Elien Neimeijer

85 between participants and over time. Where sociotherapists have to leave William alone when he is angry, Charlie needs the proximity of sociotherapists in a similar situation. This indicates that it may be impossible to formulate an uniform, optimal group cli- mate for individuals with MID-BIF in secure forensic care, but that a therapeutic group climate varies per person, per situation and over time. Sociotherapists are expected to receive the subtle and ambivalent signals sent out by the participants, to interpret them correctly within that specific context and intervene accordingly. This implies that group climate is a dynamic concept in which sociotherapists must continuously attune their actions to the ambivalent signals of multiple individual clients at the same time. This is even more complex due to ambiguous task of the professionals in this forensic context (i.e., the therapy-security paradox; Inglis, 2010; Jacob, 2012) as they have to assess and manage risks while at the same time building and maintaining a therapeutic relationship and anticipating to the needs and requirements of clients. This paradox has been the focus of scientific research for decades. The Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR) princi- ples of Andrews, Bonta and Hoge (1990) has been the basis of most rehabilitation and treatment programs for delinquents to date and focuses primarily on risk management and relapse prevention. As a counterpart, the Good Lives Model (GLM; Ward, 2002; Ward & Stewart, 2003) focuses mainly on promoting the well-being of the delinquent and focuses on the strengths and capacities of the individual. In the ID-literature positive behaviour support (PBS) has received increased attention (Davies, Griffiths, Liddiard, Lowe, & stead, 2015). Although these theoretical frameworks have proven to be useful within forensic care, it remains difficult, as can be seen in this study, to translate these frameworks from general directions to specific guidance for the unique person in his or her specific context. As in complex care, on the one hand you need ‘big K knowledge’, based on research, captured in publications and transmitted through training and ed- ucation. As seen in this study, also ‘small k knowledge’ is important, based on personal experiences and is the result of own thinking of sociotherapists, that can be used to make the fit with the person (Zomerplaag, 2017). This complicates the work of the sociother- apists in forensic care for people with MID-BIF; working at the intersection of forensic care, psychiatry and care for individuals with intellectual disabilities. This should be in- tegrated flexibly, taking into account different perspectives, proven methods and (legal) frameworks. A few comments should be taken into account when interpreting the results of this study. As with any study using IPA, this study provides insight into how a small number