Introduction to effective practice and risk management
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. Criminogenic Need
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 re-offending as they can be linked, for example gaining employment may eliminate depression, or re-offending. (Chui, 2003:63) A case example is when delivering reports for the Courts. It is imperative that criminogenic 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 criminogenic needs to reduce re-offending. Mr KV was a young single man who had a history of acquisitive type offending. Mr KV 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 behaviour (Stanley, 2009:154) I requested a DRR assessment and he was found suitable for a low level DRR. After the interview with Mr KV I completed the OASYS 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 criminogenic need (Chapman & Hough, 1998:15). I proposed a 12 month Community Order with a 6 month DRR to target his substance misuse and a 12 month supervision to address his pro criminal attitudes and beliefs. Programme integrity
This principle is about delivering a programme as intended, (Hollin, 1995; Raynor 2002:1186) and paying attention to whether programmes are being delivered as intended is an important feature of the what works paradigm. Hollin (1995:196) discloses that integrity simply means that a programme 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 (Hollin, 1995:203) and whether we are having the desired effect. Hollin’s has identified at least three threats to programme integrity, which is programme drift where...
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
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 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.(2012) Counterblast: A Copernican correction for community sentences? The Howard Journal 2012, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00699.x
PC08/2008, National rules for tiering cases and associated guidance, National Probation Service (NPS), 2008, Probation Circular 08/2008. London NPS
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
Please join StudyMode to read the full document