Using a working alliance monitor as a professional tool for joint reflection in one-toone supervision with a mandated client

Using a working alliance monitor as a
professional tool for joint reflection in one-to-
one supervision with a mandated client
Widya de Bakker, MSc., HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, The Netherlands
Andrea Donker, PhD, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, The Netherlands
drs. Johan Boxstaens, Karel de Grote University College and the University of Antwerp, Belgium

Outline
Introduction:
• Theory & aim
• Working Alliance for Mandated Clients Inventory (WAMCI)
• Research design
Preliminary results: focus on perceived relevance and
usability
Conclusion & future plans

Theoretical framework
In the field of counseling & psychotherapy:
• Relationship between practitioner & client is a vital component of the
therapeutic process (e.g. Lambert and Barley, 2002; Binder, Holgersen and Nielsen,
2009; Norcross, 2011)
• The professional relationship as a ‘vehicle for change’ that can lead to
personal growth (Rogers, 1957)
In the field of community supervision:
• Relationship between practitioner & client is not ‘therapeutic’ in its essence
• It is framed by the legal mandate of a third party (a court)
• Practitioners have a dual role

However, strong & supportive relationships are also necessary in the
process of desistance from crime (Burnett & McNeill, 2005)
To capture the specificity of professional relationships in community
supervision: pan-theoretical concept of the ‘working alliance’ (Bordin, 1979)
Translated to the field of community supervision, the WA consists of:
- A bond reflecting the nature of the professional relationship
- An agreement on the goals of supervision
- An agreement on the tasks that need to be completed to achieve
these goals (DeLude, Mitchell & Barber, 2012)

Goals, tasks & bond are present in every process of community
supervision and are primarily shaped by conditions imposed by a
legal mandate (Hart & Collins, 2014)
In brief:
- Professional relationships (bond) are also important in community
supervision, BUT…
- Emphasis is on the collaboration between practitioners and clients
to perform common tasks & reach shared goals that determine the
nature of the bond that needs to be developed.

Working Alliance for Mandated Clients
Inventory (WAMCI)
Using the theoretical framework of the working alliance, a new
instrument has been developed to measure the quality of the
working alliance in community supervision: the Working Alliance for
Mandated Clients Inventory (Menger & Donker, 2013; Menger et al., 2013)
Purpose: to collect valid and reliable information about the quality
of the working alliance in community supervision (and how it
evolves over time)

Inventory (WAMCI)
In therapeutic relationships, joint reflection and collecting client feedback can
have a positive effect on treatment outcome (Miller, Hubble & Duncan, 2007; Lambert &
Shimokawa, 2011)
Especially when a standardized feedback instrument is used:
• Psychological problems are less likely to deteriorate;
• Lower risk for dropout;
• More likely to achieve positive change;
• Potential problems in the therapeutical relationship are more easily detected and addressed.
Idea: can the WAMCI also be used as a professional tool to help clients
and professionals in community supervision to (periodically) discuss
the quality of their working alliance?

Inventory (WAMCI)
Client Probation officer
My PO trusts me to be open and
honest towards him or her
I trust him or her to be open and
honest with me
My PO and I agree on what has to
change with me
My client and I agree on what
should change with him/her.
During our discussions, I argue
with my probation officer a lot.
My client argues with me a lot
during our discussions.
• 19 parallel items
• 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree)

Using a working alliance monitor as a professional tool for joint reflection in one-toone supervision with a mandated client

Aim of the study
To gain insight into joint reflection with the WAMCI in mandated
context and it’s perceived relevance by probation workers and their
clients
Research questions:
• How to use the WAMCI as a tool for reflection in one-to-one
offender supervision?
• How do probation workers and clients experience the process of
joint reflection with the WAMCI?

Initial research design
Research
group
Pre-test Intervention First
evaluation
Second
evaluation &
post-test
Experimental 1 X X X X
Control 1 X - - X
Experimental 2 - X X X
Control 2 - - - X
Client criteria for participation:
• Suspended sentence
• Started less than three months ago (min of 1 and max of 5 contacts)

Phase Measures When?
Pretest Questionnaire:
• Perceived level of WA quality
• Cliënt’s life events
Within 3 months after
start supervision
Intervention: joint reflection using the WAMCI approximately 3 months after pre-test
1st
evaluation
Short structured telephonic
interviews on perception of
relevance and usability
Within a week after
intervention
2nd
evaluation
& posttest
• Telephonic interviews
• Questionnaires as Baseline +
WAMCI
Approximately 3 months
after intervention

Suggested method for joint reflection
•First step: Answering the WAMCI individually
•Second step: Compare and discuss your answers
for each item
[Afterwards: No need to save the used WAMCI]

Results: dyads of participants (the Netherlands)
Research
group
evaluation
Second
evalution &
post-test
PO CL Dyads PO CL PO CL
Experimental 1 33 26
34
19 11 12 9
Experimental 2 - - 15 9 10 6

Results: dyads of participants (Belgium)
Research
group
evaluation
Second
evaluation &
post-test
PO CL Dyads PO CL PO CL
Experimental 1 33 30 24 15 10 30 28
Control 1 30 30 - - - 27 22
Experimental 2 - - 36 22 19 29 28
Control 2 - - - - - 31 29

Results: perceived relevance of joint reflection
Within a week
PO’s
(n=26)
Clients
(n=15)
Useful 73,1% 53,3%
Neutral 11,5% 6,7%
Not useful 15,4% 40%

Results: perceived relevance of joint reflection
Within a week Three months later
PO’s
(n=26)
Clients
(n=15)
PO’s
(n=17)
Clients
(n=6)
Useful 73,1% 53,3% 82,4% 33,3%
Neutral 11,5% 6,7% 17,6% -
Not useful 15,4% 40% 5,9% 66,7%

Useful
Often, when I ask my clients if he or she is on the right track, they respond
in a vaguely positive, surface-level-manner. Whereas, when using this tool,
the client responded with a much more in depth answer, which I liked.
[PO, 1st evaluation]
Yes, we could see how we viewed one another. Also, I noticed that we are
on the same page. [Client, 1st evaluation]

Not useful
Personally, I didn’t experience many benefits because I already had
a good understanding with this client, who is also cooperative. I
did not discover any suprises or faults [PO, 1st evaluation]
I feel it did not benefit me much since I am on good relations with
my probation officer. However, I could see this tool being more
useful for people who are not as close with their probation officer.
[Cl, 2nd evaluation]
I don’t think it is relevant as I am only there to show my
improvements and not to create a great bond with my probation
officer [Cl, 1st evaluation]

Results: used method of joint reflection
• Answering individually:
• 80% (24 of 30 dyads)
• All items discussed:
• 94,1% (32 of 34 dyads)
• Afterwards saved the filled completed WAMCI:
• 29% (9 of 31 dyads)

Results: perceived usability of WAMCI as
professional tool for joint reflection
• Help needed to answer questions:
• 33,3% (11 of 33 clients)
• Experienced trouble discussing some subjects:
• 42,4% (14 of 33 PO’s)

Limitations
Most frequently reasons:
• PO didn’t participate after several requests (NL)
• According to PO: Not a good time or client not suitable (NL)
• Client drop-out or re-arrest (NL & BE)
• Client refused (BE)
• Practical: Casefile moved to another PO (BE)
Potential selection effect
• Probation officers
• Clients
Non-response at: The Netherlands Belgium
Pretest (Exp1 & Contr1) 45% (27 of 60 dyads) 52% (64 of 124 dyads)
Intervention (Exp1 & Exp2) 65% (63 of 97 dyads) 18% (16 of 73 dyads)
Posttest (all research groups) 35% (12 of 34 dyads) 22% (30 of 137 dyads)

Preliminary conclusions
• Vast majority of PO’s in our sample are convinced that the quality of
the working alliance is important in working with mandated clients;
• The idea of using a structured tool for reflection in community
supervision was initially seen as ‘unnatural’ by PO’s. In the
experimental groups, there seems to be a growing consensus that
using the WAMCI can have an added value;
• As to the question when the use of the WAMCI is most relevant, a
dichotomy seems to develop amongst the PO’s in our sample:
• A group of PO’s advocates the use of the WAMCI in problematic cases;
• A group of PO’s argues that the use of the WAMCI should be reserved for
cases where things go relatively well.

Perceived relevance:
- Most PO’s report perceived relevance after 1 week and 3 months later
- Perceived relevance was less among clients and seems to drop over time
(from half of the clients after 1 week to one third after 3 months)
Perceived usability
- adjustments to the WAMCI might be needed
- More simple language?
- What to do with the difficult subjects: rephrase? Erase? Remain?

Overall, our preliminary findings suggest that the WAMCI has
potential as a professional tool, BUT…
• Exploratory study, follow-up research is necessary;
• Possible bias in our sample: only dyads with a fairly good quality of
the working alliance?
• A long way from piloting an instrument to implementing it in daily
practice

Future plans
• Further analyses of the qualitative & quantitative data that were
gathered in our current project;
• Comparative research: similarities & differences between Dutch &
Flemish data;
• Testing our hypothesis on the possible bias in our sample;
• Expanding the research agenda on the working alliance in a mandated
context:
• Is there a link between the quality of the working alliance and recidivism?
• Implementation research: how can we integrate the WAMCI in community
supervision practice in The Netherlands & Belgium?
• Can the WAMCI be used in other areas of social work where practitioners
work with involuntary clients?
• …

Widya de Bakker (Netherlands) Johan Boxstaens (Belgium)
Widya.debakker@hu.nl Johan.Boxstaens@KdG.be

Using a working alliance monitor as a professional tool for joint reflection in one-toone supervision with a mandated client

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Using a working alliance monitor as a professional tool for joint reflection in one-toone supervision with a mandated client (20)

More from Kenniscentrum Sociale Innovatie (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

Using a working alliance monitor as a professional tool for joint reflection in one-toone supervision with a mandated client