The Relationship Between Detention Length, Living Group Climate, Coping, and Treatment Motivation Among Juvenile Delinquents in a Youth Correctional Facility

• Date: 01 June 2014
• Published date: 01 June 2014
• Author: Geert-Jan Stams,Lotte Beunk,Peter van der Laan,Peer van der Helm
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885514524884
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Prison Journal

2014, Vol. 94(2) 260 –275

© 2014 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0032885514524884

tpj.sagepub.com

Article

The Relationship

Between Detention

Length, Living Group

Climate, Coping, and

Treatment Motivation

Among Juvenile

Delinquents in a Youth

Correctional Facility

Peer van der Helm1, Lotte Beunk1,

Geert-Jan Stams2, and Peter van der Laan3,4

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between detention length, living group

climate, coping, and treatment motivation among 59 juvenile delinquents in a

Dutch youth correctional facility. Longer detention was associated with the

perception of a more open living group climate, but proved to be unrelated

to coping and treatment motivation. A repressive group climate was

positively associated with passive coping. A more open group climate was

associated with both more active coping and greater treatment motivation.

Finally, analyses showed that the relation between open group climate and

treatment motivation was mediated by active coping. Thus, creating an open

1Leiden University of Professional Sciences, The Netherlands

2University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3VU University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime & Law Enforcement, Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Peer van der Helm, Youth Expert Centre Hogeschool, Leiden University of Applied Sciences,

Zernikedreef 11 Leiden, kr.C1001, The Netherlands.

Email: helm.vd.p@hsleiden.nl

524884TPJXXX10.1177/0032885514524884The Prison Journalvan der Helm et al.

research-article2014

van der Helm et al. 261

group climate to foster active coping and greater treatment motivation

is probably one of the most important challenges for youth correctional

facilities.

Keywords

group climate, youth correctional facility, length of detention, coping,

treatment motivation

On a Friday afternoon, a boy passes the security barriers of a Dutch youth

correctional facility. One of the guards says, “don’t come back,” in a friendly

tone of voice. The boy carries four large blue prison-issued garbage sacks

containing all his belongings, indicating a long stay inside. He sits on his

bags, looking around, not knowing what to do or where to go. After a while,

a young girl with large bags passes the security barriers too. Together they

wait, share a cigarette, and look around. The parking lot remains silent.

Nothing happens. After a short while, they knot their bags around their waist

and walk waveringly in the direction of the bus station 1 mile away.

Introduction

Incarcerating adolescent delinquents in our society serves the goals of pun-

ishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Liebling & Maruna, 2005).

Rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents is a major goal of youth correctional

interventions (Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009), but the long-term effects of

these interventions are not as yet promising (Biehal, 2010; Biehal et al., 2010;

Lipsey, 2009; Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008). Depending

on the type of measurement, recidivism rates within 1 year after detention

vary between 50% and 55%, based on re-arrest figures in the United States

and the Netherlands (Nauta, 2008; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), and as high as

75% in the Netherlands, based on self-reported crime (Van Dam, 2005). A

long history of adverse childhood experiences, including maltreatment and

neglect (Lamers-Winkelman, & Visser, 2009; Prinzie, Hoeve Stams, 2009;

Spinhoven et al., 2010), a criminogenic environment after detention, and lack

of aftercare contribute to diminished possibilities for lasting change for these

youth (Biehal, 2010; Farrall, Bottoms, & Shapland, 2011; Loeber, Slot, Van

der Laan, & Hoeve, 2008; Pritikin, 2008; Wikstrom & Butterworth, 2006).

Some researchers have ascribed lack of positive intervention effects to the

deprivational climate of incarceration. Deprivation expresses itself in