Women and girls represent only a minority in the penitentiary system and in forensic mental health care. About 6%–10% of both prison and forensic psychiatric populations in Western countries comprise women (see for the most recent offi cial statistics in the UK w ww.gov. uk/government, in Canada w ww.statcan.gc.ca, and in the US w ww.bjs.gov) . However, there seems to be widespread agreement that in the past 20 years female offending has been on the rise, especially violent offending and particularly among young women ( Miller, Malone, and Dodge, 2010; M oretti, Catchpole, and Odgers, 2005) . Overall, a disproportionate growth of females entering the criminal justice system and forensic mental health care has been observed in many countries (for reviews, see Nicholls, Cruise, Greig, and Hinz, 2015; Odgers, Moretti, and Reppucci, 2005 ; Walmsley, 2015) . In addition, it should be noted that the ‘dark number’ for women is suggested to be bigger than for men. Offi cial prevalence rates of female offending might constitute an underestimation as women usually commit less reported offences, for example, domestic violence (N icholls, Greaves, Greig, and Moretti, 2015) . Furthermore, it has been found that – if apprehended – girls and women are treated more leniently by professionals and the criminal justice system. Generally, they receive lower prison sentences and are more often admitted to civil psychiatric institutions instead of receiving a prison sentence or mandatory forensic treatment after committing violence ( Javdani, Sadeh, and Verona, 2011 ; Jeffries, Fletcher, and Newbold, 2003 ). Hence, although female offenders compared to male offenders are a minority, female violence is a substantial problem that deserves more attention. Our understanding of female offenders is hindered by the general paucity of theoretical and empirical investigations of this population. In order to improve current treatment and assessment practices, our knowledge and understanding of female offenders should be enlarged and optimised (d e Vogel and Nicholls, 2016 ).
This article is about the effect of local tailored interventions to counter (violent) extremism, and therefore contributes to the academic and policy debates. It focusses on local, professional perspectives on person-specific interventions utilising a Dutch case study as the basis. The interventions are part of the wider-ranging counter terrorism policy that entails (local) measures that are deployed in relation to designated high-risk individuals and groups. By reviewing policy documents and conducting semi-structured interviews, the exploratory study concludes that the key factors for a hand-tailored intervention are a solid network, expert knowledge to assess potential signs of extremist ideology, an awareness of not having too many concurrent measures, good inter-institutional cooperation and information-sharing. The professionals involved felt that person-specific interventions have contributed to reducing the threat of religious extremism in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, municipal officials and security agents emphasised the importance of setting realistic goals and a focus on preventive rather than repressive measures. Furthermore, despite the central role that municipal actors play, they run up against problems such as cooperation within the security and care sector. National entities appear to emphasize information-gathering and monitoring more than community-focused cooperation. Thereby questioning whether, on the national level, local professionals are perceived as playing a key role in dealing with extremism.
Purpose – Continuity of forensic mental health care is important in building protective structures around a patient and has been shown to decrease risks of relapse. Realising continuity can be complicated due to restrictions from finances or legislation and difficulties in collaboration between settings. In the Netherlands, several programs have been developed to improve continuity of forensic care. It is unknown whether professionals and clients are sufficiently aware of these programs. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The experienced difficulties and needs of professionals and patients regarding continuity of forensic care were explored by means of an online survey and focus groups. The survey was completed by 318 professionals. Two focus groups with professionals (15 participants), one focus group and one interview with patients (six participants) were conducted. Findings – The overall majority (85.6 percent) reported to experience problems in continuity on a frequent basis. The three main problems are: first, limited capacity for discharge from inpatient to outpatient or sheltered living; second, collaboration between forensic and regular mental health care; and, third, limited capacity for long-term inpatient care. Only a quarter of the participants knew the existing programs. Actual implementation of these programs was even lower (3.9 percent). The top three of professionals’ needs are: better collaboration; higher capacity; more knowledge about rules and regulation. Participants of the focus groups emphasized the importance of transparent communication, timely discharge planning and education. Practical implications – Gathering best practices about regional collaboration networks and developing a blue print based on the best practices could be helpful in improving collaboration between setting in the forensic field. In addition, more use of systematic discharge planning is needed to improve continuity in forensic mental healthcare. It is important to communicate in an honest, transparent way to clients about their forensic mental health trajectories,even if there are Setbacks or delays. More emphasis needs to be placed on communicating and implementing policy programs in daily practice and more education about legislation is needed Structured evaluations of programs aiming to improve continuity of forensic mental health care are highly needed. Originality/value – Policy programs hardly reach professionals. Professionals see improvements in collaboration as top priority. Patients emphasize the human approach and transparent communication.
LINK
