Two sides of the working alliance: A qualitative study from the perspective of both probationers and probation officers

Abstract

The probationer–probation officer working alliance plays an important role in the outcome of probation supervision. This study explored the development of the working alliance between probationers and probation officers in the Netherlands, from the perspective of both probationers and probation officers. More specifically, we explored the significance of different aspects of the working alliance at the start of probation supervision and after a three-month period, as well as the role played by critical incidents during the supervisory process and their subsequent effect on the working alliance. Overall, the study showed that clarity over goals and restrictions was initially the most salient issue for both parties, and that after a three-month period the working alliance evolved into a trusting relationship. Several incidents were identified, probationers identified more positive moments and less negative moments than their PO counterparts. If these types of incidents are managed accordingly by the probation officer, then they can ultimately serve to strengthen the relationship.

Working Alliance, Risk, and Recidivism: A Community-Based Corrections Analysis

“…2003; Sturm et al, 2022). The goals of the working alliance to promote engagement and receptivity to supervision standards align well with the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity (Andrews & Dowden, 2007).…”

“…Research overwhelmingly suggests that the working alliance between therapists and therapy clients is a robust and predictive factor for therapeutic outcomes (Horvath, 2001; Horvath & Greenberg, 1989; Horvath & Luborsky, 1993; Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Lambert, 1992; Lambert & Barley, 2001; Martin et al, 2000; Norcross & Lambert, 2006; Orlinsky et al, 2004). Researchers have further shown that the working alliance is also a robust factor impacting treatment completion and attrition rates (Blasko et al, 2018; Blasko & Jeglic, 2016; DeSorcy et al, 2016; Kozar & Day, 2012; Ross et al, 2008; Serran et al, 2003; Sturm et al, 2022). The goals of the working alliance to promote engagement and receptivity to supervision standards align well with the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity (Andrews & Dowden, 2007).…”

“…The concept of the working alliance between therapist and client has been established in the field as a robust factor impacting therapeutic outcomes (Horvath, 2001; Horvath & Greenberg, 1989; Horvath & Luborsky, 1993; Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Lambert, 1992; Lambert & Barley, 2001; Martin et al, 2000; Norcross & Lambert, 2006; Orlinsky et al, 2004). Researchers have also identified that the power of the working alliance also extends to the field of corrections and is a fundamental factor influencing supervision and treatment for individuals involved in the criminal justice system (referred to as client throughout this paper) (Blasko et al, 2018; Blasko & Jeglic, 2016; DeSorcy et al, 2016; Kozar & Day, 2012; Ross et al, 2008; Serran et al, 2003; Sturm et al, 2022). For example, DeSorcy et al (2016) reported that stronger working alliances were associated with increased rates of treatment completion and lower attrition in a sample of adult men convicted of sex offenses who completed correctional supervision and treatment in Saskatchewan, Canada.…”

Healing trauma in a traumatising environment with young adult men

“…The working alliance is defined as the degree to which the therapeutic relationship is grounded in collaborative work with a shared purpose [28,29]. Whilst there exists a plethora of research into the alliance within voluntary therapy contexts, less is known about this alliance within forensic settings [30]. Dominant models of rehabilitation of those in custody emphasise the importance of the working alliance [31].…”

The Mediating Alliance

“…More recently, there is growing interest in applying the concept of the working alliance to the fields of education (Estrada 2016) and social work (Horvath 2018), as well as executive and workplace coaching (Baron, Morin, and Morin 2011; De Haan et al 2016; Graßmann, Schölmerich, and Schermuly 2020; Kruger and Terblanche 2022). In addition, the concept has been applied to research on the professional–client relationship for attorneys (Tatman and Love 2010; McNamara 2012; McDonald, Morgan, and Metze 2016), probation officers (Sturm et al 2021, 2022), and other professionals within the criminal justice system.…”