Relational security as the core of the security framework: the interplay with physical- and procedural security and the broader institutional context

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3006760/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Relational security as the core of the security framework: the interplay with physical- and procedural security and the broader institutional context

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3006760/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Given the developmental vulnerability of justice-involved youth, providing a safe environment in secure facilities is a paramount, yet challenging task. Therefore, a sound security framework is crucial. Existing knowledge emphasizes the importance of a shift in focus on physical- and procedural security towards relational security. At the same time there is a lack of knowledge on relational security, particularly in the context of youth justice. This paper explores: 1) How relational security, as the core of the security framework, relates to physical- and procedural security; 2) What are organizational determinants for effective relational security as the core of the security framework?

Method

This paper is based on findings of a three-year evaluation of three small-scaled, community-embedded facilities that are grounded in relational security. The approach of the evaluation was derived from action research: a cyclic process alternating between action, research and critical reflection, including a total of 63 semi-structured interviews with staff, youth and parents.

Results

The security framework is a systemic model: all three forms of security (relational, physical, procedural) need to be in place. Staff, youth and parents describe several mechanism that direct how these three security dimensions may be appropriately balanced attuned to youth’s individual needs and strengths. In addition various determinants at different organizational levels were identified: target population, suited professionals, team collaboration, group composition, activities, method and institutional policies, organization vision and culture, facility design, stakeholder network, and legislation and politics.

Conclusion

Relational security can be defined in a practical conceptualization within the dynamics of the security framework; outlining a vision, way of working and the conducive conditions for implementation.

prison

dynamic security

institutional violence

youth development

youth justice

relational security

Justice-involved youth can be remanded or sentenced to a youth justice facility as a last resort [1]. Both from a scientific as well as child rights perspective, these secure settings should be places where youth’s developmental needs are met, strengths are built upon, and positive community connections are forged. Youth in these facilities display a large variety of psychological, neurobiological and social issues [2]. Also, they often have a history of adverse childhood experiences (like domestic violence, neglect or sexual abuse) triggering complex emotional needs [3]. Given the developmental vulnerability of justice-involved youth, providing a safe therapeutic environment in youth justice facilities is a crucial, yet challenging task. Staff needs to handle internalizing behavior, like self-harm and suicide, on one hand and externalizing behavior, like aggression and non-compliance, on the other [4]. Within this complexity, a sound security framework is paramount.

The security framework can be defined by three inter-related security dimensions [5]: physical security, procedural security and relational security (also referred to as dynamic security). Physical security can be divided into the material equipment for staff to control the environment (e.g. camera’s and alarms) and measures within the physical design and construction of the institution (e.g. locks and fences). Procedural security includes the institutions policies and procedures for selection and placement; policies and procedures in order to restrict and control possessions, communication and movement; the protocols and instruments for risk and crisis management; and policies concerning service quality and governance. Definitions of relational security refer to the ability of staff to establish safety through their understanding of each incarcerated person and the quality of the relationship between staff and incarcerated people [e.g. 5; 6; 7].

Traditionally, youth justice settings exert a predominantly risk-focused approach with a strong reliance on physical- and procedural security. All three security dimensions need to be in place [5]. Though secure facilities that heavily rely on physical security are characterized by high perimeter fences and window bars, which gives them an grim outlook, and staff mainly rely on measures like alarms and seclusion rooms for security, rather than relational security. A strong reliance on procedural security means that rules and regulations are strict (e.g. heavily restricted policies for family visits or movement within the facility) and leave little room for flexibility, differentiation and agency of youth nor staff. The downside of such a security approach is that it leads to limited educational and job opportunities, limited contact with family and peers, limited autonomy, limited physical movement, and overall isolation from society [8; 9]. While all of these aspects are crucial for youth’s development and desistance [10]. Also in these secure settings youth may be subjected to coercive measures, like physical restraint or seclusion. These security measures can be traumatizing for youth, disrupt positive relationships between youth and staff and diminish youth’s treatment motivation; thereby interfering with the therapeutic process [11; 12]. Hence a strong reliance on physical- and procedural security, particularly when combined with adverse childhood experiences, can impair youth’s mental- and physical health and their development [9; 13]. This security approach may also have detrimental effects on staff. Staff working in settings that strongly rely on physical security report distressing emotions of anxiety, uneasiness, fear, and guilt and staff can potentially become mentally exhausted from the psychological strain [14]. This in turn impacts their ability to promote a safe therapeutic environment and appropriately attend to youth’s needs [15]. An overreliance on physical- and procedural security may put a facility in a state of hypervigilance, as greater restriction likely exacerbates aggression: the ‘aggression-coercion cycle’ [16]. So, while these measures exists to promote safety, an overreliance on physical- and procedural security can amplify violence committed by and against youth [8].

Relational security as the core of the security framework may turn the ‘aggression-coercion cycle’ around as it promotes constructive behavior in youth and staff [17]. Thus, while all three security dimensions need to be in place, existing knowledge points at the importance of a shift from a prime focus on physical- and procedural security towards relational security. There is, however, a dearth of knowledge on relational security, particularly in youth justice settings. Existing literature on relational security almost exclusively covers adult settings (i.e. forensic psychiatric care or the prison system) [5, 6, 7]. It is important to make this contextual distinction as the underlying processes and manifestations of relational security may differ in a youth justice setting, given the unique developmental needs of youth. Also, as we outline below, the dynamics between the three security dimensions (physical, procedural, relational), particularly in secure settings that are grounded in relational security, are not well-defined. Further, there is a lack of knowledge on the organizational determinants of relational security in youth justice settings. The current study aims to contribute to filling these knowledge gaps. We do so in de context of small-scaled, community-embedded youth justice facilities that are grounded in relational security.

The current study is a continuation of our previous publication outlining how relational security is conceptualized in these youth justice facilities and how it contributes to a safe and therapeutic environment [17]. We found that relational security can be defined by three distinct, but interrelated security elements: a) Staff’s basic attitude, which concerns the way staff are present and shape interactions with youth. The core of this attitude is attunement to and connection with each individual youth and their context; knowledge about each youth to be able to see things from their perspective and logic; insight into youth’s needs and strengths and staff’s ability to act appropriate on the basic of this insight; b) Constructive collaboration between youth and staff in which youth’s autonomy is explicitly promoted and youth get the space to learn by trial and error. Staff stand next to youth as a coach to motivate and support them wherever necessary. Clear boundaries are set, but staff’s attitude is more motivating and advisory than authoritarian; c) Staffs presence by spending most working hours in communal areas to engage with youth and to be available if they seek (emotional) support. Our previous study [REF] revealed that relational security is not only a way of working, but also a way of being. It encompasses a mentality towards justice-involved youth to not merely see them as ‘risks to be managed’, but as ‘resources to be developed’ and allowing them to learn from mistakes. Youth are viewed ‘co-creators’ of a safe environment acknowledging their strengths and potential. Through this conceptualization of relational security ‘care’ and ‘security’ are not viewed within the paradox – establishing security or providing care – often found in traditional prison-like facilities. Relational security concerns providing care to establish security.

A security framework is a systemic model: every dimension is inter-related, such that modification of one dimension may affect the others [17; 18]. Physical-, procedural- and relational security can complement and reinforce each other, but they can also be in conflict - depending on how security measures are applied. A qualitative study in a youth justice facility [18; 19] – with a strong reliance on physical- and procedural security – concluded that: “Youth Justice facilities are environments where physical and procedural security measures often involve privation of access. Beyond failing to be compensatory, if physical and procedural security measures reduce access to relational security assets, it appears likely that these measures could adversely affect the ability to practice relational security approaches.”[18: page 8]. Also staff experienced that an inability to differentiate in physical- and procedural security on the basis of individual youth’s needs and strengths hindered relational security and contributed to an unsafe environment. An appropriate balance between physical-, procedural- and relational security is thus crucial. There are, however, very few studies that explore how relational security can effectively be employed as the core of security framework, while considering the interrelatedness with physical- and procedural security measures.

The security framework exists within the broader institutional context. The aforementioned qualitative study [18; 19] identified several organizational factors that impacted staff’s relationships with youth and institutional safety. In terms of workforce, staff highlighted the importance of: a stable work force; teamwork and team cohesion; peer support and unity within a team; communication within the team in terms of a working culture that promotes open communication and enough time to meet; and recruiting staff that is suited for the job and are there for ‘the right reasons’. Staff stressed the importance of regular training and supervision and appropriate management who divert from strong top-down decision making. Staff further highlighted that design aspects (or the lack thereof) impacted their interactions and relationships with youth, including: unit size, calm and private spaces, communal areas, access to green and outside spaces, ambiance and spatial characteristics, spatial differentiation, and facility and unit lay-out [18; 19]. While there is increasing recognition that organizational factors impact the relationships between staff and youth and staff’s ability to maintain a safe environment, there is a lack of research on this in the context of youth justice [18].

As such, a comprehensive understanding of relational security and it’s potential in youth justice settings requires more practice-based research. Therefore, the current study explores two research questions 1) How does relational security, as the core of the security framework, relate to physical- and procedural security?; 2) What are organizational determinants for effective relational security as the core of the security framework? As said, we do so in de context of a comprehensive three-year evaluation of small-scaled, community-embedded youth justice facilities that are grounded in relational security. Through action research, this evaluation provided a special opportunity to closely follow the development and implementation of this way of working, incorporating the perspective of both unit staff and management as well as youth and their parents. To our knowledge this study is unique in its combination of method (comprehensive multi-perspective action research) and setting (youth justice facilities that employ relational security as the core of the security framework).

As described above, the current study is a continuation of our publication on the conceptualization and operationalization of relational security [17]. Both studies were conducted in the same setting, included the same sample of participants and followed related procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation. We therefore only provide a brief overview of the setting and procedures in this subsequent paper and refer to our previous publication for details [17]. Any aspects specific to the aim of the current study are highlighted.

Setting

Our study was conducted as part of a three-year (2016–2019) evaluation project initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Justice to examine the feasibility and potential efficacy of small-scaled, community-embedded youth justice facilities. In 2016, pilot sites were opened in three large cities in the Netherlands: Groningen (December 2016 – December 2017), Nijmegen (November 2016 – December 2017), and Amsterdam (September 2016 – December 2019). These pilots each accommodated eight youth, pre- and post-trial, following the same vision and practical framework. The facilities were classified as high relational security, with relatively low levels of physical- and procedural security. As outlined above, the duration of the pilot varied per facility, with Amsterdam running the longest; therefore, it was monitored most intensively.

Action research

The approach of the evaluation was derived from action research: a cycle of action, research and critical reflection, while engaging relevant stakeholders in each stage of this process. This approach enables a broad understanding of complex processes in practices and enhances the applicability of study outcomes [20, 21]. The action research cycle was embedded in a broader evaluation of the three facilities: the research team carefully monitored all aspects from the screening of youth before placement to a follow-up a year after release. This broader evaluation significantly contributed to the theoretical sensitivity of the research team: the level of insight of researchers in the phenomena under study and the context in which this emerges, how attuned they are to the nuances and complexity of participant’s experiences and their ability to reconstruct meaning from data [22], hence increasing the validity and practical applicability of the results.

The action research cycle covered in the current study – between September 2016 and December 2019 – consisted of qualitative research (semi-structured interviews) accompanied by an iterative validation, feedback and reflection loop including: peer debriefing, onsite observations and member validation. These activities further improved the validity and reliability of the results and their applicability in practice [23; 24; 25]. For a more detailed description of these procedures we refer to our previous publication on relational security [17]. Throughout the duration of the evaluation, a total of 63 semi-structured interviews were conducted for the purpose of this study, including both custodial staff and management (n = 18) as well as youth (n = 29) and their parents (n = 16; in most cases the biological mother). Sample selection was guided by author FS. Staff were sampled through purposive sampling to ensure they would represent different job levels within the participating organizations. All staff who were approached to participate in our study, agreed to do so. Youth were sampled through a combination of convenience sampling (guided by the process of data collection and analysis), availability sampling (guided by which youth were placed in the facility at the time of the interview rounds), and purposive sampling to ensure a heterogeneous sample representing the diversity of youth in the facility. During the evaluation period, 204 youth were remanded or sentenced to one of the three facilities. We approached 35 of them, of which six declined. We only approached the parents if we obtained permission from youth in our sample (convenience sampling): in six cases the young person objected and in five cases the parent could not participate due to various reasons. A trained and supervised research team, including author FS, conducted the interviews on the basis of a topic-list (available upon request by the corresponding author). All interviews were tape recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into MAXQDA. The verbatim of each interview was coded employing a method of ‘thick analysis’ [23; 24] including open- and causal coding. Through an inductive analysis, these codes were grouped to build categories and an axial analysis was applied to integrated these categories. Each round of coding and analysis involved a constant comparison [24] between codes, between categories, within each interview, between participants, and between the three sites. In the last round of interviews, data saturation occurred [24]: no new themes emerged from the data. For a more detailed description of our sampling methods, participants’ characteristics and data-analysis we refer to our previous publication on relational security [17].

The data provided coherent and complementing a results between participants (staff, youth, parents) and sites (Amsterdam, Nijmegen, Groningen) in answer to the two research questions. We first describe how physical- and procedural security relate to relational security as the core of the security framework – in the context of small-scaled community-embedded youth justice facilities. We then outline the various organizational factors that facilitate or hinder relational security.

How does relational security relate to physical- and procedural security?

All three security dimensions need to be in place

Staff, youth and parents describe several ways relational security relates to physical- and procedural security and how the three security dimensions may be appropriately balanced. First, while relational security is the core of the security framework in this setting, all three security dimensions need to be in place. Participants (staff, youth, parents) stress physical- and procedural security assist staff in promoting a safe environment. Physical security measures assist staff in controlling the environment. Camera’s, for example, may provide staff with information about youth’s behavior, group dynamics and situations that (potentially) jeopardize safety. Parent: “The front door is locked 24/7 and there are camera’s surrounding the building so staff can see exactly where you stand or walk. I think this is enough [physical] security; how much security do you want? If you increase the levels of [physical] security you will get in trouble with the boys.”

The security framework further exists within clear boundaries set by procedural security. While youth’s autonomy is explicitly promoted by relational security, staff stress that this does not imply unrestricted freedom. The participants state that rules and regulations are important in any youth justice setting, not necessarily the amount and strictness of them, but the fact that boundaries exists and are applied consistently. It is important expectations are clear on both sides: what can staff expect from youth (and their support network) and vice versa. Participants stress when these expectations are blurry this can lead to frustration and hinder a constructive alliance between staff and youth. Boundaries should exist and be made explicit both on institutional (i.e. ‘house rules’) as well as individual level (i.e. agreements within youth’s individual case plan). Youth: “The agreements should be clear. In my case-file they state that I have severe behavioral problems and a lack of structure can throw me off balance. So staff need to provide me with a clear structure.”

In the current setting, these procedural boundaries are set even before youth are placed in the facility: all participants stress to ensure safety it is crucial youth are screened to indicate if they match the level of security (e.g. youth that are not likely to abscond as youth are allowed to travel to their school independently). Youth are only placed if professionals in the youth justice chain agree the facility is an appropriate match to youth’s needs and youth express motivation to cooperate with staff and comply to the rules. This also means youth can be transferred to facilities with higher levels of physical- and procedural security as an ultimate consequence after rule-breaking. All participants stress this is a ‘big stick’ for youth to comply to the rules and cooperate with staff. Parent: “Youth can abscond, but they know what the consequences of that will be. They wouldn’t want to ruin a chance like this. You can see that they behave well and have respect for staff.”

Proportionality and flexibility

Second, for an appropriate balance within the security framework, participants stress any security measure (physical, procedural, relational) should be applied in proportionality to youth needs and strengths. This means that security measures should allow flexibility to be tailored to each individual youth at any given time and scaled up- and down when appropriate. Within set boundaries, staff explain how they use their knowledge of each youth to tailor security measures to their needs and strengths. For example, the internal doors of the facility are typically left open and youth can enter and exit their room with a personal key, unless staff indicate otherwise. Another example: from the front door, the entry procedures are mediated by staff’s relationships with each youth, rather than set physical barriers. Next to the front door is a small room where security procedures can be carried out to the extent considered appropriate by staff, which also allows the option of youth or visitors to directly enter the facility. Participants stress the importance of such flexibility in physical- and procedural security measures. Youth: “It is very different inside [a facility with higher levels of physical- and procedural security]. It is certain mentality about how things are done. Here in the facility is more care and they look at each individual youth and your development, like they should. Not inside. There you just have rules, this or that. Then you get more an ‘us vs. them’ culture. Here that is much less.”

Staff foremost rely on relational security

Third, staff and youth stress, that a balanced security framework, with relational security at its core, implies that physical - and procedural measures should never be purely in place for the convenience or as compensation of staff’s incompetence to offer relational security (e.g. in case of staff shortage). Also in situations where safety is (potentially) jeopardized staff aim to foremost rely on relational security and only secondary seek support from other security measures. Staff: “If two boys are angry at each other I separate them and engage in conversation. If they are really mad I ask them to go to their room to calm down, listen to some music, chill. Then when the time is right I will talk to him. This works much better than throwing someone in a seclusion room. Sometimes security is about taking a step back if someone is angry and let them be for a minute. Of course it needs to be safe for others and youth themselves, but anger is a temporary state of emotion, it has a peak and will always settle at one point.”

Limited levels of physical- and procedural security promote relational security

Fourth, in line with the previous, participants experience, the limited levels of physical- and procedural security in the facility directly promote relational security: instead of falling back on other security measures – because these options are not available – professionals are more inclined to adopt de-escalating behavior and invest in a constructive relationship with youth. Staff stress that this also works the other way around: when there are ample physical- and procedurals measures available to exert control, staff more automatically fall back on these measures instead of investing in relationships. Staff: “The more anxious staff get, the more rules there will be. Rules come from fear. Rules are not necessarily bad, but the more rules, the less contact and connection with the boys. Because then staff just refer to the rule on paper.”

The participants stress that high levels of physical- and procedural security measures create distance, rather than connection. If they are present only to a limited extent this promotes constructive interactions between staff and youth. Also participants state some physical- and procedural measures are more ‘repressive’ then others and that it matters how they are employed. For instance, while the outside door of the facility is locked at all time, it has the appearance of a normal apartment entry with a door bel. Physical security measures like window bars and barbed wire are deliberately avoided and cameras are set up inconspicuously. Also, staff state they deliberately do not wear an alarm pager or uniforms because these measures radiate authority and makes it less easy for them to genuinely connect with youth. Staff: “I carried an alarm beeper system for a long time [at a previous job]. In that case it is more easy to enter into confrontation or conflict with youth. Because you knew that you only had to press the beeper and a lot of people would give you back-up. Here you have to proceed differently. It did take time for me to get used to that, but I am very happy I don’t have to wear a beeper anymore. I have to be more self-reflective here and less confrontational.”

Staff and youth stress secure settings with an overreliance on physical- and procedural security create ‘false security’, as it crumbles youth’s motivation to collaborate with staff and comply to the rules. High levels of physical- and procedural security create tensions, which may lead to aggression. Youth: “I am positive about my stay here. I am allowed to walk around with my phone. I also had a phone inside [a more restrictive institution], but then I had to be very sneaky. I like it that I have more freedom here. When I break a rule, staff comes and talks to you, instead of only punishing you. Staff look at what will help you individually and that makes me feel good.”

Further, according to staff, in a context where ample physical security measures are in place, the consequences of violent behavior are very clear to youth. Staff state this creates a ‘scope for escalation’. In the current setting where these back-up measures are not available, there is less insurance as to how far situations may escalate. This makes youth less inclined to let situations escalate violently, according to staff. Staff: “Sometimes boys express that they want to hit another youth. But my experience is that this does not happen because when they fight they also jeopardize my safety and that of my colleagues. I feel like the boys are aware that we don’t have an alarm system and a back-up team standing by to respond. This awareness contributes to less violence.”

Physical- and procedural security should reflect the principles of relational security

Fifth, to effectively support relational security as the core of the security framework, it is important physical- and procedural security measures at all-time reflect the principles of relational security in order to be deployed as little as possible at the expense of relational security. The participants highlighted three implications in this respect. First, to reflect the underlying principles of relational security, physical- and procedural measures should allow staff authoritative space. Rather than strict protocols, the personal norms and values of a professional are brought to the forefront. This means differences exist between staff members in where boundaries are set. According to staff and youth this is workable if staff acknowledge these differences, take the time to explain why they set a certain boundary and when there is overall clarity which rules are set in stone. Also, youth need to experience the respect for personal boundaries is reciprocated.

Participants further stress relational security implies that, regardless if boundaries are fixed or flexible, physical, procedural or relational, they should not be punitive and always be applied proportionally and in transparency. It is hereby important youth are included in the determination of an appropriate consequence when rules are broken. Whereby, according to the participants, the focus should lie on restoration (rather than retribution), uncovering the underlying causes of the behavior and agreeing on what is needed to prevent similar situations in the future. Staff and youth express if boundaries are mainly punitive and set without transparency, this immediately hinders a constructive alliance and creates a tense and unsafe climate. Staff: “The fact that we don’t work with standard sanctions contributes to a positive and safe climate. [..] We have a lot of conversations with youth and involve them in what they think should be an appropriate consequence. This stimulates them to reflect on themselves. Also with this way of working youth are less-inclined to rebel against the system. We are very transparent in any decisions we make and the reasoning behind it. Youth here rarely file an official complaint.”

Finally, participants highlight, in line with the principles of relational security, physical- and procedural measures need to allow room for youth’s autonomy and responsibility to make their own choices. Participants stress to promote relational security it is important staff refrain from a strong risk-aversive approach. Staff state ‘risk management’ always involves an analysis of the risks, but that just as much, or even more attention, should be given to strengths and protective factors. Staff: “We focus on what is possible, instead of what isn’t”

What are organizational determinants for effective relational security?

The results revealed various determinants at different organizational levels: micro level (the facility), meso level (stakeholder network) and macro level (national legislation and politics). We outline these factors in Table 1, clustered under the conducive conditions for effective relational security, and provide a detailed description below.

Table 1

*Overview of conducive conditions for effective relational security: determinants*
Conducive conditions	Determinants
Target population	- Appropriate indication and selection of youth (procedural security) - Youth’s characteristics: individual and contextual - Average duration of stay: five weeks
Suited professionals	- Aptitude: the ability to genuinely connect with youth - Norms, values and attitude that align with relational security - Skills that align with relational security - Knowledge (e.g. about youth development)
Team collaboration	- Team diversity - Coordination and consistency: staff meetings - Training and supervision: space to learn on the job - Team size: a small team with a stable workforce - Appropriate staff to youth ratio (2 : 8)
Group composition	- Group composition in terms of youth’s needs
Activities	- Engaging activities for youth and staff - Meaningful activities for youth
Method and institutional policies	- Institutional policies should reflect the principles of relational security - Method: clearly defined processes and techniques - Method: implemented at all institutional levels - Formal involvement of youth: a seat at the table - Flexible method and policies allowing a tailored approach
Organization vision and culture	- Vision: reflect principles of relational security - Written and spoken language: reflect principles of relational security - Culture: reflect and support relational security - Management: transformational leadership
Facility design	- Furnishing: homely and spacious - Lay-out: spacious and uncluttered - Accessible communal- and private spaces - Group size: small (eights bed) - Facility size: small (one unit)
Stakeholder network	- Collaboration and active involvement - Joint responsibility
Legislation and politics	- National legislation and policies that support relational security - Political support

INSERT Table 1 HERE

Target population

As described above, all participants stress, the need for a well-defined target population and admission process (as part of procedural security). It is crucial youth are screened to indicate if they match the secure setting. In this case a setting with low levels of physical- and procedural security, aimed at continuing and initiating protective factors in the community, and an average duration of stay of five weeks. Participants highlight several youth characteristics influencing staff’s ability to establish relational security in this particular setting. Foremost, youth need to be somewhat amenable to relational security: they need, at least to some extent, be motivated to collaborate with staff and accept their guidance and support. Staff experienced that some youth display strong self-determining behavior and constantly undermine staff’s authority. Staff stress that these behaviors often stem from attachment disorders and an extensive track record of (failed) treatment and out of home placement, resulting in a severe distrust towards caretakers and people in general. This hindered staff’s ability to connect with them. Second, participants stress relational security requires staff and youth to come to mutual agreements concerning youth’s case plan. Therefore youth need to have a positive outlook on their short- and long-term perspective (in terms of education, work or living situation), so that youth experience that they have ‘something to gain’ and work for. Third, youth’s mental health influences how well staff can connect with youth and coach them. Relational security, particularly in this setting with low physical- and procedural security, demands a certain level of autonomy that may be more challenging for some youth than others. Participants stress that severe psychiatric conditions, like psychosis or severe intellectual disabilities, might require more physical and procedural security and/or more intensive care. Staff state for youth with these kind of needs it is important that they know what is expected of them and it is discussed whether they think they can reach these expectations before placement. The same accounts for severe addiction. For relational security it is important that youth fully disclose the frequency and magnitude or their abuse, that they are motivated for treatment, and that clear agreements can be made to regulate their use during custody (e.g., by drugs testing). Youth: “If you want to abscond from here it is very easy, but no one here has the intention to do so. The security here is great, but you need to deserve to be here.”

Lastly, staff emphasize youth’s duration of stay influences the extent and depth staff can connect with them. The participants stress justice-involved youth generally tend to distrust people and initially keep staff at a distance. It takes time and requires intensive and continuous investments from staff to build a relationship of trust. At the same time, relational security must be immediately promoted. Staff stress relational security should thus not (directly) be about forming a deep trusting relationship, but about cooperation based on reciprocity, sincerity and transparency.

Suited professionals

On the level of the individual professional four factors contribute to staff’s ability to establish relational security. First, participants stress it takes some aptitude to work with justice-involved youth in the context of relational security. Especially the ability to genuinely connect with youth. This particular skill was thought to be more a natural innate ability rather than a learned skill. Youth express they get frustrated if they sense someone is ‘just not suited for the job’, which hinders a constructive alliance with these staff members. Second, participants emphasize, even if someone seems to have the perfect qualifications for the job on paper, it is even more important someone’s norms, values and attitude align with the principles of relational security. Third, the above doesn’t mean certain skills aren’t pivotal. Participants particularly highlight the importance of staff’s communication skills: staff’s language and tone strongly influence the way in which the interaction between staff and youth proceeds and the overall vibe. The importance of humor is underlined: through humor, staff can connect with youth in a non-authoritarian way and humor can have a de-escalating effect on situations that (potentially) jeopardize safety. In addition the participants stress relational security requires staff to: work autonomous and take responsibility for their actions; be self-reflective and motivated to learn and develop; show flexibility in working within a setting with flexible boundaries between youth and staff; work methodologically and systematically while at the same time be responsive to youth’s individual needs; be culturally sensitive; be able to set boundaries when appropriate; be able to apply de-escalation techniques; and do not take things too personally, but can focus on the underlying needs and vulnerabilities of youth displaying undesirable behavior. Finally, participants highlight that for staff to establish relational security they need to have knowledge about characteristics of justice-involved youth, their (developmental) needs and strengths, underlying factors (like trauma) of negative behavior and de-escalation methods and techniques. Youth: “There are a few very qualified professionals. I talk to them a lot. They really get us, some of the others just don’t. Look: if you learn everything from the books, but besides that you have no idea how to connect with us and how life is for us, then I don’t understand why you work here.”

Team collaboration

Staff stress an individual staff member can never be solely responsible for establishing relational security. It is shaped within a team of staff, including everyone who works at the facility, especially those who have immediate contact with youth. Team members need each other to guarantee safety. Staff: “As a staff member there are always boys who you connect better with than others. That is why you need each other as a team. We complement each other.”

Staff, youth and their parents highlight four factors that are important for a strong complementing team. First, the team is strengthened by diversity – both in terms of job function and educational background as well as gender, culture, religion and ethnicity. With a diverse team, staff can complement and support each other in finding the right opening to connect with the diversity of youth in the facility. Second, coordination during and between shifts is crucial so everyone operates on the same page. Staff and youth state relational security is directly jeopardized if youth sense inconsistencies and breaches in staff communication. Solid team collaboration requires regular team meetings and a clear structure for transfer between shifts. Third, participants indicate working in a small team with a stable workforce contributes to relational security, as this helps to strengthen team collaboration. The ratio between staff and youth during shifts is also important. The results reveal that a ratio of 2:8 or 3:8 provides a sufficient base to establish relational security. Fourth, staff and youth stress the risk staff revert to repressive and coercive measures is always present within the complexity of a custodial setting. Sufficient training and supervision is therefore paramount: participants stress relational security requires staff to have sufficient guidance and time to familiarize themselves with this way of working and maintain it. Staff should be given the space to learn by trial and error and have enough time for reflection on their own behavior and the dynamics within the team. In the current setting, staff members were stimulated to continuously reflect on their own and their colleagues’ behaviors and staff and management met every week for an intensive supervision session. Finally, staff highlight not only formal, but also informal team activities are crucial to promote good team collaboration.

Group composition

The group composition in terms of youth’s needs influences the dynamic between youth; and thereby staff’s ability to establish relational security. For example, staff stress it makes a difference whether the group is composed of one or two youth with a mild-intellectual disability who need more guidance or whether there are several (four or five) youth with these needs. In the case of the latter, it becomes more difficult for staff to devote enough time to each individual youth and provide the support they need. The same accounts for youth who display strong self-determining behavior. Youth: “Even one boy can have a great impact on the dynamics in the group and change everyone’s behavior.”

Activities

Participants stress the importance of staff having the time and space to communicate and engage with youth throughout the day. Staff presence and engagement with youth are key elements of relational security. Informal contact, such as eating together or playing video games, directly promotes relational security, as this allows staff to bond with youth. These informal activities promote a constructive atmosphere and a sense of togetherness. In line with the previous, relational security requires time and space for youth to engage in meaningful activities, both individual as well as group activities. Participants state that a lack of meaningful activities increases the risk of undesirable behavior due to boredom and lack of distraction. Parent: “If you are locked-up and you have nothing meaningful to do you will rebel. How can you be nice and constructive if you spend your days inactive.”

Method and institutional policies

Participants stress, in order to promote relational security, the principles underlying relational security must be reflected in institutional policies and translated into a working method with clearly defined processes and techniques. These processes need to be properly implemented at all institutional levels so there is a consistent way of working. Staff highlight if working processes are clear and well implemented, this gives them more room to focus their attention on youth. Participants further express that an inconsistent way of working leads to youth (and their support network) being frustrated and confused, which directly jeopardizes safety and can hinder staff to establish a constructive relationship. Parent: “Me and [name youth] need absolute clarity about the working processes, who plays which role and what actions everyone has on their plate.”

To align the method and institutional policies with relational security, the participants highlight two aspects need to be in place. First, in line with principles of relational security – recognizing youth’s agency and autonomy – youth’s involvement in case planning and service delivery should be formalized in the working method. In the current setting this was mainly organized by allowing youth and their network an equal seat at the table during case management meetings with youth justice professionals. Second, as relational security encompasses a tailored approach, institutional policies and working processes should allow room for flexibility to set out individual trajectories. This, for example, means youth do not follow a strict daily schedule with set times for waking-up in the morning and activities throughout the day. Instead in the facilities the daily structure is set out for each youth individually tailored to their needs and strengths.

Organizational vision and culture

Staff highlight it is crucial that the organizational vision is in line with the principles of relational security and this vision is supported and integrated within all layers of the organization and in all procedures. The organizational vision should provide the pillars for relational security to be built upon. Staff express such a widely supported vision may buffer against reflexes to revert from relational security and apply more repressive and coercive security measures when safety is jeopardized.

Participants further stress the generally written and spoken organizational language needs to reflect the principles of relational security. The facilities deliberately diverts from ‘prison language’ (e.g. youth stay in a ‘room’ instead of a ‘cell’) because these terms create distance, rather than connection – according to the participants. Language in line with the principles of relational security promotes a constructive interaction between staff and youth and overall therapeutic atmosphere. Also the principles of relational security should not only translate to how staff interact with youth, but also in how staff respond to each other (e.g. empowering each other, transparent and open communication). The organizational culture needs to reflect and support relational security. Finally, in line with the previous point, staff highlight relational security requires (operational) managers who divert from authoritarian management styles and instead stand next to professionals as a coach. Management (style and structure) should allow staff to be vulnerable and provide a safe support system. The results reveal transformational leadership (using inspiration and innovation) allows for repressive attitudes and feelings of unsafety among staff members to be counteracted. Staff: “Relational security requires a context that generates trust”

Facility design

According to the participants, the interior and exterior design of the facility impact relational security. Three factors emerge from the data. First, participants highlight the furnishing of the facility: the current setting is spacious, open (e.g. windows that open with a pleasant view) and reflects a homely atmosphere. This contributes to a relaxed vibe and invites staff and youth to engage in constructive interactions and activities that build relationships (e.g. playing a board game). On the other hand, participants state facilities with a strong prison-like appearance (e.g. with steel doors and window chains) evoke stress in youth and create distance, rather than connection. Youth: “My room is ok. It is not a five star hotel, but has all the stuff that a normal room would have. I can often been found in the communal areas. It is a nice environment for me to do work. There is always someone there that can help me if I need something.”

Second, the lay-out (e.g. spacious communal areas) provides staff with the space to engage in meaningful conversations and activities with youth. Because of the spacious lay-out – in combination with a maximum group size of eight youth – staff and youth experience they are not crammed together. Further the communal areas are not limited by physical boundaries: the kitchen and living room are freely accessible for staff and youth. This lay-out supports relaxed and constructive interactions, according to the participants. At the same time staff and youth stress that relational security is promoted when youth have access to private spaces to withdraw themselves if they feel the need to do so.

Third, participants highlight the influence of the group size and the size of the facility. Participants express the limited size of the group – a maximum of eight youth – directly promotes relational security. This size feels ‘manageable’ to staff and it allows staff to attend to each youth’s individual needs and find connection. Staff, with experience working in other secure facilities, stress that the larger the unit and the larger the organization the more they tend to rely on strict procedures and measures like seclusion. Youth and parents confirm this and experience this relatively small size, compared to conventional facilities with several units each with a maximum of eleven beds, contributes to a ‘calm’ atmosphere. Staff: “There is very little violence here. We are a small setting so we know every single youth who is incarcerated here. We recognize certain non-verbal communication and triggers. This allows us to provide the necessary support before things escalate.” Lastly, though spacious, the size of the building is small. This allows staff to keep an overview and intervene if necessary, which is crucial for relational security.

Stakeholder network

Relational security is established in relation to the broader stakeholder network; including youth’s family and other key figures, care professionals and youth justice stakeholders (e.g. probation officers). All participants stress the importance of involvement of this network because they can provide staff with important knowledge about how staff can connect and align with youth. Staff stress providing a safe and therapeutic environment with relational security at its core, should be a shared responsibility between all involved professionals on the inside of the walls as well as on the outside. Participants express that this shared responsibility is promoted by easy accessibility of the facility for youth’s professional and informal network; both in terms of locality (close to youth’s community) and practical accessibility (integration with the city’s public transport) as well as in terms of physical security (e.g. no perimeter fence) and procedural security (e.g. no fixed visiting hours). Staff: “It is very important that we get around the table quickly and frequently with all involved stakeholders. So that we can easily exchange information and align our roles and responsibilities.”

At the same time youth’s social network may also jeopardize relational security, particularly in combination with low levels of physical- and procedural security. Parents may not be able to or willing to cooperate with staff or some youth may be involved in violent gangs. Staff stress this requires them to have a clear view on (potential) safety risks related to youth’s social network and what needs to be done to manage these risks.

National legislation and politics

Finally, staff highlight national legislation and policies should provide the appropriate framework to support relational security. In the current setting national legislation, for example, required the facilities to have a seclusion room. While, in line with relational security, institutional policies explicitly divert from such security measures. Due to strong leadership staff managed not to fall back on secluding youth; in one facility the room was redecorated to fit other purposes. The results further reveal support from politicians is crucial: politicians should explicitly support this way of working. If youth abscond or severe aggression occurs in the facility it is important politicians don’t react with a risk-averse reflex and automatically increase the levels of physical- and procedural security. Staff: “We got a lot of room from the ministry of justice to develop our way of working. It is important that this is maintained. National policies and finance need to align with us. We need to maintain sufficient mandate to work this way”.

Based on action research – in the context of small-scaled community-embedded youth justice facilities – the current study provides insight into two research questions. First we explored how relational security, as the core of the security framework, relates to physical- and procedural security and how these three security dimensions may be appropriately balanced. In answer to this question, staff, youth and parents describe five mechanisms. First, all three security dimensions need to be in place. Physical security assists staff in controlling the environment and procedural security sets the boundaries within which relational security can exist. Procedural rules and regulations are important in any youth justice setting, not necessarily the number and strictness of them, but the fact that boundaries exist and are applied consistently. Second, any security measure should allow flexibility to be differentiated over time and between individual youth, tailored and proportional to their needs and strengths. Third, physical- and procedural measures should never be purely in place for the convenience or as compensation of staff’s inability to provide relational security (e.g. in case of staff shortages or insufficient training); and in situations where safety is (potentially) jeopardized staff aim to foremost rely on relational security and only secondary seek support from other security measures. Fourth, limited levels of physical- and procedural security directly promote relational security as the core of the security framework. Fifth, physical- and procedural security measures should at all-time reflect the principles of relational security in order to be deployed as little as possible at the expense of relational security. To reflect the principles of relational security the results highlight three implications. Physical- and procedural security should allow authoritative space for professionals. Rather than strict protocols, the personal norms and values of a professional are brought to the forefront. Relational security further implies that, regardless if boundaries are physical, procedural or relational, fixed or flexible, they should not be punitive and always be applied in transparency and collaboration with youth. Also, relational security implies that physical- and procedural measures should leave room for youth’s autonomy.

We further explored what organizational determinants relate to effective relational security. Various factors at different organizational levels were identified (see Table 1 for an overview ): target population, suited professionals, team collaboration, group composition, activities, method and institutional policies, organization vision and culture, facility design, stakeholder network, and legislation and politics. A recent dissertation on the therapeutic alliance in secure residential treatment for youth highlights similar determinants [26].

Overall, our results are in line with research by Oostermeijer and colleagues [18; 19]. Although this study only involves staff’s perspectives, it complements our results very well. It is conducted in a youth justice setting that in many aspects is opposite of the current setting: large-scaled, more isolated from society, a more prison-like design and primarily focused on physical- and procedural security, rather than relational security. Interestingly Oostermeijer and colleagues find similar dynamics between the three security dimensions and organizational determinants for relational security. These complementary findings indicate that each of the mechanisms defined in our study work both ways. For example, participants in our study stress the ability to differentiate in physical- and procedural security accustomed to each individual youth supports relational security. While, the other way around, staff in the study by Oostermeijer and colleagues [18; 19] stated the inability to differentiate hinders relational security. Or in our study, participants stress the small maximum group size (8 beds) and overall small size (one unit) of the facility contributed to relational security. While in the other study staff stated the large unit size (15 beds) felt ‘unmanageable’ and hindered staff from attending to youth’s individual needs and strengths and engage in constructive activities [18; 19]. Other research has also highlighted the impact of the institutional factors on youth and staff’s behavior [e.g. 26; 28].These complementary findings affirm the validity and practical applicability of our results.

Methodological considerations: limitations and strengths

Before we discuss the implications of our study two methodological considerations are worth noting. First, maximum diversity in the sample of participants was sought, our study however relied on their willingness to participate. All staff who were approached for an interview agreed to participate, but a few youth and parents declined. These youth did not differ in terms of characteristic and the course of their detention from youth that were interviewed, tough still they and their parents could have had a different view and experiences than those portrayed in our study. Second, member validation only involved staff, but preferably should also have included youth and parents. At the same time the results were derived from constant comparison between participants groups, finding similar outcomes.

Notwithstanding these remarks we consider this study to be methodologically robust: the action research cycle involved multiple procedures (i.e. peer debriefing, onsite observations and member validation) to promote the validity and reliability of the results and their applicability in practice. Our findings reflect the collective learning of staff in developing relational security in practice and the first hand experiences of youth 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 that is grounded in relational security.

Implications for research and practice

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 by a multi-perspective approach and a combination of qualitative and quantitative research, on the intersection of research and practice. We therefore discuss the implications for research and practice combined on three main topics that were derived from our results: transferability of the results; a shift in focus to relational security; influence of the institutional context.

Transferability of the results

First, the current study covers a selection of the divers youth justice population (see Souverein at al., [28] for a detailed description of the selection process) and is conducted in a specific context: small-scaled, community-embedded youth justice facilities. It is important for research and practice to explore how our results transfer to other subgroups and settings. Particularly justice-involved youth who may have a need for higher levels of physical- and procedural security. One could question whether the potential of relational security is limited. Staff, for example, experienced that some characteristics of youth made it difficult for them to connect. At the same time the underlying principles of relational security generally align with youth’s experiences of safety and security across residential settings. A recent study in the Netherlands [29] – across residential youth care facilities in different sectors and with various levels of security – explored how youth define institutional ‘safety’ and what factors contribute or hinder their experienced safety. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods this study found similar findings across settings, which align with our results. This speaks for a wide applicability of relational security as the core of the security framework across secure facilities. Practice-based research should future explore this.

A shift in focus to relational security

Continuing on the previous point, our results speak for a thorough review of security practices that strongly rely on physical- and procedural security. As outlined in the introduction this security approach can impair youth’s mental- and physical health as well as their neurological, cognitive and social development [9; 13]. As a further matter, while differences between youth in security needs are evident, our results and other studies [e.g. 30] show that there is a contextual element to violence and misconduct in youth justice facilities. Thereby high levels of physical- and procedural security to some extent create a self-fulling prophecy: the behaviors that these restrictions evoke are in turn used to legitimize them.

Our results reveal that limited physical- and procedural security directly promotes positive behavior in both youth and staff, constructive collaborations between them and an overall safe and therapeutic climate. Moreover, a shift in focus to relational security, combined with limited levels of physical- and procedural security, may provide an approach to support youth to establish safe connections with their community and foster positive development and desistance [17]. When we consider the developmental vulnerability of justice involved-youth, particularly those who come into repeated contact with the system [31;32], shifting focus from physical- and procedural security to relational security is absolutely crucial and justifies taking some risks. As outlined in the introduction relational security is not only a way of working but also encompasses a vision about security and mentality towards justice involved youth. This vision seems to lead to more developmentally appropriate and thereby effective approaches in youth justice facilities than the conventional risks-aversive mentality, which often underlines on overbearing on physical- and procedural security.

All of this does not imply physical- and procedural security can be declared redundant, but that it makes a world of difference to what extent and how these measures are applied: flexible and proportional tailored to youth’s individual needs and strengths and in line with the principles of relational security. In situations where safety is (potentially) jeopardized staff should foremost aim lean on relational security and secondary resort on other security measures.

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, which is common practice. Or that staff may rely on raising the levels of relational security. For example, as mentioned above, in the current setting 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 [28]. A more intensive level of relational security – which is about providing care to establish security – could have potentially provided a suited response in these cases, instead of raising the levels of physical- and procedural security. Relational security can exist on different levels of intensity. Practice-based research should explore how we may define, assess and apply these differentiations. Taking into consideration that relational security should not become a ‘dogma’: the essence of relational security is to create a safe and therapeutic environment in connection with and in attunement to each individual youth. There are occasions in which other security measures might be most appropriate to attend to youth’s needs. Also one can imagine that relational security can also turn into a repressive coercive measure; if, for example, relational security is applied as a constant presence of several staff members surrounding an individual youth. Policy and practice should constantly reflect whether an operationalization of relational security truly matches the principles of the concept.

Influence of the institutional context.

Finally, our results highlight the significant influence of the broader context on youth and staff’s behavior, the interactions between them and the ability of staff to promote a safe and therapeutic environment. These findings highlight the importance of both selecting the right people for the job as well as providing them with the appropriate supporting institutional context. A few key design characteristics emerge from our results: small-scale, locally-sited and embedded in the community, designed to promote relational and differentiated security, and therapeutic design characteristics (e.g. ‘home-like’ design and access to green spaces). These characteristics align with other studies considering relational security [18; 19]. As indicated by our results, to promote relational security, facility design should be accompanied by a suited methodology, vision and constructive organizational culture. The principles that underlie relational security, and dictate how staff shape their interaction with youth, should directly translate to how staff interact with each other. Management (style and structure) should allow staff to be vulnerable and provide a safe support system.

Further, our results reveal that relational security is not only related to various factors at micro level (the facility), but also at meso level (stakeholder network) and macro level (national legislation and politics). There is, however, still a lack of research on this matter in the area of youth justice [18; 33]. Particularly research considering factors beyond the micro level context. Research should further uncover the influence of micro, meso and macro factors that hinder or promote relational security in youth justice facilities.

Our results provide practitioners, policy makers, and academia with an understanding of what is needed to provide relational security as the core of the security framework in a youth justice setting, particularly small-scaled community-embedded facilities. The current study is a continuation of our previous publication outlining how relational security is conceptualized in these youth justice facilities and how it contributes to a safe and therapeutic environment [17]. On the basis of these studies relational security can be defined in a practical conceptualization within the broader security framework; outlining a vision, way of working and the conducive conditions for implementation. This framework reflects the experiences of staff, youth and parents and finds support in other research.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research complied with all of the relevant ethical regulations. All participants participated in the study on a voluntarily basis. Preceding participation all participants over the age of 16 years provided verbal and written informed consent. For participants of 16 years and younger verbal and written informed consent from a parents or legal guardian was obtained, together with their assent. The Academic Collaborative Center for Forensic Youth (Academische Werkplaats Risicojeugd; AWRJ) was granted permission to perform the study by the Medical Ethical Review Committee of the VU University Medical Centre. The Medical Ethics Review Committee of VU University Medical Center is registered with the US Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) as 1E1600002991. The FWA number assigned to VU University Medical Center is FWA00017598.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Due to ethical concerns and the sensitivity of the data, supporting data cannot be made openly available. Information about the data and conditions for access can be discussed with the corresponding author upon request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The authors received financial support from the Dutch Ministry of Justice for the research conducted in this publication. This funding body had no role in the design of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data or in the writing of this publication.

Authors' contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors made contributions to the design of the study. In addition FS significantly contributed to the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data and has drafted this publication; EM significantly contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data and has substantively revised the publication; LvD significantly contributed to the interpretation of the data and substantively revised the publication; AP significantly contributed to the interpretation of the data and substantively revised the publication.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank all the researchers and interns who contributed to the data collection during the course of the evaluation on which this publication is based.

UNCRC. Treaty no. 27531. In: United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, Article 37, pp. 16. 1989. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf. Accessed 03 Jan 2023.
Hillege SL, Brand EFJM, Mulder EA, Vermeiren RRJM, Van Domburgh L. Serious juvenile offenders: Classification into subgroups based on static and dynamic characteristics. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-017-0201-4.
Eenshuistra A, Harder AT, Knorth EJ. One size does not fit all: A systematic review of training outcomes on residential youth care professionals' skills. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.010.
Ahonen L, Degner J. Working with complex problem behaviors in juvenile institutional care: Staff's competence, organizational conditions and public value. Int J Prison Health. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-04-2013-0018.
Collins M, Davies S. The security needs assessment profile: A multidimensional approach to measuring security needs. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2005. 10.1080/14999013.2005.10471211.
Council of Europe. Trainers manual on dynamic security. 1st ed. Skopje: Datapons; 2018.
QNFMHS. Your guide to relational security. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Quality Network for Forensic Mental Health Services; 2015.
Armytage P, Ogloff J. Youth justice review and strategy: Meeting needs and reducing offending. Victoria: Victorian Government; 2017.
Nowak M. The United Nations global study on children deprived of liberty. Geneva: United Nations; 2019.
Butts J, Bazemore G, Meroe AS. Positive Youth Justice–Framing Justice Interventions Using the Concepts of Positive Youth Development. Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice; 2010.
Bryson SA, Gauvin E, Jamieson A, Rathgeber M, Faulkner-Gibson L, Bell S, et al. What are effective strategies for implementing trauma-informed care in youth inpatient psychiatric and residential treatment settings? A realist systematic review. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017;11:1.
Roy C, Castonguay A, Fortin M, Drolet C, Franche-Choquette G, Dumais A, Lafortune D, Bernard P, Geoffrion S. The use of restraint and seclusion in residential treatment care for youth: A systematic review of related factors and interventions. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019843196.
Zoettl PA. It’s wrong, but that’s the way it is. Youth, violence and justice in North-Eastern Brazil. Soc Leg Stud. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663920915967.
Haugom EW, Ruud T, Hynnekleiv T. Ethical challenges of seclusion in psychiatric inpatient wards: A qualitative study of the experiences of Norwegian mental health professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4727-4.
Esaki N, Benamati J, Yanosy S, Middleton JS, Hopson LM, Hummer VL, Bloom SL. (2013). The Sanctuary Model: Theoretical Framework. Families in Society, 2013; https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4287.
Goren S, Singh NN, Best AM. The aggression-coercion cycle: Use of seclusion and restraint in a child psychiatric hospital. J Child Fam Stud. 1993. 10.1007/BF01321301.
Souverein F, Mulder E, Van Domburg L, Popma A. Relational security: conceptualization and operationalization in small-scaled, strengths-based, community-embedded youth justice facilities. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. In press. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2723959/v1.
Oostermeijer S, Dwyer M, Tongun P. Relational security: The impact of facility design on youth custodial staffs' practices and approaches. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2022. 10.1002/cbm.2241.
Oostermeijer S, Tongun P, Johns D. Relational security within Victoria’s youth custodial system. Melbourne: The university of Melbourne; 2021.
Abma TA, Cook T, Rämgård M, Kleba E, Harris J, Wallerstein N. Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization. Educ Action Res. 2017. 10.1080/09650792.2017.1329092.
Nyström ME, Karltun J, Keller C, Andersson Gäre B. Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher's experiences from 20 projects. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018. 10.1186/s12961-018-0322-0.
Mills J, Bonner A, Francis. The development of constructivist grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103.
Evers J. Kwalitatief interviewen: kunst én kunde. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Boom Lemma; 2015.
Boeije H. Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek: Denken en doen. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Boom Lemma; 2014.
Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732316654870.
Roest JJ, Welmers-Van de Poll MJ, Van der Helm GHP, Stams GJJM, Hoeve M. A Three-level Meta-analysis on the Alliance-Outcome Association in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-022-00986-2.
Van Dorp M, Mulder E, Scholten M. Eindrapport ettape 3 ‘Ik laat je niet alleen’: Een gezamenlijk onderzoeksproject naar het verminderen van gedwongen afzonderen in JeugzorgPlus. Nijmegen: Academische Werkplaats Risicojeugd; 2021.
Souverein F, Mulder E, Van Domburg L, Adriaanse M, Popma A. Toward a tailored model of youth justice: a qualitative analysis of the factors associated with successful placement in a community-integrated facility. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2022. 10.1177/0306624X20944689.
Andersson Elffers Felix & Academische Werkplaats Risicojeugd. Eindrapport onderzoek veiligheidsbeleving in jeugdhulp met verblijf. Utrecht: AEF; 2021.
Lai YL. Determinants of importation and deprivation models on committed juveniles offenders’ violent misconduct: a Taiwanese perspective. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18815991.
Bower C, Watkins RE, Mutch RC, Marriott R, Freeman J, Kippin NR, et al. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and youth justice: a prevalence study among young people sentenced to detention in Western Australia. BMJ open. 2018. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019605.
Cox A. Trapped in a vice: The consequences of confinement for young people. Rutgers University Press; 2018.
Dwyer M, Oostermeijer S. A Model for the Design of Youth Custodial Facilities: Key Characteristics to Promote Effective Treatment. In: Moran D, Jewkes Y, Blount-Hill KL, St. John V. The Palgrave Handbook of Prison Design. Palgrave Macmillan Cham; 2023. p. 339–383 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11972-9_13.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Relational security as the core of the security framework: the interplay with physical- and procedural security and the broader institutional context

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Method

Setting

Action research

Results

How does relational security relate to physical- and procedural security?

What are organizational determinants for effective relational security?

Discussion

Methodological considerations: limitations and strengths

Implications for research and practice

Conclusion

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Availability of data and materials

Competing interests

Funding

Authors' contributions

Acknowledgements

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1