Potential of Relational Security in small-scale detention facilities

Working in any custodial facility can be a challenging task. People within these facilities display a large variety of cognitive, psychological and social challenges. In promoting a safe and therapeutic environment, staff need to handle externalizing behaviour (e.g. aggression and violence) on one hand and internalizing problems (e.g. self-harm and suicidal behaviour) on the other. Within this complexity, a sound security framework is key.

In a custodial setting, three forms of security may be distinguished: physical security, procedural security and relational security (also referred to as dynamic security). Physical security can be separated into the equipment that is available to staff to control the environment (e.g. alarms, cameras) and measures within the physical design and construction of the institution (e.g. fences, locks). Procedural security includes the institutions policies and procedures that are in order to restrict and control possessions, communication, visits and movement; the protocols for risk, crisis and contingency management; and covers policies and procedures concerning service quality and governance. Definitions of relational/dynamic security (e.g. Appleby, 2010; Kennedy, 2002; Stageberg, 2016) emphasize the role of staff and the alliance between staff and the person in residence.

Potential of Relational Security in small-scale detention facilities

Working in any custodial facility can be a challenging task. People within these facilities display a large variety of cognitive, psychological and social challenges. In promoting a safe and therapeutic environment, staff need to handle externalizing behaviour (e.g. aggression and violence) on one hand and internalizing problems (e.g. self-harm and suicidal behaviour) on the other. Within this complexity, a sound security framework is key.

In a custodial setting, three forms of security may be distinguished: physical security, procedural security and relational security (also referred to as dynamic security). Physical security can be separated into the equipment that is available to staff to control the environment (e.g. alarms, cameras) and measures within the physical design and construction of the institution (e.g. fences, locks). Procedural security includes the institutions policies and procedures that are in order to restrict and control possessions, communication, visits and movement; the protocols for risk, crisis and contingency management; and covers policies and procedures concerning service quality and governance. Definitions of relational/dynamic security (e.g. Appleby, 2010; Kennedy, 2002; Stageberg, 2016) emphasize the role of staff and the alliance between staff and the person in residence.

While differences between jurisdictions are evident, conventional custodial facilities heavily rely on punitive and risk-focused security practices and prioritize physical and procedural security. These practices, however, have a paradoxical effect, as they provoke rather than reduce aggression and violence. A strong reliance on physical and procedural security may put the institution in a state of hypervigilance, as under greater restriction the risk of another incident increases: the ‘aggression-coercion cycle’ (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Goren, Singh & Best, 1993).

Moreover, the nature of these settings is inherently harmful to the person incarcerated as it isolates them from their families, social ties and community, limits educational and job opportunities, and limits physical movement and stimulation (significantly deteriorating brain development and executive functions; Meijers, 2018). In order to address offending-related risks and developmental needs, it is paramount that within a secure setting autonomy, responsibility and freedom are (gradually) promoted. A heavy reliance on physical and procedural security, however, strongly limits autonomy, freedom and responsibility. For all these reasons custodial settings with a strong reliance on physical and procedural security can foster, rather than curb, offending (Zoettl, 2021).

On the other hand, relational security has been labelled as ‘the best security element in a custodial setting’ (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017) or ‘the most valuable and unobtrusive form of control’ (Leggett & Hirons, 2006: 232). As an example: in 2016 the Dutch Ministry of Justice initiated a three-year evaluation to examine the feasibility and potential efficacy of an alternative custodial model for young people: small-scaled, community-embedded and grounded in relational security. A few procedural security measures could be applied (e.g. drug testing and room searching), but other measures like strip searches, uniforms (neither for youth nor staff), strict visiting hours, or plastic cutlery or furniture were not part of the facilities policies. During the day young people were able to move independently through the facility. The facilities were located within a neighbourhood, in close proximity to young people’s home environment; daytime activities, such as school or work, were organized outside the facility, to which youth were able to travel independently. Staff were trained to refrain from measures of physical security like physical restraint or solitary confinement; alarms, high surrounding walls, and window fences also had no place in these facilities. The internal and external structures were designed to reflect a homely atmosphere.

While differences between jurisdictions are evident, conventional custodial facilities heavily rely on punitive and risk-focused security practices and prioritize physical and procedural security. These practices, however, have a paradoxical effect, as they provoke rather than reduce aggression and violence. A strong reliance on physical and procedural security may put the institution in a state of hypervigilance, as under greater restriction the risk of another incident increases: the ‘aggression-coercion cycle’ (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Goren, Singh & Best, 1993).

Moreover, the nature of these settings is inherently harmful to the person incarcerated as it isolates them from their families, social ties and community, limits educational and job opportunities, and limits physical movement and stimulation (significantly deteriorating brain development and executive functions; Meijers, 2018). In order to address offending-related risks and developmental needs, it is paramount that within a secure setting autonomy, responsibility and freedom are (gradually) promoted. A heavy reliance on physical and procedural security, however, strongly limits autonomy, freedom and responsibility. For all these reasons custodial settings with a strong reliance on physical and procedural security can foster, rather than curb, offending (Zoettl, 2021).

On the other hand, relational security has been labelled as ‘the best security element in a custodial setting’ (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017) or ‘the most valuable and unobtrusive form of control’ (Leggett & Hirons, 2006: 232). As an example: in 2016 the Dutch Ministry of Justice initiated a three-year evaluation to examine the feasibility and potential efficacy of an alternative custodial model for young people: small-scaled, community-embedded and grounded in relational security. A few procedural security measures could be applied (e.g. drug testing and room searching), but other measures like strip searches, uniforms (neither for youth nor staff), strict visiting hours, or plastic cutlery or furniture were not part of the facilities policies. During the day young people were able to move independently through the facility. The facilities were located within a neighbourhood, in close proximity to young people’s home environment; daytime activities, such as school or work, were organized outside the facility, to which youth were able to travel independently. Staff were trained to refrain from measures of physical security like physical restraint or solitary confinement; alarms, high surrounding walls, and window fences also had no place in these facilities. The internal and external structures were designed to reflect a homely atmosphere.

The evaluation by the Academic Workplace for Forensic Youth (Academische Werkplaats Risicojeugd; www.awrj.nl) – based on the experiences of custodial staff, young people and their parents – showed that relational security is grounded in three distinct, but interrelated, elements. The first component of relational security concerns the way staff is present and shapes interactions with the young person incarcerated: staff’s basic attitude. The core of this basic attitude is the connection with and attunement to the individual young person and his/her context; and knowledge and insights about the young person to be able to see things from their perspective and logic. By finding a connection, staff are able to understand the young person, gain insight into the active elements in the contact with the young person, and act appropriately on the basis of this insight to guarantee safety.

The second component of relational security involves a constructive equal collaboration between staff and a young person. The young person is considered co-owner of their case plan and is given autonomy, room to take responsibility and the space to learn by trial and error. Young people get the space to learn by trial and error. This is built on the principle that behavioural change hardly ever occurs in a linear process. If needed staff set clear boundaries, but the staff’s attitude is more advisory and motivating than repressive and authoritarian. The third component of relational security related to staff being physically present at the unit guaranteeing safety: by the preventive effect based on the presence of staff; by observing, signalling, intervening early and de-escalating if necessary; by making staff available for the young people so that the young people can seek (emotional) support from staff; and because this offers many opportunities for informal contact moments that contribute to a positive relationship between staff and the young people and a general positive institutional climate.

This way of working allowed staff to establish a safe and therapeutic environment. Because young people were given a certain degree of freedom and autonomy, they felt more responsible to promote a safe environment and not break the rules and they were more motivated to take that responsibility. Staff and young people reported good and constructive alliances characterized by mutual respect. Also, the risk of undesirable group formation or the explicit teaching of deviant behaviour by group members (deviancy training) appeared to be reduced by relational security. Staff reported a safe working climate and high job satisfaction. These results should be seen in light of the scale of the facilities. The ‘Dutch model’ involved facilities with a maximum capacity of eight beds. The smaller the setting, the more it allows professionals to provide a relational approach. Small-scale is defined by the ability of staff members to recognize and align with the individual needs and circumstances of every person in residence at any time. This is a minimum requirement in order to support the building of strong, respectful relationships between professionals and people deprived of liberty.

The evaluation by the Academic Workplace for Forensic Youth (Academische Werkplaats Risicojeugd; www.awrj.nl) – based on the experiences of custodial staff, young people and their parents – showed that relational security is grounded in three distinct, but interrelated, elements. The first component of relational security concerns the way staff is present and shapes interactions with the young person incarcerated: staff’s basic attitude. The core of this basic attitude is the connection with and attunement to the individual young person and his/her context; and knowledge and insights about the young person to be able to see things from their perspective and logic. By finding a connection, staff are able to understand the young person, gain insight into the active elements in the contact with the young person, and act appropriately on the basis of this insight to guarantee safety.

The second component of relational security involves a constructive equal collaboration between staff and a young person. The young person is considered co-owner of their case plan and is given autonomy, room to take responsibility and the space to learn by trial and error. Young people get the space to learn by trial and error. This is built on the principle that behavioural change hardly ever occurs in a linear process. If needed staff set clear boundaries, but the staff’s attitude is more advisory and motivating than repressive and authoritarian. The third component of relational security related to staff being physically present at the unit guaranteeing safety: by the preventive effect based on the presence of staff; by observing, signalling, intervening early and de-escalating if necessary; by making staff available for the young people so that the young people can seek (emotional) support from staff; and because this offers many opportunities for informal contact moments that contribute to a positive relationship between staff and the young people and a general positive institutional climate.

This way of working allowed staff to establish a safe and therapeutic environment. Because young people were given a certain degree of freedom and autonomy, they felt more responsible to promote a safe environment and not break the rules and they were more motivated to take that responsibility. Staff and young people reported good and constructive alliances characterized by mutual respect. Also, the risk of undesirable group formation or the explicit teaching of deviant behaviour by group members (deviancy training) appeared to be reduced by relational security. Staff reported a safe working climate and high job satisfaction. These results should be seen in light of the scale of the facilities. The ‘Dutch model’ involved facilities with a maximum capacity of eight beds. The smaller the setting, the more it allows professionals to provide a relational approach. Small-scale is defined by the ability of staff members to recognize and align with the individual needs and circumstances of every person in residence at any time. This is a minimum requirement in order to support the building of strong, respectful relationships between professionals and people deprived of liberty.

Considering all the above the Dutch example shows the potential of small-scale facilities that emphasize relational security – rather than physical and procedural security. Providing guidance for staff working in custodial facilities, managers and policymakers seeking to promote effective custodial strategies.