Therapeutic interventions in the Criminal Justice System

By Jake Neller

When it comes to reducing reoffending, therapeutic interventions are among the most effective, with a strong evidence base supporting their impact. In the context of the Criminal Justice System (CJS), therapeutic interventions focus on addressing the underlying factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, with the primary aim of rehabilitation and long-term behaviour change. These interventions target criminogenic needs such as impulsivity, substance misuse, poor problem-solving skills, and pro-criminal attitudes. They also seek to challenge distorted thinking patterns and develop key skills including empathy, impulse control, and responsible decision-making. By equipping individuals with strategies to manage stress, trauma, and conflict, therapeutic approaches reduce the likelihood of a return to offending.

Not only do therapeutic interventions reduce reoffending but evidence indicates they also contribute to improved mental health, an important factor linked to criminal behaviour. These interventions help reduce emotional dysregulation and build psychological resilience by fostering emotional insight, self-worth, and effective coping strategies. They also play a vital role in connecting individuals with ongoing support, including community-based mental health services. Therapeutic approaches have been shown to support reductions in self-harm, enhance emotional regulation and sleep quality, and promote healthier social functioning.

Therapeutic interventions can be delivered in either group or individual formats, each offering distinct advantages. Group interventions, typically facilitated by two practitioners, usually involve 6–12 participants. They are resource-efficient and foster peer learning, empathy, and shared problem-solving. However, they are less flexible, with limited scope for individual tailoring and a need for participants to progress at the same pace. In contrast, individual interventions offer a more personalized and private setting, enabling deeper emotional exploration, stronger therapeutic relationships, and greater adaptability to crises or changing needs. They are particularly effective for high-risk or hard-to-engage individuals but are more resource-intensive in terms of time, staffing, and cost. The choice between formats depends on available resources and the needs of the individual. Group-based CBT is well-evidenced for reducing reoffending among medium-risk offenders, while individual interventions are often essential, and more effective, for those with mental health disorders, complex trauma, or high-risk behaviours.

Most therapeutic interventions in the Criminal Justice System have been shaped by western models, often assuming a one-size-fits-all approach. However, interventions can and should be adapted to meet diverse needs. Adjustments may include simplified language, slower pacing, visual aids, and repeated key messages.

For autistic individuals, reducing sensory stimuli and allowing sensory aids can support engagement, for those with learning disabilities developing ‘Easy Read’ materials, pictorial guides, small-group or one-to-one formats, and preparatory sessions can support in engagement. Cultural and linguistic diversity should also be considered, this includes cultural competence training for facilitators, access to interpreters or translated materials, and using culturally relevant examples.

Ensuring therapeutic interventions are accessible and ethical requires careful consideration of individual needs and the context in which support is delivered.