Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:11:07.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2020

Matthew W. Epperson Open the ORCID record for Matthew W. Epperson [Opens in a new window] ,
Leon Sawh  and
Sophia P. Sarantakos
Matthew W. Epperson*
Affiliation:
School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Leon Sawh
Affiliation:
School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Sophia P. Sarantakos
Affiliation:
School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: M. W. Epperson, Associate Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 969 East 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637, USA. (Email: mepperson@uchicago.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Engagementinterventionprobationserious mental illnessshared decision-makingtherapeutic relationship
Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 25 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 723 - 733
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

Epperson, MW, Pettus-Davis, C. Smart Decarceration: Achieving Criminal Justice Transformation in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
Travis, J, Western, B, Redburn, S. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2014.Google Scholar
Mauer, M. Addressing racial disparities in incarceration. Prison J. 2011;91(3):87S–101S.10.1177/0032885511415227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steadman, H, Osher, F, Robbins, P, Case, B, Samuels, S. Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(6):761–765.10.1176/ps.2009.60.6.761CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazel, S, Danesh, J. Serious mental disorder in 23,000 prisoners: a systematic review of 62 surveys. Lancet. 2002;359:545–550.10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07740-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doob, AN, Webster, CM. Creating the will to change: the challenges of decarceration in the United States. Criminol Pub Policy. 2014;13:13Google Scholar
Epperson, M, Pettus-Davis, C. Smart decarceration: guiding concepts for an era of criminal justice transformation. In: Epperson, M, Pettus-Davis, C, eds. Smart Decarceration: Achieving Criminal Justice Transformation in the 21st Century . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
Kaeble, D, Glaze, LE, Tsoutis, A, Minton, TD. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2015.Google Scholar
Skeem, J, Emke-Francis, P, Eno Louden, J. Probation, mental health, and mandated treatment: a national survey. Crim Justice Behav. 2006;33(2):158–184.10.1177/0093854805284420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munetz, MR, Griffin, PA. Use of the sequential intercept model as an approach to decriminalization of people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57:544–549.10.1176/ps.2006.57.4.544CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epperson, M, Wolff, N, Morgan, R, Fisher, W, Frueh, B, Huening, J. Envisioning the next generation of behavioral health and criminal justice interventions. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;37(5):427–438.10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, N, Frueh, B, Huening, J, et al. Practice informs the next generation of behavioral health and criminal justice interventions. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2013;36:1–10.10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of State Governments. Criminal Justice-Mental Health Concensus Project Report. New York, NY: Council of State Governments; 2002.Google Scholar
Louden, JE, Skeem, JL, Camp, J, Christensen, E. Supervising probationers with mental disorder: how do agencies respond to violations? Crim Justice Behav. 2008;35(7):83210.1177/0093854808319042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lurigio, A, Cho, Y, Swartz, J, Johnson, T, Graf, I, Pickup, L. Standardized assessment of substance-related, other psychiatric, and comorbid disorders among probationers. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2003;47(6):63010.1177/0306624X03257710CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, P, Draine, J, Marcus, SC. Predicting incarceration of clients of a psychiatric probation and parole service. Psychiatr Serv. 2002;53(1):5010.1176/appi.ps.53.1.50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, RD, Flora, DB, Droner, DG, Miles, JF, Varghese, F, Steffan, JS. Treating offenders with mental illness: a research synthesis. Law Hum Behav. 2011;36(1):3710.1037/h0093964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babchuk, LC, Lurigio, AJ, Canada, KE, Epperson, MW. Responding to probationers with mental illnesses. Feder Prob. 2012;76(2):41–48.Google Scholar
Skeem, J, Manchak, S, Montoya, L. Comparing public safety outcomes for traditional probation vs specialty mental health probation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(9):942–948.10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1384CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, N, Epperson, M, Shi, J, Huening, J, Schumann, B, Rubinstein, I. Mental health specialized probation caseloads: are they effective. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;37:464–472.10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manchak, S, Skeem, J, Kennealy, P, Louden, J. High-fidelity specialty mental health probation improves officer practices, treatment access, and rule compliance. Law Hum Behav. 2014;38(5):450–461.10.1037/lhb0000076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skeem, J, Montoya, L, Manchak, S. Comparing costs of traditional and specialty probation for people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2018;69(8):896–902.10.1176/appi.ps.201700498CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epperson, M, Thompson, J, Lurigio, A, Kim, S. Unpacking the relationship between probatinoers with serious mental illnesses and probation staff. J Offender Rehabil. 2017;56(3):188–216.10.1080/10509674.2017.1290005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordin, E. The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychother Theory Res Pract. 1979;16(3):25210.1037/h0085885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, S, Hilsenroth, M. A review of therapist characteristics and techniques positively impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clin Psychol Rev. 2003;23(1):1–33.10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00146-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, DJ, Garske, JP, Davis, MK. Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(3):43810.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canada, K, Epperson, M. The client-caseworker relationship and its association with outcomes among mental health court participants. Commun Mental Health J. 2014;50:968–973.10.1007/s10597-014-9713-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamberti, J. Preventing criminal recidivism through mental health and criminal justice collaboration. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;67(11):1206–1212.10.1176/appi.ps.201500384CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clear, TR, Latessa, EJ. Probation officers' roles in intensive supervision: surveillance versus treatment. Justice Q. 1993;10(3):441–462.10.1080/07418829300091921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, AD, Seiter, RP. Social worker or cop? Measuring the supervision styles of probation & parole officers in Kentucky and Missouri. J Crime Justice. 2004;27(2):27–57.10.1080/0735648X.2004.9721194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiter, RP, West, AD. Supervision styles in probation and parole: an analysis of activities. J Offend Rehabil. 2003;38(2):57–75.10.1300/J076v38n02_04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeem, J, Eno Louden, J. Toward evidence-based practice for probationers and parolees mandated to mental health treatment. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(3):333.10.1176/appi.ps.57.3.333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasko, BL, Friedmann, PD, Rhodes, AG, Taxman, FS. The parolee–parole officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Crim Justice Behav. 2015;42:722–740.Google Scholar
Brown, P, O'leary, K. Therapeutic alliance: predicting continuance and success in group treatment for spouse abuse. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(2):340.10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skeem, J, Eno Louden, J, Polaschek, D, Camp, J. Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: blending care with control. Psychol Assess. 2007;19(4):397–410.10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, C, Murphy, C, King, D, Musser, P, DeDeyn, J. Process and treatment adherence factors in group cognitive-behavioral therapy for partner violent men. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71(4):812.10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.812CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, G. Working alliance between substance abusing offenders and their parole officers and counselors: its impact on outcome and role as a mediator. J Crime Justice. 2016;39(3):421–437.10.1080/0735648X.2015.1053967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latessa, E, Lemke, R, Makarios, M, Smith, P. The creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Feder Probat. 2010;74:16Google Scholar
Kennealy, P, Skeem, J, Manchak, S, Eno Louden, J. Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law Hum Behav. 2012;36(6):496–505.10.1037/h0093935CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canada, K, Watson, A. “Cause everybody likes to be treated good”: perceptions of procedural justice among mental health court participants. Am Behav Sci. 2013;57(2):209–230.10.1177/0002764212465415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A, Angell, B. Applying procedural justice theory to law enforcement's response to persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(6):787–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasko, B, Taxman, F. Are supervision practices procedurally fair? Development and predictive utility of a procedural justice measure for use in community corrections settings. Crim Justice Behav. 2018;45(3):402–420.Google Scholar
Epperson, M, Canada, K, Thompson, J, Lurigio, A. Walking the line: specialized and standard probation officer perspectives on supervising probationers with serious mental illnesses. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;37:473–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, C, Lowenkamp, C, Holsinger, A, VanBenschoten, S, Alexander, M, Oleson, J. A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): using core correctional practices in probation interactions. J Crime Justice. 2012;35(2):167–188.10.1080/0735648X.2012.674823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P, Schweitzer, M, Labrecque, R, Latessa, E. Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: an evaluation of the EPICS model. J Crime Justice. 2012;35(2):189–199.10.1080/0735648X.2012.674826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epperson, M, Sawh, L. Developing an intervention for probationers with SMI: a “design for implementation” approach. 24th Mental Health Services Research Conference, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD; 2018.Google Scholar
Epperson, M, Sawh, L. Implementation-focused development of an intervention targeting probationers with serious mental illnesses. 11th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, Washington, DC; 2018.Google Scholar
Epperson, M, Sarantakos, S, Thompson, J, Self, J. Tactical compliance versus self-transformation: adaptive responses of probationers with serious mental illnesses [under review].Google Scholar
McKay, M, Hibbert, R, Hoagwood, K, et al. Integrating evidence-based engagement interventions into “real world” child mental health settings. Brief Treat Crisis Interven. 2004;4(2):177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, T, Brown, M. The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10(3):243–257.10.1080/10683160410001662744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, S, Clark, M, Gingerich, R, Meltzer, M. Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide for Probation and Parole. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections; 2007.Google Scholar
Dinh, TTH, Bonner, A, Clark, R, Ramsbotham, J, Hines, S. The effectiveness of the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in health education for people with chronic disease: a systematic review. JBI Datab Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(1):210–247.10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joosten, E, DeFuentes-Merillas, L, De Weert, G, Sensky, T, Van Der Staak, C, de Jong, C. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom . 2008;77(4):219–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deegan, P, Drake, R. Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(11):1636–1639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, J, Drake, R, Wolford, G. Shared decision-making preferences of people with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(9):1219–1221.Google ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G, Frosch, D, Thomson, R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munetz, MR, Ritter, C, Teller, JL, Bonfine, N. Mental health court and assisted outpatient treatment: perceived coercion, procedural justice, and program impact. Mental Health. 2014;65(3):352–358.Google ScholarPubMed