De groepsleider als evenwichtskunstenaar

De groepsleider als evenwichtskunstenaar

Leescommissie Prof. dr. P.H. van der Laan Prof. dr. T.V.M. Pels Prof. dr. I. Weijers Prof. dr. M. de Winter Omslagontwerp: Primo!studio Delft Foto omslag: [stockbureau en/of fotograaf] 2013 Joep Hanrath Boom Lemma uitgevers Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher. ISBN 978-94-6236-012-9 ISBN 978-94-6094-854-1 NUR 820 www.boomlemma.nl

De groepsleider als evenwichtskunstenaar Het dagelijks werk op de leefgroep in een justitiële jeugdinrichting Keeping the balance; on the problem of order in Dutch juvenile offenders institutions (with a summary in English) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G. J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op 26 september 2013 des ochtends te 10.30 uur. door Jean Josef Hanrath geboren op zes december negentienhonderddriëenzestig te Hengelo (Gelderland)

Promotoren Prof. dr. F. Bovenkerk Prof. dr. J.M.A. Hermanns

Dit proefschrift werd mede mogelijk gemaakt door de financiële steun van Hogeschool Utrecht, het UUfonds voor promovendi van Hogeschool Utrecht en Raak-Publiek Stichting Innovatie Alliantie.

Summary For over a hundred years Dutch secure facilities for child protection have tried to improve the outcomes for children in their care. Treatment programmes based on various pedagogical insights and psychological and psychiatric analyses of behaviour have been created and have developed in line with new discourses on humane and effective treatment. Since Martinson published his research in 1974, effect studies on treatment in secure facilities have multiplied which demonstrate an effect size of a 7 to 12 per cent reduction on recidivism. In spite of all these efforts, the treatment of youngsters in these institutions remains very difficult. The results are limited and recidivism rates are high: 50% reoffend within two years. I hypothesised that it is the context of a closed and secured institution which hinders the effectiveness of evidence-based treatment programmes. The exploration of this question starts with a review of the literature on the problem of treatment and institutional order in Dutch juvenile institutions over the past century. Time and again the problems of aggression, excessive repression, sexual abuse, poor safety for youth and staff reappear. However these problems are solely defined as dispositional mental health issue of the youngsters. They are not regarded as being a consequence of maintaining institutional order. Therefore juvenile institutions focus primarily on treatment as a means of dealing with difficult behaviour. In contrast, the problem of order in adult prisons has been studied extensively, where less emphasis is placed on education and treatment. A range of studies have tried to unravel the dynamics of closed institutions, focusing on the inner life of the prison community. Adaptation to life inside has generated the concept of pains of imprisonment. Social psychological studies have revealed the corrupting effects which power can have on staff who are responsible for maintaining order. As a consequence, the management of order in prison is a topic in its own right. Rules, regulations, transparency and observing prisoners rights have become key elements in maintaining good and humane order. However important this is, it does not answer all the questions raised. Part of the secret of maintaining order lies in a complex sociological process of social interaction between staff and prisoners: the so-called quiet power (Liebling, 2004) used by staff to make prison order work. In a series of essays on human behaviour in public places, the sociologist Ervin Goffman has analysed interaction patterns and rituals. Here, his insights are used as a theoretical framework to study social interaction. Following the line of argument of symbolic interactionism (the idea that significance and meaning emerge from the course of interaction between people) his framework offers a perspective on

the way order is negotiated in closed institutions. With concepts like impression management, face work, deference and interaction rituals, Goffman makes clear that relationships are built up carefully and consciously. Front stage appearances are used outwardly while emotions, thoughts, and conduct are kept backstage in order to preserve one s inner feelings or convictions. Hence the empirical part of this study examines how order is established and maintained within the physical limitations of a secure juvenile institution and as a result of the interaction between staff and youngsters. This study uses ethnographic inquiry as a research design, which is suited to giving a naturalistic description of interaction patterns and negotiations between staff and youth within the two facilities which took part in this study, JJI de Heuvelrug (Eikenstein) and JJI De Hunnerberg (De Hunnerberg). The first two chapters of this empirical research present the structure of daily routine on the wards in which 12 youths and staff reside. It explores how rules and regulations are implemented and maintained, and how rules can become a hindrance rather than a guide once they become too detailed to support legitimate and acceptable order. However useful rules and regulations may be, if too detailed they may create new implementation problems. In practice, strict enforcement of rules and regulations alternates with negotiations and that is where these interactions gain their significance. Subsequent chapters show how negotiations repeat themselves in different social situations and how important the presentation of one s argument becomes. Putting one s argument in a proper way, showing the appropriate deference, guarding against loss of face and strategically putting forward claims and requests is used both by staff and youngsters to achieve their intended goals. In the course of these interactions mistakes are made, reputations are damaged and authority is contested. Sometimes conflicts arise and repressive and restrictive measures are used to enforce order. After such an escalation reconciliation is needed, especially as in a closed institution, staff and pupils must move on together. Rituals of recovery are put in place to facilitate this and to reduce fierce grudges and resentment. The daily routine of staff is largely dominated by a mutual understanding of order on the ward. The numerous naturalistic descriptions in this ethnographic study illustrate how negotiations to reach this mutual understanding reappear time and again. Even in cognitive behavioural training sessions, strategic interactions reappear. Sometimes the interaction patterns with a pupil reach a dead end if the youngster keeps rejecting any form of agreement. These situations force the staff to intervene with repression and, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, the repressive nature of the institution is then confirmed. This study concludes with a reflection on the question raised at the beginning: the limited success of behavioural interventions may be due to the context in which they are given. The problem of order is as

real for juvenile secure accommodation as it is for prisons. In spite of the mental health perspective they employ to deal with deviant behaviour, keeping order dominates daily routine. The domination of order over care, the multi-layered interpretations of meaning in the interactions between staff and pupils, the hidden intentions and strategic interactions force staff to check constantly whether order is threatened. This pattern starts when the youngster enters the facility and ends only when he or she leaves.