their behaviour, but show problems with their SIP (Lösel, Bliesener, & Bender, 2007). SIP is an approach to understand relations between social cognitive processes and juvenile delinquency (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1986). The theory behind SIP suggests that individual differences in behavioural responses to social situations are caused by individual differences in mental processing. It seems that six steps precede social behaviour: 1) social cues are encoded, 2) this information is represented and interpreted, 3) on the basis of previously interpreted information the interaction goals are specified, 4) response alternatives are generated, 5) the different response alternatives are evaluated and one response is chosen and then finally 6) the youngster acts out the response. Atypical processing during one of these six steps may lead to delinquent behaviour. To maximise the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural interventions, we need to incorporate the social cognitive processes underlying the behaviour (Kendall & Choudhury, 2003). With respect to the youngsters in the BBI of The Hartelborgt, we would expect that –because they are further in their rehabilitation-trajectory– they will have SIP skills that are developed similar to non-delinquent youngsters.
The SIP model has been studied extensively in the general population and in clinically aggressive boys in middle childhood, but rarely in the general delinquent juvenile population. It has been found that delinquent youngsters encode less relevant information than non-delinquent peers (Lochman & Dodge, 1994). Also, non-delinquent young people seem to attribute more hostile intentions than both their aggressive and non-aggressive peers (Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Delinquent youngsters have shown greater aggressive response generation and aggressive response selection when compared to non-delinquent peers (Nas, Orobio De Castro, & Koops, 2005). With regard to SIP, the delinquent young people attributed fewer sad emotions, generated fewer adaptive emotion-regulation strategies, and reported more aggressive responses (Nas, et al., 2005). They seem to show more proactive aggression and externalising behaviour problems than their non-delinquent peers (Nas, et al., 2005).
Externalizing and internalizing behaviour problems
Because the diagnosis of conduct disorder is assigned when a sufficient number of antisocial acts appear over a specific period, most delinquent youths, and the severe and persistent ones in particular, are expected to receive this diagnosis. Therefore, the majority of these delinquents have been diagnosed with conduct disorder (Fazel, Doll, & Långström, 2008;
Colins et al., 2010; Alessi, McManus, Grapentine, & Brickman, 1984; Haapasalo & Hämäläinen, 1996; Hollander & Turner, 1985; McManus, Alessi, Grapentine, & Brickman, 1984; Milin, Halikas, Meller, & Morse, 1991; Neighbors, Kempton, & Forehand, 1992; Ollendick, Seligman, Butcher, & Div, 1999; Timmons-Mitchel et al., 1997). However, relatively few incarcerated youth seem to meet criteria for a solitary conduct disorder diagnosis. Juvenile delinquents with conduct disorder were shown to have a high comorbidity with internalizing pathology (Ulzen & Hamilton, 1998). About 50% of youth in juvenile detention centres who have a diagnosis of conduct disorders have also at least one other disorder (Otto et al., 1992). Within the juvenile delinquent population there seems to be a high prevalence of rates of anxiety and depressive disorders (Fazel, Doll, & Långström, 2008; Colins et al., 2010; Domalanta, Risser, Roberts, & Risser, 2003; Atkins et al., 1999). Comorbidity associated with disruptive behaviour disorders have been found to be most prevalent. There are high rates of comorbidity between conduct disorder and affective disorders (Davis, Bean, Schumacher, & Stringer, 1991; Fergusson, Lynskey, & Horwood, 1996). This co-morbidity may also be caused by the fact that the risk factors that predispose the youth to affective disorders are the same risk factors that predispose to conduct disorders (Fergusson et al., 1996).
Rates of internalizing disorders, for example: depression and anxiety, range from 11-33% (Vermeiren, 2003). In preadolescence, anxiety may moderate the severity of conduct disorder, whereas the presence of anxiety and conduct disorder in adolescence may be a marker for continued psychopathology in adulthood (Russo & Beidel, 1994). When we look at externalizing and internalizing disorders, we would expect that the youngsters in The Hartelborgt incarcerated in the BBI will experience less of these problems. Because it is found that delinquent young people have higher rates of these behaviour problems when compared to peers in the general population (Vermeiren, 2003).
Focus of this thesis
The focus of this thesis is on differences between delinquent male youngsters who are incarcerated in two different facilities of a youth detention centre, one with a closed regime (NBI) and one with an open regime (BBI). We will examine differences in how they experience group climate, the development of their social information processing skills and the presence of depression, anxiety, stress and aggressive behaviour problems. We will evaluate these constructs with the use of self-report questionnaires.
youths who are treated within a BBI or within a NBI? To give an answer to this question the following hypotheses are drawn up:
Hypothesis 1: Delinquent youngsters who are treated in a BBI experience a more positive group climate compared to delinquent youngsters who are treated in a NBI.
Hypothesis 2: Delinquent youngsters who are treated in a BBI have more developed social information processing skills compared to delinquent youngsters who are treated in a NBI.
Hypothesis 3: Delinquent youngsters who are treated in a BBI experience less depression, anxiety and stress compared to delinquent youngsters who are treated in a NBI.
Hypothesis 4: Delinquent youngsters who are treated in a BBI experience less aggressive behaviour problems compared to delinquent youngsters who are treated in a NBI.
Method Participants
Prior to the study the boys within both facilities were asked if they wanted to volunteer in this study. This resulted in three male youngsters from the BBI and three male youngsters from the NBI. Both facilities are part of the justice juvenile institution ‘De Hartelborgt’. Eight measurements were performed once a week with the use of questionnaires, as all adolescents move from NBI to BBI we compared participants means from NBI to BBI. Before filling in the questionnaires, the boys were asked to provide background information in terms of age, duration of incarceration and ethnicity (non-Dutch ethnicity: themselves and/or parent(s) not born in the Netherlands). The six boys had a mean age of 19.83 years (range: 19-22 years). They were incarcerated for a mean time of 29.33 months (range: 21-40 months). Five boys had a non-Dutch ethnicity, one a Dutch ethnicity.
Measures
The construct ‘group climate’ was evaluated with the use of the Dutch version of the Prison Group Climate Inventory (PGCI). The PGCI contains 36 items that belong to four scales: the first scale measures the professional guidance and support that the youngsters experience (12 items); the second scale measures the growth and learning process of the youngsters (8 items); the third scale measures feelings of repression from the youngsters (9 items); the fourth scale
measures the atmosphere at the group (7 items). The PGCI has satisfactory internal consistency reliability coefficients (Van der Helm, et al., 2011).
The construct ‘social information processing skills’ was evaluated with the use of the Dutch questionnaire Taxonomie van Problematische Sociale situaties (TOPS). This questionnaire is derived from the English TOPS (short form) questionnaire en specifically adjusted to the context of a facility in a justice juvenile institution. The TOPS asks the adolescent with self-report how he responds to problematic situations within the living group of the facility. Eighteen items are divided over four scales: inadequate reactions to situations in which the adolescent has the disadvantage; competition; acceptation and providing/giving support; and acceptation of authority. The TOPS has satisfactory construct and concurrent validity and Cronbach’s alpha reliability and is can be used to asses and target inappropriate responses to problematic social situations in (delinquent) adolescents in secure institutional and correctional youth care (Van der Helm et al., 2013).
The construct ‘depression, anxiety and stress’ was measured with the use of the Dutch version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS). This questionnaire consists of 42 items and measures depression, anxiety and stress. The questionnaire consists of the following scales: depression (14 items), anxiety (14 items) and stress (14 items). Psychometric properties analysis showed sufficient reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) and supported the convergent and divergent validity (De Beurs, Van Dyck, Marquenie, Lange, & Blonk, 2001).
The construct ‘aggressive behaviour problems’ was measured with the Dutch version of the Youth Self Report (YSR). The original YSR is a questionnaire consisting of 120 questions filled in by the youngster himself. The questions concern emotional functioning and behaviour problems that the adolescents have experienced in the past six months. The scores can be divided over eight behaviour scales: withdrawn behaviour, somatic complaints, anxiety/depression, social problems, thinking problems, attention problems, delinquent behaviour and aggressive behaviour. These scales can be subdivided into two broad scales: internalizing and externalizing behaviour. The YSR is found to have satisfactory content and criterium validity and good reliability (Verhulst, Van der Ende, & Koot, 1997). In this study the questions from the aggressive behaviour scale were used.
Analyses
Descriptive analyses and effect size calculation (Cohen’s d; d between 0.2 and 0.5 = small effect; d between 0.5 and 0.8 = medium effect; d ≥0.8 = large effect.) were performed with SPSS version 20.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). Data was analyzed with the use of Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA). We used a time-series level analysis, which is a bootstrapping approach to assess shorter data streams. We pooled both data streams and compared them. SMA also accounts for the autocorrelation, or non-independence, of sequential observations in the data stream. An effect size (Pearson’s r; r between 0.10 and 0.30 = small correlation; r between 0.30 and 0.50 = medium correlation; r ≥0.50 = large correlation) is then calculated as well as the actual probability of obtaining that effect and these outcomes are all corrected for the length of the data stream and the level of autocorrelation. All p-values are two-sided and a value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results
First we examined the outcomes per measurement moment. Next, we evaluated whether these effects were significant after time-series analyses with SMA.
PGCI
The ‘guidance and support’ scale showed overall higher scores for the youngsters within the BBI on all eight measurements, indicating that they experience more guidance and support compared to the youngsters within the NBI. Cohen’s d ranged from 1.12 to 2.14, indicating large effect sizes on all eight moments (Figure 1a and Table 1).
The scale ‘growth and learning’ showed the same results. The youngsters in the BBI experienced more growth and learning than the youngsters within the NBI, with Cohen’s d ranging from 0.50 to 1.75, indicating medium to large effect sizes on all measurements (Figure 1b and Table 1). The scale ‘repression’ showed lower scores for the three youngsters within the BBI per measurement moment. They seem to experience less feelings of repression compared to the youngsters within the NBI, with Cohen’s d ranging from 0.86 to 3.29, indicating large effects on all eight measurements (Figure 1c and Table 1). The scale ‘atmosphere’ shows higher scores for the youngsters within the BBI. They seem to experience a more positive atmosphere compared to the youngsters within the NBI with Cohen’s d ranging from 0.72 to 2.40, indicating medium to large effects on all measurement moments (Figure 1d and Table 1).
Results of the time-series analyses with SMA supported the above described effects with significant p-values. The youngsters within the BBI experience more guidance and support compared to the youngsters within the NBI (r = + 0.977, p = 0.0001), they also experience more growth and learning (r = +0.932, p = 0.0014) and report a more positive atmosphere (r = +0.953, p = 0.0001). The youngsters within the BBI experience less repression compared to the youngsters within the NBI (r = -0.956, p = 0.001) (Table 5).
Figure 1 Descriptive results of the Prison Group Climate Inventory
A B
C D
Figure 1. PGCI = prison group climate inventory; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Average scores represent mean scores of the three youngsters within the NBI and the three youngsters within the BBI per measurement moment. Figure a, b, c and d represent the four scales of the questionnaire.
PGCI atmosphere at the group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re PGCI support 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
PGCI growth and learning
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
PGCI feelings of repression
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the Prison Group Climate Inventory
NBI BBI
M (SD) M (SD) Cohen’s d
Guidance and support
1 2.64 (0.61) 3.80 (0.86) 1.56 2 2.64 (1.10) 3.86 (0.92) 1.20 3 2.81 (0.96) 3.83 (0.80) 1.15 4 2.39 (0.79) 3.94 (0.65) 2.14 5 2.56 (1.00) 3.70 (0.87) 1.22 6 2.86 (0.57) 3.75 (0.80) 1.28 7 2.86 (0.57) 3.70 (0.89) 1.12 8 2.70 (0.79) 3.81 (0.84) 1.36
Growth and learning
1 2.79 (0.69) 4.17 (0.88) 1.75 2 2.79 (0.69) 3.92 (0.97) 1.34 3 3.33 (1.13) 3.88 (1.07) 0.50 4 2.92 (0.63) 4.13 (0.76) 1.73 5 3.25 (0.95) 3.83 (1.04) 0.58 6 3.00 (0.54) 3.96 (1.00) 1.19 7 2.96 (0.52) 3.96 (0.92) 1.34 8 3.42 (1.06) 4.00 (0.90) 0.59 Feelings of repression 1 3.67 (0.34) 2.45 (0.40) 3.29 2 3.93 (0.23) 2.78 (1.07) 1.49 3 3.66 (0.39) 2.74 (1.00) 1.21 4 3.48 (0.50) 2.93 (0.76) 0.86 5 3.67 (0.34) 2.66 (0.49) 2.39 6 3.59 (0.36) 2.67 (0.40) 2.42 7 3.59 (0.36) 2.78 (0.77) 1.35 8 3.40 (0.06) 2.78 (0.87) 1.01 Atmosphere 1 2.48 (0.95) 3.86 (1.22) 1.26 2 2.52 (1.30) 3.76 (1.22) 0.98 3 3.05 (1.09) 3.86 (1.15) 0.72 4 2.33 (0.59) 4.00 (0.79) 2.40 5 2.81 (0.92) 3.76 (1.08) 0.95 6 2.57 (1.12) 3.76 (1.08) 1.08 7 2.57 (1.12) 3.67 (1.09) 1.00 8 3.00 (1.03) 3.91 (0.93) 0.93
Note. M = mean score; SD = standard deviation; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Numbers on the left represent the eight measurement moments. Cohen’s d represents the effect between the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the NBI compared to the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the BBI. d between 0.2 and 0.5 = small effect; d between 0.5 and 0.8 = medium effect; d ≥0.8 = large effect.
TOPS
The ‘disadvantage’ scale showed similar scores between the youngsters within the NBI and the BBI with the latter group having somewhat higher scores and therefore experiencing more problems in social situations where they feel that they are in the disadvantage. Cohen’s d ranges from 0.00 to 0.86, indicating no effect to large effects (Figure 2a and Table 2). The ‘competition’ scale indicates higher scores for the youngsters within the BBI. Cohen’s d ranges from 0.81 to 1.54 indicating large effects (Figure 2b and Table 2). The ‘support’ scale shows similar scores for the youngsters within the NBI and the BBI, however there seems to be a trend that the youngsters within the BBI experience and provide less support compared to the youngsters within the NBI. Cohen’s d ranges from 0.00 to 0.58 indicating no effect to medium effects (Figure 2c and Table 2). For the last scale ‘authority’ the youngsters within the BBI indicate higher scores. They seem to be less capable of accepting authority in social situations. Cohen’s d ranges from 0.30 to 1.06, indicating small to large effects (Figure 2d and Table 2).
With time-series analyses the above mentioned effects are supported with significant p-values for three scales. When compared to the youngsters within the NBI, the youngsters within the BBI experience more problems in social situations where they feel they are in the disadvantage (r = +0.694, p = 0.0330), they experience more problems in competitive social situations (r = +0.966, p = 0.0001) and they experience more problems when they need to accept authority (r = +0.815, p = 0.0212). For the scale ‘support’ the results are not significantly different. The youngsters seem to experience similar feelings of accepting and proving support in social situations (r = -0.342, p = 0.2186) (Table 5).
Figure 2 Descriptive results of the Taxonomie van Problematische Sociale situaties
A B
C D
Figure 2. TOPS = taxonomie van problematisch situaties; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Average scores represent mean scores of the three youngsters within the NBI and the three youngsters within the BBI per measurement moment. Figure a, b, c and d represent the four scales of the questionnaire.
TOPS acceptation of autority
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
TOPS providing and giving support
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re TOPS competition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re TOPS disadvantage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 4 6 8 10 12 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the Taxonomie van Problematische Sociale situaties
NBI BBI M (SD) M (SD) Cohen’s d Disadvantage 1 9.33 (1.16) 9.67 (1.53) 0.25 2 10.00 (1.00) 10.33 (2.52) 0.17 3 9.00 (1.00) 9.00 (1.00) 0.00 4 8.67 (1.16) 10.67 (3.06) 0.86 5 8.67 (1.16) 10.33 (2.52) 0.85 6 9.33 (1.16) 10.33 (2.52) 0.51 7 9.33 (1.16) 10.33 (2.52) 0.51 8 8.67 (1.16) 9.67 (1.53) 0.74 Competition 1 5.00 (0.00) 6.67 (1.53) 1.54 2 5.00 (0.00) 6.67 (1.53) 1.54 3 5.00 (0.00) 6.67 (1.53) 1.54 4 5.00 (0.00) 6.00 (1.73) 0.82 5 5.00 (0.00) 6.33 (2.31) 0.81 6 5.00 (0.00) 6.33 (2.31) 0.81 7 5.00 (0.00) 6.33 (2.31) 0.81 8 5.00 (0.00) 6.00 (1.73) 0.81 Support 1 5.00 (1.73) 4.00 (1.73) 0.58 2 4.33 (1.53) 4.33 (2.31) 0.00 3 4.00 (1.73) 3.67 (1.16) 0.22 4 5.00 (2.00) 4.67 (2.08) 0.16 5 4.33 (1.16) 4.00 (1.00) 0.30 6 4.00 (1.00) 4.00 (1.00) 0.00 7 4.00 (1.00) 3.67 (0.58) 0.40 8 3.67 (1.16) 3.67 (0.58) 0.00 Authority 1 6.67 (0.58) 9.33 (3.51) 1.06 2 7.33 (1.53) 9.33 (3.51) 0.74 3 7.33 (1.53) 8.33 (2.08) 0.55 4 7.33 (1.53) 8.00 (2.00) 0.38 5 7.33 (1.53) 8.33 (1.53) 0.44 6 7.67 (1.16) 8.33 (1.53) 0.49 7 7.67 (1.16) 8.67 (2.08) 0.59 8 7.67 (1.16) 8.00 (1.00) 0.30
Note. M = mean score; SD = standard deviation; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Numbers on the left represent the eight measurement moments. Cohen’s d represents the effect between the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the NBI compared to the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the BBI. d between 0.2 and 0.5 = small effect; d between 0.5 and 0.8 = medium effect; d ≥0.8 = large effect.
DASS
The ‘depression’ scale indicates higher scores for the youngsters within the BBI on all measurements. They reported more depressive symptoms when compared to the youngsters within the NBI. The Cohen’s d ranges from 0.12 to 0.82, indicating small to large effects (Figure 3a and Table 3). On the ‘anxiety’ scale the youngsters within the BBI reported higher scores. They reported more anxiety problems when compared to the youngsters within the NBI. The Cohen’s d ranges from 0.61 to 0.82, indicating medium to large effects (Figure 3b and Table 3). The ‘stress’ scale shows the same results as the other scales with higher scores for the youngsters within the BBI and therefore more stress problems for them compared to the youngsters within the NBI. Cohen’s d ranges from 0.30 to 0.76, indicating small to medium effects (Figure 3c and Table 3).
The time-series analyses with SMA indicate the same results as described above with significant p-values. The youngsters within the BBI experience more depression (r = -0.929, p = 0.003), more anxiety (r = -0.981, p = 0.0001) and more stress (r = -0.935, p = 0.0022) when compared to the youngsters within the NBI (Table 5).
Figure 3 Descriptive results of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale
A B
C
Figure 3. DASS = depression, anxiety and stress scale; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Average scores represent mean scores of the three youngsters within the NBI and the three youngsters within the BBI per measurement moment. Figure a, b and c represent the three scales of the questionnaire.
DASS depression 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re DASS anxiety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re DASS stress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
Note. M = mean score; SD = standard deviation; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Numbers on the left represent the eight measurement moments. Cohen’s d represents the effect between the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the NBI compared to the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the BBI. d between 0.2 and 0.5 = small effect; d between 0.5 and 0.8 = medium effect; d ≥0.8 = large effect.
YSR
Concerning aggressive behaviour the results indicated higher scores for the youngsters within the BBI. This means that they report more aggressive behaviour compared to the youngsters within the NBI. Cohen’s d ranges from 1.50 to 2.47, indicating large effects (Figure 4 and Table 4).
The time-series analyses with SMA provide significant support for the above mentioned Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale
NBI BBI M (SD) M (SD) Cohen’s d Depression 1 7.33 (3.51) 8.67 (15.01) 0.12 2 3.67 (6.35) 12.67 (21.94) 0.56 3 2.00 (3.46) 10.33 (17.90) 0.65 4 0.00 (0.00) 11.33 (19.63) 0.82 5 0.00 (0.00) 12.33 (21.36) 0.82 6 2.00 (3.46) 12.67 (21.94) 0.68 7 3.00 (5.20) 12.33 (21.36) 0.60 8 2.00 (3.46) 12.33 (21.36) 0.68 Anxiety 1 2.33 (4.04) 10.00 (17.32) 0.61 2 2.33 (4.04) 13.00 (22.52) 0.66 3 0.00 (0.00) 11.33 (19.63) 0.82 4 0.00 (0.00) 12.33 (21.36) 0.82 5 0.00 (0.00) 11.67 (20.21) 0.82 6 2.33 (4.04) 11.00 (19.05) 0.63 7 2.33 (4.04) 12.67 (21.94) 0.66 8 0.00 (0.00) 12.67 (21.94) 0.82 Stress 1 5.67 (5.51) 9.33 (16.17) 0.30 2 4.00 (6.93) 12.33 (21.36) 0.52 3 1.00 (1.73) 12.00 (20.78) 0.75 4 0.67 (1.15) 10.00 (17.32) 0.76 5 0.67 (1.15) 9.67 (16.74) 0.76 6 3.67 (6.35) 10.00 (17.32) 0.49 7 4.00 (6.93) 11.00 (19.05) 0.49 8 1.00 (1.73) 9.67 (16.74) 0.73
effects. The youngsters within the BBI report significantly more aggressive behaviour compared to the youngsters within the NBI (r = +0.802, p = 0.0384) (Table 5).
Figure 4 Descriptive results of the Youth Self Report
Figure 3. YSR = youth self report; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Average scores represent mean scores of the three youngsters within the NBI and the three youngsters within the BBI per measurement moment. Figure a represents the aggressive behaviour scale.
Table 4
Descriptive statistics for the Youth Self Report
NBI BBI M (SD) M (SD) Cohen’s d Aggressive behaviour 1 1.00 (1.00) 7.00 (5.29) 1.58 2 0.33 (0.58) 6.33 (4.62) 1.82 3 0.33 (0.58) 6.67 (5.86) 1.52 4 0.00 (0.00) 2.67 (2.52) 1.50 5 0.00 (0.00) 2.67 (1.53) 2.47 6 0.33 (0.58) 2.67 (1.53) 2.02 7 0.33 (0.58) 2.67 (1.53) 2.02 8 0.33 (0.58) 2.33 (1.15) 2.20
Note. M = mean score; SD = standard deviation; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting. Numbers on the left represent the eight measurement moments. Cohen’s d represents the effect between the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the NBI compared to the mean (sd) scores of the three youngsters within the BBI. d between 0.2 and 0.5 = small effect; d between 0.5 and 0.8 = medium effect; d ≥0.8 = large effect.
YSR aggression 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 NBI BBI Measurement moment A v era g e s c o re
Table 5
Results of time-series analyses for all questionnaires
NBI BBI
M SD M SD r p
PGCI
Guidance and support 2.68 0.74 3.80 0.81 +0.977 0.0001*
Growth and learning 3.06 0.74 3.98 0.93 +0.932 0.0014*
Repression 3.62 0.21 2.72 0.71 -0.956 0.0001* Atmosphere 2.67 0.97 3.82 1.07 +0.953 0.0001* TOPS Disadvantage 9.13 0.70 10.04 2.06 +0.694 0.0330* Competition 5.00 0.00 6.38 1.77 +0.966 0.0001* Support 4.29 0.81 4.00 1.11 -0.342 0.2186 Authority 7.38 1.19 8.54 2.13 +0.815 0.0212* DASS Anxiety 1.17 2.02 11.83 20.50 -0.981 0.0001* Depression 2.50 3.14 11.58 20.06 -0.929 0.0030* Stress 2.58 3.93 10.50 18.19 -0.935 0.0022* YSR Aggressive behaviour 0.33 0.38 4.13 2.98 +0.802 0.0384*
Note. M = mean score; SD = standard deviation; NBI = normaal beveiligde inrichting; BBI = beperkt beveiligde inrichting; r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient; p = p-value; PGCI = prison group climate inventory; TOPS = Taxonomie van Problematische Sociale situaties; DASS = depression, anxiety and stress scale; YSR = youth self report. r between 0.10 and 0.30 = small correlation; r between 0.30 and 0.50 = medium correlation; r ≥0.50 = large correlation. * P-value >0.05 are considered statistically significant.
Discussion
This thesis evaluated if there is a difference between delinquent youngsters who are incarcerated in a NBI or in a BBI in how they experience group climate, in the development of their social information processing skills, their feelings of depression, anxiety and stress and the presence of aggressive behaviour problems. To answer the research-question we hypothesized that the incarcerated youngsters within the BBI would experience less problems and more adequate behaviour on all four measurements.
The results showed that the youngsters within the BBI experience a more positive group climate. They experience more guidance and support, more growth and learning, less feelings of repression and a more positive atmosphere. These results are in line with our expectations. The open regime within the BBI fosters a more open group climate and this means that there is sufficient support from group workers, that there are opportunities for growth, that there is a safe atmosphere, that affiliation/relationships are fostered, each other’s perspectives are taken into account and that there is (high) empathy towards each other (Van der Helm, 2011).
These constructs are all measured with the PGCI. The positive outcome results on the PGCI show that the youngsters within the BBI report outcomes consistent with an open group climate.
However, the results of the present study also indicate that the youngsters within the BBI have more feelings of depression, anxiety and stress compared to the youngsters within the NBI. They also seem to experience more problems in competitive social situations, or in situations where the youngsters feel disadvantaged or when they need to accept authority. No differences were found between the NBI and the BBI in how the youngsters accept and provide support. Also, the youngsters within the BBI report more aggressive behaviour problems. These results are not what we expected on forehand, but it might be a realistic outcome result. The youngsters in the BBI are further in their trajectory, because all youngsters were transferred from the NBI to the BBI during their incarceration at the juvenile detention centre. It might be plausible to expect that the youngsters who are longer incarcerated have had longer treatment time and therefore have developed their self-reflection skills. This could explain the higher rate of problems in the BBI group. Also, the fact that these youngsters are further in their trajectory indicates that they are closer to being released from the youth detention centre. Studies in adult inmates have shown that many prisoners reported higher rates of anxiety prior to release and that the return to the community may cause higher rates of stress (Nelson, Deess, & Allen, 1999; Uggen, 2000). This might be an explanation for the results from the present study as well.
Still, these results also indicate that the youngsters who are transferred from the NBI to the BBI still seem to experience (some) emotional and behaviour problems, and they should not be released after their incarceration within the NBI without any treatment or guidance and support. The transference from the NBI to the BBI could then be viewed as some form of aftercare. The availability of aftercare can be considered important for the generalization of treatment effects after institutional care (De Swart, et al., 2012). Two reviews showed that aftercare can have a small and positive short-term effect (Harder, Kalverboer, & Knorth, 2011; James, Stams, Asscher, De Roo, & Van der Laan, 2012). Aftercare, however, is currently not common in institutional youth care, but it is plausible to suggest that aftercare that builds on positive outcomes of institutional care may considerably increase the short and long term effects of evidence-based treatment delivered in institutional youth care (De Swart et al., 2012). Our suggestion is that when delinquent youngsters are institutionalised in a NBI, they should always be transferred to a BBI before they are released.
The BBI can then be viewed as a form of aftercare where the youngsters are “eased into” their freedom.
This study has a number of limitations which restrict the conclusions that can be drawn from it. The sample size is small, that is also the reason why we used time-series analyses. Still, it should be realised that we included 75% of the total population from the BBI.
Next, when we assessed the data we only supervised the first two measurements. After the first two, all the other measurements were without supervision and the youngsters filled in the questionnaires on their own. This could have possibly resulted in socially desirable answers on the questionnaires. This is the reason why we believe that researchers should be careful not to rely on a single assessment method and instead complement self-report questionnaires with, for example, in-depth interviews (Stams et al., 2006). Structured interviews might be more reliable than clinical interviews, because youngsters are often less than honest even when they are in a non-threatening situation (Otto et al., 1992). This is supported by another study in which urine analyses were used to confirm self-report of substance abuse. This study indicated that some youth were likely to minimize or deny substance abuse (Dembo et al., 1990), and they may do so for other symptoms as well. Based on the results of the current study, we can concur with the conclusion of the study from Dembo et al. (1990). Self-report seems unreliable in this particular population, as is also supported by another study (Breuk, Clauser, Stams, Slot, & Doreleijers, 2007). They concluded that screening instruments for psychopathology and assessment of relationship quality relying on questionnaire self-report might not be appropriate for juvenile delinquents with psychiatric disorders (Breuk et al., 2007).
Furthermore, the assessment of the questionnaires was in a limited time-period and the youngsters were asked to fill in all four questionnaires once a week for eight weeks. This small time-period might limit the generalisability and reliability of the results.
Conclusion
This study found that youngsters incarcerated within a BBI experience a more positive group climate compared to youngsters within a NBI. However, the youngsters within the BBI also experience more depression, anxiety and stress and have less developed social information processing skills. They also report more aggressive behaviour problems compared to the youngsters incarcerated in the NBI. Explanations for these results are that the youngsters in the BBI are further in their trajectory and therefore have better self-reflection skills. They
might also experience higher rates of anxiety and stress prior to release and return to the community. Because the youngsters might have filled in socially desirable answers on the questionnaires, we feel that the use of one-to-one interviews in addition to self-report is necessary.
References
Akhtar, N., & Bradley, E. J. (1991). Social information processing deficits of aggressive children: Present findings and implications for social skills training. Clinical psychology review, 11(5), 621-644.
Alessi, N. E., McManus, M., Grapentine, W., & Brickman, A. (1984). The characterization of depressive disorders in serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 6(1), 9-17.
Anglin, J. (2004). Creating “Well-Functioning” Residential Care and Defining Its Place in a System of Care. Child and Youth Care Forum, 33(3), 175-192.
Atkins, D. L., Pumariega, A., 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(2), 193-204.
Breuk, R. D., Clauser, C., Stams, G., Slot, N., & Doreleijers, T. (2007). The validity of questionnaire self-report of psychopathology and parent–child relationship quality in juvenile delinquents with psychiatric disorders. Journal of adolescence, 30(5), 761-771.
Carlie, M. (1997). An overview of institutions for juvenile offenders in the Netherlands and their place within the Dutch system of justice. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 21(1), 131-140.
Cocozza, J. J. (1992). Responding to the mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System Seattle, WA.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior.In: D. William & N. Eisenberg (Ed), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 779-862). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, xxiv.
Colins, O., Vermeiren, R., Vreugdenhil, C., Van den Brink, W., Doreleijers, T., & Broekaert, E. (2010). The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4): 255-263.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological bulletin, 115(1), 74.
Davis, D. L., Bean, G. J., Schumacher, J. E., & Stringer, T. L. (1991). Prevalence of
emotional disorders in a juvenile justice institutional population. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 9(1), 5-17.
een vragenlijst voor het meten van depressie, angst en stress. Gedragstherapie, 34(1), 35-54.
De Swart, J. J. W., Van den Broek, H., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., Van der Laan, P. H., Holsbrink-Engels, G. A., et al. (2012). The effectiveness of institutional youth care over the past three decades: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1818-1824.
Dembo, R., Williams, L., Wish, E. D., Berry, E., Getreu, A., Washburn, M., et al. (1990). Examination of the relationships among drug use, emotional/psychological problems, and crime among youths entering a juvenile detention center. Substance Use & Misuse, 25(11), 1301-1340.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. Paper presented at the Minnesota symposium on child psychology.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J.-A., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Hostile attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of abnormal psychology, 99(4), 385.
Domalanta, D. D., Risser, W. L., Roberts, R. E., & Risser, J. M. H. (2003). Prevalence of depression and other psychiatric disorders among incarcerated youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(4): 477-484.
Drost, J. Y. (2008). Residentiele justitiele opvoeding (Residential forensic upbringing). Phd dissertation, Groningen University. Amersfoort: Agiel.
Fazel, S., Doll, H., & Långström, N. (2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9).
Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T., & Horwood, L. (1996). Origins of comorbidity between conduct and affective disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(4), 451-460.
Fraley, R. C., & Roberts, B. W. (2005). Patterns of continuity: a dynamic model for conceptualizing the stability of individual differences in psychological constructs across the life course. Psychological review, 112(1), 60.
Garrett, C. J. (1984). Meta-analysis of the effects of institutional and community residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents. University of Colorado at Boulder.
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Rabiner, D. L. (2004). Social information processing and children's social adjustment.In: J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Ed), Children's peer
relations: From development to intervention. Decade of behavior (pp. 61-79). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, xvi.
Goldfried, M. R., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1969). A behavioral-analytic model for assessing competence. Current topics in clinical and community psychology, 1, 151-196. Haapasalo, J., & Hämäläinen, T. (1996). Childhood family problems and current psychiatric
problems among young violent and property offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(10), 1394-1401.
Harder, A. T., Kalverboer, M. E., & Knorth, E. J. (2011). They have left the building: A review of aftercare services for adolescents in residential child and youth care. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 14(3/4), 86-104.
Harvey, J. (2006). Young men in Prison: Taylor & Francis US.
Hirschfield, P., Maschi, T., White, H. R., Traub, L. G., & Loeber, R. (2006). Mental health and juvenile arrests: Criminality, criminalization, or compassion? Criminology, 44(3), 593-630.
Hollander, H. E., & Turner, F. D. (1985). Characteristics of incarcerated delinquents: relationship between development disorders, environmental and family factors, and patterns of offense and recidivism. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(2), 221-226.
Huesmann, L. R. (1997). Observational learning of violent behavior: Social and biosocial processes.A. Raine, P. A. Brennan, D. P. Farrington, & S. A. Mednick (Ed), Biosocial bases of violence(pp. 69-88). New York, NY, US: Plenum Press, ix.
James, C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., De Roo, A. K., & Van der Laan, P. H. (2012). Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clinical psychology review, 33(2), 263-274. Janzing, C., & Kerstens, J. (2005). Werken in een therapeutisch milieu: Bohn Stafleu van
Loghum.
Kendall, P. C., & Choudhury, M. S. (2003). Children and adolescents in cognitive–behavioral therapy: Some past efforts and current advances, and the challenges in our future. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(1), 89-104.
Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., Zandberg, T., & Kendrick, A. J. (2008). Under one roof: A review and selective meta-analysis on the outcomes of residential child and youth care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 123-140.
Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (2005). The effects of imprisonment: Willan Portland, OR. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with
juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and offenders, 4(2), 124-147. Little, M. (1990). Young Men in Prison: The criminal identity explored through the rules of
behaviour: Dartmouth.
Lochman, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Social-cognitive processes of severly violent, moderately aggressive, and nonaggressive boys. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 62(2), 366.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks.
Lösel, F., Bliesener, T., & Bender, D. (2007). Social information processing, experiences of aggression in social contexts, and aggressive behavior in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 330-347.
Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 141-149.
Matthys, W., Cuperus, J. M., & Engeland, H. V. (1999). Deficient social problem-solving in boys with ODD/CD, with ADHD, and with both disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(3), 311-321.
McManus, M., Alessi, N. E., Grapentine, W. L., & Brickman, A. (1984). Psychiatric disturbance in serious delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23(5), 602-615.
Milin, R., Halikas, J. A., Meller, J. E., & Morse, C. (1991). Psychopathology among substance abusing juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(4), 569-574.
Nas, C. N., Orobio De Castro, B., & Koops, W. (2005). Social information processing in delinquent adolescents. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(4), 363-375.
Neighbors, B., Kempton, T., & Forehand, R. (1992). Co-occurence of substance abuse with conduct, anxiety, and depression disorders in juvenile delinquents. Addictive
Behaviors, 17(4), 379-386.
Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (1999). The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in New York City. Vera Inst. Justice, New York.
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(5), 668-675.
Ollendick, T. H., Seligman, L. D., Butcher, A. T., & Div, M. (1999). Does anxiety mitigate the behavioral expression of severe conduct disorder in delinquent youths? Journal of
anxiety disorders, 13(6), 565-574.
Ostrowsky, M. K. (2010). Are violent people more likely to have low esteem or high self-esteem? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(1), 69-75.
Otto, R. K., Greenstein, J. J., Johnson, M. K., & Friedman, R. M. (1992). Prevalence of mental disorders among youth in the juvenile justice system. Responding to the mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system, 7-48.
Parhar, K. K., Wormith, J. S., Derkzen, D. M., & Beauregard, A. M. (2008). Offender Coercion in Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1109-1135.
Russo, M. F., & Beidel, D. C. (1994). Comorbidity of childhood anxiety and externalizing disorders: Prevalence, associated characteristics, and validation issues. Clinical psychology review, 14(3), 199-221.
Scherrer, J. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of residential treatment programs for children and adolescents. University of Illinois at Chicago.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 580.
Stams, G., Brugman, D., Deković, M., Rosmalen, L., Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. (2006). The Moral Judgment of Juvenile Delinquents: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(5), 692-708.
Thomaes, S. (2007). Narcissism, shame, and aggression in early adolescence: On vulnerable children.
Timmons-Mitchel, J., Brown, D., Schulz, S. C., Webster, S., Underwood, L. A., & Semple, W. E. (1997). Comparing the mental health needs of female and male incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 195-202.
Toch, H. (2008). Essay: Punitiveness as “behavior management”. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 388-397.
Toch, H., & Kupers, T. A. (2007). Violence in prisons, revisited. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(3-4), 1-28.
Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67 (5), 29-46. Ulzen, T. P. M., & Hamilton, H. (1998). The nature and characteristics of psychiatric
comorbidity in incarcerated adolescents. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43(1), 57-63.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Van der Helm, G., Matthys, W., Moonen, X., Giesen, N., van Der Heide, E., & Stams, G. (2013). Measuring Inappropriate Responses of Adolescents to Problematic Social Situations in Secure Institutional and Correctional Youth Care A Validation Study of the TOPS-A. Journal of interpersonal violence, 28(8), 1579-1595.
Van der Helm, P., Boekee, I., Stams, G. J., & van der Laan, P. (2011). Fear is the key: keeping the balance between flexibility and control in a Dutch youth prison. Journal of Children's Services, 6(4), 248-263.
Van der Helm, P., Klapwijk, M., Stams, G., & van der Laan, P. (2009). ‘What works’ for juvenile prisoners: the role of group climate in a youth prison. Journal of Children's Services, 4(2), 36-48.
Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997). Handleiding voor de Youth Self-Report (YSR): Afdeling Kinder- en Jeugdpsychiatrie, Sophia Kinderziekenhuis/ Academisch Ziekenhuis Rotterdam/ Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Vermeiren, R. (2003). Psychopathology and delinquency in adolescents: a descriptive and developmental perspective. Clinical psychology review, 23(2), 277-318.
Witvliet, M. (2009). Relations with peers and development of psychological problems, a group ap proach. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Wright, K. N., & Goodstein, L. (1989). Correctional environments The American Prison.
