Risk and Effective Practice
Introduction to effective practice and risk management Effective practice principles This assignment will explain three effective practice principles: carcinogenic need, programmer integrity and responsively, followed with a brief case example of how it is used in my professional practice. Carcinogenic Need The carcinogenic need principle involves the basic idea of identifying key dynamic risk factors related to offending behavior (Chapman & Hough 1998, Winston & Heath 2010), such as unemployment or drug dependency, and then implementing prevention methods designed to counteract them (Barrington, 2002: 60).
This idea is at the core of rehabilitative practice (Burnett & Roberts, 2004), if the practitioner assesses the carcinogenic needs and provides intervention to suit, then risk of further offending should be reduced (Memorizing, 2004). This need is to identify what is needed to reduce the offending Programmer modeled on the What Works paradigm are based on the need principle. It is important to be able to distinguish between carcinogenic and non carcinogenic needs, I. E. N individual’s problem that supports or contribute to offending to those more distantly related or unrelated to it. (McGuire, 1995:15). Programmer which target carcinogenic needs and behaviors related to offending are more likely to be effective (Chapman & Hough, 1998: 8). This underpins work on offending behavior, however addressing non-carcinogenic needs may provide some benefit to the offender, but because the needs are not related to the likelihood of criminal behavior it is less likely to reduce recidivism (Warren & Crime and Justice Institute, 2007:31).
Chug (2003:63) cites Day and Howell (2002:41) as also arguing that offender rehabilitation should focus on carcinogenic [dynamic risk factors rather than static non carcinogenic needs such s self-esteem, anxiety, depression and psychological distress. However these factors can have some impact on re-offending as they can be linked, for example gaining employment may eliminate depression, or re-offending. (Chug, 2003:63) A case example is when delivering reports for the Courts.
It is imperative that carcinogenic needs of an offender is identified and addressed in the report as sentencing decisions and sentence plans will be based on this assessment. The given proposal should demonstrate on how best to address the individual’s carcinogenic needs to reduce re-offending. Mr. XV was a young single man who had a history of acquisitive type offending. Mr. XV admitted at the interview for the report that he has been using cannabis for the past 7 years; he had no money to buy cannabis and decided to shoplift to fund his habit.
As I need to address factors contributing directly to criminal behavior (Stanley, 2009:154) I requested a DIR assessment and he was found suitable for a low level DIR. After the interview with Mr. XV I completed the OKAYS assessment which gives clinical and actuarial scores to inform my sentence proposal in the report. My proposal had to demonstrate that the intervention would effectively address his carcinogenic need (Chapman & Hough, 1998:15).
I proposed a 12 month Community Order with a 6 month DIR to target his substance misuse and a 12 month supervision to address his pro criminal attitudes and beliefs. This principle is about delivering a programmer as intended, (Howling, 1995; Rayon 2002:1186) and paying attention to whether programmer are being delivered as intended is an important feature of the what works paradigm. Howling (1995:196) discloses that integrity simply meaner that a programmer is conducted in practice as intended in theory and design.
Integrity places emphasis on quality, practice and research to see if we are doing what we are set out to do (Howling, 1995:203) and whether we are having the desired effect. Hellion’s has identified at least three threats to programmer integrity, which is programmer drift where the aim of the programmer shifts, reversal whereby staff work to reverse and undermine the self-approach and non-compliance to the programmer, when staff omit or change part of the programmer. To minimize these threats he emphasized the importance of monitoring and measuring integrity.
This would be achieved through processes in place which ay attention to several areas (Howling, 1995: 199), for example to have fully trained staff delivering programmer (Winston & Heath, 2010: chap 5), observation through skilled observers or live videotaped sessions, feedback through evaluation forms and the use of treatment manuals. According to Howling (1995: 207) with high levels of programmer integrity, programmer have a greater chance of success. Chapman and Hough have regarded this principle as an essential element of effective practice (1998:18).
The level of integrity is an important measure that is used in research as a variable in determining outcomes. This highlights the importance of quality assurance to effective practice, which must be assessed through close monitoring and evaluation. (Chug 2003: 63) A case example from my own practice is on Ms CM. She was sentenced to a single requirement of structured supervision for women (SSW). This case was allocated to me as my manager is aware that I have attended the 3 day training course, and fully trained to deliver the programmer.
When I first met with Ms CM I clearly explained the SSW objectives, and the structure of the sessions that will be delivered. I also informed her that on session 7 of the 12 session aerogramme my trainer would be Joining us in the session to observe me delivering the programmer. During session 3 Ms CM asked if she could be given the rest of the programmer worksheets to take home and complete, so she can finish her SSW quickly. I explained to her that she cannot and explained why we had to adhere to the structure and delivery to ensure there was no drift.
I gave her tasks to undertake at home which she successfully completed and I ensured that each session began with a review of the previous session, this allowed her to give feedback so I could respond to any concerns raised. This allowed the Programmer to be delivered as planned using appropriate methods by skilled staff and be properly monitored and evaluated (Memorizing & Stanley, 2009: 441) Responsively The responsively principle describes how the treatment or intervention should be provided (Bona & Andrews, 2007).
Many offenders desist from crime when they feel someone believes in them (Rexes, 1999) and that they are perceived as capable of changing and have something beneficial to offer society (McNeill et al, 2005). Bona (1996) points out that an offender’s assessment, interaction and rehabilitation can be effected by their responsively, which can be influenced by ideographic and monotheistic factors. Ideographic meaning an offenders self-esteem, motivation and characteristics, professional relationships and programmer delivery (Golf and Davis, 2004).
In order for offenders to desist from crime, evidence suggests that the relationship between the offender and the person managing them plays an important element in their rehabilitation (Trotter, 2000; Burnett and Rogers, 2004). The Supervising officer teaching style should be responsive to offenders learning styles and take into consideration various factors, for example the gender, socio economic status, and mental illness when working with individuals. The more active participatory methods of working are better than unstructured and didactic ones. Chug, 2003:63) It is recognized that there are two types of responsively within the what works paradigm, the general responsively and specific responsively. The general matches the learning styles, motivations and aptitudes, using cognitive social learning methods to influence behavior. The specific responsively is about adapting oneself to difference and diversity issues among participants, it is the “fine tuning” of the cognitive behavioral intervention.
Bona & Andrews, 2007:1; Winston & Heath, 2010: chap 5) In general, responsively factors are not treatment targets, they are about individual attributes that can affect the achievement of treatment goals and how they are delivered. Andrews (1995:43) found that some interpersonally and cognitively immature clients require structured services, perhaps for example when working with youths, and a psychological mature client may respond to an evocative style of service and anxious clients may respond poorly to confrontational services.
A case example of how this principle is applied in my practice is in preference to Ms INK. This case was allocated from her sentence; she received a Community order with structured supervision for women (SSW). Ms INK was a single mother of three young children. From her initial appointment it became clear that I would need to be responsive to her diversity needs (Winston & Heath, 2010: chap 5). I would have to offer a degree of flexibility on any future appointments as they needed to work around child care commitments.