Relational security: The impact of facility design on youth custodial staffs' practices and approaches

Abstract

Background Constructive relationships between staff and young people in custody are a vital component of a therapeutic youth justice approach, which extends to the maintenance of a safe and secure environment (i.e., relational security). Despite the growing recognition that the physical environment of a facility impacts the procedures within a youth justice environment, as well as the relationships between staff and young people, there is a dearth of research in this area. Aims We investigated youth custodial staffs' views on, and approaches to, establishing relationships with young people while maintaining safety and security. The current study reports on the impacts and challenges highlighted by staff relating to the design of the facility. Methods We interviewed a total of 26 custodial staff members working at a Youth Justice facility in Melbourne, Australia. The semi‐structured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. NVivo 12 was used for thematic analysis. Two researchers (SO and PT) coded one transcript independently, iteratively creating a coding template using a thematic analysis approach. Once the final set of broad themes was constructed, the transcripts were re‐examined, and narrower themes were identified. Results Thematic analysis revealed that a total of 14 staff (53.8%) identified the design of the custodial facility as impacting upon their ability to practice relational security. Identified design aspects included: unit size, quiet and private spaces, communal areas, green and outside spaces, ambience and spatial characteristics, spatial differentiation, facility and unit lay‐out. Conclusion Youth custodial staff identified design aspects of a youth custodial facility that either promoted or impeded the ability to practice relational security approaches. The current study highlights the importance of carefully considering facility design given its impact upon staff‐young people relationships, procedures and ways of working within these custodial facilities.

Relational security: conceptualization and operationalization in small-scaled, strengths-based, community-embedded youth justice facilities.

“…Second, the security framework in turn exists within the broader context of the facility. In a qualitative study of a conventional youth justice facility -with a strong reliance on physical-and procedural security and little relational security -staff identi ed several environmental aspects that impacted upon their interactions with youth and their ability to maintain safety [42]. Staff, for example, stated that the lack of private spaces and prison-like design characteristic of the facility (e.g.…”

The case for small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities: Utility and feasibility for policy transfer to the Victorian youth justice system

“…McCarthy et al (2016) identify as one of the key elements in effective youth justice system reform replacing large-scale high-security facilities with small-scale community-integrated facilities that emphasise educational continuity and achievement, young people-staff relationships, family engagement and building community connections. Oostermeijer and Dwyer (2019) and Dwyer and Oostermeijer (2019) have recently put forward a theoretical design model for good practice youth justice facilities, based on the current international evidence base on "what works" in rehabilitative interventions for justice-involved young people. They consider the key principles of good practice youth justice facility design to be small-scale, locally sited, and integrated with the surrounding community, designed to promote relational and differentiated security, and comprising therapeutic design characteristics.…”

“…However, it was also highlighted that it currently does not form a core component in the operations of Victorian youth justice facilities and that adequate consideration of the relationships between staff and young people is missing. A recent study points out ongoing challenges involved in the establishment of a relational security approach within Victoria's youth justice facilities, such as high staff turnover, a high workload, a lack of training opportunities, a lack of team cohesion and facility design (Oostermeijer et al, 2022). The Dutch reforms outline how a relational security approach might be conceptualised and implemented, which involves the physical presence of staff, a collaborative relationship with a focus on young people's autonomy and agency, and positive and informal interactions between staff and young people (Souverein et al, 2018).…”

Relational security: conceptualization and operationalization in small-scale, strengths-based, community-embedded youth justice facilities

“…The results reveal that the security framework is a systemic model: every dimension (physical, procedural, relational) is inter-related, directly or indirectly, such that modification of one dimension may affect the others. All three security dimensions need to be in place, but it is important to find the right balance between physical, procedural and relational security [42]. Given their interrelatedness, research should focus on further uncovering the dynamics between these three dimensions -in settings that are grounded in relational security.…”

“…The influence of the organizational factors is also found in other research. In a qualitative study of a conventional youth justice facility -with a strong reliance on physical and procedural security and little relational security -staff identified several environmental aspects that impacted upon their interactions with youth and their ability to maintain safety [42]. Staff, for example, stated that the lack of private spaces and prison-like design characteristic of the facility (e.g.…”