Professional engagement: A comprehensive understanding of social work intervention for juvenile offenders

Abstract

Juvenile offenders’ engagement in their social insertion process is increasingly considered essential for achieving the desired outcome of sanction programs and modifying juvenile criminal behavior. However, the professionals who work with juvenile offenders do not have defined concepts or an intervention tool. This study sought to introduce a strengths orientation to this area and investigated how the concept of engagement is defined by professionals and juvenile offenders. Twenty-four semistructured interviews were conducted with probation officials and prison professionals, and three focus groups were conducted with juvenile offenders serving sentences. The findings show that the concept of engagement differs among professionals. Nevertheless, the participants proposed common concepts of positive and negative engagement.

Keywords

Engagement criminal justice young offenders social work practice

Introduction: The Chilean context

In 2007, Chile implemented Law No. 20.084 (2007) on Adolescents’ Penal Responsibility, which created a new legal system and programs for youth whose rights have been violated versus those who break the law. Family Courts continued to be responsible for civil matters affecting families, including adjudication for infants, children, and adolescents whose rights have been violated (e.g., child abuses, youth homeless). On the other hand, youth between 14 and 17 years of age who broke the law would be seen by the Criminal Courts (Juzgados de Garantía, in Spanish) in a room specifically set aside for juveniles. The new law transferred responsibility for 14- to 17-year-old youth who broke the law to the criminal juvenile system, and the National Service for Minors (Sename) is the state agency in charge of juvenile offenders serving sentences in a program.

Chile is a sovereign state with a centralized government. This means that the state administration establishes unified guidelines on juvenile offender policies for the entire country, regardless of cultural practices or local environmental conditions. In 2005, the National Congress passed Law 20 (2005), which regulates the juvenile offender system through the Sename partnership network and subsidy regime. The new subsidy regime calls for private and nonprofit organizations to apply for state grant funds to finance programs to apply a sanction to young offenders. Sename is also responsible for generating the technical guidelines and standards governing how adolescents between 14 and 17 years old should fulfill a judicial sentence. Sename is in charge of managing juvenile prisons and semiclosed prisons. The probation programs and community services programs are managed by private and nonprofit organizations. Once a nonprofit organization has received funding and Sename’s approval to operate, Sename regularly monitors the organization to verify that it meets the required standards.

Law 20.084 not only created a criminal justice system for adolescents but also encouraged professional specialization. Unfortunately, in Chile, criminology and criminal justice majors are not offered by the undergraduate educational system, and most professionals who want to become specialized in the field must study outside the country or in a graduate program or short courses (diplomate) at a university. This limits the number of specialized probation officials and prison professionals. Despite the fact that Sename has made important efforts for its state professionals to receive training, this training is not given to the parole officials who work in nonprofit probation programs.

Chilean social workers and psychologists are probation officials and prison professionals. In the prison system, a social worker works as a team with a psychologist. Here, social workers are in charge of handling the individual plan for the young person and coordinating the implementation of this plan with other professionals and informing the court about the young person’s progress. The psychologist is in charge of the young person’s clinical treatment. In probation programs, the psychologist, the social worker or another professional, such as a teacher or sociologist, are the probation officials, and they have the same function. That is, they design and implement the young person’s individual plan and coordinate specialized treatment (e.g., for drug consumption, mental illness) with other agencies and report to the court about the case. Most professionals hired for probation programs have limited knowledge regarding juvenile offender interventions, and they learn about juvenile crime in the agency. Fortunately, Law N°20.084 on Adolescents’ Penal Responsibility has been in place for 14 years, and it has pushed the programs to improve their specialization. Hence, in recent years, professionals have referred to the relevance of engagement in interventions with juvenile offenders. They indicate that “good” engagement between the youth and the probation official or prison professional is the tool that motivates behavioral change in the young and decreases recidivism. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of these effects, and there is no consensus about what constitutes engagement in interventions with juvenile offenders. Therefore, the objective of this research is to describe the concept of engagement and analyze how the professionals and juvenile offenders define engagement and how engagement motivates them to change their criminal behavior.

Engagement in interventions for juvenile offenders

The factors that may influence the success of an intervention, and thus the prevention of recidivism in crime, and the reduction of risky behavior in adolescents are of varied origin, and many of them cannot be addressed by the actions of the case manager or delegate. However, the professional experience of social services personnel who work with children and adolescents prone to recidivism or risk taking indicates that the type of engagement in the intervention shows the motivation, commitment, and internalization of the change process in young people (Larson and Dawes, 2011; Reisinger et al., 2003). Effective engagement allows the development of a productive relationship among the professional, the child or adolescent, and his/her family. Engagement stimulates commitment in the actors and can thus increase the probability that they will make a sustainable and positive change. Cash and Berry (2003) point out that a link established early is associated with positive achievements and forming relationships that favor change. These results are confirmed in a meta-analysis that revealed that social programs that present high levels of user participation enhance the empowerment of users and provide social support. These programs are more efficient than programs that do not have these characteristics (MacLeod and Nelson, 2000).

Despite the fact that the literature does not present a consensus about the concept of engagement in interventions for juvenile offenders, King (2013) offers a definition that refers to a set of social and subjective factors that are configured as a “hook for change,” which motivates the young person to desist from criminal behavior. “The hook for change” is a structural support that allows the professional to enhance the personal resources of the young person. To achieve engagement, it is necessary to listen to what the young person says, consider and understand his or her context, and understand the young person’s problems, motivations and stimuli (Cid and Martí, 2011; Cruells, 2008; King, 2013). Engagement allows a professional to understand the problems, behaviors and feelings of the young person and to provide them with support and motivation. Engagement is generated when the individual trusts the professional. The trusting relationship provides a favorable context for the intervention because the youth can express what troubles them, discuss their feelings, and look for solutions (Cruells, 2008). Hence, engagement is a relationship between the young person and the professional that offers support to motivate the youth to change his or her behavior (Álvarez et al., 2016). This relationship must strengthen the union between the young person and society in such a way that it influences the young person and can generate changes in their behavior (McNeill et al., 2012). Unfortunately, studies investigating the concept of engagement and how such a concept motivates changes have not been conducted in Chile. Nevertheless, a few studies investigated how social bonds and support motivate non-recidivism in youth offenders, and indirectly, these studies refer to practitioners’ engagement as an approach that allows youths to learn the meaning of being respectful and act appropriately in different social instances (Mettifogo et al., 2015; Pinto, 2018). Due to the lack of studies investigating the concept of engagement; the objective of this research is to describe the concept of engagement and analyze how the professionals and juvenile offenders define engagement and how engagement motivates them to change their criminal behavior.

Methodology, methods and participants

This research is analytical-relational (Krause, 1995), as the objective is to identify the concept of engagement and the key elements (facilitators and obstacles; determinants; and conditions) in the construction of engagement in professional interventions that motivate behavior change in adolescents. Validity is defined by the criteria for scientific rigor, such as density, depth, and transparency (Krause, 1995). Engagement is a subjective construct that forces researchers to adopt the point of view of the actors and learn what they understand by engagement in the intervention. Previous research concerning this topic in Chile is lacking; therefore, this study is exploratory, and the main aim is to explore a new topic or new aspects of an existing area of concern (Neuman, 2014). The design, which uses a qualitative method, was applied to gain a deeper understanding of the engagement concept.

Sample and selection criteria

The selection of professionals was based on the program modality: a probation program, a semiclosed prison, or a juvenile prison. The probation programs are either special or simple. Special probation requires weekly contact with the probation official, and simple contact is two times a month or less. Sixty-five percent of juvenile offenders serve their sentence in probation programs (Sename, 2019). The coverage of the programs at the national level is also diverse since the number of programs and the youth population varies depending on the region. Some regions do not have certain programs, or the youth population served is small. Hence, the selected region is the metropolitan area with the highest percentage of juvenile offenders serving a sanction nationwide, 41.1% (Sename, 2019). Moreover, this region has an urban population concentration that makes the sample accessible and presents the greatest number of juvenile programs in which prison case managers and probation officials carry out direct interventions with juvenile offenders. In this region, Table 1four different institutions run simple and special probation programs, and three of them participated in this study. In the following table, the participants are described:

Table 1.

Sampling description.

Number	Program Type	Sex	Age	Profession	Experience
1	Special probation	F	36	Social worker	15 years
2	Special probation	F	36	High School teacher	5 years
3	Special probation	F	57	Social worker	4 years
4	Special probation	F	28	Psychologist	3 years
5	Special probation	M	30	Sociologist	6 years
6	Special probation	F	32	Social worker	7 years
7	Special probation	F	34	Social worker	2 years
8	Simple probation	F	27	Social worker	4 years
9	Simple probation	M	27	Social worker	4 years
10	Simple probation	F	41	Social worker	7 years
11	Simple probation	F	30	Social worker	4 years
12	Simple probation	M	30	Psychologist	7 months
13	Simple probation	F	28	Psychologist	5 years
14	Semiclosed prison	F	47	Social worker	10 years
15	Semiclosed prison	F	42	Social worker	12 years
16	Semiclosed prison	F	33	Psychologist	7 years
17	Semiclosed prison	F	45	Psychologist	15 years
18	Semiclosed prison	F	53	Psychologist	10 years
19	Juvenile prison	F	46	Social worker	2 years
20	Juvenile prison	F	40	Social worker	12 years
21	Juvenile prison	M	62	Psychologist	22 years
22	Juvenile prison	M	54	Psychologist	8 years
23	Special probation	F	33	Social worker	6 years
24	Simple probation	F	25	Psychologist	2 years

To conduct the study, it was mandatory by law to request authorization from Sename, which, as previously indicated, is the state agency in charge of the studied population. Once authorization was obtained, each director of the prison and probation programs was contacted so that they could provide access to the facilities to access the sample. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and each participant signed an informed consent. The study was authorized by the Ethical Board of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile ID Nº190708006.

In Chile, law 20,120 is mandatory and states that if a person can be exposed to harm (physical, psychological or any nature) in a study, the investigators must prevent such harm from occurring, the researchers must adopt all measures to ensure that if damage occurs, it will be repaired, and the person must receive the attention of a specialized team. It is the duty of the Ethical Board of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile to ensure that this requirement is fulfilled. Therefore, investigations are only authorized if these norms are fulfilled. In this research, these regulations were closely followed, and the study was authorized. Given the experience of the investigators (in this area), there were no incidents.

Participation in this study was voluntary, and in the focus group, each youth participant was informed of the study’s objectives and that their names were not recorded. In this same focus group, the participants were asked for their informed consent to ensure that their participation was voluntary. The participants could speak freely. Importantly, even though the young participants were confined, if they did not wish to participate in the study or they felt uncomfortable while participating in the investigation, they were free to withdraw at any time and not participate without consequences; they were informed of this option because the researchers must ensure that this requirement is fulfilled.

Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with each professional. This technique involves the use of a guided script that considers the issues to be addressed. In this way, the script establishes a perimeter within which the interviewer decides not only the order and formulation of the questions but also whether to further examine the topic at hand. This allows the interview to take place in an environment of relative freedom and ensures that all relevant topics are discussed and that the required information is obtained (Corbetta, 2007).

Three focus groups (FG) were conducted with juvenile offenders, one focus group from a probation program (FG 1), other from a semiclosed prison (FG 2), and the third from a juvenile prison (FG 3). A total of 20 youths participated. The age range was 15–22 years old, and 4 participants were female adolescents. Eight juvenile offenders were older than 18 years old. This is because although the legal age to be prosecuted is between 14 and 17 years old, these youths committed a crime as juveniles and were still completing their sentence after turning 18 years old. All of them had been serving their sanction for at least six months. The focus group was intended to provide insight into the social discourse regarding this subject within a certain segment of the population. The groups were essentially conversations, games of question and answer in which group members described their common reality and the discourses and codes with which they interpret their world, with the words of the whole having authority over the singularity and contingency of the individual (Canales, 2006).

Data analytic strategy

The data analysis was carried out through content analysis since this tool allows researchers to construct models of codes, categories, and relationships that account for the opinions and motivations of the actors (Albarello et al., 1995; Paillé, 2006). This qualitative approach starts with the identification of the basic units of meaning of the actors and the opposition and equivalence relations that structure them to later account for the dynamics that drive these actions through an action model.

The interviews and focus groups were audio-taped, and the recordings were transcribed verbatim by the lead researcher. Numbers were used instead of the participants’ names, and all identifying information was removed from the participants’ corresponding files. Through the literature review, limited information was obtained because few studies investigated engagement with juvenile offenders. Moreover, in Chile, studies concerning this subject are nonexistent. When the data were examined, specific commonalities pertinent to the research question emerged. An inductive approach was utilized when conducting the open coding, allowing the data to speak for itself and not forcing the data into pre-determined categories found in the literature. The interviews were then read and re-read several times to gain an understanding of the text and capture the essential meaning. The researchers listened and relistened to the recordings to ensure that all elements were captured in the transcriptions (Erlingsson and Brysiewicz, 2017; Lalonde et al., 2021). The interview transcripts were reviewed line-by-line for important phrases and statements and labeled with open codes as they emerged. Based on the frequency of their appearance as indicated by the codes, categories began to emerge. Subsequently, patterns and contradictions were searched, and the categories were compared across units of data (meaning segments of text) and sorted into preliminary themes. Then, these themes were compared to each other. Data source triangulation was utilized. The data generated through the youths and practitioners were compared to each other, and the findings were compared to the literature (Carter et al., 2014).

Findings

Engagement from the professionals’ perspective

From the interviews with the professionals working with juvenile offenders, three key concepts defining engagement emerged: Trust, helping, and instrumental relationships. However, the concept of trust had the greatest consensus among the interviewees (thirteen interviewees defined trust).

Trust relationship

Engagement is a relationship of trust where the young person is listened to, respected, and seen as a person. In this relationship, intimate aspects of the young person are shared since a space is generated where he or she can raise his or her concerns and make confidences about his or her life history and current experiences. It is an affective relationship of empathy and reflection that addresses the problems that affect the life of the young person. In this relationship, it is expected that a bond of mutual trust will develop between the professional and the young person.

“Engagement is a relationship of trust where personal issues (private details) are shared… Where the professional listens, analyzes and reflects on the information and uses it in the work with the youth” (P8).

“It is a trust relationship and a work alliance, where a relationship is established, based on trust. Not only as an intervention strategy, but it emerges from spontaneity and the context.” (P5).

This definition is also used by Bright et al. (2015), who establish that achieving subject engagement with a professional is a process that occurs between a professional and a client. This process is crucial to facilitate the bond in therapy because an atmosphere of collaboration and connection is created, which supports the subject in taking action and responding to the intervention.

The concept can be understood as a meeting between two people who recognize the needs of one of them (the young person) as a human being: They must be free of prejudices that predetermine or judge the subject of the intervention because a biased view does not generate a relationship of trust between the professional and the young person. Nevertheless, the trust relationship establishes boundaries that inform the young person what is expected of them and establish the role of the professional and the institutional and legal framework in which the sanction is developed.

Helping relationship

Another definition of engagement is a helping relationship (six interviewees defined engagement in this manner). However, this is not a common concept among professionals, who, for the most part, define it as a relationship of trust. The definition of engagement, in this sense, is understood as a relationship of assistance and treatment of the other with courtesy and politeness, where the professional teaches life skills to the young person. In the helping relationship, the professional’s work is offered to help the youth solve his or her problems. “I tell him that I am here to help you, to support you…I will not criticize you, I will not judge you, I can guide you” (P11). “It offers my work to help them” (P23).

Instrumental relationship

Three interviewees defined engagement in terms of an instrumental relationship that is created between the professional and the young person for the fulfillment of specific objectives. In this definition, the relationship is framed in the judicial and institutional contexts and lasts as long as the sanction determines and the objectives set out in the individual intervention plan are met. One of the interviewees said that in other social contexts, a relationship with the youth would not be established, and both know that they have certain obligations in the institutional frame that they must meet. Another interviewee argued that engagement is a technique used in interventions with juveniles, and because the relationship between the professional and youth involves an asymmetric distribution of power, the professional should lead the intervention process.

“[The engagement] is an instrumental relationship, where, in other circumstances, I would never have met with the young man. It is an asymmetric relationship between practitioner and youth” (P 9). “… An instrumental and emotional bond, and it is the recognition of the professional as a support agent in a judicial system” (P2).

In the definition of the concept of engagement, the professionals also distinguish between positive and negative engagement and identify actions that can promote positive engagement.

Distinction between different types of engagement in interventions

Professionals distinguish different types of engagement that can be fostered in the intervention process with juvenile offenders that favor or hinder the psychosocial development of the young person and their social reintegration. These are positive engagement and negative engagement. Within negative engagement, there is another distinction called overengagement.

Positive engagement

Positive engagement is a relationship where boundaries are clearly established. The young person must know the role of the professional, and a clear frame is required. In this frame, the professional´s functions and role are established, as is what it is expected from the young person and what tasks the youth should undertake within the context of a judicial sentence. Positive engagement implies that the young person feels part of the social reintegration processes, and s/he must see that s/he is an important person to the professional and must feel that s/he “is unique” (P3).

Although professionals seek to establish a trusting relationship, the young person must understand that there is no horizontal relationship between the professional and him or her. “We are not friends'' (P24). The distribution of power in the relationship between the juvenile offender and the practitioner is not equal. In this sense, it is expected that the young person respects the professional and exhibits good manners and that s/he comprehends his or her legal situation.

“The young person must visualize that a relationship is established in a certain time and later they must develop autonomy and do without the professional support. This can be achieved through positive engagement that gives security to the young person and validates his progress, skills, and competencies through good communication” (P6).

The interviews visualized the boundaries in the intervention in different areas: Roles and tasks that each one must fulfill within the framework of the sanction in a limited time; despite the fact that there is a trusting relationship, the private life of the professional must be respected, and his or her privacy must be maintained; they are not peers; although the juvenile offender may have a close relationship with the professional, it does not mean that the professional is a peer to the young person; and use of appropriate language and good manners. No bad words are used; they are not yelled at or insulted by each other.

Positive engagement is nurturing for both parties because it allows the professional to perform their job and the youth to achieve his or her goals. In this positive relationship, the youth’s life story, emotions, and progress are validated. This implies that the young person feels part of the process and is an important person to the professional (P3, P8, P21). This relationship produces a dynamic of fluid communication and mutual respect (P2, P7, P19) where the parties “have a connection, assist each other” (P6).

However, professional say that criminal courts have sentenced numerous youths to the maximum punishment for juvenile offenders, which is ten years in juvenile prison. This fact limits the development of a positive engagement between the professionals and the youths in the sense that after several years, the professionals have achieved all the goals for the social reinsertion of the youth and the engagement may dilute and diminishes for those juvenile offenders, who are inside prison for the longest time.

Negative engagement

Negative engagement is a relationship without trust (P8, P13), where clear limits are not established (P2, P8) and where mistreatment occurs (P3, P13, P18). One of the examples of negative engagement is when the young person perceives that the professional is an equal (P2), disrespects the professional (P7, P24), or simply does not recognize his name (P23). Another manifestation of negative engagement is when the intervention becomes routine (P5) because the parties do not connect with each other.

“There is no meeting between people, and only the formalities of the sanction are fulfilled” (P9).

Negative engagement is observed in two extreme ways. The first is ineffective engagement. This occurs, for example, when the young person rejects the professional or does not respond to the professional´s requirements or when closeness is not generated between the two parties (P3, P7, P9, P21). In negative engagement, it may happen that the professional feels uncomfortable working with a young person because she cannot reach him (P14). In these cases, the professional may try to force engagement, while the young person may refuse to accept a relationship between them (P17). The mutual rejection means that the relationship becomes coercive and departs from the purposes of the intervention.

“The youth sees the professional as someone outside an emotional relationship, so what he says is irrelevant” (P21).

The second type of negative engagement occurs when the professional adopts a “hyperagency” approach. In other words, the professional performs the actions and takes the responsibilities that belong to the juvenile offender. This may occur when the young person is victimized (P1). This view is harmful, because when the youth is seen as a victim, the professional prevents him from mobilizing his own resources and takes responsibility for his actions and social reintegration process. Another example is when the young person is exclusively and constantly reproached for his behavior without an empathic effort to understand the context in which his behavior developed.

In Chile, most juvenile offenders have suffered some form of abuse during their early childhood (Reyes, 2014), and four out of ten youths have been in the Child Social Service prior to entering prison or probation programs (Sename, 2012). The youths’ history seems to affect some professionals’ views about juvenile offenders and leads to a tendency to victimize them. This professional tendency can lead to overengagement.

Overengagement

In overengagement, the parties trust each other, but the relationship lacks clear limits about the roles and tasks of each side. This concept was identified by nine interviewees, who agreed that it is a form of negative engagement and can damage the relationship with the youth. When the roles of the professional and young person become diffuse, the professional invades the young person’s privacy and/or shares aspects of his/her personal life, shares his/her personal cell number or even incorporates the young person into his/her family life. Here, the juvenile develops a dependent relationship with the professional. Overengagement generates a “care relationship” in which the young person is inhibited from participating in their own development processes (P8, P15) because the work of the intervention rests mostly on the professional (P2, P8, P9); thus, the professional´s attitude blocks the development of coping skills and autonomy in the young person (P17). In the words of one participant, overengagement is “the absence of balance between assistance and autonomy” (P8).

Overengagement also manifests when a professional has a preference for a young person and creates a relationship in which the youth is limited to working with this professional: “It’s like you take him home” (P14, P17).

The professional may even violate the program´s norms. These transgressions can range from not respecting the stipulated appointment hours to lying for the young person in court to help him or to obtain extra benefits.

“It is when the professional lies for him in court to save his skin” (P14).

This type of professional behavior is strongly denounced by the interviewees, who argue that the professional should be a role model for the young people, and these negative practices only hurt juvenile development and the objectives of social reinsertion.

Actions to establish positive engagement

The participants revealed certain aspects of the professionals’ disposition toward the youths by describing their actions toward them. These actions occur not only at the beginning of the intervention process but throughout the duration of the intervention, which depends on the time in the court sentence. The length of the sentence can vary from six months to ten years. Unfortunately, the practitioners did not mention how long it may take to develop engagement with young people. Nevertheless, based on the participants’ responses, seven actions encompass the disposition required to develop positive engagement. The actions are varied, but they are in accordance with what the professionals understand by engagement, and therefore, their efforts focus on establishing a relationship based on trust. The actions are as follows:

First, the professional requires the young person’s willingness to develop constant, transparent, and appropriate communication in the context in which the intervention occurs (P10, P17, P19, P23, P24). To promote transparency in the relationship, the professionals must indicate what is expected from the young person and what the roles of each party are. In this scenario, framing is fundamental because it helps to establish how the professional will act in the case of relapse or crime recidivism (form a disciplinary committee, report to the court, or other actions) and what sanctions will be applied when the young person crosses the professional relationship’s boundaries.

The professionals must respect the young person’s confidentiality (P16, 17) and must be consistent with what they say (P10, P17). The use of an appropriate language in the context of the relationship is also a tool that will help to create a trusting relationship (P7).

At this point, a distinction is made between trust and confidentiality. Confidentiality implies that the professional will keep information that is sensitive and private to the young person safe. However, confidentiality has legal and institutional limits. That is, an experience of sexual abuse or crimes committed by the young person must be reported to the authorities. In addition, a trusting relationship is one where the young person can share his secrets with the professional without seeing the professional as a person who will harm him.

Second, the professional shows legitimate interest in the young person. This leads to actions such as expressing to the young person that he or she is important to the professional and other people (P1, P7). Another way of showing interest is contacting the youth periodically, paying attention when the young person is sharing his/her experiences or emotions, remembering the stories that the youth shared in previous sessions (P12, P14), and saying hello and saying goodbye to him/her (P1, P5). Good manners are appreciated by the young people.

“Well… the first thing is the greeting. The second thing is that every time I see you, I will always pay attention to you and express that I care what happens with you. It is making them feel that they are important to other people” (P1).

Third, the professional gets to know the young person without judging him in order to build trust and encourage him to share his personal life. The professionals should not prejudge the subjects of intervention based on their language, their way of dressing, their criminal behavior or their life history (P4, P12). The professionals should be careful with imposing a “God position” (P24) and should not problematize the distribution of power in the relationship between the professional and the young person. Therefore, to promote positive engagement, the professional should review his or her own beliefs or prejudices about the young person. Actively listening to the young person, exercising assertiveness when talking, and using a nonstigmatizing language are the elements that help to build a trusting relationship.

Fourth, the professionals are highly consistent with what they say and do. Consistency also includes monitoring one’s language, offering and giving the young person help when they need it (P10, 12, 14, P17), and respecting the meeting schedules and commitments made with the young person (P17). Consistency can also include frame reinforcement when necessary (P13, P15).

“They [youths] observe small things, and based on these things, they believe you or don’t, they look for you or don’t, and then they begin to trust you… and share their life… Perhaps, they had not shared it with anyone, and there is a possibility to keep this trust with coherence, I mean to speak the truth, consistently, with an adequate limit” (P17).

Fifth, the professionals give the young people the opportunity to be progressively more autonomous and positively reinforce their achievements no matter how small they may be. Positive reinforcement is used to generate self-confidence in the young person. To achieve this goal, professionals must have the disposition to assist the young people in visualizing their own resources. Parole officials or prison professionals should promote activities by coordinating with different professionals who participate in the youth intervention plan (P11) and constantly monitor the young person’s progress (P14, P19). The professional must believe in the youth’s capacity for change and project this belief to the young person (P1, P16). This assistance implies that the professional should facilitate all the social and institutional opportunities for the youth to develop their skills (P5). Additionally, the professional should generate opportunities to reflect and talk about what motivates the young person’s criminal behavior and how this behavior is related to his/her life history (P4, P8, P10, P16).

Sixth, the professional gets to know the young person’s family and social network. This requires the professional’s willingness to create an alliance with the family (P2, P5, P9, P10, P19, P21). Moreover, this involves making concerted home visits, meeting the young person’s significant others (P8, P10, P18), and informing the family about the youth’s progress and making them part of this (P2, P14, P16). The young people appreciate when professionals make efforts to involve their families.

Seventh, an indirect action that generates positive engagement is when female youths are helped by a female professional to obtain birth control or when a female professional cares for them when they have menstrual pain. In prison, all female offenders have female support worker. Several of the young women had never had female help or guidance regarding their menarche or discomfort associated with their menstrual period. Therefore, they valued when another woman empathized with them, guided them and supported them in this stage, and developed trust in the female professional supporting them. A female practitioner stated the following:

“For example, medical visits to the gynecologist or midwife strengthen the relationship … I tell them, I want to go with you to see what the doctor is going to say … that sometimes they don’t have that exercise outside because they don’t have that woman, or that female partner who can be a friend or a sister. They say that they are alone and out of prison no one accompanied them and it is nice to be able to tell someone that their ovaries hurt … someone they can count on and feel cared for” (F 19).

In this study, there was no observed difference between the prison professionals and parole officers regarding the concept of engagement or among the psychologists, social workers or other professionals.

Engagement from juvenile offenders’ perspective

The engagement concept as described by the youths who participated in the focus groups is very similar to the professionals’ concept. Despite the fact that the professionals define the engagement concept in a highly complex manner, the youths were able to distinguish a definition and explain it in positive and negative terms.

Positive engagement

The young people from FG1 and FG3 explained that engagement occurs through the relationships and care that is generated between them and the professional. The professionals’ concern for their well-being and personal development beyond their illegal acts is one of the most relevant aspects for establishing a trusting relationship. This entails “mutual affection and respect” (FG 1). The professionals work diligently for the youth’s accountability during the sanction time, and this professional concern is observed by the participants as engagement.

To achieve a trusting relationship, the young person needs to establish constant communication with the professional. The professional should create a communicative environment where the youth feels comfortable and respected and is able to talk about different aspects of his or her personal life, even his or her criminal behavior (FG 1). Another element that FG 3 highlighted is the receptive attitude of the professional toward the personal issues that the juvenile offenders share with them. The young people said that they notice when the professionals listen to them and make them reflect on their behavior and their personal life. When this occurs, the youths are able to listen to what the professional has to say about the actions that they have to take because they are able to see that the professional is looking out for their best interests. “I feel the support and that the professional wants to help me to change my conduct” (FG 3). These professional intentions cause the young people to see that the professionals have more than a punitive role regarding compliance with the sanction—they also have a true interest in their development and growth as a person (FG 1, FG 3).

Imprisoned youths consider that the program will give them support and give them the tools to get ahead on their own. This support is manifest in the constant listening of the professional and in the fact that the professionals offer them opportunities to study and develop their own life plan. The young people felt that the professionals give them the tools that they need to develop and be self-reliant.

They expect the professional to be very willing to talk and expect that the professional will show up promptly, particularly when the youths are facing an emotional crisis. A participant from FG 3 put it in the following words: “Here she is very aware of us, so if we do something wrong or we don’t feel good … she lets us talk.” Additionally, when an emotional collapse occurs, the professional immediately contacts them to talk about it and gives them the tools to face the crisis (FG 1).

As the professional interviewees argued, the youths deeply appreciated that the professionals try to contact their family and follow up with them by phone because they see that the professional is truly concerned about them. They identify the professional role as providing assistance and guidance regarding the judicial sentence (FG 1).

Negative engagement

Negative engagement is described by the youth participants as the opposite of positive engagement. That is, there is an untruthful relationship between the professional and them. Participants in FG 2 agreed that they do not identify their case manager as a support, since they do not consider that she shows empathy or interest in their life or their family situation, saying, “She does not put herself in my situation,” “she does not care about my personal situation,” and “if we do not show her a certificate to accredit to her what we did, she does not believe us.” The young people concur in identifying negative engagement, in contrast to positive engagement, as when their case manager does not support them and does not provide communication space to talk about their family issues and their life history. That is, the professional does not show empathy or concern about their family, and the youths perceive that “the problems they present with their family will not be addressed by the delegate” (FG 1).

Negative engagement is also stimulated when a professional treats the young person badly (FG 3) or the professional does not have any interest in them and makes fun of them by laughing about sensitive information (FG 2). It is also provoked when the professional does not congratulate or value the youth’s achievements. FG 1 states that “…it is one who does not comply with what he or she is committed to… the delegate only wants to get my signature” or “it is a person who speaks to him in an inappropriate way, using bad words.”

The features of the negative engagement described by the youth participants are very similar to the features detailed by the professional interviewees.

Discussion

The research´s objective is to describe the concept of engagement and analyze how the professionals and juvenile offenders define engagement and how engagement motivates them to change their criminal behavior. Here, it is possible to establish that the process of interaction between the professional and the client is the basis for facilitating engagement, which generates an atmosphere that encourages the juvenile offender to make good decisions (Bright et al., 2015). Despite the fact that the participants in this study did not share a common concept about engagement, it is possible to observe some consensus. They agreed that engagement is a trusting relationship in which the juvenile offender can express personal concerns. The findings show that the relationship between the professional and the juvenile offender requires that the professional has the ability to listen, analyze the information, and develop an understanding of juvenile offender´s life history. Empathy, respect, and being concerned about juvenile offender’ worries and showing a true interest in what happens to them are the elements that facilitate a trusting relationship and engagement. Therefore, professionals must develop a friendly environment during sessions so that the juvenile offenders can express their concerns and feelings and look for possible solutions (Cruells, 2008). Moreover, the juvenile participants highlighted how important it was for the professional to consider not only the legal sanction but also their personal development and their future professional development.

Positive engagement implies that both the professional and the juvenile offender have clear limits, based on which it is possible to identify the professional role, the mutual compromises and responsibilities, and what is expected from the juvenile offender and the professional. A clear framework should potentiate and encourage juvenile offender autonomy in such a way that the youth can progressively become independent of professional support and ultimately change their criminal behavior (McNeill et al., 2012). Furthermore, a clear framework helps juvenile offenders perceive certain parameters and social norms that were absent during their development, and helps them identify formal scenarios that favor their social reinsertion (Graña and Rordríguez, 2010).

Both groups, the professionals and juvenile offenders, identify negative engagement as the opposite of positive engagement. The juvenile offenders described a person who was not interested in them and only “wanted to get the signature” (FG 1). This reflects an instrumental relationship focused only on achieving the objectives of the legal sanction and not conducive to the integral development of the subject. Here, it is relevant to observe that few professionals define engagement as instrumental in pursuing legal objectives because this is the context in which the juvenile offender and the professional meet. Nevertheless, the juvenile offenders perceive this circumstance as negative engagement because it does not allow them to establish a trusting relationship between parties. Juvenile offenders have a difficult life history and negative relationships during their development (Reyes, 2014). These features could reinforce the resistance of juvenile offenders toward professional interventions because they could perceive professional closeness as a threat (Méndez and Barra, 2008). This creates barriers to establishing positive engagement. Most practitioners agree that to develop positive engagement, it is necessary to achieve closeness with the juvenile offender, but this implies that they should stablish a clear framework in which both sides are able to understand what is expected from each other. In this practice, professionals attempt to build a trusting relationship, which can be difficult to achieve if juvenile offenders perceive the relationship as instrumental to accomplishing certain objectives of the intervention plan and do not care about their current situation. Therefore, we speculate regarding whether the presence of compassion fatigue among practitioners could be an element that separates the professional and the juvenile offender as evidence has shown (e.g. Bride, 2007; Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2014; Cuartero and Campos-Vidal, 2018). Nevertheless, this assumption needs to be investigated.

An unexpected finding is the definition of negative engagement based on the concept of “overengagement.” Only the professionals mention this concept, and they explain that it occurs when the intervention is focused on the professional rather than the juvenile offender. The professional takes excessive control over the intervention and blocks the juvenile offender’s participation and his/her own development processes and damages his/her autonomy. In this context, the juvenile offender is unable to perceive the limits of the professional–juvenile offender relationship. The absence of clear limits could also interfere with the juvenile offender’s interactions with other professionals on the program team. Here, the professional is unable to maintain the balance between assistance and autonomy. Overengagement could also motivate the professional to cover up some of the juvenile offender’s illegal activities. When this occurs, not only does the professional break the law and raise ethical concerns, but he or she also damages the process of social integration and the prosocial development of the juvenile offender.

The results indicate that the professionals seek to work in a collaborative, friendly, and optimistic manner with the juvenile offender. In this way, the juvenile offender develop confidence in the worker as someone who can truly help them with their problems; encourage them to focus on their problems or issues that relate to the offense (e.g., drugs, no prosocial peers, employment, family conflicts); and help them develop strategies to deal with problems while being trustworthy and fair (Trotter, 2006). Here, the professionals should consider problem solving to be a tool whereby they help juvenile offender identify their own problems and goals and help them identify appropriate strategies (Trotter, 2012).

The results show that the concept of engagement is defined in different ways by professionals who work with juvenile offenders. Although the professionals give this concept crucial importance in working with juvenile offender, they are unable to establish whether engagement motivates behavioral change in terms of non-recidivism. However, the professionals argue that positive engagement improves the relationship between them and the young, and this relationship may motivate behavioral changes. There are different conceptions of engagement; this factor leads each professional to interpret and generate interventions intuitively rather than use engagement as a technical tool in working with juvenile offenders. The experience of Trotter and Evans (2017), who developed a manual with which they were able to identify engagement with juvenile offenders and give guidelines to practitioners, showed that it is possible to agree about how we can develop a concept and approach juvenile offenders. Moreover, Yatchmenoff (2005) developed an instrument to measure engagement, but in this case, the participants are families from de Child Welfare. Both experiences show that it is possible to use engagement as a valuable tool that could help practitioners work with young offenders. Nevertheless, this research is the first step in Chile to investigate professionals and youths regarding whether they identify the concept of engagement and how it could influence their relationship during the intervention.

Implications and conclusions

This research is the first study from Chile to identify the concept of engagement in interventions for juvenile offenders based on the main actors involved (juvenile offenders and professionals). Although the definitions differed among participants, it was possible to observe a consensus regarding the characteristics of positive engagement. At the same time, the participants defined what professional practices are detrimental to the development of positive engagement with young people. The research showed different definitions across practitioners and juvenile offenders but also similarities. Hence, an implication for practitioners is that this knowledge allows us to start working on a technical definition that can help them improve intervention strategies for young people that work.

The focus groups helped visualize what young people expect from professionals. Thus, young people give great relevance to the relationship of trust between the parties and are clear in expressing their needs. Their life stories, which are marked by violence and neglect (Reyes, 2014), apparently lead them to seek practitioners with the ability to communicate with them, view them as people, know their concerns and accompany them in this judicial process. Therefore, the study´s implications based on the juvenile offender´s responses are that practitioners need to know their vision and needs to improve the quality of their work based on their needs.

Prison professionals (social workers and psychologists) highlight that, recently, criminal courts have sentenced numerous youths to the maximum punishment for juvenile offenders, which is ten years in juvenile prison. This fact limits the engagement between the professionals and the youths in the sense that after several years, the professionals have achieved all the goals for the social reinsertion of the youth and they simply do not know what else they should do in their work with them. This calls into question the court’s sentencing practices for juvenile offenders in Chile as they do not necessarily consider their social reinsertion; in contrast, the sentences seek to isolate these young people from society. In this context, the courts are not visualizing the development needs of young people and how a long 10-year sentence does not respond to social reintegration processes. These results allowed us to determine how positive engagement helps young people respond positively to psychosocial interventions and that positive engagement is also an element that permits young people to develop the social skills that could achieve the ultimate goal of the law, their social reintegration. This leads us to question whether the remission of the sentence is an alternative if the young offenders could change their criminal behavior, which, unfortunately, we cannot guarantee from these findings. Therefore, these results help us visualize the relevance of engagement for the development of an intervention, but we cannot ignore the motivations for committing a crime and the risk factors that influence juvenile behavior.

The evidence would aid the development of competencies and specific skills typical of social work and offer insight regarding how to teach these skills at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Furthermore, this research expects to contribute to establishing a concept based on the experiences of practitioners and juvenile offenders and the qualitative method allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the engagement concept. This study also shows the relevance of carrying out more research in this line to identify more conceptions of engagement and thereby to build tools that are helpful in interventions with the youth population.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

To our gratitude to the professionals and young people who generously shared their experiences, which will help improve our work. Likewise, we thank the Pastoral which has consistently support us to understand social phenomena of socially disadvantaged youth.

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: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 10566/DPCC2019.

Data availability

The research materials related to the paper can be accessed.

ORCID iD

Claudia Reyes-Quilodran

References

Albarello

Digneffe

Hiernaux

, et al. (1995) Pratiques et Méthodes de Recherche en Sciences Sociales. Paris: Armand Colin.

Álvarez

Bustamante

Herrera

, et al. (2016) Apoyo social percibido y su influencia en el desistimiento delictivo: evaluación del rol institucional. Psicoperspectivas Individuo Y Sociedad 15(1): 132–144.

Bride

B E

(2007) Prevalence of secondary traumatic stress among social workers. Social Work 52(1): 63–70.

Bright

FAS

Kayes

Worrall

, et al. (2015) A conceptual review of engagement in healthcare and rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation 37(8): 643–654.

Canales

(2006) El grupo de discusión y el grupo focal. In: Canales

(ed) Metodologías de Investigación Social Introducción a Los Oficios. Santiago de Chile: LOM Ediciones, pp.408.

Carter

Bryant-Lukosius

DiCenso

, et al. (2014) The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547 DOI: 10.1188/14.onf.545-547.

Cash

Berry

(2003) Measuring service delivery in a placement prevention program: an application to an ecological model. Administration in Social Work 27(3): 65–85.

Cid

Martí

(2011) El Proceso de Desistimiento de las Personas Encarceladas. In: Obstáculos y Apoyos. Documentos de Trabajo. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada.

Corbetta

(2007) Metodología y Técnicas de Investigación Social. Santiago, Chile: McGraw-Hill.

10.

Cruells

(2008) La intervención social: más allá del recurso y más cerca del vínculo. Servicios Sociales Y Política Social 82: 9–27.

11.

Cuartero

Campos-Vidal

(2018) Selfcare behaviours and their relationship with satisfaction and compassion fatigue levels among social workers. Social Work in Health Care, 58, 274–290, DOI: 10.1080/00981389.2018.1558164.

12.

Erlingsson

Brysiewicz

(2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine 7, 93–99.

13.

Graña

Rordríguez

(2010) Programa Central de Tratamiento Educativo y Terapéutico Para Menores Infractores. Madrid: Agencia de la Comunidad de Madrid para la Reeducación y Reinserción del Menor Infractor.

14.

King

(2013) Transformative agency and desistance from crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice 13(3): 317–335.

15.

Krause

(1995) La investigación cualitativa: un campo de posibilidades y desafíos. Revista Temas de Educación 7: 19–40.

16.

Lalonde

Thomson

Duncan

et al. (2021). Hearing their voices: Youths’ experiences of unstable housing and homelessness post-care. Qualitative Social Work. 20(4), pp.1043–1058. DOI: 10.1177/1473325020923022.

17.

Larson

Dawes

(2011) How to cultivate adolescents’ motivation: effective strategies employed by the professional staff of American youth programs. In: Joseph

(ed) Positive Psychology in Practice. New York: Willey, pp.313–326.

18.

Law 20, 032 (2005) Sistema de protección a la niñez y adolescencia a través de la red de colaboradores del Sename. Ministerio de Justicia Available at: http://bcn.cl/1m4rk. (accessed 10 July 2021).

19.

Law 20,084 (2007) de responsabilidad penal adolescente. Available at: http://bcn.cl/1m0pj. (accessed 10 July 2021).

20.

MacLeod

Nelson

(2000) Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: a meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect 24(9): 1127–1149.

21.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

, et al. (2012) How and why people stop offending: discovering distance. Available at: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/79860. (accessed 10 July 2021).

22.

Méndez

Barra

(2008) Apoyo social percibido en adolescentes infractores de ley y no infractores. Psykhe 17(1): 59–64.

23.

Mettifogo

Arévalo

Gómez

et al. (2015) Factores transicionales y narrativas de cambio en jóvenes infractores de ley: Análisis de las narrativas de jóvenes condenados por la Ley de Responsabilidad. Penal Adolescente 14(1): 77–88 https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/psicop/v14n1/art08.pdf

24.

Neuman

(2014) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson New International.

25.

Paillé

(2006) La Méthologie Qualitative. Postures de Recherche et Travail de Terrain. Paris: Armand Colin.

26.

Pinto

(2018) Biografías precarizadas: El caso de jóvenes infractores/as de ley y consumidores/as problemáticos/as de drogas en el Gran Concepción. In: Tesis para optar al grado de Magister en Investigación Social y Desarrollo. Chile: Universidad de Concepción. Available at: http://repositorio.udec.cl/bitstream/11594/2993/4/Tesis_Biografias_precarizadas.Image.Marked.pdf

27.

Reyes

(2014) Por qué las adolescentes chilenas delinquen? Pilítica Criminal 9(17): 1–26 DOI: 10.4067/S0718-33992014000100001.

28.

Reisinger

Bush

Colom

, et al. (2003) Navigation and engagement: how does one measure success? Journal of Drug Issues 33(4): 777–800.

29.

Sánchez-Moreno

E I

De La Fuente

Gallardo-Peralta

, et al. (2014) Burnout, informal social support and psychological distress among social workers. British Journal of Social Work 45: 2368–2486.

30.

Sename (2012) Servicio Nacional de Menores. Historia en la red Sename de los Jóvenes Egresados del Sistema de Justicia Juvenil Que Reinciden e Ingresan a Genchi. Available at: https://www.sename.cl/wsename/otros/Reincidencia.pdf. (accessed 10 July 2021).

31.

Sename (2019) Servicio Nacional de Menores. Anuario estadístico 2019. Available at: https://www.sename.cl/web/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Anuario-Estadistico-2019-13-10-2020.pdf. (accessed 10 July 2021).

32.

Trotter

(2006) Working with Involuntary Clients. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

33.

Trotter

(2012) Effective community-based supervision of young offenders. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 448: 1–6. DOI: 10.1037/e545792013-001.

34.

Trotter

Evans

(2017) An analysis of supervision skills of juvenile justice workers audio transcript coding manual version 8. In: Research Officer A Project Funded by the Australian Criminology Research Council Copyright. Clayton VIC: Monash University.

35.

Yatchmenoff

(2005) Measuring Client Engagement From the Client’s Perspective in Nonvoluntary Child Protective Services. Research on Social Work Practice 15(2): 84–96. DOI: 10.1177/1049731504271605.