Policy, practice and regulatory issues in mobile technology treatment for forensic clients
| Author | Stuart Ross |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220318761382 |
| Published date | 01 April 2018 |
| Date | 01 April 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220318761382
European Journal of Probation
2018, Vol. 10(1) 44 –58
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2066220318761382
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
Policy, practice and
regulatory issues in mobile
technology treatment for
forensic clients
Stuart Ross
University of Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
This article examines developments in mobile technologies that target the treatment and
support needs of offenders in the community, and sets out three challenges that must
be addressed if these interventions are to become part of the correctional programs
environment. These are: how to identify good quality mobile applications that will yield
genuine benefits for practitioners and service users; how to adapt forensic treatment
approaches to work effectively in a mobile application environment, and how to make
mobile applications available to forensic clients and motivate people to use them. Until
these challenges are addressed the potential value of mobile technologies in providing
greater access to forensic treatment will not be realised.
Keywords
Innovation, mobile technology, rehabilitation, treatment
Introduction
Mobile digital technologies have fundamentally transformed many aspects of our lives:
the way we buy things, how we access news and information services, our social interac-
tions, and the way we work. Some human services systems, notably health and mental
health services, have been quick to exploit the potential of mobile digital technologies to
support both practitioners and service users. In contrast, correctional services have been
largely untouched by these developments, and forensic services and treatment (that is,
mental health, alcohol and drug, or related services directed at people involved with the
justice system) remain based around traditional person-to-person interactions. In the last
Corresponding author:
Stuart Ross, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne 3010,
Australia.
Email: rosssr1@unimelb.edu.au
761382EJP0010.1177/2066220318761382European Journal of ProbationRoss
2018
Original Article
To continue reading
Request your trial