Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Emotional Management Programme for Male Adolescent Offenders in Custody

Abstract

This mixed-methods study examines the effectiveness of the emotional management (EM) programme for male juvenile offenders in custody. EM is a 10-session cognitive-behavioural, skills-based group programme designed to target a range of general criminogenic needs. Paired group analyses were completed to examine the differences in pre- and post-programme scores for the total sample (N = 110) and results were separated into programme completers (n = 96), non-completers (n = 14) and Indigenous youth (n = 75). Consistent with expectations, the results showed statistically significant improvements in emotional regulation and statistically significant decreases in overall levels of aggressive thoughts and behaviours for programme completers and for Indigenous youth in our sample. Contrary to expectations, the results also indicated that programme non-completers showed improvements across the outcome measures, although these did not reach statistical significance. Qualitative analysis of participant programme feedback further supported the quantitative results and highlighted the importance of the therapeutic alliance, programme facilitation style and delivery. The findings contribute to the ‘what works’ research base on risk reduction approaches for youth offenders and provide insights into programme and process factors that improve the likelihood of positive treatment outcomes. Suggestions for programme improvements and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

effectiveness emotional management indigenous intervention juvenile offenders programme

According to the age–crime curve, adolescents and young adults are more likely to engage in offending and delinquent behaviour than any other age group (Farrington et al., 2008). In Australia, the rate of youth offending has consistently been higher than that of adult offending, with youth aged between 15 and 19 years committing the highest rates of crime compared to any other age group (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2021). There are ongoing debates in the media about the ‘youth crime crisis’ in Australia and considerable attention continues to be given to the issues of how to manage young offenders. Despite the concerns highlighted in recent media coverage, research shows that over the past decade, rates of youth crime have decreased across most Australian jurisdictions, with the rate of police proceedings against young people declining 36 per cent (Clancey et al., 2020). Although youth crime rates have declined over the past decade, there are still enormous economic and victim-related costs associated with youth crime (Viljoen et al., 2016). It is therefore imperative to invest in best practice, evidence-based approaches to prevention and intervention strategies for youth offenders.

Effective emotional management (EM) is essential for social functioning and psychological well-being (McLaughlin et al., 2011). Emotion regulation has been defined as ‘the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals’ (Thompson, 1994: 27). Individual differences in the ability to identify and understand one’s own emotions, the emotions of others and the causes and consequences of different emotions, as well as the types of strategies used to manage and regulate emotions, are evident by early childhood (McLaughlin et al., 2011). Emotional dysregulation in adolescence has been consistently associated in the development and maintenance of youth psychopathology, including aggressive and violent behaviour, and involvement in the criminal justice system (Armytage and Ogloff, 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2011; Rawana et al., 2014). Conversely, research has found that adolescents with better emotion regulation skills are more socially competent, have higher peer status and better quality relationships, engage in higher levels of prosocial behaviour and are more resilient and higher academic achievement (Kemp et al., 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2011; Rawana et al., 2014).

Integrative reviews of the literature have identified numerous environmental and individual factors that play a role in emotional dysregulation and associated aggressive outcomes (Roberton et al., 2012). Risk factors that have been shown to be amenable to treatment (dynamic factors) include pro-aggression/violence beliefs and attitudes, impulse control, hostile attribution bias, hyperactivity, poor problem-solving, persistent anger, poor social skills, risk-taking and sensation seeking behaviour and lack of appropriate emotion regulation strategies (Armytage and Ogloff, 2017; Roberton et al., 2012). Impulsiveness and negative affectivity (anger, guilt, nervousness and fear) are risk factors consistently identified in young offenders that impair self-regulatory capacity and contribute to the onset and maintenance of offending and antisocial behaviour (Armytage and Ogloff, 2017; Douglas and Skeem, 2005). This is supported by research into the neurobiological underpinnings of antisocial behaviour that have indicated self-regulation, social connectivity and distorted cognitive processing are often impaired in young offenders (Day and Kearney, 2016).

Reflecting the mounting recognition of these factors that increase the risk for offending, programmes to address antisocial behaviour among justice-involved youth are increasingly tailored to address these risk factors, to reduce recidivism and encourage desistence (Armytage and Ogloff, 2017). Several systematic reviews, meta-analyses and research syntheses have identified key features of effective programmes to address these identified risk factors in youth. The most effective programmes are those that are multimodal, skills-oriented and behaviour-oriented; target higher-risk cases and target criminogenic needs; and involve a human service element (Andrews et al., 2011; Armytage and Ogloff, 2017; Craig et al., 2013; Lipsey, 2009). The use of contingency management and rewards as part of behavioural interventions has been found to enhance better outcomes (Stewart et al., 2014; Wodahl et al., 2017). Programmes that are most effective for addressing risk factors associated with difficulties in emotional regulation include cognitive-behavioural approaches that teach social skills, emotional regulation skills, alternatives to aggression and planning (goal setting and decision-making) skills through various techniques such as modelling, role-playing, performance feedback and transfer training (Armytage and Ogloff, 2017). Prior research has shown that interventions that incorporate emotion regulation skills with offender populations are effective at reducing problem behaviours and aggression (Garofalo and Velotti, 2017; Wolff and Baglivio, 2016).

Consistent with the research outlined above, emotional dysregulation has been identified as a significant contributing factor to antisocial and offending behaviour among youth offenders in Western Australia. Department of Justice (DOJ) data from the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) assessments have shown that antisocial attitudes and beliefs (particularly those related to aggression and violence), poor frustration tolerance and limited emotional regulation skills are some of the highest risk/need areas for youth in detention (Dellar et al., 2023). Given the multitude of negative outcomes associated with these risk factors, an intervention programme targeting these criminogenic needs is imperative to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and encourage desistence.

EM programme

In line with the research and best practice standards, EM is a cognitive-behavioural, skills-based programme that targets a range of general criminogenic needs for youth in detention. The programme was developed in consultation with Indigenous staff working in custody and uses Indigenous Australian resources within the included activities. The programme includes 10 group sessions that cover a range of topics including increasing emotional literacy and awareness, regulating emotions and developing effective coping skills, general communication and listening skills, addressing antisocial attitudes and beliefs, challenging cognitive distortions, identifying and developing supportive relationships and conflict resolution skills. The programme includes offence-specific elements that explore the individual’s cycle of offending; assist participants to develop insight and understanding into their pattern of offending behaviour, high-risk situations and triggers; and develop strategies to reduce risk of reoffending.

The programme includes the following sessions:

Introduction to Emotions;

Identifying Physiological Responses to Emotions;

Recognising Behavioural Responses to Emotions;

Recognising and Understanding Unhelpful Cognitions;

Linking Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviours (CBT Model);

Changing Habits and Challenging Cognitions;

Communication, Building Skills and Rehearsal;

Skill Building and Rehearsal;

Offence/Behaviour-Chain Analysis: Applying Skills and Concepts;

Risk Management Plan: Skills Practice and Review.

The programme is 10 group sessions, each of 1.5 hours duration, and is delivered in a closed-group format by two facilitators who are required to have a minimum 4-year degree in Psychology and/or Social Work. Two group sessions are delivered per week, with no more than one session delivered per day. The programme runs for approximately 5 weeks, exclusive of pre- and post-assessments and graduation.

In juvenile justice, outcome measurement is the cornerstone of evidence-based policy and practice. As such, it is imperative that interventions aimed at targeting criminogenic needs and to reduce overall recidivism rates are empirically tested and supported. This is particularly important given the research that has continued to demonstrate the potentially harmful effects of inappropriate interventions, such as increased recidivism rates (see Bonta and Andrews, 2017), which has implications not only for the young offenders, but also for the wider community as well. Given the significant overrepresentation of young Indigenous people in the Australian justice system, there is also an urgent need to evaluate and identify evidence-based and culturally appropriate programmes. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW, 2021), Indigenous youth comprise about 6 per cent of the total Australian population but account for approximately 50 per cent of the young people in detention or those under community supervision on any given day. On average, Indigenous youth in Western Australia were almost 36 times more likely to be in detention compared to non-Indigenous youth on any given day (AIHW, 2021). Despite well-intentioned efforts and significant investments to reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system, the gap has continued to widen and Indigenous youth in Australia are now overrepresented in detention populations more than any other point in history (Allard et al., 2020).

Currently, there is a significant lack of empirical research available on specific programmes (i.e. named programmes) delivered to young offenders in Australia. Consequently, policy makers and service providers are limited in being able to effectively review, compare and assess intervention options both nationally and internationally. Viljoen et al. (2016) argued that one of the challenges that evidence-based programmes face is in their dissemination to youth justice professionals. Of the available research, there is a heavy focus on recidivism as the main outcome measure when determining the effectiveness of intervention programmes (Lipsey, 2009; Viljoen et al., 2016). While reducing reoffending is, and should be, an important indicator of a programme’s effectiveness, there are also other risk factors to consider. For example, effective interventions have been shown to reduce specific risk factors for reoffending including antisocial attitudes, anger management difficulties, social problem-solving and impulse control (Viljoen et al., 2016).

Qualitative analyses of young offenders’ narratives provide valuable information that juvenile justice professionals can use to improve the effectiveness of their interventions. However, there is a dearth of available research that includes the subjective experience of participants as part of programme evaluation. Of the limited research available, participant feedback has been identified as an important component of improving programme outcomes and engagement (Stewart et al., 2014). Indigenous youth have highlighted the importance of developing relationships with programme facilitators and identified the level of support received from programme staff as beneficial for their learning and engagement (Stewart et al., 2014). In their recent systematic review, De Boer et al. (2023) examined 39 qualitative studies of young offenders’ experiences with the juvenile justice system, including their interactions with service providers and interventions addressing criminogenic needs. The researchers noted the importance of understanding, recognition and trust in the practitioner–youth relationship and suggested the ability to listen to young offenders could enhance therapeutic relationships and improve the likelihood of positive treatment outcomes. Conversely, De Boer et al. (2023) found that there are often complex and problematic staff–detainee relationships that reduce the likelihood of young people seeking support. These problematic relationships were typically reflective of mistrust, youth perceptions of unfair and unequal treatment and a lack of respect.

In light of the above, the current research sought to assess the effectiveness of the EM programme in improving participant’s emotion regulation skills and in decreasing aggressive thoughts and behaviours. Given the high rates of overrepresentation, another aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the programme specifically for Indigenous youth. It was hypothesised that there would be a statistically significant improvement in participant’s emotion regulation skills and decrease in aggressive thoughts and behaviours after completing the EM programme. It was also hypothesised that there would be an increase in emotional dysregulation and an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviours for programme non-completers. Qualitative analysis was included to provide insights into programme participants’ perceptions of the EM programme.

Research Method

Sample

The data were provided by the Western Australian DoJ and included pre- and post-programme assessment data for juvenile offenders who participated in the EM programme from 2017 to 2020. Programme facilitators are responsible for collecting the data during the pre- and post-group interviews and entering the data into the Departmental database. Not all young people who complete a pre-group interview are deemed suitable for participation in the programme for a variety of reasons, the most common of which include low treatment readiness and motivation, cognitive impairments limiting ability to engage or not enough time left in custody prior to release to be able to complete the programme. The final sample in the current study, therefore, only included participants with full pre- and post-data available (N = 110) and consisted of 96 programme completers and 14 programme non-completers. The average time between pre- and post-interviews was 58.31 days (SD = 12.59). Participants ranged in age from 13 to 18 years (M = 16.42, SD = 1.22). The ethnic composition of the sample was predominately Indigenous Australian (68.2%), with representation from Australian non-Indigenous (17.3%), New Zealand Māori (7.3%), African (5.43%), Greek (0.9%) and Italian (0.9%). For a full breakdown of demographic statistics, refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of sample demographic descriptive statistics.

Variable	Full sample (N = 110)		Indigenous youth (n = 75)		Completers (n = 96)		Non-completers (n = 14)
Variable	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Residence
Metro	74	67.3	40	53.3	61	63.5	13	92.9
Regional	36	32.7	35	46.7	35	36.5	1	7.1
Risk rating^a,b
Low	3	2.7	1	1.3	3	3.1	0	0
Moderate	31	28.2	16	21.3	29	30.2	2	14.3
High	61	55.5	46	61.3	52	54.2	9	64.3
Very high	15	13.6	12	16	12	12.5	3	21.4
Cognitive impairment
Yes	34	30.9	29	38.7	29	30.2	5	35.7
No	76	69.1	46	61.3	67	69.8	9	64.3

Risk of reoffending level as determined by the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge and Andrews, 2011).

The YLS/CMI has recently been validated for use with Indigenous youth in Western Australia (Dellar et al., 2023).

Measures

Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale Short-Form (DERS-SF)

The DERS-SF is a self-report measure developed to assess six dimensions of emotion regulation: non-acceptance of emotions, difficulty engaging in goal-directed behaviour, poor impulse control, lack of emotional awareness, limited access to emotion regulation strategies and lack of emotional clarity (Kaufman et al., 2016). Respondents enter a number to reflect how frequently they experience each of the 18 statements where 1 = not much, 2 = little bit, 3 = half and half, 4 = fair bit and 5 = heaps. Items 1, 3 and 4 are reverse scored and the items are summed to provide a total and subscale score for each of the six dimensions of emotion regulation. Total scores range from 18 to 90, with higher scores indicating more difficulties with emotional regulation. Prior studies have found the measure to have good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging between .91 and .93 (Gratz and Roemer, 2004; Kaufman et al., 2016). The DERS-SF is administered during the pre-assessment interview and after completion/participation in the programme to evaluate the effectiveness of EM in increasing emotional awareness and emotional regulation. For this study, internal reliability of the scale was high with α = .88 at time 1 (pre-assessment stage) and α = .84 at time 2 (post-assessment stage).

Aggression Questionnaire Short-Form (AQ-SF)

The AQ-SF is a self-report measure designed to assess aggressive thoughts and behaviours (Bryant and Smith, 2001). The measure includes 12 statements and comprises four subscales: physical aggression, verbal aggression, hostility and anger. Respondents are required to answer how much they agree with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very unlike me and 5 = very like me. All items are summed to provide a total score and four subscale scores. Total scores range from 12 to 60 with higher scores indicating higher levels of aggressive thoughts and behaviours. The AQ-SF is administered as a pre- and post-measure to evaluate any changes in aggressive thoughts and behaviours. Prior studies have established high internal reliability for the measure (α = .84) among juvenile offender populations (e.g. see Pechorro et al., 2016). For the current study, internal reliability was found to be α = .92 at the pre-assessment stage and α = .92 at the post-assessment stage, demonstrating excellent internal consistency.

Treatment Readiness Questionnaire (TRQ)

The TRQ is a self-report measure that was developed to assess readiness to participate in and engage with a treatment programme (Casey et al., 2007). The questionnaire measures four components of treatment readiness and engagement that map onto the Multifactor Offender Readiness Model (MORM; Ward et al., 2004): attitudes and motivation, emotional reactions, offending beliefs and efficacy. Research has demonstrated that engagement, readiness and motivation are essential factors for programme effectiveness and should be assessed and incorporated as part of the intervention (Armytage and Ogloff, 2017). As such, the questionnaire is administered during the pre-assessment interview to evaluate the level of treatment readiness and motivation for behaviour change. The TRQ includes 20 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After reverse scoring the negatively keyed questions, all items are summed to provide an overall score of treatment readiness and four subscale scores. Total scores range from 20 to 100 with higher values indicating higher levels of treatment readiness and motivation. Previous research has found the scale to have good internal reliability with alpha values between .74 and .83 (Casey et al., 2007; Day et al., 2011), and this was consistent with the current study in which the α = .82.

Treatment Engagement Questionnaire (TEQ)

In the absence of a single measure that captured the multifaceted construct of treatment engagement, Casey et al. (2007) incorporated three separate scales from existing measures to produce the TEQ. The TEQ is a self-report measure that includes three subscales: Alliance, consists of eight items and measures the participant–facilitator relationship; Group Process, consists of four items that describe participant beliefs about the efficacy of the group in terms of achieving treatment goals; Confidence, includes five items that reflect participant self-confidence in regard to changing their offending behaviour. The TEQ includes 17 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and is administered after programme completion to assess participant’s level of treatment engagement. After reverse scoring the negatively keyed questions, all items are summed to provide an overall score of treatment readiness and three subscale scores. Total scores range from 17 to 85 and higher scores indicate higher levels of treatment engagement. Consistent with previous research (Casey et al., 2007), the internal reliability of the scale for the current study was α = .87, showing excellent internal consistency.

Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for each of the psychometric measures were included and separated by time of assessment (pre- and post-programme completion). Pre- and post-programme comparisons for total scores on the DERS and AQ-SF were conducted utilising paired t-test analyses and results were separated into the following samples: full sample (N = 110), programme completers (n = 96), programme non-completers (n = 14) and Indigenous youth (n = 75). Assumption testing indicated approximate normality with acceptable skewness and kurtosis and adequate test power.

Post-programme data were reviewed to examine the proportion of participants in each sample who returned to custody within 6 months of their release from detention. Qualitative data analysis included a review and visual analysis of the participant programme feedback to identify themes across each of the questions and supplement the quantitative data.

Results

Data diagnostics

Prior to conducting analyses, a visual overview of the data set revealed that there were no data entry errors and a missing value analysis showed that there were some missing data for 9 participants on the TRQ (pre-programme measure) and 57 participants on the TEQ (post-programme measure). The reason for the missing data was a result of the TEQ only being included as an outcome measure at the beginning of 2020; as such, any participants in the programme prior to this date did not complete this measure. An alpha level of .05 was selected to signify statistical significance of results and effect sizes are reported for any significant results using Cohen’s d. Descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for pre- and post-programme measures.

Scale	Pre		Post
Scale	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	d
Full sample (N = 110)
Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale	46.80	13.21	43.63	10.97	2.67**	.004	.25
Aggression Questionnaire Short-Form	32.44	12.19	29.97	11.48	2.84**	.003	.27
Treatment Readiness Questionnaire	70.11	11.87
Treatment Engagement Questionnaire			68.19	7.91
Indigenous youth sample (n = 75)
Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale	46.73	13.2	43.83	11.8	2.03*	.023	.23
Aggression Questionnaire Short-Form	32.35	12.34	30.32	11.59	1.98*	.025	.23
Treatment Readiness Questionnaire	70.16
Treatment Engagement Questionnaire			67.74
Completers (n = 96)
Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale	46.95	13.5	43.84	11.2	2.33*	.011	.24
Aggression Questionnaire Short-Form	32.19	12.2	30.00	11.6	2.35*	.010	.24
Treatment Readiness Questionnaire	69.70
Treatment Engagement Questionnaire			69.33
Non-completers (n = 14)
Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale	45.79	11.8	42.14	9.2	1.85	.087	.50
Aggression Questionnaire Short-Form	34.14	12.2	29.79	10.8	1.80	.095	.48
Treatment Readiness Questionnaire	72.64
Treatment Engagement Questionnaire			62.78

SD: standard deviation.

p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Pre- and post-programme comparisons

For the full sample, on average, participant’s post-programme DERS scores were 3.17 points lower than pre-programme scores, indicating significant small improvements in participant’s ability to regulate their emotions after participating in the EM programme. For the AQ-SF, on average, participant’s post-programme scores were 2.46 points lower than pre-programme scores, indicating significant small reductions in participant’s overall levels of aggression after participating in the EM programme.

Programme completers

On average, programme completers’ post-programme scores on the DERS were 3.10 points lower than pre-programme scores, indicating significant small improvements in participant’s ability to regulate their emotions after completing the EM programme. For the AQ-SF, on average, programme completers’ post-programme scores were 2.19 points lower than pre-programme scores, indicating significant small reductions in participant’s overall levels of aggression after completing the EM programme.

Programme non-completers

Data were available for 14 participants who commenced EM but did not complete the programme. Of the sample, six participants were unable to complete the programme due to operational reasons (i.e. for reasons beyond their control such as low staffing or scheduling conflicts), seven participants opted to withdraw from the programme and one participant was removed from the programme by facilitators.

The sample size for the programme non-completers did not allow for adequate test power to detect small effect size. As such, no meaningful comparison could be made between the pre- and post-programme scores for the programme non-completers. While the average scores on the DERS and AQ-SF for programme non-completers indicate some improvements, the results must be interpreted with caution.

Indigenous youth

On average, Indigenous youths’ post-programme scores on the DERS were 2.91 points lower than pre-programme scores, indicating significant small improvements in Indigenous youths’ ability to regulate their emotions after participating in the EM programme. For the AQ-SF, on average, Indigenous youths’ post-programme scores were 2.03 points lower than pre-programme scores, indicating significant small reductions in their overall levels of aggression after participating in the EM programme.

Return to custody

An analysis of the post-programme data on returns to custody within 6 months of release into the community revealed that 42.7 per cent of programme participants did not return to custody within this time frame. For those that did return to custody within 6 months post release (30.9%), the reasons for the return were recorded and can be seen in Table 3. For participants who remained in custody for longer than 6 months post-programme participation, the response was recorded as non-applicable (N/A). The results showed that a larger proportion of participants in the non-completer group (64.3%) returned to custody within 6 months after release, compared to 26 per cent of the programme completer group.

Table 3.

Comparison of rates of return to custody within 6 months of release into the community.

Return to custody	Completers (n = 96)		Non-completers (n = 14)		Indigenous (n = 75)		Total (N = 110)
Return to custody	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
N/A	18	18.7	4	28.6	14	18.7	22	20
Yes	25	26	9	64.3	27	36	34	30.9
Breached order	5	5.2	2	14.3	3	4	7	6.4
Reoffended	20	20.8	7	50	24	32	27	24.5
No	47	50	0	0	31	41.3	47	42.7
Transferred to adult facility	6	6.3	1	7.1	3	4	7	6.4

Programme feedback

The collection of participant feedback was introduced as a standard component of the EM programme in January 2019. As such, qualitative data were available for 35 participants who had completed an EM programme between January 2019 and November 2020. In the final session of the programme, participants are provided an opportunity to write down their thoughts and any feedback they wish to give about the programme. This process is completed prior to the post-group assessment interviews and therefore only includes participants who have completed the entire programme. Each participant is given a programme feedback form which includes the following questions:

What did you learn from this programme?

What did you like about the programme?

What didn’t you like about the programme?

Is there anything that would make the programme better?

What things from the programme would you like to learn more about?

What did you think of the facilitators?

Any other comments or feedback?

Participants are encouraged to be as honest as possible and are advised not to write their names on the feedback forms to ensure anonymity. Facilitators leave the room while participants are completing the feedback forms to reduce any potential bias in their responding. Another staff member who is not involved in the programme, typically a custodial officer, is present during the feedback to provide any assistance with reading and/or writing.

A qualitative analysis of the data involved a visual review of the feedback comments to develop specific themes and identify the number of respondents who made comments that fit within each theme. See Table 4 for feedback summary and theme description.

Table 4.

Summary of participant feedback according to themes identified for each question.

Question and theme	No. of respondents
1. What did you learn from this programme?
To deal with/manage/control my emotions	22
Assertive communication skills, behaviours and body language	15
Calming/relaxation strategies	7
Cognitions/unhelpful thinking styles/positive self-talk	13
Body signs and recognising emotions	5
2. What did you like about the programme?
Rewards/incentives	19
Learning/content	15
Group work/participants	9
Facilitators/style of delivery	15
3. What didn’t you like about the programme?
Nothing	19
Homework	3
Other	4
4. Is there anything that would make the programme better?
Nothing/keep it the same	16
More time/longer programme	6
More rewards	4
Other	3
5. What things from the programme would you like to learn more about?
Nothing	10
Strategies/skills	5
Communication (being assertive with peers)	7
Psychoeducation (feelings, thoughts, self-talk)	9
6. What did you think of the facilitators?
Caring/understanding	11
Helpful	12
Knowledgeable	5
Other (positive)	23
Other (negative)	1
7. Any other comments or feedback?
No	9
Wish to do the programme again	4
Programme was beneficial/enjoyable	9
Other	2

The feedback from participants further supports the quantitative data in demonstrating the benefits of participating in the EM programme. The majority of participants reported a positive experience of the EM programme in terms of gaining skills and knowledge to help with emotion regulation and assertive communication.

Consistent with the literature on incentive-based learning systems (Stewart et al., 2014; Wodahl et al., 2017), participant feedback highlighted the benefits of incorporating incentives into the programme, with most participants commenting on the rewards and identifying this as a positive component on the programme. The importance of the group and relationship between participants was also highlighted as positive component of the programme, with several participants commenting on the support they received from each other and reporting that they were going to miss this connection with their peers once the group had ended.

Programme completers reflected on what they learned from the programme and identified the effectiveness of EM in increasing their confidence in using assertive communication, particularly with their peers, increasing their insight into their emotional states and strategies for managing uncomfortable emotions. As one participant noted,

[I learned] to be more confident, to say no in different situations and different styles of calming down.

Participants also reflected on how their understanding of their own emotions assisted them to better understand others:

[I learned] how to deal with my emotions, when I’m going through a rough time how to do breathing and stuff. How to support other people when they’re going through a rough time.

Consistent with the quantitative data from the TEQ and prior research (see De Boer et al., 2023), the feedback demonstrated the impact that the therapeutic alliance has on participants experience and engagement in the programme. As one participant noted,

I thought they [facilitators] were always respectful and honest with the boys. They helped me to learn about things I didn’t know about before.

Other participants highlighted the facilitator’s ability to explain key concepts, to provide information in fun and interesting ways, and demonstrate care and support in their interactions. As one participant noted in response to the question ‘what did you think of the facilitators?’

[they] are very good at what they teach and are always there to have a talk or support us no matter what . . . they make it enjoyable and fun.

The feedback also highlighted the importance of programme facilitation style and delivery, as well as encouraging autonomy and adopting a strengths-based approach. As one participant noted in response to the question ‘what did you like about the program?’

They [facilitators] didn’t force us to do things, we did it at our own pace, [they] give compliments and are supportive.

A review of the feedback indicated that extending the programme to include additional sessions to further explore and consolidate learning of key concepts (e.g. thoughts, feelings and communication) may be beneficial and was strongly desired by most participants.

Discussion

The current research sought to assess the effectiveness of the EM programme in improving participant’s emotion regulation skills and in decreasing aggressive thoughts and behaviours. Consistent with expectations, comparisons of pre- and post-programme measures showed statistically significant improvements in programme completers’ emotion regulation skills and a decrease in aggressive thoughts and behaviours. Indigenous youth benefitted from participation in the programme, with significant improvements in emotion regulation skills and decrease in aggressive thoughts and behaviours. Contrary to expectations, the results showed an overall decrease in emotion dysregulation, aggressive thoughts and behaviours for programme non-completers. This unexpected result suggests that some level of participation in the EM programme, without necessarily completing the programme, can have benefits in terms of improving emotion regulation, although the results showed that these improvements were only small and did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the results provide empirical support for the effectiveness of the EM programme in improving emotional regulation skills and in decreasing aggressive thoughts and behaviours and contribute to the ‘what works’ research base of risk reduction approaches for youth offenders.

Qualitative analysis of participant feedback supported the quantitative data and highlighted the importance of the therapeutic alliance, facilitation style and programme delivery in increasing participants’ confidence to attempt and maintain changes. These findings are commensurate with prior research (De Boer et al., 2023) that identified the importance of understanding, recognition and trust in the practitioner–youth relationship. This is particularly relevant for Indigenous youth and may provide some insight into the effectiveness of the EM programme for Indigenous participants. Prior research with Indigenous youth highlighted the importance of developing relationships with programme facilitators and identified the level of support received from programme staff as beneficial for their learning and engagement (Stewart et al., 2014). Although facilitators of the EM programme may not have shared any cultural factors (as they were white women), the participants’ positive feedback, as seen in the qualitative data, is likely linked to De Boer et al.’s (2023) findings that showed facilitator’s ability to understand and to listen to participants, provide them assistance, demonstrate care and be responsive to learning needs, and enhances the therapeutic relationship and positive treatment outcomes.

Participant feedback indicated that improvements to EM could be made by extending the programme to include additional sessions, with a focus on further exploration of key concepts such as communication and understanding cognitions. While the programme feedback data provided valuable insights from the perspectives of programme participants, prospective research could further examine the specific programme characteristics that contributed to the positive outcomes. It would also be useful to conduct interviews with programme non-completers who opted to withdraw from the programme, to identify what potential barriers prevented them from completing the programme and what improvements can be made to improve participation and engagement. In addition, future research could focus specifically on Indigenous youth perspectives to identify what makes treatment programmes effective and culturally sound. Given the significant overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in Australia, this is a particularly important area of research. Qualitative data can offer a valuable complement to quantitative data on programme effectiveness by providing insights into justice-involved youth’s perceptions of the interventions designed to help them.

Strengths and limitations

The major strength of our study is that it evaluated a specific identifiable programme, within the area of youth justice in Australia. As noted by Armytage and Ogloff (2017) and Viljoen et al. (2016), there are very few specific programme evaluations that have been published in this field which limits the ability of policy makers and service providers in being able to effectively review, compare and assess intervention options both nationally and internationally. Another strength of our study was the evaluation of specific outcomes relating to known risk factors, in addition to recidivism. Previously, there has been a heavy focus on recidivism as the primary outcome measure of programme effectiveness. As the EM programme was found to benefit young people in our sample, it could be recommended for use in other detention centres, and with some adjustment (around gender considerations and resources used), the programme could also be transferrable to female youth in detention.

While the results of the current study provide empirical support for the effectiveness of the EM programme, there are limitations that warrant mention in contextualising these findings and offering suggestions for future research. There was no control group included which limits the ability to definitively state that the programme was solely responsible for the improvements observed in our sample. Although a control group would be beneficial for comparison purposes, it is acknowledged that this is very difficult to do in real-world practice and not currently feasible in the detention centre in which the EM programme is delivered. The unique demographics and small sample size limit the generalisability of the results to the wider population. Furthermore, the small sample size of the non-completer group limited the types of statistical analyses that could reliably be performed. To sustain observed improvements in emotional regulation and aggression, considerations of dose effect may be warranted when developing future programmes, by increasing intensity (number of sessions within similar timeframe), extending the duration of the programme or scaffolding programmes that could be provided once youth return to the community after release from detention.

Future research could examine the effectiveness of the EM programme over different points in time to determine the sustainability of observed changes. For example, post-programme data could be collected at 6-, 12-, and 18-month intervals to examine whether the improvements in emotion regulation are maintained over time. There are also other dimensions of recidivism that would be beneficial to collect (e.g. time to new offence/arrest and volume of offending) to assess whether participation in the EM programme has any impact on reoffending during follow-up. Finally, prospective research could compare and explore the effectiveness of the EM programme for different types of young offenders (e.g. violent vs non-violent).

Conclusion

The findings from the current study support the continuation of the EM programme and contribute to the ‘what works’ research base. To assess the longevity of the observed changes, longitudinal programme evaluations should be prioritised, as effective and culturally appropriate programmes are imperative, particularly given the significant overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in detention centres. However, a programme that can improve emotional regulation skills, decrease aggressive thoughts and behaviours and which has the potential to reduce recidivism is a promising start in the right direction.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the participation and assistance of the Department of Justice in the conduct of our research. The research reported cannot be considered as either endorsed by the Department of Justice or an expression of the policies or view of the Department. Any errors of omission or commission are the responsibility of the researcher.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: As the author is a current employee of the Department of Justice, additional independent review of the data included in this study was undertaken by the Western Australian Office of Crime Statistics and Research to ensure impartiality in reporting of results.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kristie Dellar

Author biography

Dr Kristie Dellar is a Psychologist with over 8 years experience working in the Youth Justice Field. Research interests include a focus on evidence-based approaches to risk assessment and management to reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system.

References

Allard

McCarthy

Stewart

(2020) The costs of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offender trajectories. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (Issue 594 [online]). Australian Institute of Criminology.

Andrews

Bonta

Wormith

(2011) The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior 38: 735–755.

Armytage

Ogloff

(2017) Meeting Needs and Reducing Offending: Youth Justice Review and Strategy. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Victorian Government.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021). Recorded crime – Offenders. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-offenders/latest-release

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021) Youth justice in Australia 2019-20. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e593cc05-884c-4a47-bce6-0dcc76fc1a66/aihw-juv-134.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Bonta

Andrews

(2017) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 6th Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Bryant

Smith

(2001) Refining the architecture of aggression: A measurement model for the Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 35: 138–167.

Casey

Day

Howells

Ward

(2007) Assessing suitability for offender rehabilitation: Development and validation of the Treatment Readiness Questionnaire. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 1427–1440.

Clancey

Wang

Lin

(2020) Youth justice in Australia: Themes from recent inquiries. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (Issue 605, pp. 1–18). Australian Institute of Criminology.

10.

Craig

Dixon

Gannon

(2013) What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: An Evidence-Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Day

Casey

Vess

Huisy

(2011) Assessing the social climate of Australian prisons. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 427: 1836–2206.

12.

Day

Kearney

(2016) Resilience variables and posttraumatic symptoms among maltreated youth. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 25: 991–1005.

13.

De Boer

Teste

Guarnaccia

(2023) How young offenders’ perceive their life courses and the juvenile justice system: A systematic review of recent qualitative research. Adolescent Research Review 8: 137–158.

14.

Dellar

Roberts

Bullen

Downe

Kane

(2023) Validation of the YLS/CMI on an Australian juvenile offending population. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 67(8): 861–883.

15.

Douglas

Skeem

(2005) Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11: 347–383.

16.

Farrington

Loeber

Jolliffe

(2008) The age-crime curve in reported offending. In Loeber

Farrington

Stouthamer-Loeber

White

(Eds.), Violence and serious theft: Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood (pp. 77–104). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Garofalo

Velotti

(2017) Negative emotionality and aggression in violent offenders: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Criminal Justice 51: 9–16.

18.

Gratz

Roemer

(2004) Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 26: 41–54.

19.

Hoge

Andrews

(2011) Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) user’s manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

20.

Kaufman

Xia

Fosco

Yaptangco

Skidmore

Crowell

(2016) The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS-SF): Validation and replication in adolescent and adult samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 38: 443–455.

21.

Kemp

Thamotharan

Poindexter

Barker

Tolou-Shams

Houck

(2017) Emotion regulation as a predictor of juvenile arrest. Criminal Justice and Behavior 44: 912–926.

22.

Lipsey

(2009) The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders 4: 124–147.

23.

McLaughlin

Hatzenbuehler

Mennin

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2011) Emotion dysregulation and adolescent psychopathology: A prospective study. Behaviour Research and Therapy 49: 544–554.

24.

Pechorro

Barroso

Poiares

Pedro Oliveira

Torrealday

(2016) Validation of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form among Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 44: 75–80.

25.

Rawana

Flett

McPhie

Nguyen

Norwood

(2014) Developmental trends in emotion regulation: A systematic review with implications for community mental health. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 33: 31–44.

26.

Roberton

Daffern

Bucks

(2012) Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior 17: 72–82.

27.

Stewart

Hedwards

Richards

Willis

Higgins

(2014) Indigenous Youth Justice Programs Evaluation. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

28.

Thompson

(1994) Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59: 25–52.

29.

Viljoen

Brodersen

Shaffer

McMahon

(2016) Risk reduction interventions for adolescent offenders. In: Heilbrun

(ed.) APA Handbook of Psychology and Juvenile Justice. Worcester, MA: American Psychological Association, 517–544.

30.

Ward

Day

Howells

Birgden

(2004) The multifactor offender readiness model. Aggression and Violent Behavior 9: 645–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.08.001

31.

Wodahl

Garland

Mowen

(2017) Understanding the perceived value of incentives in community supervision. Corrections 2: 165–188.

32.

Wolff

Baglivio

(2016) Adverse childhood experiences, negative emotionality, and pathways to juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency 63: 1495–1521.