Risk and Effective Practice
Effective practice principles
This assignment will explain three effective practice principles: criminogenic need, programme integrity and responsivity, followed with a brief case example of how it is used in my professional practice.
The criminogenic need principle involves the basic idea of identifying key dynamic risk factors related to offending behaviour (Chapman & Hough 1998, Winstone & Heath 2010), such as unemployment or drug dependency, and then implementing prevention methods designed to counteract them (Farrington, 2002: 660). This idea is at the core of rehabilitative practice (Burnett & Roberts, 2004), if the practitioner assesses the criminogenic needs and provides intervention to suit, then risk of further offending should be reduced (Merrington, 2004). This need is to identify what is needed to reduce the offending
Programmes modelled on the What Works paradigm are based on the need principle. It is important to be able to distinguish between criminogenic and non criminogenic needs, i.e. an individual’s problem that supports or contribute to offending to those more distantly related or unrelated to it. (McGuire, 1995:15). Programmes which target criminogenic needs and behaviours related to offending are more likely to be effective (Chapman & Hough, 1998: 8). This underpins work on offending behaviour, however addressing non-criminogenic needs may provide some benefit to the offender, but because the needs are not related to the likelihood of criminal behaviour it is less likely to reduce recidivism (Warren & Crime and Justice Institute, 2007:31). Chui (2003:63) cites Day and Howells (2002:41) as also arguing that offender rehabilitation should focus on criminogenic /dynamic risk factors rather than static non criminogenic needs such as self-esteem, anxiety, depression and psychological distress. However these factors can have some impact on
References: Chapman, T. and Hough, M. (1998). Evidence base practice, London, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation, retrieved from: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERORecords/HO/421/2/P2/hmiprob/ebp.htm Chui, W, H Day, A., Casey, S., Ward, T., and Howells, K. (2004) Transition to better Lives: Offender Readiness and Rehabilitation. Devon: Willan Publishing Knott, C McGuire, J. (2001) ‘ What Works in Correctional Intervention?’, in Gary, B,. Farrington, D,. and Leschied, A (Eds.) Offender Rehabilitation in Practice. Implementing and Evaluating Effective Programmes. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. McGuire, J and Priestly, P. (1995) ‘Reviewing “What Works”: Past, Present and Future’, in McGuire, J. (Ed.) What Works: Reducing Reoffending – Guidelines from Research and Practice. (pg 3-34) Chichester: Wiley Merrington, S Merrington, S and Stanley, S (2007) Effectiveness: Who counts what? In Gelsthorpe, L, and Morgan, R.(Eds.) Handbook of Probation. (p 428-458) Cullompton: Willan Publishing McNeill, F McNeill, F.(2012) Counterblast: A Copernican correction for community sentences? The Howard Journal 2012, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00699.x Raynor, P PC08/2008, National rules for tiering cases and associated guidance, National Probation Service (NPS), 2008, Probation Circular 08/2008. London NPS Raynor, P Rex, S (1999) ‘Desistance from Offending: experiences of Probation’. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 36 (4): 366-83. Robinson, G and Crow, I Rotman, E. (1990) Beyond Punishment: A new view on Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders. New York: Greenwood Press Stanley, S