The Therapeutic Relationship within Probation
Name
Institution
Introduction
Within the field of psychology, there has long been a debate between researchers and opinion makers on how important the relationship between practitioners and offenders in probation is as far as determining probation outcome is concerned. A therapeutic alliance or therapeutic relationship is defined by Flaskas & Perlesz, (2018) as a collaborative bond between a client and a therapist, where positive change is gained for the probationer through interpersonal processes that do not depend on intervention technique. However, some observers have poked holes on a therapeutic alliance by claiming that it does not make the probationer undergo sufficient retribution because it is client-friendly (Alm, 2016). More studies are still being done on a therapeutic alliance with a view of how compliant it is with community-based sentencing.
This paper performs a literature review on a therapeutic alliance in the context of probation with an emphasis on the effects of relationship between probationers and practitioners on the effectiveness of rehabilitation. The first part of this paper looks at the elements that are involved in a working alliance, which make a therapeutic alliance look at the needs of the client in the process of correction. The second part of the paper addresses the three principles that are applied in the RNR model, which is used in ensuring that each client being rehabilitated in a probation process is assisted using a unique procedure based on the personal qualities of the offenders. This paper argues that the use of a therapeutic alliance is very useful in supporting rehabilitation and supports compliance with community-based sentences.
Elements of a Working A therapeutic alliance
Since the development of a “talking culture” by Freud, the significance of a good relationship between a practitioner and an offender in probation has been given a lot of recognition (Mitchell et al., 2018). Many psychologists belief that interpersonal processes between a client and therapist play a major part in the positive outcomes developed in the client. According to Aarten (2019), the effect of the relationship is independent of the types of treatment offered during the probation period. In 1979, Bordin developed an approach known as working alliance, which assesses and provides an understanding of the impacts of a therapeutic alliance in correction alliances.
The construct of working alliance was used by Goldberg et al. (2019) to show that therapeutic relationships have important functions in improving rehabilitation outcomes regardless of the intervention techniques in probation centers. There are three main elements that make up a working alliance. The three include; 1. Tasks, in which behaviors and thoughts are assessed so that what the probationer and the practitioner view as relevant and productive can be put into consideration for the desired change or outcome to be achieved (Flaskas & Perlesz, 2018). This component makes a therapeutic alliance an important tool of transforming the client’s behavior because it is specific in stating the main task during rehabilitation. 2. Goals, describing the outcomes that have been agreed upon by both parties so that the targets of the therapy can be formed (Flaskas & Perlesz, 2018). Thus, a therapeutic alliance makes the offender to own up the correction process by participating in the goals of the process. 3. Bonds, consisting of the intricate concept of attachments practitioners and clients (Flaskas & Perlesz, 2018). Youssef (2018) explains that such a bond means that a therapeutic alliance allows the practitioner identify the causative factors in the offender due to his close interaction with him or her. Therefore, an effective a therapeutic alliance between the practitioner and the offender is very important in the rehabilitation process because it uses an efficient procedure that uses three components that are crucial in improving correction outcomes.
Wormith and Zidenberg (2018) explain that the three tasks of tasks, goals, and bonds have long been used in determining the quality of interaction between therapists and offenders in community rehabilitation. Nowadays, empirical studies have been done in this area, leading to a convincing assertion by most researchers that stronger alliances and stronger relationships can result in better therapeutic outcomes (Jeglik & Calkins, 2018). At a minimum, a practitioner’s positive relationship with the client is enough or at least necessary in achieving the outcomes that are required for the desired outcomes (Aarten, 2019). Other studies suggest that the quality of relationship between the two is the most important factor determining the quality of outcomes in offender correction. According to Bovard-Johns et al. (2016), research and theory presumptive application from psychotherapeutic literature to rehabilitation has resulted in general belief that a therapeutic alliance is a significant factor that determines the effectiveness of correlational corrections. Even if some correlational researchers have looked at a therapeutic alliance from the perspective of probations, Alm (2016) suggests that very few among them have attempted to elaborate a therapeutic alliance in the context of what works and what does not work in the whole process. Examining the principle of the sub-factors that work in a therapeutic alliance is the starting point of making a therapeutic alliance more appreciated than it is today.
Importance of A therapeutic alliance
The most dominant model of determining effective corrections and probation is the model of “what works,” which apply the principle of risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) (Abracen & Looman, 2016). According to Judd and Lewis (2015), the RNR model as used in a therapeutic alliance makes is easier to bring of the best outcomes in a probation context because it ensures that each offender is treated differently from others based on his or her specific characteristics. This model has its foundation grounded in social psychology, personal psychology, and psychotherapy. It has its focus on social learning, individual behavior, and facilitation of personal change that can minimize criminal behavior and return to crime after probation. Studies on interventions for offenders have indicated that if these three principles of the RNR model have led to reductions in re-offending in almost all groups of offenders (Goldberg et al., 2019). This implies that the effectiveness of the model does not depend of the offender’s age, gender, social class, or the type of offence (Flaskas & Perlesz, 2018). The RNR model makes a therapeutic alliance an important way of ensuring that probation outcomes are improved. Abracen & Looman, (2016) say that RNR closely addresses the issues that make a specific offender in indulge in crime through a formula that looks at these causes, the personal factors that fuel these causes, and the best way through which the probationer can respond to treatments that reduce recidivism.
The first principle of the RNR model, which is the principle of risk, states the offender’s risk level is predictable and should be matched with the intensity and frequency of the service (Jeglik & Calkins, 2018). This implies that the dosage and frequency of treatment should in line with the level of risk of the offender. A high-risk offender, according to Abracen and Looman (2016), should receive more treatments than low-risk offenders. Corrections that have previously adhered to the risk principle have registered an increase in the effectiveness of the rehabilitation program for different offender groups. Various meta-analyses of correlational treatments show that treatments that are offered to low risk offenders provide very low effects on the outcomes while the suitable treatment that applies the RNR principle to the same offenders results in a moderate correlation (Mitchell et al., 2018). The application of the RNR principle also provides an improved effectiveness for high risk offenders. Goldberg et al. (2019) find that the risk component of the RNR model makes a therapeutic alliance a good way of improving community-based sentencing because it considers the risk factor of each offender before a probation program is initiated.
The principle of need, which is the second component of the RNR model, addresses the importance of targeting and identifying the criminogenic needs of the offender so that recidivism can effectively be reduced (Abracen & Looman, 2016). Eight criminogenic areas are identified in therapeutic corrections literature. Wormith & Zidenberg (2018) list the eight criminal behavior correlates as antisocial personality, antisocial peers, family or marital factors, history of antisocial behavior, education or employment, leisure or recreation, antisocial attitudes or cognition, and substance abuse. One of the most important distinctions that should always be drawn from the principle of need is the ability to distinguish criminogenc needs from non-criminogenic needs. The non-criminogenic needs differ from the criminogenic needs are very dynamic factors such as stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Abracen & Looman, 2016). These are factors that can only be addressed best through proper interaction between the offender and therapeutic practitioner even if they are not as strongly related to recidivism as the crminogenic needs. Considering that a major goal in correlational treatments is the reduction of re-offending, there is a need to prioritize criminogenic needs instead of criminogenic needs so that the likelihood of success in correlation treatment can greatly be increased (Goldberg et al., 2019).
The third component of the RNR model is the principle of responsivity, which implies that treatment delivered in a style and means that is in line with the learning style and ability of the probationer (Abracen & Looman, 2016). According to the general principle of responsivity, the best way in which cognitive and behavioral interventions can work is by matching the specific responsivity principle’s treatment style to that of the offender’s personality, motivation, age, gender, language, ethnicity, and interpersonal style. Some researchers have provided a description of the responsivity principle as the principle of “what works for whom” (Goldberg et al., 2019). Therefore, considerable reduction in recidivism and success in correlational treatment can only be achieved if these different qualities of the probationer. However, the main focus of a therapeutic alliance, according to Alm (2016), should be a close interpersonal relationship between the probationer and the therapist. The a therapeutic alliance is part of the responsivity principle and offers the dimension of relationship for provision of service. The greatest effectiveness in a therapeutic alliance is achieved when the relationship between the offender and the helping practitioner has some characteristics which include enthusiasm, openness, warmth, non-blaming and collaborative communication, mutual respect, interest and liking.
In community-based sentencing there is a need for both the justice system and the probation organization to value the role of a change agent (Wormith & Zidenberg, 2018). One of the first responsibilities that the community supervision practitioners are tasked with is developing aA therapeutic alliance. The responsivity principle suggests that the first challenge that the community practitioner faces creating an environment where learning is maximized (Judd & Lewis, 2015). For a learning environment to be created, client factors must first be taken into consideration so that the best ways through which the probationer learns can be identified. Interpersonal relationship between the probation practitioner and the probationer must be enhanced for this to be achieved (Abracen & Looman, 2016). The community supervision practitioner should provide ample chances of collaboration and ensure that the probationer is sufficiently engaged. He should also understand the challenge of working with criminal justice offenders so that their poor engagement and little motivation can be diverted to ensure that they cooperate in the correction process (Goldberg et al., 2019). A growing desire for personal change should be cultivated in the offender to adherence to the need principle.
Aarten (2019) explains that through role clarification between the client and the therapist, which is a technique for intervention that establishes the roles of various stakeholders and builds an effective relationship, expectations and responsibilities of various parties are laid down with regard to community supervision purposes. At the beginning of a relationship that is a relationship that is based on community supervision, the most common step for the practitioner is to ensure that he outlines and details his or her expectation on the behavioral change on the part of the offender and the possible resultant consequences if the client does not comply with the rehabilitation process. In the business of any sentence that involves the community, the practitioner should start by reviewing the sentence of the probationer (Judd & Lewis, 2015). Laying down the law should not be considered as the first step because it creates an atmosphere of us-versus-them, which minimizes the likelihood of collaboration and discourages the engagement of the offender (Abracen & Looman, 2016). The best outcomes in the behaviors of the probationer can be attained if the practitioner undertakes the helper role instead of a law enforcement role.
A therapeutic alliance between the probationer and the practitioner can yield good fruits in community-based sentences because it ensures that the probationer is motivated to reform instead of being forced to adhere to the law (Jeglik & Calkins, 2018). This is because in an effective a therapeutic alliance, the offender is directly involved in setting out the goals of the rehabilitation process. This means that the process enables the offender to own up the rehabilitation process, which encourages them to follow the lessons learnt during the probation process. This ensures that there is a low likelihood of the offender to return to the criminal activities he was being involved in before the sentence. According to Alm (2016), when the goals of the entire probation program are being set, the practitioner asks the probationer what they would wish to attain in the context of the assisting aspect of community-based sentences. The goals set during the process are usually long-term and are usually related directly to the criminogenic needs of the probation client.
In a rehabilitation process that utilizes a therapeutic alliance, the probationer is not just involved actively in setting the goals of the correction program but they are also taken thoroughly the goals thoroughly before the treatment starts. This ensures that the goal elaboration process is an important part of the rehabilitation process (Wormith & Zidenberg, 2018). Therefore, during the interpersonal relationship between the practitioner and the probationer, the offender is aware of what is supposed to be accomplished in terms of his or her thoughts, behaviors, and feelings (Campbell, 2015). Such a program greatly helps in reducing the recidivism of the probationer because it assists him or her to change the attitude he or she had towards crime so that their attitude may rhyme with the goals of community-based sentencing. The practitioner also seeks to understand the offender’s motivation from the goals and what may make the offender view the goals as important to them (Alm, 2016). This way, the practitioner uses the aspect of motivational interviewing as the working spirit during the correction process so that the nature of the offender and unique factors that led the commission of the crime by the probationer are considered during the process of rehabilitation (Alm, 2016). Therefore, the use of a therapeutic alliance is a crucial ingredient that enables community-based sentencing to have the desired outcomes
Goldberg et al. (2019) identify the other factor that makes a therapeutic alliance an important tool for incorporation in the probation context as the fact that it ensures that mutual agreement on the goals is reached between the practitioner and the probationer. In the course of the client’s treatment’s supervision, the practitioner offers their assistance to the client in summarizing and interpreting the goal, as well as achieving it. Such help helps in ensuring that the practitioner can identify the personal attributes that could be preventing the probationer from owning the rehabilitation process and those which had led to his commission of the crime in the first place (Flaskas & Perlesz, 2018). The therapist will, therefore, be able to take the offender through a procedure that will be very likely to overcome the factors that led the probationer into engaging in crime. This is due to the fact that the collaboration of the client will enable the helper practitioner to solve the real problem that forms the core of the decision of the offender break the law (Abracen & Looman, 2016). Therefore, a therapeutic alliance is a more sure way of reducing recidivism than a probation process that does not make use of a therapeutic alliance.
Although there are several ways in which the utilization of a therapeutic alliance can help in improving the outcomes of probation, the tool does not lack its limitation, according to Flaskas and Perlesz (2018). The relationship between the practitioner and the probationer places a lot of demands on the probationer, which brings challenges in the process of problem-solving generating options. Some of the offenders are not in a position to provide the required cooperation because they are not able to make informed decisions when the goals of the process are being agreed upon (Alm, 2016). However, this challenge can be overcome by the fact that a therapeutic alliance takes into consideration the education level and abilities of the offender before it is incorporated, which enables the practitioner to use simplified ways of elaborating the goals to the client.
Conclusion
Meta-analyses and outcome studies from different literature in psychotherapy support the opinion that yielding a positive relationship between the offender and the practitioner are necessary and almost enough in achieving the desired probation outcomes. A therapeutic alliances support the process of rehabilitation and compliance with sentences that are community-based. A working alliance that involves tasks, goals, and responsivity is used in therapeutic relationships to make it possible for each probationer to be dealt with based on his personal characteristics and the nature of the crime for the best outcomes to be achieved. The RNR model can be very useful in ensuring that that a therapeutic alliance yields the best outcome for the client. The model sees to it that the relationship between the practitioner and the probationer are based on their risk factors, their individual criminogenic needs, and individual responsivity to the correction program. As the findings by Judd and Lewis (2015) indicate, the probationer gains behavioral benefits from the use of a therapeutic alliance because he or she is made to feel part of the rehabilitation process as he is directly involved in the formation of the correction goals. However, the best outcomes in probation are gained if there is a positive relationship between the probationer and the therapists, which involves openness, mutual respect, collaborative communication, and enthusiasm.
References
Aarten, P. G. (2019). Exploring Probation Supervision Compliance in the Netherlands. Law & Contemp. Probs., 82, 227.
Abracen, J., & Looman, J. (2016). The Integrated Risk–Need–Responsivity Model (RNR‐I). Treatment of High‐Risk Sexual Offenders, 177.
Alm, S. S. (2016). HOPE Probation: Fair sanctions, evidence-based principles, and therapeutic alliances. Criminology & Pub. Pol’y, 15, 1195.
Bovard-Johns, R., Yoder, J. R., & Burton, D. L. (2015). A therapeutic alliance with juvenile sexual offenders: The effects of trauma symptoms and attachment functioning. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(4), 296-315.
Campbell, S. (2015). Can Counsellors Use Humour to Create aA therapeutic alliance with Mandated Clients? (Doctoral dissertation, City University of Seattle).
Flaskas, C., & Perlesz, A. (Eds.). (2018). The therapeutic relationship in systemic therapy. Routledge.
Goldberg, S. B., Rowe, G., Malte, C. A., Ruan, H., Owen, J. J., & Miller, S. D. (2019). Routine monitoring of a therapeutic alliance to predict treatment engagement in a Veterans Affairs substance use disorders clinic. Psychological Services.
Jeglic, E. L., & Calkins, C. (Eds.). (2018). New Frontiers in Offender Treatment: The Translation of Evidence-Based Practices to Correctional Settings. Springer.
Judd, P., & Lewis, S. (2015). Working against the odds: How probation practitioners can support desistance in young adult offenders. European Journal of Probation, 7(1), 58-75.
Mitchell, D., Tafrate, R. C., & Hogan, T. (2018). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Forensic Treatment. In New Frontiers in Offender Treatment (pp. 57-84). Springer, Cham.
Wormith, J. S., & Zidenberg, A. M. (2018). The historical roots, current status, and future applications of the risk-need-responsivity model (RNR). In New Frontiers in Offender Treatment (pp. 11-41). Springer, Cham.
Youssef, C. (2017). The importance of the a therapeutic alliance when working with men who have committed a sexual offence. Journal of Criminal Psychology.