Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth Group climate and treatment motivation in secure residential and forensic youth care from the perspective of self determination theory G.H.P. van der Helm a,b, ⁎ , C.H.Z. Kuiper a , G.J.J.M. Stams c a Peer van der Helm and Chris Kuiper are professors at Leiden, University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands b Peer van der Helm is Research Director at Fier, The Netherlands c Geert- Jan Stams is Professor at Amsterdam University, Department of Forensic Sciences and Youthcare, The Netherlands ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Secure residential and forensic youth care Group climate Treatment motivation Self-determination theory ABSTRACT Treatment motivation in secure residential youth care is assumed to be a necessary condition for effective treatment, and is therefore a key element in the reduction of problem behavior and criminal recidivism. According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) are essential for treatment motivation, which are characteristics of a positive residential group climate. Based on SDT, we examined whether a therapeutic (open) group climate and low levels of institutional repression were associated with treatment motivation of adolescents residing in (semi-) secure residential youth care facilities. An ethnically diverse sample was studied of 179 respondents (M = 16.2 years; SD = 1.5), in 12 Dutch (semi)secure youth care facilities and 9 forensic youth care institutions. We measured residential group climate with the PGCI and treatment motivation with the ATMQ, and fitted a Cross-Lagged Panel Model (CLPM) of residential group climate and treatment motivation. It was found that a positive group climate in the first month after placement predicted greater treatment motivation three months later. 1. Introduction In the Netherlands, adolescents with severe behavioral problems who need protection against themselves or against others may be re- ferred to or involuntarily placed in secure youth care facilities (SYC) after authorization by the civil court, while juvenile offenders are sentenced to detention in forensic youth care institutions (FYC) by the criminal court (Hilverdink, Daamen, & Vink, 2015). The involuntary character of these placements may have a negative impact on their treatment motivation (Brauers, Kroneman, Otten, Lindauer, & Popma, 2016), treatment outcomes and criminal recidivism (Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008; Van der Stouwe, Asscher, Stams, Hoeve, & van der Laan, 2018). It is assumed that juveniles need a high level of treatment motivation in order to be able to profit from interventions that target behavioral adjustment both within and outside secure re- sidential settings (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011). Several cohort studies in the past have linked group climate quality to treatment motivation (Heynen, van der Helm, Stams, J, & Korebrits, 2017; Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, & De Jongh, 2011), but no all-encompassing theory (SDT) was presented to explain this link. In the present study, treatment motivation as an outcome is considered to be ‘a state of readiness or eagerness’ to seek out help and work actively at a solution (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). Treatment moti- vation presupposes causal agency, which enables a person to be the causal agent in his or her life by the promotion of self-regulation trough self-determination skills (Shogren et al., 2015). Therefore, the devel- opment of treatment motivation is examined from the perspective of Self Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2008, Deci, E. L.& Ryan, R. M., 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2000, Ryan & Deci, 2017) and residential group climate (author). 1.1. Self determination theory Self Determination Theory (SDT) is an empirically based theory of motivation and development. In the theory internalized (intrinsic) treatment, as opposed to external, or forced motivation (which can produce amotivation), predicts better outcomes in a wide range of do- mains, such as work, education, and treatment (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Ryan and Deci (2000) argue that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation do not necessarily show a negative relation, but should rather be con- sidered as a reflection of different degrees of self-determination. Self- determination entails that one is acting out of free choice and/or pleasure rather than external obligation and/or internal pressure. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.028 Received 9 June 2018; Received in revised form 24 July 2018; Accepted 24 July 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Peer van der Helm, Leiden University of Professional Sciences, P.O. Box 382, 2300 Leiden, AJ, The Netherlands. E-mail address: helm.vd.p@hsleiden.nl (G.H.P. van der Helm). Children and Youth Services Review 93 (2018) 339–344 Available online 07 August 2018 0190-7409/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T