Motivational Interviewing in Criminal Justice

Motivational Interviewing in Criminal Justice

Motivational Interviewing in Criminal Justice

Criminal justice practitioners often have to combine authority, accountability and public protection with conversations intended to support meaningful change. MI can help practitioners work within those realities without confusing compliance with motivation.

Mandated conversations

“But they have to be here.”

This is one of the most important questions about using MI in criminal justice. A person may be required to attend probation, treatment or another intervention. Their freedom to choose whether the meeting happens may be limited.

That does not mean they have no autonomy.

MI does not require us to pretend that a mandate is voluntary. It asks us to distinguish clearly between what is required and where meaningful choice still exists.

A practitioner can be transparent about requirements and consequences while remaining curious about what the person wants their life to look like and whether any of the possible changes matter to them.

Authority without unnecessary confrontation

Four areas where MI can help

Engagement

Acknowledging openly that the person did not choose the referral can sometimes create more credibility than behaving as though everyone entered the room with the same agenda.

Accountability

Acceptance and empathy do not mean approving harmful behaviour. Practitioners can explore responsibility and consequences without using shame as the primary engine for change.

Risk

Risk information may need to be discussed directly. MI provides communication skills for sharing concerns while continuing to explore the person’s perspective and motivations.

Change

The mandated goal and the person’s own goals may not initially be identical. Focusing can help identify areas of overlap from which a meaningful change conversation can develop.

A practical distinction

Requirement versus choice

Requirement: “You are required to attend these appointments as part of your order.”

Choice: “Given that you have to spend this time here, what would make these conversations useful to you?”

The second statement does not remove the mandate. It looks for autonomy within it.

This can also reduce unproductive arguments about whether the person “should” want to change and allow the practitioner to explore what matters to them.

Evidence and limitations

What does the research suggest?

Recent systematic review evidence supports the use of MI with justice-involved populations, including findings relating to engagement and dropout, while the strength of evidence differs across outcomes and interventions.

A 2026 systematic literature review also describes growing application of MI across criminal justice settings. This does not mean MI is a solution to every problem within criminal justice, nor that every programme labelled MI demonstrates equivalent practice.

The practical implication is more modest: MI offers a well-developed approach to engagement and conversations about change that can be adapted thoughtfully to authoritative settings.

When the relationship strains

Discord and the pull towards confrontation

Mandated settings can make discord more likely. A practitioner may hear “You’re just trying to catch me out” or “You don’t care what I think.”

Correcting these statements immediately may deepen the argument. Reflecting the person’s experience first can create enough space to continue.

“It feels as though the decisions have already been made and your view doesn’t count.”

This does not mean agreeing that the practitioner has acted unfairly. It communicates that the person’s experience has been heard.

Explore Responding to Discord →

Professional boundaries

MI does not remove accountability

MI is sometimes misunderstood as being soft, permissive or unwilling to challenge harmful behaviour. That confuses acceptance of the person with approval of every behaviour.

Criminal justice practitioners can remain clear about boundaries, risk, requirements and consequences. MI influences how those conversations are conducted and how much opportunity the person has to articulate their own reasons for a different future.

Develop practice

MI training for criminal justice practitioners

Effective training should use realistic conversations involving authority, mandated attendance, risk, accountability and change rather than examples borrowed from voluntary therapy.

Explore MI TrainingBack to MI in Different Settings