Based on action research the current study provides a conceptualization of relational security for youth justice facilities; and outlines how this way of working promotes safety as experienced by staff, youth and parents. We found that relational security is grounded in three distinct, but interrelated, elements: 1) staff’s basic attitude directed towards connection with and attunement to each individual youth, 2) constructive alliance between staff and youth, 3) staff presence. These elements complement and reinforce each other and all three need to be in place. The security framework is a systemic model: every dimension is inter-related, directly or indirectly, such that modification of one dimension may affect the others. This also means that relational security cannot exist without support of physical- and procedural security measures. Our results do speak for the importance of a shift in focus to relational security as the core of the security framework. In practice this means that: physical- and procedural security measures should never be purely in place for the convenience or ineffectiveness of staff; staff foremost rely on relational security and secondary seek support from other security measures; and these measures should at all-time reflect the principles of relational security as be deployed as little as possible at the expense of relational security.
Within this framework relational security promotes safety through several mechanisms. By being physically present staff foster safety through prevention and by deescalating if necessary. Relational security further promotes staff’s insights and understanding of youth to act appropriately on the basis of this insight; and enhances youth’s (self-)insight on risks and strengths. Because youth are given a certain degree of autonomy and staff continuously motivate them to take responsibility, they feel more responsibility to promote a safe environment and they are more motivated to take that responsibility. Through relational security staff interact with youth in a constructive and respectful manner. Youth reciprocate this. Also staff, youth and parents experienced that relational security reduces the risk of undesirable group formation between youth or the explicit teaching of deviant behavior by group members (deviancy training). Because relational security contributes to a therapeutic institutional climate youth are less inclined to display behavior that jeopardizes safety. Relational security turns the ‘aggression-coercion cycle’ around, promoting constructive behavior in youth and staff. Finally, relational security promotes important developmental competencies like autonomy; and builds positive identities through positive relationships. Effective relational security not only safeguards staff and youth within the facility, but also provides an approach to support young people to establish safe connections with their family and community and foster positive development and a life away from crime.
Our framework of relational security finds support in the well-established literature on the therapeutic alliance (as outlined in the introduction) and can be substantiated by two aligning theories concerning youth justice strategies. First, the framework fits within a social-ecological theory and vision of youth offending [35]. This theory contrasts the dominant ‘risk-based models’ like the Risk-Need-Responsivity model [36] and instead focusses on strengths and positive youth development. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model of development [37]: “a social-ecological perspective decenters the young person as the source of the offending problem, seeing them in terms of the relationships, interactions and processes that define and influence their everyday lives and experience. This perspective recognizes the importance of regular, deep interactions, meaningful to the child – and that new interactions can effectively alter development (or the direction of development) and therefore influence outcomes such as behaviors.” [35: page 7]. This theory sees youth not as ‘problems to be managed’ but ‘resources to be developed’ [38]. A relational strengths-based approach characterized by the ‘five Cs’ – competence, confidence, character, connection and caring [38]– will promote positive development [35]. These C’s are directly reflected in the conceptualization of relational security.
Our framework also corresponds with Self Determination Theory [39], which complements the social-ecological theory and recognizes similar concepts. Self Determination Theory focuses on the social-contextual conditions that facilitate or undermine the processes of self-motivation and healthy development. The theory stresses the importance of three innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness, which when satisfied promote treatment motivation, mental health and resiliency [39; 40]. The involuntary nature of youth justice settings, particularly when there is a strong emphasize on physical- and procedural security, automatically undermines these needs and thereby youth’s treatment motivation [40]. The relational security framework provides an approach that explicitly recognizes and promotes competence, autonomy and relatedness as much as possible within the boundaries of the secure setting. And thereby – as experienced by staff, youth and parents – enhances youth’s treatment motivation and positive development.
Practical And Methodological Considerations: Limitations And Strengths
When considering the results one should keep in mind that this study was conducted in a specific setting as outlined above (see Souverein et al. [26] for an overview of key operational elements). As part of the procedural security only a subgroup of youth are eligible for these facilities. Before placement there is a thorough screening and indication process; selecting youth who are appropriately matched to the level of security (e.g. youth who are not likely to abscond) and who can profit from the opportunities the community-embedded facility offers (i.e, continuation or initiation of protective factors in the community). Souverein and colleagues [41] provide a detailed description of this process. During their stay, youth can be transferred to facilities with higher levels of physical- and procedural security after severe rule breaking. During the course of the evaluation this happened in about 14% of all placements [41]. Considering this, one may question whether all results will transfer from this specific context to another youth justice setting.
In addition to this practical consideration, two methodological aspects are worth noting. First, even though maximum diversity in the sample of youth and parent participants was sought, the study relied on their willingness to participate. All professionals who were approached for the study agreed to participate, but a few youth and parents declined. Youth and parents who were not willing to participate could have had a different view and experiences. Second, member validation only involved staff. The results were derived from constant comparison between participants groups finding similar outcomes; and no major changes were suggested by staff. However, member validation would have preferably also involved youth and parents.
Notwithstanding these remarks we consider this study to be methodologically robust: multiple procedures were followed to promote the validity and reliability of the results and their applicability in practice. Comprehensive source triangulation was applied and data were analyzed employing a sweeping method of ‘thick analysis’ [32]. The study was set up with an action research cycle involving different methods of feedback and reflection (peer debriefing, onsite observations and member validation); embedded in a broader evaluation of the facilities. Thereby enabling the research team to uncover complex processes in a complex context [29; 30]. Our conceptualization of relational security reflects the collective learning of staff in developing this way of working and the first hand experiences of young people and their parents. To our knowledge this is the first empirical study exploring relational security through action research in the context of a youth justice facility with relational security at the core of its security framework. This study provides an important contribution to filling existing knowledge gaps.
Future Directions: Implications For Research And Practice
To further broaden our knowledge on relational security several implications for research and practice can be derived from our results. Overall, given the complex environment of a youth justice facility, relational security is best explored on the intersection of research and practice, involving a multi-perspective approach and a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. Several concrete directions for further exploration of the concept follow from our results.
First, given their interrelatedness, research should focus on further uncovering the dynamics between the three elements of security (physical, procedural, relational) – in settings that are grounded in relational security. Second, the security framework in turn exists within the broader context of the facility. In a qualitative study of a conventional youth justice facility – with a strong reliance on physical- and procedural security and little relational security – staff identified several environmental aspects that impacted upon their interactions with youth and their ability to maintain safety [42]. Staff, for example, stated that the lack of private spaces and prison-like design characteristic of the facility (e.g. lack of daylight and green spaces) were barriers for relationship building and establishing a therapeutic climate. Also the large unit size (15 beds) felt ‘unmanageable’ and, according to staff, directly contributed to youth’s behavior escalating more frequently. The large size prevented staff from attending to individual needs of youth and engage in constructive activities. Other studies have also highlighted the impact of the unit size on institutional safety [43]. While there is growing recognition that the physical environment of a facility impacts the relationships between staff and young people, there is a dearth of research in this area [43]. A comprehensive understanding of relational security and it’s potential in youth justice settings requires more practice-based research on the institutional factors that facilitate or hinder relational security. These explorations should include staff’s characteristics and skills, as relational security requires specific professionalism. Our results, for example, reveal that the personal norms and values of staff are brought more to the forefront, rather than strict protocols. This requires (self)reflective and metalizing capacities.
Third, the youth justice population is heterogeneous. The current study covers a selection of this divers population. It is important for research and practice to explore how the framework of relational security transfers to other subgroups. Also taking gender into account. During the course of the current study only one girl was placed in the facilities. She was included as a participant and her interview did not yielded any outstanding results. At the same time other research suggest that girls, generally speaking, might be more sensitive to the institutional climate and their interaction with staff [16]. Research should explore if and how gender-differences exists on the interpretation and impact of relational security. In addition needs for security and care need to be carefully distinguished. As mentioned above, before placement in the facilities part of this study risks and needs are assessed to determine the appropriate level of security and care. During placement youth could be transferred to facilities with higher levels of physical- and procedural security after severe rule breaking. A case study of these transfers revealed that, in most cases, these youth did not necessarily need more intensive levels of security. Safety was jeopardized because these youth had more intensive and specialized care needs [41]. The facilities required a certain level of independence that wasn’t suited for all youth (e.g. for some youth with a mild-intellectual disability). This also leads to the question whether is it always necessary to raise the levels of physical- and/or procedural security when safety is jeopardized or that staff may also rely on raising the levels of relational security to restore safety. Relational security can be an intense security measure: it is inherent to the way of working that behavior of youth lies under a magnifying glass and staff may intensify their interactions with youth. Practice-based research should explore how we may differentiate relational security on the spectrum of low to high intensity levels of security.
Fourth, in research and practice the terms relational security and dynamic security are often used interchangeably. It seems, however, that these terms have different origins. Relational security emerged in the forensic mental health literature [44]; whereas dynamic security originated in prison settings [45] It would be interesting to explore if these terms underlie similar mechanisms or describe inherently different constructs given their origin. This also leads to the question how relational (or dynamic) security is shaped in secure residential settings for youth across different sectors (mental health, welfare, justice).
Finally, the current study focusses on the potential of relational security. Obviously, establishing relational security within the complex setting of youth justice facilities comes with challenges and dilemma’s. And it may also have its limits. It is important for research and practice to also explore this side of the medal.