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

Abstract

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.

The role of emotion regulation, coping, self‐reflection and insight in staff interaction with patients with a diagnosis of personality disorder in forensic settings

“…However, higher insight did not lead to a reduction in controlling behaviour or in hostile behaviour as was the case for staff working with clients with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour (Willems et al, ). Staff at the highest security level behaved in a more controlling manner than staff at lower security levels which is consistent with findings showing a greater need for control in working with forensic patients in reaction to feelings of lack of safety (de Valk et al, ). Thus, these results suggest that understanding their own thoughts, feelings and behaviour better (insight) does not lead staff to behave in a less controlling or hostile manner towards patients with a diagnosis of personality disorder in forensic settings.…”

“…Interaction between patients and staff is important in obtaining good care for patients with a diagnosis of personality disorder in forensic settings (Bowers et al, ; de Valk et al, ; Fluttert et al, ). Research on living climate and aggression in forensic group settings underlines the importance for staff of finding a good balance between structure and flexibility, while maintaining a supportive, responsive, nonpunitive approach to patients (Gudde, Olso, Whittington, & Vatne, ; Ros, Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, & Schaftenaar, ; Van der Helm, Boekee, Stams, & Van der Laan, ).…”

Repression in Residential Youth Care: A Scoping Review

“…However, nontherapeutic aspects of the institutions threaten the effectiveness of treatment inside residential youth care institutions. For example, staff may abuse the inevitable power over youth (Souverein et al 2013), or staff may use inappropriate punishment as a behavioral consequence (De Valk et al 2015). Furthermore, there are examples of serious violations of children's rights inside these settings (Browne 2009;Colton 2002;Höfte et al 2012).…”

“…Punishment inflicted for the purpose of controlling behavior can lead to a lack of trust, less exchange of information, and lower attained joint outcomes, which increases the likelihood of aggression (Fluttert 2010). Therefore, this ''extra'' punishment is ineffective, and can even be damaging in the long term (De Valk et al 2015;Skinner 1972). The list of possible sanctions in residential settings is seemingly endless: meals of dry bread; no torn furniture replacement; bans on smoking, visits, or reading; cancelled leave; or withdrawal of points in the ''token economy principle'' (De Valk et al 2015;Hanrath 2013).…”

“…Therefore, this ''extra'' punishment is ineffective, and can even be damaging in the long term (De Valk et al 2015;Skinner 1972). The list of possible sanctions in residential settings is seemingly endless: meals of dry bread; no torn furniture replacement; bans on smoking, visits, or reading; cancelled leave; or withdrawal of points in the ''token economy principle'' (De Valk et al 2015;Hanrath 2013). This last example works through soft power (Crewe 2009), which rewards discipline but punishes those who cannot regulate themselves, because they can never achieve these rewards.…”