Children’s Rights in Secure Residential Youth Care in the Netherlands

This study examines the extent to which secure residential youth care in the Netherlands complies with children’s rights as laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (uncrc) and the Dutch Youth Act. Residential group climate was measured with the Prison Group Climate Instrument (pgci), which assesses quality of group care from the perspective of the three basic needs for human self-determination: contact, autonomy and competence. Results indicate that children’s rights are a subsidiary issue in secure residential youth care in The Netherlands, because groups workers and staff have insufficient understanding of children’s rights and Dutch legislation on youth care. Dutch law allows secure facilities to make their own policy on youth care delivery, but it seems that policies are insufficiently explicit about children’s rights. Results of this study can be used to work on the fulfilment of children’s rights in secure residential youth care.

Differences between adolescents in secure residential care and non-residential educational facilities

Summary In this cross-sectional study, we examined differences between 351 adolescents allocated to secure residential youth care and the non-residential alternative educational facility School2Care (12–18 years old, 63% boys). Data were collected by means of the official school registration system and standardized questionnaires. Findings Results showed that adolescents in both settings had severe problems. Emergency situations, problems in daily functioning in all life domains, and previous out-of-home placements were found to be associated with allocation to secure residential youth care instead of non-residential alternative education. These three factors may be considered risk factors for secure residential placement of adolescents with complex needs. Applications This study provides input for the prevention of secure residential youth care, because the two dynamic (changeable) risk factors for residential out-of-home placement (i.e., emergency situations and adolescent’s daily life functioning) should be considered as intervention targets in non-residential care, while static factors (i.e., history of out-of-home placement) can be used to improve risk assessment of residential out-of-home placement, with higher risk requiring more intensive treatment according to the risk-need-responsivity model for effective mandated treatment.

Treatment Outcomes of a Shortened Secure Residential Stay Combined With Multisystemic Therapy: A Pilot Study

ThuisBest is a newly developed family focused treatment that combines secure residential youth care with multisystemic therapy (MST), allowing adolescents to return home after secure residential youth care more quickly. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine treatment outcomes for adolescents in ThuisBest ( n = 86, Mage = 15.2 years, 63% boys) and to what degree those treatment outcomes could be predicted by client characteristics. The results showed that externalizing behavior problems and parenting stress had decreased at the end of treatment. After ThuisBest, 83% of the adolescents did not have new police contact, 72% lived at home, and 89% attended school or work. Almost none of the treatment outcomes could be predicted by any of the client characteristics. ThuisBest seems a promising trajectory, as it reduces the length of the stay in secure residential youth care, and may, therefore, be more cost-effective than standard secure residential youth care. However, given the lack of a control-group and follow-up data, findings must be interpreted as preliminary.

Aggressive Incidents in Residential Youth Care

It is assumed that group climate can have an effect on aggressive behavior in adolescents living in residential facilities, but it is largely unknown whether there are climate differences between the various types of residential institutions, and whether group climate differently affects aggression incidents among adolescents placed in institutions that differ in levels of security (and openness). In current research, the differences in perception of group climate between open, semi-secure, and secure residential youth care facilities were examined as well as the association between group climate and aggression. In total, 159 adolescents (96 males, 63 females) completed the Prison Group Climate Instrument (PGCI), and (aggressive) incidents were recorded during a period of 3 months. Perception of group climate—including support from staff, group atmosphere among adolescents, possibilities for growth, and repression—did not differ between the various types of residential care, except for possibilities for growth. Adolescents in open and semi-secure institutions experienced more possibilities for growth than their peers in secure institutions. A more positive perception of group climate in open institutions proved to be related to less aggressive incidents at the living group. For semi-secure and secure institutions, no relation between group climate and aggression was found. Also, the longer adolescents stayed in residential youth care, the more aggressive incidents occurred.

Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of the evidence

Purpose – Violence is a common problem in secure residential units for young people. Group workers often think that young people have to learn to behave by means of punishment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether this approach is effective in these settings, and, if so, under what circumstances. Furthermore, it aims to provide alternatives to punishment when dealing with violence. Design/methodology/approach – Recent evidence on the effectiveness of punishment in secure residential units is reviewed. In addition, methods which are promising in dealing with violence are described. Findings – The review shows that punishment is often used to regain control by group workers or, alternatively, is a result of professional helplessness in the face of escalating problems. Only when the living group climate is marked by trust and cooperation can punishment be effective. Originality/value – Punishment in secure residential settings can have severe negative consequences. Nevertheless, group workers are tempted to use it as a response to violence in an attempt to gain control.