Search results

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 current study aims to explore the role of stories in organizational sensemaking processes. Rather than positioning stories as one among many different sensemaking mechanisms, it is argued that stories allow a particular kind of sensemaking that is inherently open‐ended, distinguishing it from theoretical and propositional explanations for organizational phenomena. Drawing on previous Foucaultian discussions of epistemes, the paper aims to introduce the notions of epistemic impasse and epistemic spillover, arguing that cross‐functional interaction can cause tensions between incompatible epistemic bases, and that stories can act as a mechanism to overcome such tensions.

A qualitative methodology is used to illustrate the above mechanism in an ethnographic, participant‐observer study of a university student‐support center.

The results show how storytelling led to an increasingly open and ultimately universalizing tendency with the center, thus demonstrating both the potentials and limits of using stories within organizations.

The current paper adds to the storytelling literature by showing how stories not only act as a sensemaking mechanism, but also reimagine the definition of sense in a way that makes it more polyvalent and open to multiple epistemic standpoints.

Large numbers of adults with mental illness detained by police, seen in the courts, and confined in prisons and jails has been a longstanding concern of officials in the mental health and criminal justice systems. Diversion programs represent an important strategy to counteract the criminalization of persons with mental illness. The challenge is to identify and integrate resources in such a way that an organization bridging the police, courts, mental health, substance abuse, homelessness, welfare and entitlements agencies would evolve that would effectively and appropriately serve offenders with mental health issues, keeping them stable in the community and reducing recidivism.

While there is general agreement in the literature regarding the importance of the therapeutic alliance (TA) in psychological interventions with people, the forensic context raises some unique challenges. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how these challenges are managed within a therapeutic context.

This paper consists of a literature review examining the following: the significance of the TA in interventions with forensic clients, especially men who have committed a sexual offence and the impact on treatment efficacy and change; therapist characteristics as well as some of the obstacles and challenges present in a correctional setting, which can impact on the TA and; the role of transference and countertransference in relation to these forensic clients.

Through the literature review, there is a discussion regarding how some of the common obstacles within correctional settings can be overcome, and how certain therapist qualities should be interpreted.

This paper will discuss some of the practical applications of certain recommended therapeutic factors within a correctional setting, challenging some of the common misconceptions and limitations. Furthermore, transference and countertransference, topics which are seldom discussed, will be considered in this paper.

After setting the political and personal contexts, defining key terms, and comparing Indigenous and restorative justice, I clarify three interrelated sites of contestation between and among feminist and anti-racist groups as these relate to alternative justice practices. They are the inequality caused by crime (victims and offenders), social divisions (race and gender politics), and individuals and collectivities (rights of offenders and victims). I outline an intersectional politics of justice, which seeks to address the conflicts at each site. My intersectional framework attempts to align victims’ and offenders’ interests in ways that are not a zero sum game, and to find common ground between feminist and anti-racist justice claims by identifying the negotiating moves each must make. It proposes that victims and offenders have positive rights that are not compromised by collectivities.

This article examines the value of the concept of significant harm some 20 years after its introduction in the Children Act 1989. It introduces the concept of significant harm and then discusses the profile of children and families in care proceedings, the decision‐making process, the interpretation of significant harm in case law, ‘panic’ and its impact on patterns of referrals for case proceedings, and the issue of resources. An alternative model of the problem‐solving court is outlined. It is suggested that ‘significant harm’ has largely stood the test of time. However, the absence of a clear operational definition is both its strength and its weakness. It allows necessary professional discretion but is vulnerable to external pressures affecting its interpretation. A more confident workforce and sufficient resources are required, but the future role of the court and compulsory care is more contentious. The problem‐solving court model may offer a helpful way forward for the scrutiny of significant harm.