Ms Natalie Wilson, Mr Hugh Nehrybecki1, Mr Andy Chia1, Ms Jessica Gormley
1Problematic Behaviour Support Services, Richmond, Australia
Biography:
Jessica Gormley is a forensic psychologist, PhD candidate and founder and Director of Problematic Behaviour Support Services, where she leads a specialist forensic and clinical team who are as passionate as they are talented. Her doctoral research challenges prevailing approaches to the classification and differentiation of sexual offenders, examining the implications for theory, assessment and treatment. Jessica brings a clear, practical and evidence-informed perspective to complex forensic work. She is particularly committed to developing innovative, responsivity-focused forensic services that turn evidence into meaningful practice and better outcomes.
Abstract:
Forensic disability practice begins where two systems diverge, and where neither is sufficient alone.
Disability services are built around choice, control, participation and the least restrictive life. Justice systems are built around accountability, public protection and responses to harm. The difficulty arises when disability-related needs and offending-behaviour cannot be separated, yet the systems responsible for them operate as though they can.
Regulated restrictive practice can become the uneasy meeting point. It permits liberty to be limited to prevent harm, but is designed to contain immediate risk. It does not explain why harmful behaviour persists, identify what must change, or show how control will reduce.
Justice conditions may create the opposite gap: supervision is imposed without being translated into intervention the person can understand and use in everyday life. Between them sits a participant whose plan may satisfy regulatory requirements without changing the pathway to harm.
This presentation introduces the Forensic Behaviour Support model and its central proposition: restriction should trigger formulation, not substitute for it.
Every restriction should prompt four questions: What harm is it preventing? What sustains that risk? What would meaningful change look like? What evidence would justify reducing control? Answering them requires behavioural function, criminogenic need and responsivity to be considered concurrently from first contact.
Sequential transitions can become points of delay, disengagement and fragmentation; behaviour support documents should operate as accountability milestones, not treatment gates. The model is practice-derived, its integrated effectiveness remains untested, and it is offered for examination.