Elien Neimeijer

13 spite an initial lack of motivation, inability, or limited skills and/or severe psychopa- thology. A possible advantage of compulsory treatment, due to a legal framework, is the more consistent and longer treatment duration in comparison to voluntary treatment, but prolonged residential treatment can be challenging for maintaining motivation (Van der Helm, Wissink, De Jongh, & Stams, 2012). This continuity of care and the additional provision of supportive aftercare may explain good levels of satisfaction in compulsory treatment along the way and resulting better levels of functioning (Hachtel et al., 2019; Schaftenaar, 2018) Secure forensic treatment for individuals with MID-BIF Secure (forensic) treatment for individuals with MID-BIF is focused on accepting disabilities, compensating skill deficits and stimulating or increasing competencies. It typically consists of therapeutic approaches or interventions that are also being used in forensic settings for individuals without intellectual disability, while interventions have been adapted for offenders with MID-BIF (Didden, Nijman, Delforterie, & Keulen-De Vos, 2019; Keulen-De Vos & Frijters, 2015). While there is currently no single treatment model that addresses all of the unique characteristics of this target group, interventions and rehabilitation programs of individ- uals with (mild) intellectual disability in secure forensic settings are often based on the risk, need and responsivity (RNR) principles of Andrews and Bonta (2006) and the Good Lives Model (GLM; Ward, Mann, & Gannon, 2007). Both models though are facing em- pirical problems (Ziv, 2017). The RNR model consists of three principles: risk, need and responsivity. The risk principle assumes that care intensity should be matched to the level of risk posed by the client. The need principle states that treatment should be targeted at the individual needs that are related to criminal behaviour, the so-called criminogenic needs. The responsiv- ity principle assumes that the treatment must be responsive to the client’s unique char- acteristics and personal circumstances (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Extensive research has been carried out to examine the usefulness of the RNR model in various types of offenders, including individuals with an intellectual disability (Frize, Kenny, & Lennings, 2008; Hocken, Winder, & Grayson, 2013; Lindsay et al., 2013). According to this model, to determine the adequate type of treatment and level of care intensity, individualised