Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment: Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812473530 |
| Author | André van der Laan,Veroni Eichelsheim |
| Published date | 01 July 2013 |
| Date | 01 July 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
10(4) 424 –443
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812473530
euc.sagepub.com
Juvenile adaptation to
imprisonment: Feelings of
safety, autonomy and well-
being, and behaviour in prison
André van der Laan
WODC, Ministry of Security and Justice, The Netherlands
Veroni Eichelsheim
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Abstract
Adaptation to imprisonment involves feelings of safety, autonomy, well-being, stress or
misbehaviour among detained offenders. According to importation theory, characteristics such as
previous experiences of imprisonment or psychiatric problems affect the adaptation of offenders
to imprisonment; deprivation theory, in contrast, focuses on factors such as social interactions
with peers or staff and fairness in procedures or in daily life encounters. In this study, adaptation
to imprisonment and the relationship with importation and deprivation factors were investigated
among 207 juvenile offenders incarcerated in Dutch juvenile correctional institutions. A cross
-sectional multi-method design was used, including a survey, screening instruments, records
and qualitative interviews. Controlling for importation characteristics, strong associations of
adaptation to imprisonment were found with interactions with peers and staff, justice, daily
activities and the number of juveniles in a group. The study provides valuable insight into the
factors related to adaptation to imprisonment, which can help to improve safety in prison and,
subsequently, could be useful in increasing the motivation of juveniles to participate in treatment
programmes. The implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Keywords
Adaptation to imprisonment, importation and deprivation factors, juvenile inmates, procedural
justice, situational prison control
Corresponding author:
André van der Laan, WODC, Ministry of Security and Justice, PO Box 20301, The Hague, 2500 EH, The
Netherlands.
Email: a.m.van.der.laan@minvenj.nl
473530EUC10410.1177/1477370812473530European Journal of CriminologyVan der Laan and Eichelsheim
2013
Article
Van der Laan and Eichelsheim 425
Introduction
In 2010, more than 4000 criminal cases against juvenile offenders aged 12 to 18 years
were settled with imprisonment in the Netherlands (Van der Laan and Blom, 2011). In
2010, 2255 juvenile offenders were locked up in a correctional institution (CI). The num-
ber of juvenile offenders entering a CI has decreased in the past five years, although their
recidivism rates are still an object of concern. More than half of the juvenile offenders
recidivate within two years of release (Wartna et al., 2011). Dutch CIs have been severely
criticized by inspectorates because they were considered to be unsafe for juveniles
(Inspectie Jeugdzorgand et al., 2007). In recent years, judicial youth policy in the
Netherlands has seen important changes in the residential care provided to detained juve-
niles. Alongside changes in the organizational structure and the introduction of a risk
need responsivity programme (Andrews and Bonta, 1994), attention is paid to the impris-
onment experiences of juvenile offenders and their behaviour during that period. It is
assumed that the quality of life experienced in a CI can affect both safety in the institu-
tions (Staatssecretaris van Justitie, 2008) and the effectiveness of a sanction in reducing
reoffending (Minister van Justitie, 2004). Poor adaptation could have a negative effect on
the willingness of juveniles to participate in daily activities and training programmes and
it could reduce the effects of these training programmes indirectly.
Adaptation to imprisonment has been studied since the 1950s (Irwin and Cressey, 1962;
Sykes, 1958), mainly among Anglo-Saxon populations (Adams, 1992; Liebling, 2004;
Toch and Adams, 2002; Zamble and Porporino, 1988). Adaptation is found to be multifac-
eted. Research has focused on psychological aspects, including feelings of safety, fear or
anxiety (Bottoms, 1999; Gover, et al., 2000; Harvey, 2007; Liebling, 2004; O’Donnell and
Edgar, 1999), autonomy or loss of control (Dhami et al., 2007; Goodstein et al., 1984;
Sykes, 1958), and well-being or stress (Biggam and Power, 1997; Cesaroni and Peterson-
Badali, 2010; Harvey, 2007; Ireland et al., 2005; Wooldredge, 1999). Another line of
research has focused on misconduct such as physical assaults, threats and disobeying
orders (Gendreau et al., 1997; Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando, 2002; Toch and Adams, 2002).
In the short term, poor adaptation to imprisonment can increase risky situations.
Prisoners’ response to fear is linked to self-harm (Harvey, 2007). Persistent feelings of
anxiety or stress increase the likelihood of (attempting) suicide (Liebling, 1999) or of
aggressive behaviour (O’Donnell and Edgar, 1999). Aggressive misconduct increases
insecure situations for other inmates and for staff (French and Gendreau, 2006).
Adaptation to imprisonment also seems to have consequences in the long term. Reduced
feelings of control or well-being are associated with increased learned helplessness and
can have a negative impact on participation in daily activities or training programmes
meant to decrease the risk of recidivism (Bukstel and Kilmann, 1980; Goodstein et al.,
1984). Moreover, misconduct in prison predicts recidivism (Gendreau et al., 1997).
Based on their longitudinal study among adult prisoners, Zamble and Porporino (1988)
argued that negative prison experiences will affect relapse or reoffending indirectly.
Their findings suggest that poor adjustment to incarceration decreases the motivation to
change and predicts recidivism. On the other hand, it has been found that experiencing
opportunities for choice increases prisoners’ motivation, reduces stress and improves
general functioning (Goodstein et al., 1984).1 More recently, studies showed that
To continue reading
Request your trial