Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study draws on person-centered therapy, Bordin’s working alliance model, and the guidelines from the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service to explore how Norwegian probation officers demonstrate key relational skills during supervision. Thirteen participants from probation offices in western Norway took part in three focus groups: two with supervisees and one with probation officers. Thematic analysis revealed two key themes: (1) perceptions of inconsistent focus and (2) a cautious atmosphere of trust. While empathy emerged as a crucial factor in building a working alliance, it sometimes came at the cost of structure and planning. However, this imbalance did not necessarily undermine the sessions’ effectiveness, as trust and rapport form a strong foundation for growth. The findings highlight that balancing a strong bond with clear structure is central to effective probation supervision. This implies that probation officers should leverage relational trust to introduce structure, thereby fostering sustainable behavioral change.

Keywords

Supervision community sentencing relation empathy alliance

Introduction

The use of community sentences as an alternative to incarceration has evolved across Europe in recent decades (Aebi and Tiago, 2021). Historically, the pendulum of probation and community supervision has swung between rehabilitative and control-oriented approaches, reflecting broader societal trends (Appleton et al., 2022). Appleton et al. (2022) emphasized that the shift between punitive and rehabilitative approaches has influenced the development of supervision models, particularly the rise of frameworks like Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR). While the RNR model provides valuable insights into managing risk and addressing criminogenic needs, its focus on compliance and monitoring often results in what can be described as transactional relationships. These relationships, characterized by procedural and evaluative interactions, may inadvertently weaken trust and rapport between probation officers and supervisees (Viglione et al., 2017). The procedural emphasis of such approaches can create a perception of supervision as punitive rather than rehabilitative, undermining efforts to build strong relational bonds critical for promoting desistance (Hayes, 2015).

Despite concerns that probation supervision may at times be perceived as overly restrictive, the rehabilitative benefits of community sentences should not be underestimated. Yukhnenko et al. (2019) highlighted the rehabilitative potential of these sentences, with reconviction rates generally lower compared to custodial sentences. Thus, community sentences remain essential for promoting desistance, reducing recidivism, and mitigating the negative effects of imprisonment for low- and moderate-risk offenders (Andersen and Telle, 2022). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of community sentences depends largely on the quality of probation supervision (Bird et al., 2023), reflected by the ability of probation officers to build rapport and trust with supervisees. This is especially important given the risks of the “pains of probation,” where supervision may lead to stress and stigma, as Durnescu (2010) highlighted.

In view of international trends (Aebi and Tiago 2021; Appleton et al. 2022), Norway provides an interesting case, since it boasts a robust welfare system characterized by universalism and egalitarian principles (Dugdale and Hean, 2021; Gisler et al., 2018; Hatland et al., 1994). This societal context has, it seems, contributed to the explicit goal of implementing a person-centered approach (Rogers, 1959) within the Norwegian prison and probation service (Kristoffersen and Iversen, 2018). Accordingly, person-centered principles feature prominently in the guidelines outlined in the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service’s professional strategy (Kriminalomsorgen, 2004), as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Key guidelines from the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service’s professional strategy.

The guidelines aim to foster hope for change by underscoring the individual’s free will and responsibility, alongside supporting growth through meaningful relationships. In recognition of the shared aims between probation services and person-centered psychotherapy, Norwegian probation officers are thus expected to place a strong emphasis on empathy and non-directiveness in supervision sessions while also promoting long-term behavioral change and upholding their enforcement responsibilities. Although a growing body of research supports this paradigm (Viglione et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2022), there is still limited understanding of whether, and how, these competencies are consistently demonstrated in practice. Moreover, it remains unclear whether individuals serving community sentences recognize or are satisfied with such an approach, and we aimed to address these gaps.

Sorsby et al., (2016) and Okonofua et al. (2021) argued that empathic supervision improves probation outcomes, fostering trust and deeper engagement, and reducing recidivism. Studies by Bonta et al. (2008) and Bourgon et al. (2012, 2018) illuminated the necessity of integrating both relational and structural elements to ensure successful outcomes, though these components are not always clearly implemented in practice. Raynor (2024) further highlighted the importance of combining empathy with structured supervision to achieve positive results. Moreover, several researchers (Bonta et al., 2008; Duncan et al., 2010; Nahouli et al., 2022; Sorsby et al., 2016; Viglione et al., 2017) have suggested that in order to achieve long-term crime prevention, it is essential to supplement empathy with structure.

While these revelations are valuable and instrumental for improving the quality of probation services, Bourgon et al. (2018) cautioned that probation officers place too much emphasis on gathering and documenting information. Likewise, Bonta et al. (2008) observed that excessive attention to enforcement can undermine probation’s rehabilitative potential. Together, the overall findings on this issue point to a key challenge in probation supervision, as Nahouli et al. (2022), aptly noted: there is a tense relationship between building relational trust and upholding enforcement responsibilities.

Empathy is the key element in the person-centered approach, originally developed by Carl Rogers (1959). In addition to empathy, this non-directive/non-judgmental method focuses on how equality, trust, respect, and unconditional acceptance are crucial in the relational dynamics between therapists and clients for facilitating personal growth and self-actualization on behalf of the clients (Csillik, 2013). Central to Rogers’ approach is the concept of congruence, which refers to the alignment between an individual’s internal experiences and their external behavior. In probation settings, congruence can also extend to the organizational level, where the alignment of institutional values—such as trust and support for rehabilitation—with frontline practices is critical for fostering an environment conducive to empathy and trust-building. When such congruence is absent, probation officers may struggle to enact their values in practice, leading to tension and reduced effectiveness.

Focusing on the same relational principles as Rogers, Bordin’s (1979) working alliance theory highlights the importance of empathy and collaboration in establishing a working relationship between the therapist and client to achieve mutually agreed-upon goals. His model outlines three core elements: task, bond, and goal, which interact dynamically to support change. The collaborative nature of this model emphasizes that the effectiveness of supervision depends not only on the strength of the bond but also on the shared negotiation of tasks and goals, ensuring that both parties remain actively engaged in the process (Horvath and Greenberg, 1989).

Expanding on these foundations, Erby et al. (2021) synthesized Rogerian theory, working alliance research, and therapeutic relationship literature to further refine the balance between relational warmth and structured guidance. Their work reinforces the idea that effective alliances rely on both trust and transparent expectations. In line with this, Appleton et al. (2022) adapted Bordin’s model to probation work, demonstrating that balancing the bond—by building trust—and setting clear goals and tasks is essential for promoting long-term behavioral change among probationers. To enhance this process, Appleton emphasized the role of Motivational Interviewing (MI), developed by Miller and Rolnick (2012), as a key technique in probation supervision. With the person-centered method at its core, MI encourages self-reflection and intrinsic motivation for change without becoming confrontational (Csillik, 2013). By using MI, probation officers can engage supervisees empathetically while guiding them toward meaningful, goal-oriented outcomes. Consequently, this approach not only helps build rapport but also ensures that supervision sessions remain collaborative, yet structured.

While these relational and structural principles provide a strong foundation for effective probation practice, their implementation is often influenced by cultural and organizational factors (Evans, 2016; Lipsky, 2010). In environments characterized by mistrust, weak institutional structures, or conflicting priorities, probation officers may find it difficult to act consistently on values such as empathy, respect, and fairness. These cultural factors can undermine their ability to maintain a balance between relational bonds and structural tasks, creating a disconnect between their intentions and practices (Trotter, 2022). As Rogers’ concept of congruence suggests, when external conditions fail to support practitioners' internal values, the resulting tension can hinder both relational and rehabilitative outcomes. Addressing these cultural barriers is critical for fostering a probation environment where officers can consistently apply empathetic and structured supervision practices.

To summarize, probation supervision operates at the intersection of relational engagement and structured intervention. Empathy and rapport are essential for trust-building (Csillik, 2013; Rogers, 1959), but effective supervision also requires clear expectations and goal setting (Appleton et al., 2022; Bordin, 1979). Theories of the working alliance highlight the need to balance relational and structural elements, yet the extent to which probation officers can achieve this balance is shaped by organizational and professional requirements (Kriminalomsorgen, 2004; Kristoffersen and Iversen, 2018). Given these constraints, it is crucial to examine how officers manage competing demands in real-world supervision settings and how this affects their ability to foster compliance, trust, and long-term behavioral change.

Aims

As outlined in legislation (LOVDATA, 2002), community sentences in Norway involve mandatory supervision that must be administered within a fixed number of hours and completed within a specific timeframe, with local probation offices responsible for coordination and rehabilitative content. Drawing from person-centered therapy (Rogers, 1959), Bordin’s (1979) model of the working alliance, and the guidelines from the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalomsorgen, 2004; Kristoffersen and Iversen, 2018), this study explored how probation officers demonstrate key relational skills during this type of supervision. Specifically, we sought to address the following research questions:

(1) How do probation officers incorporate person-centered care skills, such as empathy and trust-building, into their supervision sessions?

(2) To what extent do probation officers balance relational skills with the need for clear structures and goals in their sessions with community sentencing recipients?

Additionally, we aimed to provide a framework for optimizing supervision outcomes and improving probation services by clarifying how empathy, trust, and structured goals interact. Through investigating these dynamics, we sought to explore the role of person-centered supervision sessions, acknowledging empathy as a crucial foundation, while considering the potential need for additional approaches that promote greater self-awareness and critical reflection among supervisees, as suggested, for example, by Appleton et al. (2022).

Methods

Participants and procedure

As the aim of the study was to explore the subjective, individual, and varied perspectives and experiences of supervisees receiving community sentencing and probation officers, the study lent itself to a generic qualitative approach to data collection. Three focus groups with a total of 13 participants were conducted. Two focus groups comprised supervisees, with three participants in one group and five in the other. The third group comprised five probation officers. The probation officers had an average of three to five years of professional experience in the field, and the supervisees were serving sentences for a range of non-violent offenses, typically related to property crimes or minor drug offenses. Supervisees and probation officers were separated and placed among peers to make them feel comfortable and respected, and to enable them to feel free to state their opinions without judgment (Krueger, 2014). Each group consisted of both men and women aged 20–45 years. Participants were recruited from one of the local probation offices within the western regional Norwegian Prison and Probation Service. The inclusion criterion for the supervisee group was that participants had attended at least three supervision sessions. The inclusion criterion for the group of probation officers was that they had worked with this type of person-centered approach for at least 6 months, presumably in accordance with Norwegian policy guidelines. Employees with some type of manager/middle manager position were excluded from the probation officer focus group to give participants the confidence to speak freely about their experiences.

Using a non-directive approach grounded in qualitative interviewing techniques (Kvale, 1996; Patton, 2014), the first author facilitated discussions in each focus group. This method encouraged participants to reflect on how probation officers demonstrated relational and structuring behaviors without being led by predetermined responses. The open questioning style allowed for flexibility, inviting participants to explore topics organically, which aligns with the principles of phenomenological inquiry (Creswell and Poth, 2016).

Each focus group lasted approximately one hour, and for practical reasons, sessions were held at a local probation office. The discussions were audio-recorded, and reflective notes and memos were made during and after the focus groups to capture emerging insights. To ensure accuracy and depth in the subsequent analysis, the first author transcribed all data from the focus group discussions.

Data analysis

Following transcription, the data were analyzed using a stepwise thematic analysis approach based on Malterud’s (2017) guidelines, with the aim of identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns within the data. This approach allowed for a structured yet flexible way to understand how probation officers and individuals serving community sentences perceived the relational and structural aspects of supervision sessions. The analysis began with familiarization, during which the first author repeatedly listened to the audio files and thoroughly read the transcripts. Preliminary potential meaning units, or codes, were identified, and then systematically labeled according to meaningful units relevant to the research questions. To enhance the rigor of the analysis, the coding process was reviewed by the second author, ensuring inter-coder agreement and consistency in identifying key themes.

Themes were developed by examining coherent patterns across the data. These themes were refined through a comparison of perspectives within and across the focus groups, highlighting both convergences and divergences between the officers and the individuals serving community sentences. Finally, the thematic analysis led to the identification of two main themes that captured both the shared and contrasting perspectives of probation officers and community sentencing recipients.

Ethics

This project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (project number 36 303). Ethical practices related to securing privacy issues, informed consent, and adequate data storage procedures were followed.

Findings

In this section, we present the two main themes that emerged through the analysis of the focus group interviews. These include the following: (1) Perceptions of inconsistent focus: supervisees frequently noted that the sessions seemed to meander, with conversations often wandering without a clear trajectory, and (2) A cautious atmosphere of trust: supervisees valued the officers’ empathy, yet subtle tension and guardedness lingered, preventing trust from fully solidifying. Many supervisees withheld transparency, creating a delicate balance between openness and caution throughout the sessions.

Perceptions of inconsistent focus

Probation officers described using a relatively uniform structure for their sessions, which was applied to all supervisees. They spoke about how they usually start with a survey of the client’s current life situation and that a crime analysis is done. They believed this was important so they could plan the rest of the supervision sessions in a manner customized to the needs of each client. Up to 3 hours are set aside at the beginning of their meetings with the client for this purpose. They also described routinely beginning their sessions by preparing the individual for what is to happen during the supervision sessions. Probation officers first review these requirements so that the supervisees understand how the process works. The probation officers also mentioned that it was rare for the supervisees to react against the consultations as they were prepared for what was coming. In other words, supervisees were not angry if there were, for example, consequences resulting from any breaches of their probation requirements.

The structure of the sessions described in the probation officer focus group was appreciated by some of the supervisees, as one participant expressed:

- I have nothing to complain about; I have had few supervision sessions, and it has been clear what we have been doing. We had a mapping process in the first sessions – and then went on to the circumstances surrounding the offence itself. (supervisee)

Nonetheless, for others, these standard procedures, favored by the probation officers, were less palatable. They experienced the sessions to be monotonous and struggled to grasp the objectives of the supervisions, which seemed unclear. Moreover, they did not perceive the probation officer as having a clear approach, or method, in conducting the sessions. Despite recognizing these shortcomings, many supervisees found comfort in believing that the probation officer was guided by an underlying strategy, even though it was not openly disclosed to them.

Lastly, several supervisees noted that the discussions with the probation officer didn’t touch on topics they considered important, such as their home situations. They described the sessions more as ‘pastime’ than as constructive conversations that could potentially address and solve their issues.

- Probably useful, but it’s mostly been about showing up to demonstrate that I’m sober. The same questions coming up again…nothing new. (supervisee)

A cautious atmosphere of trust

The probation officers emphasized the importance of building trust and establishing a reciprocal relationship with supervisees. They aimed to create an empathetic and supportive environment where supervisees felt respected and equal. Additionally, they discussed techniques such as distinguishing actions from the person. Using this approach, the probation officers felt they could better understand what was behind the offense committed.

- I do not talk about the offense … in the first consultation – it can be difficult for them to talk about. …I want to know that they trust me. Especially in cases of violence. (probation officer)

The probation officers reflected on their expectations of supervisees’ truthfulness, acknowledging that they sometimes must tolerate the possibility that supervisees may attempt to deceive them. They discussed relying on their own judgment and intuition to assess whether a supervisee was being honest. They also highlighted the value of gently probing to uncover the truth and the benefits of adopting a deliberately naïve approach during sessions.

- When it feels like they tell the truth, then it is most often true. One must, however, also learn to explore what they truly mean – and confront them – if we have a good relationship. Upon closer examination, one can usually reveal logical flaws. Who are they truly deceiving? Sometimes it is not so stupid to act naïve – you get something for free – they open more. (probation officer)

Like the probation officers, the supervisees mentioned honesty as an issue during the sessions. That is, they were aware that a lack of honesty might compromise the usefulness of the session to them.

- The probation officer asks me about my situation, but it will never be 100% truthful or accurately described by me. But in any case, if you do not speak truly, you just fool yourself – impossible to avoid this – it’s like cheating at school, fooling teachers. (supervisee)

The supervisees showed no particular awareness of the techniques used by the probation officer but talked about how the probation officer made them feel. Some noted that they felt respected, at ease, and treated as equals, which contributed to a sense of safety and confidence. However, for others, while these positive interactions fostered a comfortable environment, they were still insufficient to encourage full openness or deeper disclosure. They also spoke about how their experiences varied depending on the probation officer.

- The probation officer has provided good advice and I have used them. I do not find it so easy to talk to people, but with him it was easy. He was open and nice and easy to talk to. Made good contact. … I´ve experienced respect and equality. I could probably have opened myself as a book, but that’s not the way I am. (supervisee)

- I am very pleased with my probation officer as well. Being accepted as a person. You are not judged as a person. I have had three different (probation officers) – and it varies from person to person what contact we get – how much they care – for some it is just being at work to do a job. (supervisee)

Discussion

There was consensus between the groups on the importance of rapport, though participants depicted the sessions as having a cautious atmosphere of trust. Some supervisees described probation officers as empathetic and understanding, fostering a sense of safety in the supervision sessions. Others felt that trust was not fully established, even though they experienced the sessions as safe. These descriptions suggest that Norwegian probation officers often are aware of the need for a person-centered approach in their consultations, as outlined in the guidelines for the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service’s professional strategy (Kriminalomsorgen, 2004; Kristoffersen and Iversen, 2018) and encouraged in other national contexts (Bonta et al., 2008; Bourgon et al., 2018). While their ability to bond with the supervisees may vary, striving for empathy remains a critical first step. As Okonofua et al. (2021) emphasized, empathy in supervision fosters more trusting and productive relationships, significantly improving probation outcomes.

Our study reveals a notable disparity between how probation officers and community sentencing recipients perceived the structure of supervision sessions. While many probation officers believed they conducted sessions with a clear and structured approach, supervisees often perceived them as unfocused and, at times, resembling aimless “small talk.” These findings pose a significant challenge, since a wide variety of researchers (Bird et al., 2023; Sorsby et al., 2016; Viglione et al., 2017) have argued that achieving a balance between empathy and structure is crucial for probation officers to foster an effective working alliance. Sorsby et al. (2016) even suggested that combining structuring skills with relational empathy forms the very foundation for an effective working alliance. Bird et al. (2023) further emphasized that relational skills and clear supervision structures directly contribute to successful rehabilitation, stressing that both elements must be balanced to foster compliance and positive behavioral change. Similarly, as both Viglione et al. (2017) and Nahouli et al. (2022) have pointed out, when empathy and building rapport are combined with clear structuring skills, these play a crucial role in facilitating successful rehabilitation outcomes during probation supervision.

Although the supervisees generally experienced probation officers as trustworthy and opened up to them, a guarded atmosphere persisted. While they valued the officers’ empathy, subtle tension and hesitation often remained, preventing trust from fully solidifying. From a trauma-informed perspective, this guardedness may not simply reflect reluctance to engage but could stem from prior adverse experiences with authority figures (Miller and Najavits, 2012). As Miller and Najavits (2012) have pointed out, probation clients, particularly those with histories of institutionalization, may struggle to fully trust professionals due to past punitive interactions. Considering this, it is plausible that probation officers and supervisees interpret trust differently, as their perspectives are shaped by different life experiences and varying degrees of trauma exposure. This may help explain why some supervisees remain hesitant in their interactions, even when probation officers believe a trusting relationship has been formed.

Both groups acknowledged that convicted individuals might not always be fully transparent about their past and present crimes, creating a delicate balance between openness and trust. Furthermore, probation officers noted that their trust in the client could be compromised when they suspected dishonesty. Trauma research suggests that partial disclosures or inconsistencies in client narratives are not necessarily acts of intentional deception but may result from memory fragmentation (Brewin, 2014) or avoidance strategies (Bedard-Gilligan and Zoellner, 2012), both serving as coping mechanisms. Recognizing these patterns can help probation officers maintain trust without immediately assuming resistance or dishonesty.

In summary, our findings suggest a good-natured, though cautious, atmosphere of trust in the sessions, set within a somewhat loose framework. Probation officers appeared, primarily, to build rapport with the supervisees, aligning with the bond component of Bordin´s (1979) working alliance model and consistent with the person-centered approach’s emphasis on empathy and support (Csillik, 2013; Rogers, 1959). This somewhat narrow focus raises concerns about the potential suboptimality of the supervisions in terms of crime prevention, particularly given that many researchers (Nahouli et al., 2022; Sorsby et al., 2016; Viglione et al., 2017) have argued that balancing empathy and structure is crucial for fostering an effective working alliance and successful rehabilitation. To examine these dynamics further, we have developed, as illustrated in Figure 2, a simplified model outlining how four distinct “atmospheres,” or supervision scenarios, emerge when considering two key situational dimensions: “Structure,” aligning with the “task” and “goal” components, and “Bond.”

Figure 2.

Four supervision scenarios due to varying levels of structure and bond within consultations.

Beginning with Quadrant A, this scenario reflects a well-balanced supervision approach or working alliance, where therapeutic values are harmoniously integrated with a rational, viable structure. Such an approach also heavily relies on probation officers’ adaptability, flexibility, and agility in responding to situational and relational challenges (Duncan et al., 2010). This underscores that a well-calibrated supervision dynamic requires not only trust and rapport but also clear expectations that guide behavioral change, as Erby et al. (2021) emphasized.

Quadrant B reflects an interactional style that is weak on structure but strong on alliance, adhering closely to the non-directiveness of Rogers (1959). In this scenario, probation officers would prioritize warmth and empathy, without incorporating other structuring mechanisms. While consistent with core person-centered values and the principles of the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalomsorgen, 2004), this approach may lack effectiveness in promoting positive behavioral change.

Observed to some degree in this material, the Quadrant C scenario is characterized by both a weak bond and a weak structure, leading to an atmosphere of randomness with no explicit or transparent goals. This lack of empathy and structure is problematic in both therapeutic and probational settings.

Finally, Quadrant D presents a strong structure and a weak bond. Although not evident in this study, such a scenario might reflect a professional outlook that emphasizes control over collaboration. As observed by Bonta et al. (2008) and typical of older, more punitive supervision models (Appleton et al., 2022), this approach contrasts sharply with the goals and values of the Norwegian Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalomsorgen, 2004; Kristoffersen and Iversen, 2018).

Our findings indicate that most probation sessions fall within Quadrant B, where trust is prioritized over structure, reflecting a basic Rogerian approach. Sorsby et al. (2016) and Okonofua et al. (2021) argued that empathic supervision, which fosters cooperation and compliance through rapport, reduces recidivism. However, several other researchers (Bonta et al., 2008; Duncan et al., 2010; Nahouli et al., 2022; Sorsby et al., 2016; Viglione et al., 2017) have noted that in order to achieve long-term crime prevention, empathy must be supplemented with structure. Thus, while building rapport is valuable, achieving effectiveness requires moving beyond empathy alone, for instance by incorporating techniques such as Socratic questioning (Overholser and Beale, 2023) and Motivational Interviewing (Appleton et al., 2022; Csillik, 2013; Miller and Rollnick, 2012). These approaches will enable probation officers to probe deeper without becoming confrontational or judgmental. Essentially, this means that a strong dialog between equals allows officers to guide individuals in scrutinizing their behaviors, morals, and reasoning. In practice, this implies that sessions transition from Quadrant B to Quadrant A as a natural outcome of trust and rapport, not through imposing formal structure alone. Introducing structure prematurely, without sufficient trust, would likely result in a Quadrant D scenario.

Limitations

Several limitations must be acknowledged in this study. First, the sample size was relatively small, which limits the generalizability of the findings to a broader population of probation officers and individuals serving community sentences. While the focus groups provided valuable insights, a larger and more diverse sample might have yielded different or more nuanced results.

Second, the reliance on focus groups, rather than individual interviews, may have constrained the depth of the data collected. Group dynamics in focus groups can sometimes lead to conformity, with participants potentially withholding more critical or personal reflections. Individual interviews may have allowed for deeper exploration of personal experiences and a more detailed understanding of the relational dynamics between probation officers and individuals under supervision.

Third, the study was conducted within a specific geographical region, and the findings may not be fully representative of probation practices in other districts or countries. Differences in local practices, training, and policy implementation could result in varying perceptions of the relational and structural aspects of probation supervision.

Finally, the self-reported nature of the data could introduce bias, particularly in relation to how participants, both probation officers and individuals serving sentences, may have wanted to present themselves in a favorable light.

Conclusions

The results highlight that empathy is the key factor in probation officers’ ability to build a working alliance. Findings also suggest that empathy sometimes emerges at the expense of clear structure and planning. However, this imbalance does not necessarily undermine the effectiveness of the sessions, as trust and rapport provide a strong foundation for growth and development. Nevertheless, probation officers should aim to leverage strong bonds to introduce a degree of structure that enhances the convicted persons' ability to make more sustainable choices for themselves in the future. Additionally, integrating trauma-informed care (Goldstein et al., 2024; Miller and Najavits, 2012) into probation officer education could help practitioners recognize how past trauma influences trust, engagement, and compliance, ultimately improving both relational and structural elements of supervision.

In conclusion, both empathy and transparent structuring are crucial for optimizing therapeutic relationships:

• Empathy enables probation officers to build trust and rapport, allowing them to better understand their clients’ perspectives and respond in a supportive, nonjudgmental manner. This facilitates a strong working alliance, which is central to positive behavioral change.

• Transparent structure ensures clear boundaries, expectations, and goals for the supervision sessions. A well-defined structure helps clients understand the purpose of the sessions and how to work toward meaningful outcomes, while also maintaining professional integrity.

Future research should expand on the work of, for example, Appleton et al. (2022) and Okonofua et al. (2021) by investigating long-term effects of supervision sessions, both within and beyond the prison system, that are grounded in Rogerian principles and Motivational Interviewing. In particular, intervention studies could explore the relational mechanisms through which nondirective techniques complement and enable structured approaches.

Wodahl et al. (2020) found that age and gender influence the probation experience. Younger supervisees often face greater challenges in establishing rapport with officers, and women may experience supervision differently due to unique social and criminogenic needs. Additionally, individuals with personality disorders or other mental health conditions often struggle with trust and compliance, complicating their engagement with probation services (Brooker et al., 2020; Pluck et al., 2015). These studies underscore the importance of considering demographic characteristics and mental health disorders in probation supervision.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical statement

ORCID iD

Karl Yngvar Dale

Data availability statement

The raw data, audio recordings and transcripts are not available.

Author biographies

Karl Yngvar Dale is a specialist in Clinical Psychology and currently Associate Professor at Molde University College. Dale has clinical and scientific expertise in complicated traumatic stress reactions, violence risk management, community-based mental health work and health care organization.

Bjørn Kjetil Larsen is an Associate professor at Molde University College. He has worked as a front-line social worker for twenty years within several fields such as mental health service, substance abuse treatment and the correctional service.

Sarah Hean is a professor of social work and is currently principal investigator and coordinator of the COLAB consortium, an UiS led and EU funded MCA RISE program aiming to improve collaborations between criminal justice and welfare services (2017 - 2021).

Atle Ødegård is a clinical psychologist and professor (full) at Molde University College. His main research interests are interprofessional collaboration and innovation - in practice and education, as well as the development of new research methodologies in these fields.

References

Aebi

Tiago

(2021) SPACE I - 2020 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison Populations. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Andersen

Telle

(2022) Better out than in? The effect on recidivism of replacing incarceration with electronic monitoring in Norway. European Journal of Criminology 19(1): 55–76.

Appleton

Mackey

Skidmore

, et al. (2022) The pendulum of community supervision: the emergence of RNR, working alliance, and motivational factors as a means to improve supervision. In: Jeglic

Calkins

(eds) Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 365–397.

Bedard-Gilligan

Zoellner

(2012) Dissociation and memory fragmentation in post-traumatic stress disorder: an evaluation of the dissociative encoding hypothesis. Memory 20(3): 277–299.

Bird

Nguyen

Grattet

(2023) Recidivism outcomes under a shifting continuum of control. American Journal of Criminal Justice 48(3): 808–829.

Bonta

Rugge

Scott

T-L

, et al. (2008) Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47(3): 248–270.

Bordin

(1979) The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice 16(3): 252–260.

Bourgon

Gutierrez

Ashton

(2012) The evolution of community supervision practice: the transformation from case manager to change agent. Federal Probation 76: 27.

Bourgon

Rugge

Chadwick

, et al. (2018) The living laboratory studies: providing insights into community supervision practices. Federal Probation 82: 3.

10.

Brewin

(2014) Episodic memory, perceptual memory, and their interaction: foundations for a theory of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Bulletin 140(1): 69–97.

11.

Brooker

Sirdifield

Marples

(2020) Mental health and probation: a systematic review of the literature. Forensic Sci Int Mind Law 1: 100003.

12.

Creswell

Poth

(2016) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

13.

Csillik

(2013) Understanding motivational interviewing effectiveness: contributions from Rogers' client-centered approach. The Humanistic Psychologist 41(4): 350–363.

14.

Dugdale

Hean

(2021) The application of Norwegian humane ideals by front-line workers when collaboratively reintegrating inmates back into society. Improving Interagency Collaboration, Innovation and Learning in Criminal Justice Systems 111: 111–138.

15.

Duncan

Miller

Wampold

, et al. (2010) The Heart and Soul of Change: Delivering what Works in Therapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

16.

Durnescu

(2010) Pains of probation: effective practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55(4): 530–545.

17.

Erby

Wisniewski

Lewis

, et al. (2021) Adaptation of the working alliance inventory for the assessment of the therapeutic alliance in genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling 30(1): 11–21.

18.

Evans

(2016) Professional Discretion in Welfare Services: Beyond Street-Level Bureaucracy. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

19.

Gisler

Pruin

Hostettler

(2018) Experiences with Welfare, Rehabilitation And Reintegration of Prisoners: Lessons Learned? Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).

20.

Goldstein

Chokshi

Melendez-Torres

, et al. (2024) Effectiveness of trauma-informed care implementation in health care settings: systematic review of reviews and realist synthesis. The Permanente Journal 28(1): 135–150.

21.

Hatland

Kuhnle

Romøren

(1994) Den Norske Velferdsstaten [The Norwegian Welfare State]. Hilzingen: Ad Notam Gyldendal.

22.

Hayes

(2015) The impact of supervision on the pains of community penalties in England and Wales: an exploratory study. European Journal of Probation 7(2): 85–102.

23.

Horvath

Greenberg

(1989) Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology 36(2): 223–233.

24.

Kriminalomsorgen (2004) Strategi for Faglig Virksomhet I Kriminalomsorgen 2004-2007 [Strategy for Academic Activities 2004-2007]. Oslo: KSF.

25.

Kristoffersen

Iversen

(2018) Samfunnsstraff–på tide med en revisjon [Community sentence - time for a revision]. Tidsskrift for strafferett 18(3): 151–180.

26.

Krueger

(2014) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

27.

Kvale

(1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitive Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

28.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

29.

LOVDATA (2002) The execution of sentences act. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2001-05-18-21?q=straffegjennomf%C3%B8ringslov:MinistryofJusticeandPublicSecurity

30.

Malterud

(2017) Kvalitative forskningsmetoder for medisin og helsefag: en innføring. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

31.

Miller

Najavits

(2012) Creating trauma-informed correctional care: a balance of goals and environment. European Journal of Psychotraumatology 3(1): 17246.

32.

Miller

Rollnick

(2012) Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change. New York City: Guilford press.

33.

Nahouli

Mackenzie

J-M

Aresti

, et al. (2022) Rapport building with offenders in probation supervision: the views of English probation practitioners. Probation Journal 70(2): 104–123.

34.

Okonofua

Saadatian

Ocampo

, et al. (2021) A scalable empathic supervision intervention to mitigate recidivism from probation and parole. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(14): e2018036118.

35.

Overholser

Beale

(2023) The art and science behind socratic questioning and guided discovery: a research review. Psychotherapy Research 33(7): 946–956.

36.

Patton

(2014) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

37.

Pluck

Brooker

Blizard

, et al. (2015) Personality disorder in a probation cohort: demographic, substance misuse and forensic characteristics. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 25(5): 403–415.

38.

Raynor

(2024) Social rehabilitation and community sentences. In: Social Rehabilitation and Criminal Justice. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 199–210.

39.

Rogers

(1959) A Theory of Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships: As Developed in the Client-Centered Framework. In: Koch

(ed). Psychology: A Study of a Science. Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw Hill, III, 184–256.

40.

Sorsby

Shapland

Robinson

(2016) Using compliance with probation supervision as an interim outcome measure in evaluating a probation initiative. Criminology and Criminal Justice 17(1): 40–61.

41.

Trotter

(2022) Working with Involuntary Clients: A Guide to Practice. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

42.

Viglione

Rudes

Taxman

(2017) Probation officer use of client-centered communication strategies in adult probation settings. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 56(1): 38–60.

43.

Wilson

Applegate

Bolin

(2022) Evidence-based practices in community corrections: officers’ perceptions of professional relevance and personal competence. American Journal of Criminal Justice 47(1): 117–139.

44.

Wodahl

Mowen

Garland

(2020) The effect of individual characteristics and supervision experiences on the perceived quality of the supervision relationship. Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5): 523–545.

45.

Yukhnenko

Wolf

Blackwood

, et al. (2019) Recidivism rates in individuals receiving community sentences: a systematic review. PLoS One 14(9): e0222495.

Exploring relational and structuring skills among Norwegian probation officers during mandatory supervision sessions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Aims

Methods

Participants and procedure

Data analysis

Ethics

Findings

Perceptions of inconsistent focus

A cautious atmosphere of trust

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical statement

ORCID iD

Data availability statement

Author biographies

References