Canadian Youth Correctional Officers’ Views on Their Work and Relationships With Youth in Their Care

Abstract

This study explored the personal perspectives of youth correctional officers within secure and open custody facilities in Ontario. A multi-methods design allowed for quantitative data collection to assess demographics and scores on a relationship scale and qualitative open-ended survey responses to explore areas of interest regarding officer work. Despite a small sample size (N = 26), results indicated trends in officers’ views of their work and relationships with youth. Youth officers report various job duties ranging from supervision/security to cleaning and preparing meals. Results indicate differences in endorsement for relationship development with youth for those who see treatment as part of their role in rehabilitation and those who do not. This exploratory study provides a starting point for understanding the unique experiences and duties of youth correctional officers in Ontario, Canada, and their views on relationship development with youth. Future research will include in-person interviews, facilitating more rich data collection.

Keywords

youth custody correctional officer relationship work

In many western jurisdictions incarceration is the most invasive sentence a young person can receive. Research in this area is clear, spending time in youth custody can have negative impacts on vulnerable young people, and as a result, should only be used as a last resort (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2010). Several countries including England/Wales, Scotland and the United States have witnessed a drop in youth imprisonment since 1999/2000 (Webster et al., 2019). The reasons for decarceration in each of these countries varies, but generally can be attributed to either explicit government goals for reducing the incarceration of youth, shifts in national sentiments regarding the confinement of youth, and/or shifts towards a more treatment-oriented youth justice policy (Webster et al., 2019).

Canada has also witnessed a substantive drop in youth imprisonment. A priority of Canada’s most recent youth justice legislation, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was the intention to restrict the use of custody for most adolescent offenders and improve the response to serious violent youthful offenders (Bala et al., 2009). Since the implementation of the YCJA, the use of youth custody has declined significantly (Bala et al., 2009). The rate of custodial sentences handed down in youth court in 2006/2007 (219 per 100,000) was less than half of the rate in 2002/2003 (526 per 100,000) (Bala et al., 2009). By 2015 the rate of youth sentenced to custody per 100,000 had declined by 83% (since 2003). Though there has been an overall decrease in the number of youth going into custody, youth officers have noted that those that remain tend to be the most serious (and often violent) young people (Ricciardelli et al., 2019). This is not surprising given the fact that the YCJA aimed to screen out less serious cases. From 1995 to 2015 the proportion of cases to youth court which involved violence rose from 9.7% to 23% (Webster et al., 2019).

Though there are far fewer youth in custody in Canada, a non-trivial amount of young people with significant pre-existing vulnerabilities continue to be incarcerated in youth facilities. Considering the number of youth that continue to enter the system, there has been increased attention regarding the positive role front-line staff may play. The importance of relationships in treatment settings has been known for decades. Now there has been a heightened awareness regarding the value of relationships as an approach to working with justice involved youth (Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, 2013). Youth in custody facilities are supervised 24 hours a day by youth correctional officers. As such, these officers play an integral role in the day-to-day well-being of inmates and their overall rehabilitative experience. This study aimed to investigate the views and beliefs of youth correctional officers on these relationships with youth in their care.

Importance of Staff in Custody Facilities

Correctional officers have a significant role to play in youth custody facilities; they interact with the youth and are responsible for the day-to-day functioning, operation, and climate of the institution (Crewe, 2012; Liebling, 2006; Sparks et al., 1996). In addition, correctional officers are responsible for safety and security, program delivery (Jacobs & Retsky, 1975), supervising chores, transporting inmates, and monitoring compliance with rules and regulations, that is, body searches (Farkas & Manning 1997; Jacobs & Retsky, 1975; Lombardo, 2016 [1989]; McCleery, 1960). Finally, there is an important human service component to the work of correctional officers. This involves interactions with inmates, overall behavior management and involvement in rehabilitative programing (Farkas & Manning, 1997; Gilbert, 1997; Jacobs & Retsky, 1975; Williamson, 1990). Given the integral role that correctional officers play and the level of interaction they have with youth, it would seem important to have an understanding of their views on the significance of developing genuine and professional relationships with youth.

Although there are similarities between the role of youth correctional officers and officers in adult institutions, there are some important differences to consider. Inderbitzin (2007) suggested that youth correctional work includes several roles including counselor, corrections officer, coach, and parental figure, some of which are distinct from what would be expected of an adult correctional officer. Canadian research by Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2013) suggested that youth correctional officers play a role in a youth’s adjustment to custody facilities. This is in part because staff may provide emotional support to youth, acting as someone they can talk to, and who can provide physical support thus creating a safe environment (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2013). The extent to which these relationships may differ from those with adult inmates has not been extensively explored.

Unique Aspects of Working With Youth Custody: The Developmental Context

Developmental psychology research suggests that there are empirically supported justifications for the differential treatment of young people and adults within the legal system (Steinberg & Schawartz, 2000). It also suggests that what we know about development should be taken into account when considering legislation, policy, and practice. A developmental understanding of adolescence is critical to an understanding of the differences between adult and youth adjustment to prison.

Thus, there are various factors that make working with youth inherently different than working with adults. For example, young people in custody represent a vulnerable population whose behavior may be impacted by their stage of development, including poor coping mechanisms and increased levels of anxiety (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2017). Additionally, youth may experience the transition to custody and the separation from family differently than adults (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2010). In recognition of the developmental differences between adults and youth, Canada’s YCJA enshrines in legislation the fact that youth need to be treated differently than adults with respect to consequences, rehabilitation, and conditions of confinement. Officers themselves have recognized the differences between working with youth and adults. Officers in one study reported that the young offenders seem to want more attention from staff, and are “needy” (Crawley, 2006). Youth are also reportedly more physically and emotionally demanding and are more tiring to work with than adult inmates (Crawley, 2006).

Youth who have impulsive traits and deficiencies in interpersonal skills may present as defiant, manipulative, and uncaring when confronted by authority figures, particularly in stressful situations (Vandergoot, 2006). This is in part owing to a lack of social skills and maturity that are necessary in dealing with confrontation (Vandergoot, 2006). Therefore, the way that front line staff relate to incarcerated youth may impact their well-being and psychological health. The fact that they have generally been found to be involved in more disciplinary infractions, inmate-staff assaults, and conflicts with others compared to adult prisoners may also reflect their response to stress and difficulty coping (Mackenzie, 1987). A youth’s violence in prison is a young person’s impulsive reaction to stress and may be a sign of immature coping ability (Mackenzie, 1987).

In addition to the developmental differences, youth and adults in custody have varying organizational cultures. A study of prisoners who had spent time in both youth and adult facilities suggests that youth custody facilities are more supportive, offer a kinder milieu, and have employees who seemingly care about youth (Inderbitzin, 2007). Additionally, they have staff who are more adept at providing guidance, modeling, and support, and who place a greater emphasis on relationships (Inderbitzin, 2007).

The Importance of Relationships and the Therapeutic Alliance

Over the last 10 years, the Ministry of Children, Youth & Community Services in the province of Ontario (Canada) has introduced the term “relationship custody” into the youth custody vernacular. The Ministry has implied relationship custody should both guide and be the goal of relationships between front-line staff and incarcerated youth. The term would seem to signal the importance of relationships in youth custody facilities. The Ministry has failed however to effectively root this concept in theory, define it, or explain how officers are to implement it. Relationship custody may however share some of the same ideals as the therapeutic alliance, including the noted focus on respect, empathy, and positive interaction with youth (Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, 2013).

The importance of building therapeutic relationships (or a therapeutic alliance) with clients has been a topic of concern in psychology for many years. Original theorists such as Freud (1912), Adler (1931/1992), and Rogers (1946) began the conversation regarding the importance of building a therapeutic alliance with clients in the early 20th century. The significance of the therapeutic alliance has been discussed in relation to adult populations, and also children, adolescents and families (Bhola & Kapur, 2013; Green, 2009; Hintikka et al, 2006; Hogue et al., 2006). The development of a therapeutic alliance with children and adolescents (Bhola & Kapur, 2013; Digiuseppe et al., 1996; Everall & Paulson, 2002) and an understanding of early predictors of alliance development with adolescents (Garner et al., 2008) have important implications for workers in the youth justice field in terms of building relationships with young people.

It is important to note that although there is some evidence to suggest that correctional officers might take on a counseling role (Schaefer, 2018), they are not therapists, nor does this research aim to suggest that youth workers should be taking on this role. A therapeutic alliance can be formed between two individuals in various settings and roles, and youth workers can be trained to have effective relationships with the youth in their care. For this study, the term “effective relationship” will be defined as a pattern of purposeful and professional interactions with youth that fosters mutual respect and encouragement, and that acts as a tool for staff to aid in rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.

Although original theorists such as Freud and Rogers discussed the use of the therapeutic alliance differently, both recognized that the first goal of therapy is the development of the relationship. Further support for the importance of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy came from Zetzel (1956) and Horney (1946). Zetzel (1956) discussed the importance of having a satisfactory relationship before addressing any unconscious material, and Horney (1946) posited that an effective relationship allows for the emergence of unconscious material into the conscious.

Overtime, studies have drawn attention to the importance of the therapeutic relationship, regardless of how it was being used in therapy. As such, research on relationship characteristics, development, and usefulness in counseling has continued (Bordin, 1979; Horvath, 2001; Lustig et al. 2002). More recently, research has indicated that therapeutic relationships lead to positive outcomes in terms of quality of life, rehabilitation, and positive change for clients (Bordin, 1979; Horvath & Symonds; 1991; Ross, 2008; Ulrich et al., 2012). Additionally, the importance of the therapeutic alliance is highlighted in its effects on treatment outcomes for a variety of disorders including depression, schizophrenia, and other mental health concerns (Krupnick et al., 1996; Martin et al., 2000; McCabe & Priebe, 2004; Svesson & Hansson, 1999).

With respect to offenders, positive relationships between offenders and helping professionals may lead to decreased recidivism and positive outcomes over time (Ross, 2008), and can play an important role in predicting future outcomes (Ulrich et al., 2012). Karver et al. (2006) reported that the quality of the therapeutic alliance between offenders and staff was more predictive of positive treatment outcomes (for both adults and youth) than the specific intervention used in their treatment. Similarly, the development of a positive working relationship and the skills used by probation officers can have an impact on the reconviction rates of their probationers (Raynor & Vanstone, 2016).

Canadian researchers Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2016) reported that the quality of staff-youth relationships can have significant impacts on the overall quality of a youth’s entire rehabilitative experience at the facility. Further, the therapeutic relationship between custody staff and youth can influence the sense of safety and comfort that youth feel in a custody facility (Peterson-Badali & Koegl, 2002), suggesting the importance of relationships in youth custody. Additionally, Adorjan and Ricciardelli (2018) found that Canadian youth correctional officers noted the importance of developing trust and being nonjudgmental when discussing their work.

Probation officers and practitioners in a study by Drake et al. (2014) recognized the importance of the relationship with young offenders, with benefits such as youth feeling heard and having an adult outside of their family they can talk to. Similarly, in a study by Ricciardelli et al. (2019), Canadian youth correctional officers, mentioned that the decreased number of youth in custody since the enactment of the YCJA has allowed more time for youth interaction. They noted an increased opportunity to build relationships with youth and believed that the youth seemed interested in these relationships. Officers felt that the number of issues on the units had decreased, and that the youth seemed to appreciate having someone to talk to (Ricciardelli et al., 2019).

The above review of literature suggests that although custody is not treatment in and of itself, the overall goal of rehabilitation can be fostered through the development of therapeutic relationships between youth and correctional officers. As noted above, the therapeutic relationship is not unique to psychotherapy (Horvath, 2001), all helping relationships can benefit from a strong alliance.

Current Study

Given the potential of positive working youth-officer relationships, this research aimed to explore the current state of youth officer culture regarding relationship development. This data comes from a larger study that had the overall purpose of understanding how correctional officers in Ontario view their work with youth, the typology and orientation of youth correctional officers, and their beliefs around the benefits and/or concerns with incorporating relationship-development with detained youth as part of their day-to-day work.

We were interested in whether youth correctional officers believe there are positive outcomes that may result from an effective relationship with a youth. We were also interested in their views on relationships in general and whether correctional officers believe that there is a place for relationships in youth custody. Also, we wished to know what they believe the concerns and benefits of developing relationships with youth might be.

Methodology

Participants

Participants for this study were 27 front-line youth correctional workers and management (unit managers, supervisors, and superintendents). Participants had experience in either an open custody or secure custody facility in Ontario, Canada. Youth aged 12 to 18 can be sentenced to either open or secure facilities, based on several factors including the seriousness of the offense and prior convictions (Ontario, 2023). Open custody facilities are residential settings that are typically smaller in size and allow youth access to supervised community programing. Secure custody settings on the other hand are larger facilities with higher security measures, often including fenced properties (Ontario, 2023). Front-line workers were essential for the current study as they have the most direct contact with the youth. They are involved with the youth on a day-to-day basis and are responsible for the basic safety and security of the institution. The managers are also important because their beliefs and values may impact the philosophy and milieu of an institution.

Participant Recruitment

A “snowball” method of recruitment was utilized, which was initiated via an email sent to managers, personal contacts and network heads encouraging them to forward the email to their contacts and coworkers. Participants were also recruited at a Youth Justice conference. All correspondence regarding this study clearly outlined the fact that participants needed to have youth corrections experience (past or present) and that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and could be terminated without cause at any time. A formal consent protocol was provided to each participant outlining the purpose of the study, the risks and benefits to the participant, and the limits of confidentiality. Each respondent was informed that their workplace would not know that they took part and they would not be identified in the data. Each respondent was advised that some questions may make them uncomfortable, and they were free to refuse to answer any question, that is, leave the response blank. This study was given approval by the Research Ethics board of Ontario Tech University.

Research Survey and Measures

The survey consists of 92 questions that were designed to assess correctional officer orientation, typology, and beliefs around the development of relationships with youth.

Procedure

An email containing information about the study and a link to participate was sent out to youth justice administrators in Ontario, using a google search, youth custody facilities were identified and contact information was received from various websites and contact lists. This study used a multi-method design in which participants responded to a number of quantitative questions based on Likert scales that addressed demographics, correctional orientation, and officer typology. Participants also answered qualitative, questions that required individualized responses. These qualitative questions were used to gather information on exploratory areas of interest, such as how participants would describe their day, their thoughts on relationships with youth, and their general approach to their work. In this sense, participants were valued as experts in their own experience.

Measures

The relationship orientation scale (ROS) was administered. The ROS is a 5-item Likert-scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) developed for the purpose of this study to assess participants endorsement of relationship development with youth in custody. The total score on this scale can range from 5 (does not at all endorse relationships with youth) to 25 (strongly endorses relationships with youth). The aim of this scale was to explore the (in)consistencies of officers qualitative and quantitative responses. Cronbach’s alpha indicated that the scale has good internal consistency (α = .77).

Participants were asked to respond to 13 open ended questions that aimed to have participants reflect on various aspects of their work roles and environment (e.g., their role in rehabilitation, their approach to their work, and their views on the benefits and concerns of relationship development with youth, among other questions).

Data Analysis

Qualitative responses were coded to discover themes and meta-themes within the data. Because this was exploratory research and was the first of its kind, there were no hypotheses with regard to the themes. The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using the broad method of Thematic Analysis. Thematic Analysis allows the researcher to go beyond a basic description of the data to an analysis of the themes, topics, or groupings of information provided by participants. Researchers group the information into larger clusters of material and then use details from the data to support the development of such groupings (Creswell, 2007).

All quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS software. Quantitative questions were analyzed by exploring trends in descriptive statistics, specifically three groups were explored for any differences in responses 1. Gender (male/female), 2. Type of youth custody experience (open custody only, secure custody only, and both open and secure experience), 3. Adult corrections experience (yes/no). Unfortunately, owing to the small sample size, additional quantitative analyses were not possible. Considering that the relationship scale was created for this project, that this is a youth correctional officer population, and the previous literature is inconsistent, these quantitative analyses were exploratory in nature.

Results

Demographics

The demographics indicate that 27 youth correctional officers completed the survey; of those, there was demographic information for 26. One of the participants declined to answer many of the survey questions, including demographics, but provided no explanation as to why. Most of the sample (66%) were female, the average age was 41.2 years (SD = 13.36), and 89% reported their ethnicity as white. Additionally, most participants had either a college diploma or university degree (88.8%). The largest percentage of participants reported studying corrections (29.6%) and participants had experience in either an open custody facility (59.3%), a secure custody facility (11.1%) or both (25.9%). Five participants (18.5%) reported previous experience as an adult correctional officer. Finally, although the length of service varied, the largest group (40.7%) reported more than 10 years’ experience.

Relationships and Support

As noted, a relationship scale was developed for this study, overall, the mean score on the relationship scale was (20.27, SD = 2.78), there were no differences found between facility type and gender on the relationship scale scores. There was a significant difference between those who had adult corrections experience (M = 17.8, SD = 1.92) and those who did not (M = 20.85, SD = 2.65, t = −2.42, p = .02) with those with adult experience scoring lower on the relationship scale (less endorsement for relationships). The scores suggest that overall, this sample of youth correctional officers endorsed sentiments that were connected to the benefits of building relationships with youth.

Although the participants were asked directly about relationship development at the end of the survey, the notion of building relationships with youth and providing support came up in participants responses before they were asked about relationships specifically. Connecting with youth, supporting them, and building relationships was something officers discussed when writing about their approach to their work, their responsibilities at work, and as part of describing a typical workday. Some participants noted building relationships with youth as part of their approach and more than half reported providing support as their approach to their work. When asked to reflect on their responsibilities at work, providing support to youth was reported by four participants. One male open custody worker with no adult experience noted that their responsibilities included “Working directly with the youth on a day-to-day basis. Helping youth access resources to reintegrate them back into the community. Offer skill building and programming to youth” (P. 22). Additionally, a female participant with open custody experience and no adult experience reported that her duties included “helping and supporting youth. assisting youth with their individualized programs” (P. 4).

When participants were asked about their responsibilities at work, support was mentioned by 20% of both males and females; they also discussed building relationships as part of the way that they approach their work. Chi-square results indicated that although some female and male participants noted support as part of their approach, there was a significant relationship between gender and reporting providing support to youth. Females are more apt to discuss providing support as part of their approach (χ²(2) = 5.06, p = .02).

When asked about their role in rehabilitation, officers mentioned relationships or a relationship custody approach (n = 9) as well as providing support and listening to youth (n = 10). Additionally, relationship building and support were mentioned when describing the most effective rehabilitation for youth in custody. The broad idea of building relationships came in the form of some participants mentioning relationships specifically as well as notions such as the idea of getting to know youth, sharing with them, and talking with them. A female participant with secure custody experience suggested that the best method of rehabilitation was “building genuine relationships with healthy boundaries. Structure, predictability and support” (P. 13).

Even when thinking about their approach to behavior management, the idea of relationships came up. Participants noted five strategies that fit within the broad concept of relationship development and support: communicating with youth, providing support, ensuring they had time and space utilizing their relationship, and remaining calm and non-judgmental. A female youth worker with open custody experience suggested that the “Relationship is the most effective way to manage [behaviour]” (P. 15).

Although the general idea of relationship development was brought up by participants themselves throughout the survey, indicating the importance of the topic, the last section of the survey asked specifically about relationship development with youth in custody. Participants’ were asked about their thoughts on whether or not there is a place for relationships with youth in a custody setting, what the ideal youth-officer relationship might look like, and the benefits and concerns around relationships with youth.

Is There a Place for Youth-Officer Relationships in a Custody Setting?

Participants were asked whether or not they believed there is a place for the development of working relationships between officers and youth in a custody setting. The majority of participants in the sample believed that there is a place for relationships in youth custody (81.5%), while the remaining officers, did not know if there was a place for relationships (14.8%). There was a statistical relationship found between the type of youth custody experience participants had and support for relationships in youth custody (χ²(1) = 9.47, p = .00, φ = .60). Those who had adult corrections experience were more apt to note that they did not know if there was a place for relationships with youth in custody than those who have only worked with youth.

Participants were asked to explain their answer, and although none of the “don’t know” responders elaborated, those who felt there was a place for relationships noted concepts such as modeling healthy relationships (n = 5), relationships help you get to know youth (n = 5), it helps to build trust and respect (n = 5), and relationships are essential/important (n = 7). Additionally, four participants discussed the concept of ensuring appropriate boundaries within these relationships. Participants who noted that relationships are an essential or important part of the work they do had significantly higher scores on the relationship scale (M = 22.43, SD = 2.44) than those who did not report relationships as being important or essential (M = 19.47, SD = 2.50, t = −2.69, p = .01). One male participant with open custody and adult experience noted there is a place for relationships with youth because “In order for a youth to want to make positive changes in their life you have to connect with them in a professional but friendly manner” (P. 22). A second male participant with open custody and adult experience shared that there is a place for relationships because “Positive rapport and healthy relationships will always get better results than negative ones” (P.19). Similarly, a female participant with secure custody and adult experience suggested that “[relationships are] essential for authentic growth” (P. 13).

What Does an Ideal Relationship Look Like?

Participants were asked what an ideal youth-Youth Services Officer relationship would look like. From the responses to this question (N = 22), five categories emerged; relationships should be supportive/caring/trusting (n = 17), should include respect (n = 10), should have boundaries (n = 11), should be predictable (n = 4), and should model healthy relationships (n = 2). For example, participant 2, a female with open custody experience, noted that the ideal relationship includes “the ability to establish rapport, supportive, great communication skills, empathy skills, ability to establish professional boundaries.”

Chi-square analysis indicated that males are more apt to report the ideal relationship as being predictable than females (χ²(1) = 4.20, p = .04, φ = −.44). It was also found that those with adult custody experience are more apt to report the ideal relationship as being predictable than those with youth only experience (χ²(1) = 5.49, p = .02, V = .50).

The responses provided here indicate that there is some interest in developing effective relationships with youth, under the expectation that these relationships remain professional and safe. As noted earlier, the definition of an effective relationship for this study was “a pattern of purposeful and professional interactions with youth that fosters mutual respect and encouragement, that acts as a tool for staff to aid in rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.” Officers in this study reported that these relationships need to be professional, they need to include providing support to the youth in their care, and that the development of trust is an essential aspect of the relationship. Additionally, it was noted that a working relationship between staff and youth can aid in treatment and rehabilitation for the youth.

What are the Benefits and Concerns With Relationships?

Along with asking what the ideal relationship would look like, it is important to have an understanding of what participants believe would be the benefits and concerns in terms of developing a relationship with youth. The benefits, according to the participants, included; the positive impact on the job (work is safer/easier/better, n = 13), it helps to motivate them [youth] toward goals (n = 9), it builds trust (n = 6), it builds respect (n = 5), it teaches healthy relationships (n = 4), and youth feel supported (n = 4). A female youth worker with both open and secure custody experience shared the following with regard to benefits “It’s all benefits! The youth will be more motivated to work towards their goals, they’ll be more respectful, my shift will be easier because they’ll be better behaved, I’ll feel more fulfilled because the kids will come to me for help, I’ll be in a better position to actually provide that help because the kids will already trust that I have their best interests at heart. Honestly, the benefits are too numerous to list; I can’t imagine doing this job without having a positive working relationship with the youth” (P. 7).

Group differences in beliefs about the benefits of relationships were explored. Those who cited teaching healthy relationships as a benefit (M = 17.25, SD = 1.71) had significantly lower Relationship scores than those who did not (M = 20.82, SD = 2.59, t = −2.63, p = .01); additionally, participants who cited youth building motivation as a benefit (M = 22.56, SD = 1.81) had significantly higher Relationship scores than those who did not (M = 19.06, SD = 2.44, t = 3.78, p = .00).

Along with these benefits, there were some concerns noted with this idea of building relationships with youth in custody. Interestingly, 15 participants reported that they had no concerns with developing relationships with youth, however, other participants did bring up some concerns. Four types of concerns arose from the responses: blurring boundaries (n = 12), it can be hard when youth are released (n = 5), it can lead to favoritism (n = 3), and manipulation by youth (n = 2). For example, two female youth workers with open custody experience noted that concerns for them included “remembering roles. Make sure you maintain clear boundaries and don’t be manipulated” (P. 8) and “[Staff] need to be aware of professional boundaries, you are a helper, not a friend” (P. 17). There were no differences found between the responses here and gender, type of custody experience or adult versus youth only corrections experience.

Discussion

Relationships and Youth Worker’s Role in Rehabilitation for Youth

Building relationships and providing support to youth in custody facilities were concepts that were endorsed to varying degrees by the participants in this study. There were some differences in group membership that are important to note. Males and females differed in their levels of reporting providing support to youth as part of their duties and responsibilities at work. Females mentioned providing support in their free responses more often than males. Tewksbury and Mustaine (2008) looked at similar concepts in a group of US correctional officers and found that female staff were more supportive of rehabilitation in general than male staff. This suggests that there may be some differences in the fundamental beliefs of male and female officers around their role as correctional officers and warrants further investigation. Importantly, the individual and nuanced understandings of “support” were not explored in this study, it would be useful to explore further what individual youth justice workers mean when they use the word “support.” Participants brought up the importance of relationships with youth, both in assisting their role in rehabilitation and in their approach to their work, before they were asked about it specifically. The vast majority of participants mentioned the general concepts of building relationships with youth and/or providing support as being part of their approach to their work or as part of their role in rehabilitation without being prompted. Ricciardelli et al. (2019) found similar results in their work with Canadian officers. Their results indicated that officers believed that the shift from the Young Offenders Act to the YCJA afforded them more opportunity, and specifically, time to engage in relationship development with youth in their care. From the perspective of the participants in their study, these relationships were valued by the youth in their custody facilities.

Although there was one participant who did not discuss relationships in their free responses prior to being asked, they did report that there is a place for relationships with youth in custody. This suggests that within the open custody environment in Ontario, officers see a place for relationships in their work. The extent to which they engage in these relationships, how they go about developing them, and what they look like requires further exploration.

This information provides some insight into an understudied area of youth justice. Correctional officer work is people work and as such, relationship development is part of the job, this study suggests that correctional officers recognize the value of professional and genuine relationships with youth. This information can have important implications for hiring practices. If the goal of youth justice in Ontario is to approach the work from a relationship custody perspective, then it would be useful to explore applicants’ views on relationships during the recruitment process. This study provides insight into how to identify those who are more open to a relationship approach to working with youth. Along with this, it may be useful to adjust training for youth correctional officers to take a more relationship oriented approach, especially since it appears that some officers have a general understanding of the utility of these relationships.

From a developmental perspective a relationship-oriented approach is important in order for incarcerated young people to be open to modeling their behavior after an adult that demonstrates prosocial behavior. This is particularly important during adolescence when moral reasoning, as well as cognitive, emotional, and social development continue to mature, and their understanding of morality expands. Additionally, a safe and secure relationship between a correctional officer and an incarcerated adolescent is important during a period of development that is often about testing the boundaries of independence and individuation.

As mentioned previously, the experience of incarceration for youth is difficult and can have negative implications (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2010). Having a better understanding of the approach that youth workers take to their work and how they see relationship development as part of their work can assist with the development of relevant policies, procedures, and training to mediate some of the negative implications of imprisonment.

Limitations

This research is not without limitations. It is important to acknowledge that there was limited access to participants who work in secure custody facilities; those that have increased security measures and less access to the community. Additionally, participants with adult correctional experience placed less emphasis on the importance of staff-youth relationships than those with youth experience. Often, staff moving from adult to youth custody corrections work in secure facilities, this may account for some of these differences. It is possible that they may hold substantially different views from the sample of participants in this study who were overwhelmingly from open facilities. Open facilities tend to have a more relaxed atmosphere, are in communities, and the young people within them are considered lower risk.

Additionally, it is important to note the relatively small sample size. Typically, with rich qualitative data a small sample of this size would not be a concern, however, owing to the limitations of data collection (online survey with free response) there was not the opportunity to ask follow-up or clarifying questions, which does limit the quality of qualitative data.

There have also been many changes to the youth justice system in Ontario in the last few years, many of which have had important implications for youth workers (e.g., job loss, job transfers, etc.), as such, there may have been limited interest in engaging in a study of this nature. Finally, the sample was fairly heterogeneous, suggesting that there may be information that is not representative of youth workers across Ontario.

Even though the sample was fairly heterogeneous, it is feasible that by virtue of being part of the youth justice system, youth correctional officers embrace some of the ideals associated with relationship custody. A 2006 review of open detention and custody settings in Ontario found that in 80% of the facilities reviewed, the youth felt that most staff cared about them (Cooke & Finlay, 2007). This suggests that the staff are demonstrating to youth in their care that they have an interest in them, this may be an important part of developing successful relationships with youth.

Future research might compare perceptions of the importance of relationships with young people between those correctional officers working with youth and those working with older youth (18–24 years old) in the adult system. This study seems to suggest that there may be important differences between officers who have experience in adult corrections versus youth corrections. Given the significance of youth correctional officers in the lives of incarcerated youth, this area of research will remain an important area of inquiry. Relationships between correctional officers and young people may hold the key to changing the conditions of confinement for incarcerated youth thereby improving their day-to-day experience of custody.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

ORCID iDs

Korri Bickle

Carla Cesaroni

References

Adler

(1992). What life could mean to you. Little Brown. (Original work published 1931)

Adorjan

Ricciardelli

(2018). The last bastion of rehabilitation: Contextualizing youth correctionalism in Canada. The Prison Journal, 98(6), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518811807

Bala

Carrington

P. J.

Roberts

J. V.

(2009). Evaluating the youth criminal justice act after five years: A qualified study. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51(2), 131–167.

Bhola

Kapur

(2013). The development and role of the therapeutic alliance in supportive psychotherapy with adolescents. Psychological Studies, 58(3), 207–215.

Bordin

E. S.

(1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16(3), 252–260.

Cesaroni

Peterson-Badali

(2010). Understanding the adjustment of incarcerated young offenders: A Canadian example. Youth Justice, 10(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225410369290

Cesaroni

Peterson-Badali

(2013). Report to the office of the provincial advocate for children & youth concerning the death of Ashley Smith. http://provincialadvocate.on.ca/documents/en/Expert_report-defacted-Nov8_2013.pdf

Cesaroni

Peterson-Badali

(2016). The role of fairness in the adjustment of adolescent boys to pretrial detention. The Prison Journal, 96(4), 534–553.

Cesaroni

Peterson-Badali

(2017). Ashley Smith and incarcerated young women: Marginalized at any age. Canadian Journal of Law and Society/Revue Canadienne Droit Et Société, 32(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2017.11

10.

Cooke

Finlay

(2007). Open detention and open custody in Ontario. Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy.

11.

Crawley

(2006). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. In Jewkes

Johnston

(Eds.), Prison readings (pp. 209–221). Willan Publishing.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

13.

Crewe

(2012). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation, and social life in an English prison. Oxford University Press.

14.

DiGiuseppe

Linscott

Jilton

(1996). The therapeutic alliance in adolescent psychotherapy. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 5, 85–100.

15.

Drake

Fergusson

Briggs

D. B.

(2014). Hearing new voices: Re-viewing Youth Justice Policy through Practitioners relationships with young people. Youth Justice, 14(1), 22–39.

16.

Everall

R. D.

Paulson

B. L.

(2002). The therapeutic alliance: Adolescent perspectives. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research, 2(2), 78–87.

17.

Farkas

M. A.

Manning

P. K.

(1997). The occupational culture of corrections and police officers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1997.9721581

18.

Freud

(1912). The dynamics of transference. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. XII, 1911–1913): The Case of Schreber, Papers on Technique and Other Works (pp. 97–108). Hogarth Press.

19.

Garner

B. R.

Godley

S. H.

Funk

R. R.

(2008). Predictors of early therapeutic alliance among adolescents in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40, 55–65.

20.

Gilbert

(1997). The illusion of structure: A critique of the classical model of organisation and the discretionary power of correctional officers. Criminal Justice Review, 22(1), 49–64.

21.

Green

(2009). The therapeutic alliance. Child: Care Health and Development, 35(3), 298–301.

22.

Hintikka

Laukkanen

Marttunen

Lehtonen

(2006). Good working alliance and psychotherapy are associated with positive changes in cognitive performance among adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 70(4), 316–335.

23.

Hogue

Dauber

Stambaugh

L. F.

Cecero

J. J.

Liddle

H. A.

(2006). Early therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in individual and family therapy for adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 121–129.

24.

Horney

(1946). Are you considering psychoanalysis? W. W. Norton.

25.

Horvath

A. O.

(2001). The alliance. Psychotherapy, 38, 365–372.

26.

Horvath

A. O.

Symonds

B. D.

(1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 139.

27.

Inderbitzin

(2007). Inside a maximum-security juvenile training school: Institutional attempts to redefine the American Dream and normalize incarcerated youth. Punishment & Society, 9, 235–251.

28.

Jacobs

J. B.

Retsky

H. G.

(1975). Prison correctional officer. Urban Life, 4(1), 5–29.

29.

Karver

M. S.

Handelsman

J. B.

Fields

Bickman

(2006). Meta-analysis of therapeutic relationship variables in youth and family therapy: The evidence for different relationship variables in the child and adolescent treatment outcome literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(1), 50–65.

30.

Krupnick

J. L.

Sotsky

S. M.

Simmens

Moyer

Elkin

Watkins

Pilkonis

P. A.

(1996). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy outcome: Findings in the national institute of mental health treatment of depression collaborative research program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(3), 532–539.

31.

Liebling

(2006). Prisons in transition. International Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 29, 422–430.

32.

Lombardo

L. X.

(2016 [1989]). Routledge revivals: Correctional officers imprisoned (1989): Correctional officers at work. Routledge.

33.

Lustig

D. C.

Strauser

D. R.

Rice

N. D.

Rucker

T. F.

(2002). The relationship between working alliance and rehabilitation outcomes. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 46(1), 25–33.

34.

MacKenzie

(1987). Age and adjustment in prison: Interactions with attitudes and anxiety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(4), 427–447.

35.

Martin

D. J.

Garske

J. P.

Davis

M. K.

(2000). Relation of the therapeutic Alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438–450.

36.

McCabe

Priebe

(2004). The therapeutic relationship in the treatment of severe mental illness a review of methods and findings. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 50(2), 115–128.

37.

McCleery

(1960). Communication patterns as bases of systems of authority and power. In Cloward

(Ed.), Theoretical studies in the social organisation of the prison (pp. 49–77). Social Science Research Council.

38.

Ontario. (2023). When a youth is found guilty in court. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario Website: https://www.ontario.ca/page/when-youth-found-guilty-court

39.

Peterson-Badali

Koegl

C. J.

(2002). Juveniles’ experiences of incarceration: The role of correctional staff in peer violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 41–49.

40.

Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. (2013). It depends who’s working. The reality at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. http://www.garthgoodwin.info/files/RMYC_report_en.pdf

41.

Raynor

Vanstone

(2016). Moving away from social work and half way Back again: New research on skills in probation. British Journal of Social Work, 46(4), 1131–1147.

42.

Ricciardelli

Adorjan

Peters

(2019). Increased clarity or continued ambiguity? Correctional officers’ experiences of the evolving Canadian youth justice legislation. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 71(5), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-018-9801-z

43.

Rogers

C. R.

(1946). Significant aspects of client-centered therapy. American Psychologist, 1, 415–422.

44.

Ross

E. C.

(2008). Investigating the relationship between the therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in violent offender treatment (Doctoral dissertation, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington).

45.

Schaefer

(2018). Correcting the “correctional” component of the corrections officer role: How offender custodians can contribute to rehabilitation and reintegration. Corrections, 3(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1304811

46.

Sparks

J. R.

Bottoms

A. E.

Hay

(1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford University Press.

47.

Steinberg

Schwartz

R. G.

(2000). Developmental psychology goes to court. In Grisso

Schwartz

R. G.

(Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 9–31). University of Chicago Press.

48.

Svesson

Hansson

(1999). Therapeutic alliance in cognitive therapy for schizophrenic and other long-term mentally ill patients: Development and relationship to outcome in an in-patient programme. Acta Psychitrica Scandinavica, 99, 281–287.

49.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

(2008). Correctional Orientations of Prison Staff. The Prison Journal, 88(2), 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885508319163

50.

Ulrich

Ricciardelli

Brown

(2012). Offender rehabilitation: Toward an understanding of therapeutic alliance in successful transition and reintegration efforts—The Canadian day reporting centre experience. The Journal of Community Corrections, 21(4), 4–11.

51.

Vandergoot

(2006). Justice for young offenders: Their needs, our responses. Purich Publishing Ltd.

52.

Webster

C. M.

Sprott

J. B.

Doob

A. N.

(2019). The will to change: Lessons from Canada’s successful decarceration of youth. Law & Society Review, 53(4), 1092–1131.

53.

Williamson

H. E.

(1990). The corrections profession. Sage Publications.

54.

Zetzel

E. R.

(1956). Current concepts of transference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 37, 369–376.