Elien Neimeijer

43 staff and residents ultimately reduce the efficacy and effectiveness of rehabilitative efforts (Robinson et al., 2018). Also, aggression may lead to an unsafe working environment for staff and to an increased risk on sick leave and burn out symptoms (De Looff, Nijman, Didden, & Embregts, 2018). It is therefore important that studies explore which factors are related to aggressive incidents in secure (forensic) settings for individuals with Mild Intellectual Disability or Borderline Intellectual Functioning (MID-BIF; IQ 50-85). A high number of aggressive incidents in secure forensic care is considered a serious problem, not only for clients but for sociotherapists as well Research suggests that a positive group climate is important to reduce aggressive inci- dents in secure forensic settings (Robinson et al., 2018). Group climate has been defined as ‘the quality of the social and physical environment in terms of the provision of sufficient and necessary conditions for physical and mental health, well-being, contact and person- al growth of the residents, with respect for their human dignity and human rights, as well as (if not restricted by judicial measures) their personal autonomy, aimed at recovery and successful participation in society’ (Stams & Van der Helm, 2017, p. 4). A structured and safe environment, with adequate support from sociotherapists, opportunities to learn and develop (growth), clear rules and limits, and a safe atmosphere among clients char- acterizes an open and therapeutic group climate (Van Der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & Van Der Laan, 2014). By contrast, a closed and repressive group climate is characterised by a lack of structure, unduly strict control, loss of autonomy, absence of mutual respect, boredom, feelings of despair, aggression, and lack of perspective (De Valk, Kuiper, van der Helm, Maas, & Stams, 2016). A range of studies shows that there is a relation be- tween the quality of group climate and the number of aggressive incidents in secure forensic settings (De Decker et al., 2018; Heynen, Van Der Helm, Cima, Stams, & Koreb- rits, 2016; Meehan, McIntosh, & Bergen, 2006; Robinson et al., 2018; Robinson & Craig, 2019; Ros et al., 2013; Van den Tillaart, Eltink, Stams, Van der Helm, & Wissink, 2018). In secure forensic settings, clients live with approximately eight other clients together in living groups under 24/7 supervision of professional caregivers (i.e., sociotherapists). Therefore, the quality of sociotherapist-client relationships is a crucial element of a safe and therapeutic group climate. To maintain safety at the living group, sociotherapists attempt to regulate aggressive behaviour of clients. Unfortunately, too often this involves