1. The relationship between the group climate and aggression within residential youth care Jantine van den Tillaart, Chantal van Rijswijk & Sanne Kleeven September 3rd, 2014

2. 2 Content Residential youth care Group Climate Aggression Current research: -Research questions -Research method Results Conclusions Recommendations Benefits

3. 3 Residential youth care Spirit: Ambulatory and residential youth care, foster care Open living groups De Koppeling: Secure institution Amsterbaken: Youth prison Three central goals of child and adolescent development: -Raising -Care -Treatment

4. 4 Video Impression of a positive group climate

5. 5 Group climate Dimensions: -Support (responsive group workers) -Growth (perspective) -Atmosphere (safety, trust) -Repression (injustice, rules)

6. 6 Group climate Importance of a positive group climate -Increase in treatment motivation -Decrease in aggressive behaviour -Emotional stability -Positive treatment outcome Relevance -Attention for a positive group climate -Positive group climate contributes to the effects of youth care

7. 7 Aggression Direct aggression Indirect aggression Effects of aggressive incidents: -Negative impact on safety and atmosphere -Decrease in treatment outcome

8. 8 Research Questions “Is there a difference in the perception of the group climate by youth staying in various types of residential youth care?” “What is the relation between the perception of group climate and the number of aggressive incidents?”

9. 9 Research method Participants: N = 159 Aggressive incidents: N = 1273 Procedure -Prison Group Climate Instrument -Incident registration and daily reports

10. 10 Statistical analysis Reliability: cronbach’s alpha (α) Oneway ANOVA Multilevel regression analysis Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

11. 11 Results Noot. † = p ≤.1 * = p ≤.05 ** = p ≤.01 Verschillende superscript (a,b) duiden op significante post-hoc verschillen op p <.05, gecorrigeerd voor kans (SNK) Dimension Open living group Open living group Secure institution Secure institution Youth prison NM (SD)N N Fdf Support633.69 (.80)403.48 (.89)39 3.51 (.83).9542.139 Growth67 3.43 a (.98) 413.51 a (.97)41 2.88 b (.99) 5.17**2.146 Repression653.12 (.73)393.43 (.74)40 3.33 (.63) 2.66†2.141 Atmosphere683.46 (.88)413.14 (.85)413.52 (.90) 2.38†2.147 Oneway ANOVA with F-values for the difference in perception of the group climate, within the various types of residential youth care Note. † = p ≤.1 * = p ≤.05 ** = p ≤.01 Differential superscript (a,b) indicate significant post-hoc differences p <.05, onward adjusted for risk (SNK)

12. 12

13. 13 Results Support GrowthRepressionAtmosphere VariablesBetatp tp tp tp Step 1 (setting) Open living group.02.18.86-.13-1.28.20-.14-1.29.20.141.32.19 Youth Prison-.09-.90.37-.34-3.39.00**.00-.001.00.161.51.13 Step 2 (aggression) Direct aggression-.26-2.89.01**-.20-2.25.03*.181.98.05*-.10-1.08.28 Indirect aggression-.08-.89.38.36.42.67-.01-.08.94-.02-.25.81 R =.30R =.31R =.25R =.20 R 2 =.09R 2 =.10R 2 =.06R 2 =.04 F(4,137) = 3.26*F(4,144) = 3.92**F(4,139) = 2.37†F(4,145) = 1.56 Multilevel regression analysis with t-values of the relation between group climate and the number of aggressive incidents Note. † = p ≤.1 * = p ≤.05 ** = p ≤.01 Atmosphere is subject to significant contextual variables, thus cannot be interpreted with a multiple regression analysis

14. 14 Conclusions Research question 1 : oneway ANOVA -Significant differences in growth -Trend on repression and atmosphere Research question 2 : hierarchical multiple regression analysis -Significant relation between support and growth -Trend on repression

15. 15 Recommendations Residential care process Individual daily reports Multilevel regression analysis: individual and contextual variables

16. 16 What are the benefits? Assurance -Measuring results -Implementation -Training Attention for a positive group climate Hopeful results – future research

17. 17 Thank you for your attention! Does anyone have any questions? jantinevdtillaart@spirit.nl c.v.rijswijk@dekoppeling.com s.kleeven@dekoppeling.com