Search results

This study aims to explore service users’ experience of psychological therapy as part of a community sentence with a Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) in Birmingham Courts between January and December 2018.

All service users that had therapy in this period were telephoned a month after ending and offered a semi-structured telephone interview. Seven service users agreed to be recorded. This data was then transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to gain a richer understanding of their lived experience.

Themes identified were: Is the MHTR for me? Opening up, enlightening connections and personal change. Service users initially questioned the relevance and burden of the order for them; the experience of therapy allowed them to trust and talk about things unsaid in the past; this helped them to review and reconsider their understanding of themselves and their life choices and what further support they might need.

Interviews were not completed by an independent interviewer. Experience of working with offender manager supervision additionally available throughout the sentence was not explored.

What is included in the MHTR information and support needs to be informed by the service user’s perspective, including this can improve engagement.

Therapy was seen as a “a cog in the machine” and wider social inequalities may need to be addressed within the sentence.

This report focusses on experience of a therapeutic intervention – a key part of a community sentence with an MHTR.

In the UK, the mental health treatment requirement (MHTR) order for offenders on probation has been underused. A MHTR service was established to assess the effectiveness of a partnership between a probation service, a link worker charity and an independent mental healthcare provider. Short-term structured cognitive behavioural interventions were delivered by psychology graduates with relevant work experience and training. Training for the judiciary on the MHTR and the new service led to a significant increase in the use of MHTR orders. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A total of 56 (of 76 MHTR offenders) completed treatment in the first 12 months. A single cohort pre-post follow-up design was used to evaluate change in the following domains: mental health and wellbeing; coping skills; social adjustment; and criminal justice outcomes. Mental health treatment interventions were delivered under supervision by two psychology graduates who had relevant work experience and who were trained in short term, structured, cognitive behavioural (CBT) interventions.

Clinically significant changes were obtained on measures of anxiety and depression, and on measures of social problem solving, emotional regulation and self-efficacy. Ratings of work and social adjustment and pre-post ratings of dynamic criminogenic risk factors also improved. This new initiative has addressed the moral argument for equality of access to mental health services for offenders given a community order.

While the current initiative represents one of a number of models designed to increase the collaboration between the criminal justice and the mental health systems, this is the first within the UK to deliver a therapeutic response at the point of sentencing for offenders with mental health problems. The significant increase in the provision of MHTR community orders in the first year of the project has been associated with a decrease in the number of psychiatric reports requested that are time consuming and do not lead to a rapid treatment.

The use of mental health treatment requirements (MHTRs) has not proven to be successful at meeting the mental health needs of the probation population in the UK, largely through underuse of the requirement or lack of available services. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This paper investigates a method of meeting those needs without the use of MHTRs by embedding third sector services within the probation environment.

Results indicate a significant impact after a six-month follow-up in symptomology across measures of depression, anxiety, general distress and social functioning; also indicated is a significant result on recidivism, with 74 per cent of participants committing no further offences in the 12 months following treatment.

These results represent the only evaluation of embedded, third sector mental health services in a probation environment in the UK, and highlight a further need to embed specialist mental health services within the probation environment and generalise that practice to other forms of service structure and therapeutic methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the role in offender mental health for the probation service described in policy translates into practice through exploring staff and offenders’ perceptions of this role in one probation trust. In particular, to examine barriers to staff performing their role and ways of overcoming them.

Qualitative secondary analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 11 probation staff and nine offenders using the constant comparative method.

Both staff and offenders defined probation’s role as identifying and monitoring mental illness amongst offenders, facilitating access to and monitoring offenders’ engagement with health services, and managing risk. Barriers to fulfilling this role included limited training, a lack of formal referral procedures/pathways between probation and health agencies, difficulties in obtaining and administering mental health treatment requirements, problems with inter-agency communication, and gaps in service provision for those with dual diagnosis and personality disorder. Strategies for improvement include improved training, developing a specialist role in probation and formalising partnership arrangements.

Further research is required to explore the transferability of these findings, particularly in the light of the recent probation reforms.

This is the first paper to explore how staff and offenders perceive probation’s role in offender mental health in comparison with the role set out in policy.

The role of evidence-based psychological knowledge in cases of juvenile offending is essential to make appropriate decisions relating to youth who violate legal or social norms, as it carries implications for treatment, intervention and practice. Psychological expert opinions therefore need to meet high formal and methodological requirements while maintaining ethical standards. The purpose of this study is to investigate psychological expert opinions in cases of juvenile misbehavior reported to regional courts in Poland. Juvenile court proceedings concern cases of demoralization and/or delinquent offenses. Demoralization is a legal concept described in the Act of June 9, 2022 on juvenile support and resocialization. This concept was not defined; it was only described through examples of behaviors indicating demoralization. These include the following: violations of the principles of community life; evading compulsory education or schooling; use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their precursors, substitutes or new psychoactive substances; and prostitution.

To reach these goals, court records of juvenile cases in six district courts (N = 253) were gathered and analyzed. A semistructured questionnaire was used to examine the cases in which psychologists were appointed and to analyze the procedures used by these experts for assessing adolescents and their families.

Findings revealed that family judges appoint psychologists both in cases of “demoralization” (i.e. status offenses) and in cases of juvenile delinquency. The opinions were delivered by psychologists who were mostly members of diagnostic teams. Results indicate that such opinions generally comply with the minimal standards recommended by the Ministry of Justice, yet a few problems were observed with the determination of levels of demoralization.

The limitations of diagnostic tools used by psychologists are discussed, and recommendations for future practice are provided.

This paper aims to examine the ways in which the criminal justice system has evolved to accommodate mental illness. Mental health courts are one such alternative; these courts actively seek rehabilitative and therapeutic outcomes for participants. However, current literature suggests that these courts are ineffective for offenders who have been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD).

The aim of the current inquiry was to determine the degree to which participation in the Assessment and Referral Court (ARC) List in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria reduced re-offending rates for offenders diagnosed with BPD by providing a comparative analysis of pre and post ARC List offending.

The results of a two-year recidivism study suggest that successful completion of the ARC List reduces recidivism for 50% of offenders diagnosed with BPD.

To the authoring team’s knowledge, this is the second paper to explore the efficacy of the Assessment of Referral Court List (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria) in reducing recidivist behaviours for programme participants; however, it is the first paper to look specifically at the recidivist behaviours of participants of the Assessment of Referral Court List (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria) who have been diagnosed with BPD.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest that there was a need for a psychometric measure to assess attitudes specifically towards offenders with mental health problems. The “Community Attitudes towards the Mentally Ill” scale (CAMI; Taylor and Dear, 1981) was adapted to create a new psychometric measure; the “Police and Community Attitudes towards Offenders with Mental Illness” scale (PACAMI-O).

A sample of police and community participants (n=178) completed this scale through the online surveying system, Psychdata. The new psychometric measure utilised the same 40 items featured in the CAMI; although, the wording was adapted.

The internal reliability for the combined sample was high (α=0.929), which implied very good internal reliability. An exploratory factor analysis identified four new factors: Self-Preservation, Societal Reservation, Mental Health Awareness and Treatment Ideology. A t-test revealed there was a significant difference between the scores of the police and community sample, with the effect size depicting a large magnitude between the means (t(176)=p=0.019, η2=0.16).

The PACAMI-O scale appears adequate for measuring attitudes towards its targeted sample and has shown utility with; a professional group (police officers and custody sergeants) who potentially face such offenders (primarily in the context of using Section 136 of the Mental Health Act). It therefore has practical implications in assessing attitudes with other groups within forensic mental health.

Assessing attitudes towards offenders with mental health problems would enable a better understanding of the formation of negative attitudes and stigmatisation and therefore, ways of tackling treatment, rehabilitation and also community reintegration.