Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between the psychosocial characteristics of juvenile detainees in three different juvenile detention centers in Türkiye and their environmental conditions. Conducted from the perspective of ecological systems theory, the research aimed to evaluate the effects of reciprocal interaction between a juvenile’s internal state and their external environment on rehabilitation. Analyses conducted using methods such as one-way ANOVA and multivariate path analysis revealed a strong relationship between psychological well-being and perceived safety and fundamental environmental factors such as structure, freedom, and support. Path analysis showed that a strong perception of structure defined as the clear rules, routines, and predictability of the prison environment is a fundamental factor that influences other perceptions such as privacy, support, and social relationships. The findings also indicate that there is no direct relationship between activity level and well-being, but rather that the quality of rehabilitation activities may be more critical. In conclusion, the study supports the need for a holistic rehabilitation approach in prisons. This approach should carefully balance freedom of movement and structured programs with the individual privacy and social space needs of juvenile detainees.

Plain language summary

How are Juvenile Prisons in Türkiye Shaping the Lives of Youth?

Childhood and adolescence are important periods for the formation of a person’s identity and personality. However, some young people are forced to go through this process behind the closed and restrictive walls of a prison. So, how does this closed environment affect the already fragile psychology of these young people? How do the rules, relationships, and general atmosphere of this environment shape their well-being and their hopes for the future? In this study, we investigated how young people in juvenile detention centers in Türkiye cope with this challenging environment and how different aspects of the prison affect their psychological state. By listening directly to the feelings and experiences of the young people, we aimed to understand how a prison environment could be best organized. Our research found that the prison environment has a much greater impact on young people than we might have thought. Specifically, we discovered that having clear rules and a regular routine within the prison helps young people feel safer and even better able to meet basic needs like privacy. This shows that prisons are not just physical structures, but also dynamic, living ecosystems that shape the psychology of the young people within them. Our findings reveal that focusing solely on individual problems is not enough to help these young people. It is also necessary to improve the environment they are in. This approach can help our juvenile justice system move away from punishment-focused models and create more suitable and supportive environments for the development and social reintegration of youth.

Keywords

Juvenile detention rehabilitation ecological systems theory psychological well-being environmental factors perception of safety

Introduction

The complexity of the prison environment is deeply related to its effects on the rehabilitation processes and psychosocial development of young prisoners. Internationally, it is widely accepted that rehabilitation is more effective than punishment in reducing recidivism rates (Pappas & Dent, 2023). However, rehabilitation in closed institutions presents a paradoxical situation, as incarceration is inherently undesirable (Sommer, 1974). Prison environments are dynamic social systems that include structural elements (security protocols, institutional rules, daily routines), relational dynamics (staff-prisoner interactions, peer relationships), and cultural factors (informal norms, subcultural codes) (Sykes, 2007; Toch, 1977). These multidimensional interactions are important in shaping the daily experiences, identity development, and future expectations of juvenile detainees.

Current studies reveal significant variability in individual responses to incarceration (Berardi et al., 2024; Lussier et al., 2025; Toch, 1977). Such findings suggest rehabilitation outcomes depend on complex interactions between environmental conditions and personal factors (Johnsen et al., 2018; Wener, 2012), thereby underscoring the need for environmentally sensitive approaches in juvenile justice systems (Knoblach et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2020). Consequently, guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), this study explores the effects of the juvenile detention environment on the psychosocial status of juvenile detainees and examines how interventions focusing on environmental factors can meet their psychosocial needs and improve their rehabilitation.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) offers a holistic model that examines individual development within the context of environmental factors and explains this interaction through the dimensions of microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. The psychosocial experiences of juvenile detainees are shaped at the intersection of these systems: Microsystem (the prison environment, family relationships, peer interactions), Mesosystem (relationships between the prison, staff, and family), Exosystem (the functioning of the legal system, social services), Macrosystem (cultural norms, child rights policies), Chronosystem (changes in the detention process over time). While the theory traditionally focuses on how the environment impacts an individual, this study adopts a novel perspective by focusing on reciprocal interaction. We propose that a juvenile’s psychological state such as depression or trauma can, in turn, influence their perception of the environment, making it seem less supportive or more restrictive. By exploring this link, our research provides a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between psychological well-being and a person’s perceived environment.

The prison environment is a multidimensional environmental system that affects the psychosocial experiences of detained children. This environment, which has layers ranging from physical conditions (Birckhead, 2015; MacArthur Foundation, 2015) to psychological atmosphere (Marti, 2025; Meijers et al., 2023), contains various environmental pressures and stress factors. The quality and intensity of these factors directly influence the juveniles’ adaptation processes to the prison environment. This study examines the interaction of detainees in juvenile prisons with the environment within the framework of seven basic environmental impact factors developed by Toch (1977) and Wright (1985) and measured by the “Prison Environment Inventory.” These factors are defined as the environmental dynamics that structure the adaptation process according to the needs and perceptions of the detainees, as follows: (1) Structure (Clarity of rules, discipline, and daily routines in prison) (2) Emotional Feedback (Warm and supportive relationships with staff, visitors, and peers) (3) Activity (Opportunities for creative development, a sense of achievement, and avoiding monotony) (4) Social Stimulation (Opportunities to socialize and develop communication skills with other detainees) (5) Support (Accessibility of psychological, educational, and vocational guidance services) (6) Privacy (Need for personal space, silence, and a non-overcrowded environment) (7) Freedom (Autonomy, age-appropriate treatment, and absence of authority abuse).

Literature Review

Juvenile Detainees in the Context of Prisons and Psychosocial Rehabilitation

Juvenile detainees, defined as individuals under 18 held for an alleged crime but not yet convicted, are considered innocent until proven guilty (Child Protection Law Art. 3/1-a; Turkish Penal Code Art. 6/1-b; European Union, 2017). Globally, millions of children are detained for various reasons, including involvement in the justice system, migration, and armed conflicts (Nowak, 2019). The duration of this detention varies significantly by country and is often determined by the crime, though it can last for months or even years (Condry, 2007; Gialuz & Spagnolo, 2013). This prolonged and uncertain separation from families negatively impacts a child’s psychosocial development (Defence for Children International, 2010).

Research consistently shows that incarcerated children experience significantly higher rates of mental health issues than their peers without this experience (Murray et al., 2012). Between 60% and 70% of detained youth have a diagnosable mental health condition, with high rates of depression, suicidal ideation, PTSD, and both internalizing and externalizing problems observed in this population (Dierkhising et al., 2013; Powell, 2021). The emergence and persistence of these issues are a significant concern from both psychological and criminological perspectives. It is argued that the effects cannot be attributed solely to individual factors and prior experiences. There is a growing need for holistic approaches that also consider the impact of the detention environment itself (Arakelyan & Ager, 2021). Detention center environments, characterized by strict supervision, confinement, and a lack of engaging activities, can lead to feelings of injustice and mistrust in authorities (Jesuit Refugee Service, 2010; UNICEF, 2015). Research also highlights how restricted family visits, a lack of mental stimulation and physical activity, and social isolation can contribute to psychosis, paranoia, and self-harm (Curtin & Garnett, 2023; Favril, 2021). Moreover, conditions such as overcrowding, limited access to adequate food, medical and mental health services, education, and basic hygiene are common in detention facilities. These conditions, often stemming from insufficient funding, deepen trauma and undermine rehabilitation goals, ultimately increasing recidivism and social costs (Alves da Costa et al, 2022; Garland, 2001). The psychological effects of detention often continue long after a child’s release (Priestley et al., 2025).

The intersection of mental health issues with factors like socioeconomic status, race, and gender creates systemic inequalities. For instance, racial and ethnic minority youth are more likely to be incarcerated than referred to community-based treatment compared to white children (Hoffmann et al., 2022), they also experience more frequent mental health disorders and are less likely to receive adequate treatment while in detention. Additionally, studies show that young people from low-income, single-parent households are disproportionately incarcerated at a young age (Kroese et al., 2020; Pettit & Gutierrez, 2018) and often present with elevated instances of undiagnosed or untreated mental health conditions and co-occurring substance use disorders. These examples of justice system inequality, therefore, serve as clear indicators of underlying mental health disparities.

The context of these challenges points to a need for approaches that move away from punitive models toward child-centered, rehabilitative ones. Mears and Aron (2003) emphasize that risk and protective factors such as family, school, and community are situational and can be addressed through targeted programs. However, studies on juvenile rehabilitation outside of Western contexts are limited. This highlights a clear need for research on how these environmental factors operate within different cultural and legal frameworks, such as in Türkiye.

Ecological Models and Vulnerable Populations

Ecological models provide a robust framework for examining the complex factors influencing vulnerable groups, including those displaced by conflict and those within the justice system (Miller & Rasmussen, 2017). This approach considers multiple layers of influence, from individual to systemic factors. For example, Crosby et al. (2017) applied an ecological framework to study developmentally disabled youth in the U.S. justice system, analyzing micro- (family), meso- (support systems), exo- (policies), and macro-level (culture) factors. However, the study’s focus on individual trauma histories and family relationships overlooked the specific impact of the closed institutional environment itself on a person’s well-being. This suggests that existing ecological models have not yet fully encompassed the unique dimensions of the prison context.

Similarly, research on other vulnerable populations, such as refugees, has demonstrated the utility of ecological models. Studies show that factors like strong ethnic identity can serve as a protective factor against psychological distress, while discrimination within the host community can exacerbate it (Aitcheson et al., 2017; Beiser et al., 2016). A comprehensive review by Arakelyan and Ager (2021) further emphasizes the need to focus on the reciprocal interactions of factors within Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model. These factors, ranging from individual interactions to broader cultural and political symbols, provide a clear framework for examining how a prison environment either supports or undermines a child’s psychological well-being. Research on Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Türkiye also highlights how ecological models can be applied from a transnational perspective, revealing that social exclusion and discrimination are common stressors across different contexts (Ruhnke et al., 2024).

While the majority of research in this field focuses on how the environment affects psychological outcomes, a growing body of work examines the reciprocal interaction of psychological factors on the perception of the environment. For example, studies on adolescents in residential care show that individuals with high levels of anxiety and depression perceive the same environment as more restrictive (Sekol, 2016). Similarly, youth with high emotional resilience have been found to evaluate their environments more positively (Mestre et al., 2017). These empirical findings suggest that an individual’s internal psychological state can act as a “lens” through which they interpret their external environment.

This field study, focusing on juvenile offenders in the context of Türkiye, examines the effect of environmental factors on psychosocial experiences from a non-Western perspective. Supported by quantitative data (such as path analysis), the study reveals how the structural features of the prison environment shape perceptions of privacy, support, and social relationships. These findings allow for a comparative evaluation of data from Türkiye with international literature within the framework of ecological systems theory. Although there is extensive information in the literature on the effects of ethnic identity and adaptation strategies on the mental health of vulnerable groups, empirical evidence specifically examining the psychological well-being of detained youth in closed institutions and its influence on their perception of the institutional environment is limited. This study aims to fill that gap by empirically demonstrating how detained youth’s psychological well-being shapes their perception of the environmental factors within the correctional setting.

Study Design

Building on this perspective, our study’s primary aim is to empirically demonstrate the relationship between a juvenile’s psychological well-being and their perception of the prison environment, as measured by the “Prison Environment Inventory.” Contrary to conventional ecological studies that use environmental factors as predictors of mental health, we investigate how psychological outcomes may influence a detainee’s perception of their surroundings.

This study employed a cross-sectional, correlational design to investigate the psychosocial experiences of 120 juvenile detainees across three distinct closed juvenile detention facilities in Türkiye. The primary objective was to examine the relationships between the detention environment and specific aspects of the detainees’ experiences and well-being. The study aimed to answer the following research questions:

(1) How do the psychosocial experiences of 120 juvenile detainees in Türkiye’s detention facilities relate to their perception of the detention environment?

(2) How do specific psychological outcomes (e.g., well-being, life outlook) affect the detainees’ perceptions of the seven sub-dimensions of the detention environment?

An evidence-based investigation was undertaken to examine how the experience of being in a detention environment relates to detainees’ overall well-being, their outlook on life, their social interactions and status within the facility, and the time spent by them in communal areas outside their individual rooms. These outcomes were hypothesized to be related to the environmental factors detailed in the Prison Environment Inventory, thereby allowing for an empirical understanding of their interconnections.

Methods

This research integrates (1) self-report measures on juveniles’ personal experiences, and (2) environmental factor assessments (e.g., using the Prison Environment Inventory) to evaluate how the experience of being in a juvenile detention environment affects their psychosocial well-being. The findings derived from this methodology offer significant advantages in informing prison design by facilitating data-driven culture and decision-making (Yates & de Oliveira, 2016), enhancing the understanding of human-environment interaction (Wener, 2012), and contributing to the development of rehabilitation-focused solutions (Ulrich, 2017). By understanding the direct links between detainees’ well-being and environmental factors, the research contributes to the development of more effective, rehabilitation-focused solutions to inform prison design. This approach supports decision-making aimed at creating detention environments that better serve the psychological needs of juvenile detainees.

Sample Group and Settings

The study was conducted with 120 voluntary participants aged 12 to 18, who had been detained for a minimum of one month in the juvenile closed prisons of Diyarbakır, Kayseri, and Tarsus. Our non-probability convenience sampling was dictated by the sensitive research environment and restricted access to juvenile facilities. A random selection was not feasible due to ethical and institutional regulations. We predetermined a target sample of 120 participants, recruiting 40 from each of the three selected prisons. We collaborated with correctional staff to identify eligible juveniles (ages 12–18, detained for at least one month, and not in severe psychological distress). From this pool, we included all who provided both guardian consent and their personal assent until we reached our target sample size. This approach, aligned with Roger Hart’s Ladder of Children’s Participation, ensured genuine voluntary participation and protected the juveniles’ autonomy.

As of July 2025, there were 3,034 children aged 12 to 18 in juvenile closed prisons in Türkiye, including 2,932 males and 102 females (TÜİK, 2025). Although the sample of 120 represents only a portion of this population, it is considered sufficient for a study of this nature, given the restricted access and ethical constraints associated with closed institutional settings. Moreover, the sample size exceeds the minimum requirements for statistical techniques such as ANOVA and path analysis (Field, 2013). The selected group was also balanced with respect to key demographic variables such as major crime categories and dormitory floor to enhance representativeness within the institution. In addition, the group is homogeneous in terms of age group and type of facility. This sampling approach aligns with those adopted in similar studies conducted in correctional settings (Ferguson & Wormith, 2013).

The juvenile detainees are housed in wards designed for eight individuals but placed in single rooms. These wards have no direct connection to the outside. The facility consists of three floors, with detainee wards located on the first and second floors. It is worth noting that the staff-to-child ratio in three distinct juvenile prisons in Türkiye is not standardized, as it varies depending on the institutional dynamics and personnel structure of each facility.

To ensure ethical compliance, comprehensive informed consent was obtained from each juvenile’s legal guardian, and their assent was secured after the study’s objectives, procedures, and right to withdraw were clearly explained by the research team. Juveniles experiencing severe acute psychological distress or those detained for less than one month were excluded from the study.

Procedure

This study was conducted between September 2022 and September 2023 in Diyarbakır, Kayseri, and Tarsus Juvenile Closed Prisons. Ten field visits (December 2022–August 2023) included 3-day institutional assessments per site. Data on prison management systems, daily routines, and information about juvenile detainees were collected through on-site observations, self-report measures, and an environment assessment survey (Prison Environment Inventory’s 7 sub-dimensions).

Data Collection and Measurement Tools

Data were collected using two primary instruments: a self-report form on juveniles’ personal experiences and the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI).

Independent Variables

Juveniles’ personal experiences were assessed through a self-report form. This form was developed based on principles from studies utilizing the Developing Prison Environment Scale (Toch, 1977; Wright, 1985). It included six distinct questions, each serving as a single-item observed indicator of a specific psychosocial experience. They were designed as direct, self-reported indicators of a juvenile’s immediate, subjective psychosocial state, such as their feelings of safety, social belonging, and life perspective: (1) How do you feel today? (2) How would you classify your own perspective on life? (3) Do you feel safe in prison? (4) How would you classify yourself socially? (5) How much time do you spend outside your room when you are allowed to go out? (6) How do you rate this institution compared to other prisons you have been in? These questions were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 7 = very much) and constitute the independent variables in our path model. The psychosocial experiences of juveniles, as captured by these questions, were subsequently analyzed via frequency and percentage distributions.

Dependent Variables

Complementing this, the correctional climate, as perceived by juveniles, was evaluated using the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI). This tool, with 7 subscales, was originally developed by Toch (1977) and Wright (1985). As detailed in the “Adaptation and Validation of Instruments” section, the adapted PEI consists of 28 items distributed across seven distinct factors/subscales: Structure, Privacy, Activity, Emotional Feedback, Freedom, Support, and Social Stimulation. We utilized a 4-point Likert scale for its items, ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). These seven subscales of the PEI serve as the dependent variables in our path model.

Adaptation and Validation of Instruments for the Turkish Context

To ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement tools within the specific context of Türkiye, a multi-step adaptation process was implemented. First, both the self-report measures and the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI) were translated from English into Turkish. In addition to the translation, the terminology was ethically adapted to reflect a child-centered approach. The term “prisoner” (mahkum) was replaced with “detained child” (tutuklu çocuk) to align with Turkish legal and ethical guidelines for juvenile justice.

Since the PEI had not been previously used in Türkiye, a comprehensive validation process was undertaken. To ensure clarity and appropriateness for the target population, a pilot study was conducted with 12 juvenile detainees at the Tarsus Juvenile Prison. From the original total 48-item PEI scale, 42 items (e.g., “Prison programs teach juveniles new skills”) were selected to evaluate the correctional climate. The remaining six items were excluded before the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as the “security” subscale was not included in the scope of our research, per the requirements of the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses. These items were subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax rotation to examine the underlying factor structure within the context of juvenile detention in Türkiye. Following the EFA, 14 items with factor loadings below 0.35 were excluded. The final scale thus consisted of 28 items, which were distributed across seven distinct factors/subscales, including Structure, Privacy, Activity, Emotional Feedback, Freedom, Support, and Social Stimulation. This factor structure was further confirmed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in AMOS 24. The CFA model tested whether each of the 28 items loaded onto a single, predefined factor. The model did not allow for cross-loadings, ensuring that the relationships were based on clean factor structures. The final measurement model, including standardized factor loadings, is presented in Supplementary Material. The final factor structure demonstrated adequate sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, KMO = 0.690) and was statistically significant (Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ² = 1081.856, p < .001). Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s Alpha. While several subscales showed acceptable reliability (e.g., Structure, α = .88), it’s important to acknowledge that some had low values, such as Social Stimulation (α = .437) and Support (α = .572). We have retained these subscales in our analysis to represent the original scale fully, but we recognize their low reliability as a significant methodological limitation of our study. The final measurement model for the Prison Environment Inventory, including standardized factor loadings, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Item Factor Loadings, Item-Total Correlation, Reliability, and Variance Results for the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI).

Factors	Statements	Factor loading	Item-total correlation	Reliability	% Variance
Structure	1. The detained children know what will happen if they violate the rules.	0.684	0.510	0.803	20.3
	2. The detained children know the rules.	0.646	0.459
	3. The detained children know when the gym is open.	0.557	0.525
	4. The detained children know when the institution manager is available.	0.618	0.603
	5. The detained children keep themselves busy by doing sports.	0.461	0.431
	6. A person learns new skills here.	0.541	0.452
	7. The prison programs teach detained children new skills.	0.706	0.651
	8. Detained children are allowed to read whenever they want.	0.549	0.535
Privacy	9. This unit is quiet.	0.535	0.356	0.671	7.7
	10. The detained children stay in their rooms if they want.	0.640	0.400
	11. The detained children can be alone without being disturbed.	0.662	0.554
	12. The detained children have something to do every night.	0.557	0.371
	13. The detained children listen to music whenever they want.	0.581	0.453
Activity	14. Each detained child exercises for at least one hour a day.	0.762	0.556	0.704	7.1
	15. The detained children can exercise whenever they want.	0.902	0.699
	16. The detained children can be late as much as they want.	0.594	0.355
Emotional feedback	17. Correctional officers tell the detainee children when they are good.	0.759	0.598	0.710	6.2
Emotional feedback	18. Correctional officers ask detainee children about their personal feelings.	0.720	0.541
	19. Detainee children have fun talking with correctional officers.	0.724	0.462
Freedom	20. Detained children, even if they are foreign, do not hesitate to talk to other children.	0.575	0.324	0.614	6.1
	21. Prison authorities assist troubled detained children.	0.728	0.517
	22. Detained children have at least one hour of uninterrupted time for themselves every night.	0.521	0.337
	23. Detained children are not required to work if they do not want to.	0.659	0.418
Support	24. Correctional officers provide support to depressed detained children	0.664	0.312	0.572	5.1
	25. A detained child receives education if they wish.	0.794	0.475
	26. Detained children know when they can take a shower.	0.617	0.380
Social stimulation	27. Detained children are with their friends at night.	0.578	0.285	0.437	4.5
	28. Detained children can be with more than three friends at the same time.	0.658	0.285
	Total Variance, Reliability			0.837	57.0

Note. There are no reverse items for the factors.

Furthermore, to ensure the full and authentic participation of all juveniles, particularly those with literacy difficulties, adaptations were made to the data collection process. While the instruments were originally designed for individual administration, they were adapted into 30-min group sessions. Surveys were administered to groups of four participants in a classroom setting, under the supervision of the research team with institutional staff, including wardens. This approach, which aligned with Roger Hart’s participatory levels 5 to 6 (1992, 2008), allowed research officers to provide one-on-one assistance as needed, facilitating comprehension and enabling children to express their experiences effectively. Research officers ensured a full dataset by systematically checking each questionnaire for completeness immediately after it was filled. Participants were asked to complete any missing responses on the spot, a rigorous follow-up that was feasible and crucial in this sensitive environment. Consequently, no missing data points or statistical methods for handling them were required.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the relevant Ethics Committee (03.06.2022). Permission to conduct the research and publish its findings was also secured from the appropriate official authorities (08.07.2024). Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained through verbal explanations and signed forms from both participating juveniles and their legal guardians.

Data Analysis

Analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24. Descriptive statistics were used to present socio-demographics as frequencies/percentages and scale scores as mean ± SD. Comparative analyses employed (1) One-Way ANOVA with Tukey HSD Post Hoc tests for multi-group comparisons, (2) Pearson correlation, and (3) Path analysis to examine the psychosocial-environmental relationships. Path analysis was used to examine the relationships between latent factors. This method provides more accurate estimates by correcting for attenuation caused by measurement error. Our model employed a parsimonious approach based on theoretical considerations, disallowing correlated error terms between items. Although observations were nested within three distinct centers, our analysis focused on individual-level relationships. All tests considered p < .05 and p < .01 significance levels. The analytical framework enabled examination of both linear associations (Pearson) and complex causal pathways (Path Analysis) between environmental factors and juvenile self-reporting. (For Pearson correlation interpretation, refer to Büyüköztürk, 2018). A formal a priori power analysis wasn’t conducted due to the constraints of the research setting. Instead, the sample size was determined by the number of accessible participants within the juvenile detention centers.

Results

The results of this study are presented in accordance with the outlined research questions. Initially, descriptive statistics of the participants are detailed, followed by an examination of how the detention environment influences juveniles’ psychosocial experiences relate to their perceptions of the detention environment.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample Group

The sample group’s socio-demographic characteristics were closely documented. The juvenile detainees were equally distributed across the three centers, with 33.3% (n = 40) from Tarsus, 33.3% (n = 40) from Diyarbakır, and 33.3% (n = 40) from Kayseri prisons. All participants were male. The age distribution was as follows: 22.5% (n = 27) were between 14 and 15 years old, 37.5% (n = 45) were 16 years old, and 40% (n = 48) were between 17 and 18 years old. In terms of education level, 9.2% (n = 11) had completed elementary school or lower, 82.5% (n = 99) had completed middle school, and 8.3% (n = 10) were high school graduates.

The findings show that 54.2% (n = 65) of the juveniles reported their psychological state as good, while 25% (n = 30) reported it as bad. Their perspectives on life were 56.7% (n = 68) optimistic and 26.7% (n = 32) pessimistic. Regarding their perception of security in prison, 65.8% (n = 79) felt safe, while 20.8% (n = 25) felt unsafe. In terms of social status, 65% (n = 78) described themselves as social, while 16.7% (n = 20) described themselves as lonely. As for the frequency of spending time outside their rooms, 65.8% (n = 79) reported always spending time outside, while 20.8% (n = 25) reported never/rarely doing so. When evaluating the prison conditions (e.g., note that the following question was only answered by n = 44 juveniles who had previous incarceration experience) 72.7% (n = 32) rated the institution as good, while 15.9% (n = 7) rated it as bad.

The mean scores of Prison Environment Inventory (PEI) sub-dimensions, as reported by juvenile detainees, regarding their perceptions of the environment across different groups/sites, are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The comparison of the scores of Prison Environment Inventory (PEI) sub-dimensions, as reported by juvenile detainees.

How Self-Reported Well-being Relates to Perceptions of the Environment

Participants were divided into three groups based on their self-reported well-being: Bad (A, n = 30), Somewhat Good (B, n = 25), and Good (C, n = 65). According to ANOVA analysis: Structure: C (2.40) > B (2.06) > A (1.94), p = .001**, Privacy: C (1.82) > B (1.62) > A (1.43), p = .028*, Activity: No significant difference between groups (p = .524), Emotional Feedback: C (1.94) > A (1.69) > B (1.48), p = .018*, Freedom: C (2.26) > A (1.85) > B (1.74), p = .001**, Support: C (2.64) > B (2.37) > A (2.24), p = .004**, Social Interaction: C (1.86) > B (1.48) > A (1.42), p = .028*. Those who felt good scored significantly higher on all scales (except Activity). Perceptions of Freedom, Support, and Structure showed the most pronounced differences.

Relationship Between Life Perspective and Environmental Conditions

Participants in the study were divided into three groups based on their outlook on life: Pessimistic (A, n = 32), Somewhat Optimistic (B, n = 20), and Optimistic (C, n = 68). According to the analysis: Structure: C (2.32) > B (2.21) > A (1.98)—p = .044*, Activity: C (0.91) > A (0.49)—p = .068 (borderline significant), Freedom: C/B (2.13) > A (1.84)—p > .05, Other Factors: No significant difference between groups in Privacy, Emotional Feedback, Support, and Social Interaction (p > .05). It was determined that optimists had a distinctly stronger perception of structure, a borderline significant relationship existed between Activity level and optimism, and other factors appeared to develop independently of their perspectives on life.

How Safety Perception Relates to Environmental Factors

Participants were divided into three groups based on their self-reported feeling of safety in prison: Unsafe (A, n = 25), Somewhat Safe (B, n = 16), and Safe (C, n = 79). According to One-Way ANOVA analysis: Structure: C highest score (2.32), A lowest score (1.95), Significant difference (p = .028): C > A,B. Privacy: C (1.81) significantly higher than other groups, Significant difference (p = .014): C > A,B. Emotional Feedback: C (1.94) highest score, Highly significant difference (p = .002): C > A,B. Freedom: C (2.25) significantly higher, Highly significant difference (p = .000): C > A,B. Support: C (2.60) higher than other groups, Significant difference (p = .006): C > A,B. Social Interaction: C (1.82) and A (1.24) > B (1.63), Significant difference (p = .012): C,A > B. Activity Level: No statistically significant difference between groups (p = .211). Increasing the sense of safety in the prison environment can positively affect juveniles’ perceptions of structure, freedom, and support. The lower score of the “somewhat safe” group in social interaction suggests this group may need special support. The lack of a significant difference in activity levels suggests that all inmates have similar activity opportunities.

How Social Integration Relates to Perceptions of the Environment

Participants were divided into three groups based on their social integration: Social (A, n = 78), somewhat social (B, n = 22), and lonely (C, n = 20). According to ANOVA analysis, none of these differences were statistically significant (p > .05). In emotional feedback, there is a borderline significance (p = .054): A (1.88), B (1.73), C (1.45).

The Relationship Between Time Spent Outside Rooms and Environmental Factors

Participants were divided into three groups based on their time spent outside rooms: Never or rarely (A, n = 25), Sometimes (B, n = 16), Always (C, n = 79). According to ANOVA analysis: Structure (p = 006**): (C:2.34) > (B:2.08) > (A:1.90). Most significant difference: Group C significantly higher than others. Privacy (p = .04*): Interestingly, (B:1.84) scored highest. (C:1.75) > (A:1.38). Freedom (p = .021*): (C:2.18) significantly higher. (A:1.85) and (B:1.73) similar scores. Support Perception (p = .006**): (A:2.16) lowest score, (B:2.52) and (C:2.58) high and similar scores. As time spent outside rooms increases, perceptions of structure and freedom significantly increase, and perception of support also significantly increases. Unexpectedly in privacy perception; those who sometimes go out scored highest, those who always go out are in the middle, and those who rarely go out scored lowest. Activity, emotional feedback, and social interaction appear to be independent of time spent outside rooms.

Multivariate Path Analysis: Examining the Psychosocial-Environmental Relationship

A 12-variable structural equation modeling (SEM) (Figure 2) was developed to examine the relationships between juvenile detainees’ psychosocial experiences (e.g. feeling good about oneself, perspectives on life, feeling safe in prison, social status and time spent outside the room) and environmental factors (e.g. structure, privacy, activity, emotional feedback, freedom, support, and social stimulation).

Figure 2.

Modified model with standardized path coefficients.

Initial path analysis revealed that the relationships between some variables were not statistically significant (p > .05). Based on this finding, an iterative model development process was applied, where insignificant path coefficients were removed from the model one by one, and modification indices were taken into account. The goodness of fit values for the first modified model (χ²/df = 2.671; RMSEA = 0.118; CFI = 0.844; SRMR = 0.072) were generally found to be unacceptable (Suhr, 2006). Figure 2 presents the standardized path diagram of the final, modified model, refined through an iterative process of removing non-significant paths and considering modification indices.

The final model (Table 2) tests the relationships between factors such as detainees’ self-reported well-being, perception of safety, time spent outside the room, and perspective on life, with the environmental/contextual dimensions of prison life. In the analysis, direct effects were found. Feeling good about oneself has a significant positive effect on the perception of general structure of prison life (β = .33, p < .001). Time spent outside the room also shows a weak but statistically significant effect on perception of structure (β = .20, p = .018). Feeling safe in prison creates strong positive effects on detainees’ perception of freedom (β = .30, p < .001), emotional feedback (β = .32, p < .001), and support (β = .22, p = .010). Perspective on life has a borderline significant effect only on participation in activities (β = .18, p = .047).

Table 2.

Results of the Final SEM Path Analysis.

Predictor	Path	Outcome	β (Unstandardized)	S.E.	β (Standardized)	CR	p-value
Feeling good about oneself	→	Structure	0.12	0.03	0.33	3.80	***
Time spent outside the room	→	Structure	0.08	0.03	0.20	2.37	0.018
Perspectives on life	→	Activity	0.09	0.04	0.18	1.99	0.047
Feeling safe in prison	→	Freedom	0.12	0.03	0.30	3.67	***
Feeling safe in prison	→	Support	0.07	0.03	0.22	2.58	0.010
Structure	→	Privacy	0.48	0.09	0.43	5.19	***
Structure	→	Emotional feedback	0.21	0.10	0.18	2.14	0.032
Structure	→	Freedom	0.35	0.09	0.31	3.70	***
Structure	→	Support	0.29	0.08	0.31	3.69	***
Structure	→	Social stimulation	0.33	0.12	0.24	2.70	0.007
Feeling safe in prison	→	Emotional feedback	0.13	0.04	0.32	3.67	***

Note. Variance Explained (R-squared) for Dependent Factors: Structure: R² = 0.179, Social Stimulation: R² = 0.058, Emotional Feedback: R² = 0.155, Privacy: R² = 0.184, Freedom: R² = 0.220, Activity: R² = 0.032, Support: R² = 0.172.

***

p < .001.

Discussion

This study reveals that perceptions of the prison environment among juvenile detainees are strongly influenced by their psychosocial well-being, particularly their feelings of security, self-worth, and overall outlook on life. These findings introduce a novel perspective to ecological systems theory, showing how an individual’s internal state significantly shapes their perception of external environmental factors.

Our results align with prior research that emphasizes the therapeutic role of structure and safety in correctional environments (Day et al., 2011; Marti, 2025). The observed link between perceived structure and privacy (β = .43) echoes Crosby et al.’s (2017) finding that a stable institutional framework is a prerequisite for psychosocial functioning.

However, our findings also introduce a valuable cultural nuance. The relationship between partial perceptions of safety and lower social interaction suggests that what might lead to gradual adaptation in Western contexts (Van der Helm et al., 2018) could trigger social withdrawal in the Turkish context. Similarly, the correlation between freedom of movement and privacy perception aligns with research on refugee youth, suggesting a universal need for a balance between openness and personal boundaries in rehabilitation environments, a finding supported by Ruhnke et al. (2024).

The lack of a significant relationship between social stimulation and environmental factors was an unexpected finding. This can be attributed to the limitations of the questions used to measure social stimulation, which focused on the quantity of interaction (e.g., number of friends, physical proximity). However, the psychological well-being of juveniles is more closely related to the quality of social bonds and the presence of emotional support. This finding suggests that it’s not the quantity but the perceived quality and supportive nature of social interactions in the detention environment that is important.

In contrast to studies focusing on individual pathology, our research highlights systemic environmental design as an equally important determinant of well-being, an approach emphasized by Arakelyan and Ager (2021). This focus allows our results to fill a significant gap in comparative criminology by examining a non-Western juvenile population and highlighting the interplay of institutional practices, spatial design, and psychosocial health within a holistic ecological model.

Conclusion and Implications

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that environmental and institutional factors such as perceived structure, support, safety, freedom of movement, and privacy have a direct effect on the psychosocial well-being of juvenile detainees in Türkiye. These findings support the use of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving correctional environments. From a comparative criminology perspective, our study offers insights into how localized environmental interventions can align with global rehabilitation principles while remaining culturally sensitive. Unlike many studies from Western contexts, our findings underscore the particular salience of predictability, communal space usage, and staff support in non-Western detention settings.

Policy and design recommendations include: (1) Designing correctional spaces that balance structure and autonomy (e.g., semi-open kitchens, courtyards), (2) Training staff to enhance supportive interpersonal climates, (3) Tailoring activities to individual motivations and promoting psychological ownership.

The study’s findings have limited generalizability as they were collected from a non-random, small sample across only three facilities in Türkiye. Our cross-sectional design prevents us from establishing causal relationships. The nested data structure, with participants from three distinct centers, also poses a risk of biased statistical results in standard analyses. Future research should incorporate multilevel modeling to better capture these complex interactions. Further studies should apply the same ecological framework in other cultural contexts to determine whether our findings are universal or culture-specific. Ultimately, this study highlights the need for juvenile justice reform efforts to move beyond punitive models and embrace an environment-centered rehabilitation approach rooted in psychosocial theory and architectural psychology.

Limitations of the Study and Future Research

This study has several key limitations. First, its findings lack generalizability as they are based on a small, non-random sample from only three facilities in Türkiye. The cross-sectional design also prevents us from establishing causal relationships. Additionally, reliance on self-reported data and selection bias due to officer-assisted recruitment may affect the results.

Future research should address these issues with longitudinal designs to examine how experiences evolve over time. Qualitative methods like in-depth interviews can offer richer insights into specific findings. Randomized controlled trials would be crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Finally, cross-cultural studies are needed to determine which findings are universal and which are specific to the Turkish context.

Despite these limitations, this study is a foundational effort in Türkiye, offering an important ecological perspective on juvenile detainees’ psychosocial experiences and providing a basis for future research and policy.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251395224 – Supplemental material for Psychosocial Experiences of Juvenile Detainees in Türkiye: An analysis of Environmental Factors from an Ecological Systems Perspective

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ijo-10.1177_0306624X251395224 for Psychosocial Experiences of Juvenile Detainees in Türkiye: An analysis of Environmental Factors from an Ecological Systems Perspective by Çiğsem Yağmur Yüksel and Mustafa Yeğin in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses for granting permission for the study and to the institutional staff for their support. They are also sincerely grateful to the juvenile detainees who enriched the analysis by sharing their experiences of detention and their perceptions of the environment. The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback, which greatly improved this manuscript. This study was produced as part of a doctoral thesis conducted at the Institute of Science, Çukurova University.

ORCID iDs

Çiğsem Yağmur Yüksel

Mustafa Yeğin

Ethical Considerations

This study received formal ethical approval from the University’s Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee (03.06.2022/ No. 57) for its execution.

Consent to Participate

Permission to publish findings was later granted by the Ministry of Justice’s General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses (08.07.2024/ No. E.12934). Before data collection, informed consent was obtained through verbal explanations and signed forms from both participating juveniles and their legal guardians.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the research concerning juvenile detainees and privacy considerations. However, the data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Aitcheson

R. J.

Abu-Bader

S. H.

Howell

M. K.

Khalil

Elbedour

(2017). Resilience in Palestinian adolescents living in Gaza. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9, 36–43.

Alves da Costa

Verschuuren

Andersen

Stürup-Toft

Lopez-Acuña

Ferreira-Borges

(2022). The WHO Prison Health Framework: A framework for assessment of prison health system performance. European Journal of Public Health, 32(4), 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac020

Arakelyan

Ager

(2021). Annual Research Review: A multilevel bioecological analysis of factors influencing the mental health and psychosocial well-being of refugee children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 62(5), 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13355

Beiser

Puente-Duran

Hou

(2015). Cultural distance and emotional problems among immigrant and refugee youth in Canada: Findings from the New Canadian Child and Youth Study (NCCYS). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 33–45.

Berardi

Galeoto

Simeon

Bandiera

Sellitto

Calvo

J. A. S.

González-Bernal

(2024). The role and effectiveness of occupational therapy in prison rehabilitation programs: Systematic review. International Journal of Prison Health, 20(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPH-07-2023-0038

Birckhead

T. R.

(2015). Children in isolation: the solitary confinement of youth. Wake Forest L. Rev., 50, 1. Forthcoming, UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2512867 https://ssrn.com/abstract=2512867

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press.

Bronfenbrenner

Ceci

S. J.

(1994). Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568.

Büyüköztürk

(2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık, 001-214.

10.

Condry

(2007). Families shamed: The consequences of crime for relatives of serious offenders (1st ed.). Willan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843926061

11.

Crosby

S. D.

Algood

C. L.

Sayles

Cubbage

(2017). An ecological examination of factors that impact well-being among developmentally-disabled youth in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 68(2), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12091

12.

Curtin

S. C.

Garnett

M. F.

(2023). Suicide and homicide death rates among youth and young adults aged 10–24: United States, 2001–2021. NCHS data brief, (471), 1–8.

13.

Day

Casey

Vess

Huisy

(2012). Assessing the therapeutic climate of prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811430476

14.

Defence for Children International (DCI). (2010). Stop the Violence! The Overuse of Pre-Trial Detention, or the Need to Reform Juvenile Justice Systems. DCI.

15.

Dierkhising

C. B.

S. J.

Woods-Jaeger

Briggs

E. C.

Lee

Pynoos

R. S.

(2013). Trauma histories among justice-involved youth: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v4i0.20274

16.

European Union. (2017). Pre-trial detention–assessment tool. https://rm.coe.int/assessment-tool-on-pre-trial-detention-en/16807823b7

17.

Favril

(2021). Epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of suicidal thoughts and behaviour in prisons: A literature review. Psychologica Belgica, 61(1), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1072

18.

Ferguson

L. M.

Wormith

J. S.

(2013). A meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(9), 1076–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12447771

19.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.

20.

Garland

(Ed.) (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. SAGE Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221228

21.

Gialuz

Spagnolo

(2013). Reasonable length of pre-trial detention: Rigid or flexible time limits? A study on Italy from a European perspective. European Criminal Law Review, 3, 220.

22.

Hart

R. A.

(1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. United Nations Children’s Fund International Child Development Centre.

23.

Hoffmann

J. A.

Alegría

Alvarez

Anosike

Shah

P. P.

Simon

K. M.

Lee

L. K.

(2022). Disparities in pediatric mental and behavioral health conditions. Pediatrics, 150(4), e2022058227. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-058227

24.

Jesuit Refugee Service. (2010). Becoming vulnerable in detention: civil society report on the detention of vulnerable asylum seekers and irregular migrants in the European Union (the DEVASproject).https://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201110/20111014ATT29338/20111014ATT29338EN.pdf

25.

Jiang

Chen

Zhuo

(2020). Self-control, external environment, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory in Rural China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(16), 1696–1716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20923254

26.

Johnsen

Fransson

Giofrè

(Eds.). (2018). Prison, Architecture and Humans. Cappelen Damm Akademisk/NOASP (Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing).

27.

Knoblach

R. A.

Schwartz

J. A.

McBride

Beaver

K. M.

(2019). The association between genetic predisposition and parental socialization: an examination of gene–environment correlations using an adoption-based design. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(2–3), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19849568

28.

Kroese

Bernasco

Liefbroer

A. C.

Rouwendal

(2020). Growing up in single-parent families and the criminal involvement of adolescents: a systematic review. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1774589

29.

Lussier

Kouassi

P. L.

Frechette

(2025). Agency, criminogenic risk and needs, and recidivism: A prospective longitudinal study including 14,000 adult justice-involved individuals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 69(13–14), 1978–2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X251349530

30.

MacArthur Foundation. (2015). JJ in a Developmental Framework: A 2015 Status Report. https://l24.im/ilgNjAF

31.

Marti

(2025). Architecture, atmospheres, and the pains of unattainable affordances: Tracing prisoners’ lived experience in a “new-generation” prison in Switzerland. Punishment & Society, 27(5) 918–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745251336391

32.

Mears

D. P.

Aron

L. Y.

(2003). Addressing the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: The current state of knowledge. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

33.

Meijers

Harte

J. M.

Scherder

E. J. A.

(2023). Prison and the brain. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 197, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821375-9.00012-8

34.

Mestre

J. M.

Núñez-Lozano

J. M.

Gómez-Molinero

Zayas

Guil

(2017). Emotion regulation ability and resilience in a sample of adolescents from a suburban area. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01980

35.

Miller

K. E.

Rasmussen

(2017). The mental health of civilians displaced by armed conflict: An ecological model of refugee distress. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 26(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796016000172

36.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

Sekol

(2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 175–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026407

37.

Nowak

(2019). United Nations global study on children deprived of liberty. United Nations General Assembly. https://docs.un.org/en/A/74/136

38.

Pappas

L. N.

Dent

A. L.

(2023). The 40-year debate: A meta-review on what works for juvenile offenders. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09472-z

39.

Pettit

Gutierrez

(2018). Mass incarceration and racial inequality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77(3–4), 1153–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12241

40.

Powell

(2021). The age-graded consequences of justice system involvement for mental health. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 59(2), 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278211023988 (Original work published 2022)

41.

Priestley

Cherian

Paxton

Steel

Young

Gunasekara

Hunt

(2025). The impact of immigration detention on children’s mental health: Systematic review. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2025, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2025.29

42.

Ruhnke

S. A.

Hertner

Köhler

Kluge

(2024). Social ecological determinants of the mental distress among Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Turkey: A transnational perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116700

43.

Sekol

(2016). Bullying in adolescent residential care: The influence of the physical and social residential care environment. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-015-9336-8

44.

Sommer

(1974). Tight spaces, hard architecture and how to humanize it. Prentince-Hall, Inc

45.

Suhr

D. D.

(2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? SAS Users Group International Conference (SUGI31), San Francisco, CA.

46.

Sykes

G. M.

(2007). The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison (REV-Revised). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14164hw

47.

Toch

(1977). Living in prison: The ecology of survival. Free Press.

48.

TÜİK. (2025). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarında Bulunan Tutuklu ve Hükümlülerin Yaş Gruplarına Göre Dağılımları (Temmuz 2025). https://l24.im/yCcNT

49.

Ulrich

(2017). Litteraturöversikt -evidensbaserade designrekommendationer för SiS ungdomshem. SiS Vårdmiljö: En Guide För Lokalutveckling, Institutional Care in Focus, 9, 110–161.

50.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2015). Children’s equitable access to justice: Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. https://kisalink.ai/8Kww9

51.

van der Helm

G. H. P.

Kuiper

C. H. Z.

Stams

G. J. J. M

. (2018). Group climate and treatment motivation in secure residential and forensic youth care from the perspective of self-determination theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.028

52.

Wener

(2012). The environmental psychology of prisons and jails: creating humane spaces in secure settings (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

53.

Wright

K. N.

(1985). Developing the prison environment inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427885022003005

54.

Yates

J. F.

de Oliveira

(2016). Culture and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.003

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB