Building a therapeutic relationship between probation officers and probationers with serious mental illnesses

Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this study was to engage in a collaborative process with a variety of stakeholders to develop the Brief Intervention to Promote Service Engagement (BIPSE), which aims to enhance the therapeutic relationship between probation officers and probationers with serious mental illnesses (SMI). Methods. The BIPSE intervention was developed through a multistage “design for implementation” process, including a series of stakeholder meetings, observations of probation supervision sessions, incorporating existing intervention approaches, and workshopping initial BIPSE components with three randomly selected officers from a specialized mental health probation unit. Acceptability and feasibility of BIPSE components were assessed through focus groups with probation officers, additional observations of probation sessions, and qualitative interviews with probationers with SMI. Results. Two foundational components of the BIPSE intervention were identified during the stakeholder meetings and observations: (1) engagement and (2) shared decision-making. These two components inform and undergird the intervention’s third component, strategic case management. During focus groups, probation officers expressed interest in using the modified tools they were given and also saw the benefit of structuring their sessions. Probationers expressed their appreciation for the caring and collaborative nature with which their probation officers approached their sessions. Conclusion. Building a therapeutic relationship between probation officers and probationers with SMI is an essential task toward improving mental health and criminal justice outcomes. The BIPSE development and refinement process demonstrates that interventions targeting the therapeutic relationship are acceptable to officers and clients, and can be tailored and feasibly structured into standard probation practices.

Building a therapeutic relationship between probation officers and probationers with serious mental illnesses

“…Probation settings are characterized by an overarching climate of power differentials and compliance-monitoring in which the enforcing of probationers’ adherence to court conditions typically relies on punitive sanctions and, in cases of repeated noncompliance, unsuccessful termination from probation and incarceration 48 . Successful engagement of probationers with SMI is the first and core focus area of BIPSE, serving as a foundation for other intervention components.…”

“…This theme resonated with earlier research our team had done with probationers with SMI, who emphasized the interconnection of trust, support, and caring as powerful components of a relationship with their probation officer that facilitated motivation and engagement in services 23 . Furthermore, stakeholder meetings addressed logistical issues such as existing training and stated needs of officers, examination of current probation protocols and required paperwork, and officer acceptability of intervention concepts 47 …”

Challenges to Employing Shared Decision Making With Adults Under Community Supervision Who Have a Mental Illness

“…Adopting the perspective that the needs of the client to support criminal desistance are essentially the same as the community's needs for public safety highlights the importance of establishing collaborative working relationships that promote supervisee engagement in rehabilitative services. For example, as shared decision making with patients can improve engagement in heath promoting behaviors and treatments, it can also potentially increase the engagement of community supervisees in rehabilitative services ( 12 ). Indeed, recent guidance on community corrections supervision highlights competencies that include a focus on development of positive interpersonal relationships among officers and supervisees ( 21 ).…”

“…Indeed, recent guidance on community corrections supervision highlights competencies that include a focus on development of positive interpersonal relationships among officers and supervisees ( 21 ). The potential for these relationships to promote collaboration and to engage individuals in rehabilitative services and enhance public safety is reflected in recent research indicating that bidirectional communication that supports shared decision making among officers and those they supervise contributes to trust, respect, working alliance, and goal agreement, all of which reduce reactance toward the officer and supervisee recidivism ( 12 , 24 , 25 ).…”

“…In the criminal justice field, features and outcomes of shared decision making align with research on procedural justice and legitimacy theory indicating that justice-involved persons who report being treated fairly, collaboratively, and according to transparent policies and procedures (i.e., in a procedurally just manner) by legal actors are more likely to recognize the authority of these actors (i.e., their legitimacy), cooperate with them, and avoid non-compliant and criminal behaviors (11). Based upon these promising outcomes, shared decision making is being advanced in work with individuals who are under community supervision and who have MI (12)(13)(14). Nonetheless, there remain several challenges to employing shared decision making with people who have MI, including practical issues like time constraints during the clinical encounter, insufficient provider training in shared decision making, and limited treatment options [for reviews, see (15,16)].…”