Dilemmas in applying strengths-based approaches in working with offenders with mental illness: A critical multidisciplinary review

- A strengths-approach starts from abilities - instead of a deficit-based viewpoint.
- Different disciplines in forensic mental health share a strengths-based shift.
- Differences apply to the objectives of disciplines in forensic mental health.
- An eclectic multidisciplinary approach in forensic mental health should be avoided.
- The article adopts a holistic-integrative view on risks, strengths, capabilities.

The recent focus on extending risk assessment and treatment in forensic mental health with protective factors relates to the increasing interest in strengths-based approaches in various professional disciplines: law (e.g. human rights), criminology (e.g. desistance), mental health care (e.g. recovery), forensic psychology (e.g. the Good Lives Model), special needs education (e.g. Quality of Life) and family studies (e.g. family recovery). In this article, we will discuss the available knowledge with regard to strengths-based approaches for offenders with mental illness, in relation to these different disciplines. Several dilemmas are observed across these disciplines: (1) “Living apart together”: the integration of different disciplines; (2) “Beyond Babylonian confusion and towards more theoretical research”: conceptualization of strengths-based practices in different fields; (3) “No agency without autonomy”: the individual in context; and (4) “Risks, strengths and capabilities”: the search for an integrated paradigm. In our view, these different disciplines share a shift in how humankind is viewed, respecting agency in the interaction with people who have offended. Yet, differences apply to the objectives that the disciplines strive for, which warrants not to eclectically consider strengths-based working in each of the disciplines as 'being small variations of the same theme'.