Elien Neimeijer

114 Introduction When someone is admitted to a secure (forensic) setting, this is thought to be in the best interest of the individual and/or society. This concerns both individuals who are placed with a civil measure when their own safety is severely threatened, and individuals who are placed with a judicial measure to serve rehabilitative goals for criminal offenses. The goal of secure (forensic) treatment is to protect the individual and society from harm and to prevent recidivism. This is done by giving treatment and 24/7 support to clients. With the aim of reducing recidivism and protecting society on one hand and increasing psy- chological wellbeing on the other, and due to social and political pressure, forensic care has a complex task that is often carried out on the basis of risk-based thinking. The inter- ests of many parties must be taken into account in secure forensic care: those of society and the press, government, political pressure in some cases, professionals, the client and those close to them (Livingston, Nijdam-Jones, & Brink, 2012). Social and political views and pressure, together with a complex target group, make the balance between therapy and security a precarious one. However, to be able to achieve therapeutic goals socio- therapists must be sensitive to this balance. That this balance is relevant is shown by an increasing number of (inter)national studies in which different words are given to that balance from security versus therapy (Hachtel, Vogel, & Huber, 2019; Inglis, 2010; Jacobs, 2012; Schaftenaar, 2018), and containment versus care (Martin, 2001) to guarding versus care (Hörberg, Sjögren, & Dahlberg, 2012). Research on secure forensic care focuses mainly on topics such as risk assessment, what works principles (RNR; Andrews & Bonta, 2010), effectiveness and recidivism. Over the decade, there has also been a growing focus on features of positive psychology in secure forensic treatment. Emphasizing the ‘healthy sides’ of clients and their envi- ronment becomes a valuable addition to the traditionally risk-oriented vision in secure forensic treatment (see De Vries Robbé & De Vogel, 2013; Ros, Van der Helm, Wissink, Stams, & Schaftenaar, 2013; Schaftenaar, 2018). The Good Lives Model (Ward & Brown, 2004) is an example of this. Also, Andrews and Bonta (2010) argue that the effectiveness of interventions in secure forensic care is improved when performed by professionals with high quality relationship skills in combination with high structuring skills. The rela- tionships they describe are respectful, caring, enthusiastic, focused on cooperation and giving room to personal autonomy. If there is too much emphasis placed on control and security (i.e. physical safety), it will harm the quality of care and it has a negative im-