Psychological Effects of Imprisonment on Young Offenders

Psychological Effects of Imprisonment on Young Offenders The aim of this dissertation is to examine the claim of authors such as Harrington and Bailey (2005) that a substantial proportion of young offenders in the UK suffer from severe mental illness. In accepting this claim, the secondary aim of this paper is to glean a greater understanding of why this is the case; do these offenders acquire mental illness as a result of the modern prison regime and regardless, why is the modern youth justice system so ineffective in dealing with this seemingly widespread problem? The researcher of this paper shall argue that the currentyouth justice system needs, if it to achieve one of its primary aims,namely to rehabilitate youth offenders and prevent them from becomingrecidivists, to focus their research and practice more heavily on thepsychological processes which cause a young person to offend, so thatsuch offenders, who are clearly suffering from mental problems, can bemore easily identified and, where possible, positively helped toresolve these issues whilst they are serving their custodial sentencesso that upon release these individuals are more likely to desist fromcriminality. The principle methodology of this paper will be a literature review,a review of both primary and secondary sources from the subject fieldsof forensic psychology, criminology and penology. Introduction: The primary issue which will be raised and explored throughout thisdissertation is the contention that the current youth justice system,and in particular the youth prison system, is failing to adequatelyaddress the psychological needs (or as they are described by manycriminologists: ‘criminogenic needs’) of youth offenders in the UK.Such an argument necessarily involves a simultaneous examination notonly of the statistics which are available regarding the prevalence ofmental illness in youth prisons and the rates of recidivism of thoseyouths who have been previously sentenced to immediate custody, butalso an examination of the latest psychological research in prisons,the current (and, to a lesser extent, historical) policies andpractices pertaining to the ‘treatment’ of those imprisoned offenderswho have been diagnosed with mental illness and also the writings ofexpert researchers in these relevant fields who provide originalinterpretative insights into the problems associated with mentalillness in youth offenders and potential approaches to minimise thisapparent epidemic. The structure of this review shall take the following form: Thisdissertation will commence with a brief overview of past and presentsystems of caring for children serving custodial sentences and howtheir mental health needs were and are now met, including anexamination of the changing definition of ‘needs’ in this context. Theresearcher, using research from government enquires, literature andreports concerned with this issue will then seek to identify thoseyouth justice policies and practices which are apparently ineffectiveand/or inappropriate in reducing this problem and, in conclusion, makerecommendations for future necessary/ effective reforms and also futureresearch which should be conducted to assist in our understanding ofthe psychological causes of crime and to assist in the formulation ofsuch reforms. The researcher of this paper is greatly interested in the subject ofthis paper: After reading in Society Guardian articles about our youngprison population the researcher was surprised to learn that there areover 11,000 young people between 15-20 in jail in England and Waleswith a diagnosable mental disorder, that 10% will suffer a severepsychotic disorder in comparison with 0.2% of the general populationand that the UK has the highest number of prisoners under 21, incomparison with the rest of Europe, 3000 of them being held in youthoffenders institutes. Similar surprise ensued from discover of researchconducted by the UK Office for National Statistics which found thatnine out of ten youth offenders in the UK suffer from a mentaldisorder. The researcher feels strongly that more research needs to beconducted into these issues so that these worrying findings can bediluted; it is primarily for this reason that the researcher has chosento conduct this research on that topic. Intending t o pursue a career inthe youth justice system working with young offenders in the UK, theresearcher also feels strongly that a deeper substantive knowledge inthis area will aid not merely his professional development but also hisability to help reduce the incidence of mental disorder in the UK youthjustice system. The researcher concedes that the objectives of this research didchange direction at various points of the review: Initially, the aimwas to identify the current practical failings of the youth justicesystem and to convincingly demonstrate that these failings directly orindirectly contribute to the problematic prevalence of mental illnessin youth offenders and to likewise suggest practical reforms whichshould be employed to reduce this phenomenon; latterly, the researcherunderstood that rather than suggesting changes in practical reform thathe should attempt to identify the failings in the current research andthe strategies employed by the justice system, and to suggestalternative strategies and ideas for future research which will then inturn result in more effective justice practice. The structure of this paper, as described in paragraph two of thisintroduction, has been carefully constructed to complement itsarguments: the historical analysis of trends in UK penal policy andpractice (pertaining to youth offenders) over the past fifty years,with which this paper will commence, provides ample support for thelater contention that the current approach employed by the youthjustice system in the UK to reduce the incidence of mental illness inits prisons is inadequate and also for those policy reforms which willbe recommended by the researcher in this paper’s conclusions. The Structure of the Literature Review: As noted previously in the introduction, above, the literaturereview of this paper will not confine itself to any one particulardiscipline; after all, the subjects of criminology, forensicpsychology, social work and, to some extent, penology are havededicated varying proportions of their research on the issues withwhich this paper is concerned; namely the prevalence of mental illnessin young offenders in the UK Youth Justice system, in particular thoseoffenders currently serving custodial sentences in young offendersinstitutes, and practical methods for reducing this problematicphenomenon. A clear concern to any researcher conducting amulti-disciplinary literature review of this kind is that the order ofthe analysis is prone to be confusing; a researcher could choose toperform a separate review of the literature from each respectivesubject area or, alternatively, a researcher might choose to make nosuch division but rather separate the review into the relevantquestions and under each separate heading utilize the literature fromany relevant discipline in no particular order. The researcher of thispaper has chosen to adopt the latter of these two approaches; he feelsthat to divide the review analysis according to topic area is whollyartificial, especially in light of the fact that any research orliterature which will be discussed will be wholly relevant to the sameissues pertaining to young offenders. With this methodological approach in mind, the questions which thisliterature review will seek to discuss and, where possible, answer, areas follows: 1] What is defined as ‘mental illness’ and how has this definition changed over the past 60 years? 2] How prevalent is mental illness in young offenders who arecurrently serving custodial sentences in young offenders’ institutes inthe UK? 3] To what extent is this a recent phenomenon? And to what extent isthis a phenomenon which is particular to young offenders serving asentence in a secure institution rather than to those young offenderswho are serving non-custodial sentences or those young persons who havenot been involved in the Youth Justice system at all? 4] Historically, how has the UK Youth Justice System responded tothe problem of mental illness in young offenders who are currentlyserving custodial sentences in young offenders’ institutes? 5] Is there convincing evidence which suggests that there is linkbetween this prevalence of mental illness and the high rates ofrecidivism in young offenders serving custodial sentences? 6] What is the approach which is currently employed by the UK Youth Justice System to tackle this problem? 7] To what extent is the current policy approach of the UK YouthJustice System appropriate in achieving its objectives in this regard? 8] How is this policy approach being implemented by the UK Youth Justice System? 9] Are these practical reforms appropriate in light of the policyapproach adopted to reduce the incidence of mental illness in youthoffenders in the UK? 10] What changes should be made to the current policy and practiceof the UK Youth Justice System to effect a more successful reduction ofthis problem? 11] What further academic research is needed to assist in the formulation of these new policies and practices? 1] What is defined as ‘mental illness’ or ‘mental health’ and how has this definition changed over the past 60 years? Any literature review on the prevalence of ‘mental illness’ in aparticular population, in this case young offenders serving custodialsentences, would be incomplete without a preliminary discussionpertaining to the definition of ‘mental illness’ or ‘mental health’ inthat context. Within the context of young offenders, it is interesting to notethat there is very little consistency in the definition of ‘mentalhealth’: In fact, ‘a review of over 60 national and local education,health and social care documents (policy, strategy and guidance)revealed little consistency within, as well as, across agencies. Therewere 10 different terms or phrases used to label the positive end ofthe mental health continuum and 15 to describe the negative’ [JointCommissioning Strategy for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Servicesin Kent, Draft Report, 15th January 2007, p6]. This having been said, it does not seem that the definition of ‘mentalhealth’ in this context is particularly contentious. The Kent andMedway Multi Agency CAMHS Strategy Group have provided a workingdefinition which incorporates each of the individual definitions foundduring their literature review of relevant policy documents: ‘Mentalhealth can be defined as: The ability to develop psychologically,emotionally, intellectually and spiritually, to initiate, develop andsustain mutually satisfying personal relationships, including theability to become aware of others and to empathise with them, and theability to use psychological distress as a developmental process, sothat it does not hinder or impair further development’ [JointCommissioning Strategy for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Servicesin Kent, Draft Report, 15th January 2007, p6].   However, to find a comprehensive definition of ‘mental illness’ in thiscontext is not so straightforward: It would seem that practitioners inthe field of forensic psychology have divided mental ill-health intothree separate categories separated on the basis of severity ofsymptoms; namely, ‘mental health problems’, ‘mental health disorders’and ‘mental illness’. Mental health problems, the least serious form of mental ill-health,‘may be reflected in difficulties and/or disabilities in the realms ofpersonal relationships, psychological development, the capacity forplay and learning and in distress and maladaptive behaviour. They arerelatively common, and may or may not be persistent’ [JointCommissioning Strategy for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Servicesin Kent, Draft Report, 15th January 2007, p6]. Mental health disorder is the term subscribed to those persons whoare suffering from persistent mental health problems which affect theirfunctioning on a day-to-day basis. Whilst most young people will atsome stage in their development suffer from mental health problems, itis not normal to expect such persons to suffer from mental healthdisorders. As noted by the Kent and Medway Multi Agency CAMHS StrategyGroup, mental health disorder, as a term, ‘[implies] a marked deviationfrom normality, a clinically recognised set of symptoms or behaviourassociated in most cases with considerable distress and substantialinterference with personal functions or development’ [JointCommissioning Strategy for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Servicesin Kent, Draft Report, 15th January 2007, p6]. Finally, mental illness, the most serious of the three forms ofmental ill-health, can be recognized in those young persons sufferingfrom severe clinical psychosis or neurosis, e.g. those suffering fromschizophrenia. These definitions provide a clear and useful taxonomy from which wecan begin to analyse the statistics on the prevalence of mentalill-health in young offenders in the UK. However, before we commencethis analysis, it is first important to briefly examine the perceivedhistorical relationship between mental ill-health and crime ; afterall, it has often been the case in the past that societies across theworld have attributed certain (if not all) aspects of criminality tosymptoms of mental ill-health, in particular mental disorder and mentalillness. For example, The USSR during the Cold War often incarceratedpolitical ‘criminals’ on the basis that they must be mentally insanefor holding such opinions and beliefs. Whilst the above example would shock most people of today, thisphenomenon is not that far removed from how the UK government hastraditionally treated the mentally ill: ‘In the UK, mental health carewas for decades provided only in large ‘asylums’ keeping ‘mentallyill’ people out of society believing this to be for their own good andthat of their communities. Beginning in the 1950s and accelerating atthe end of the 1980s, government policy switched to providing moreservices in the community and in most cases limiting hospital treatmentto when it is needed most acutely’ [All-Party Parliamentary Group onPrison Health, House of Commons, November 2006, p2]. In light of the fact that historically the mentally ill have beendealt with in the same way as convicted criminals, it is not toodifficult to understand why there has developed a publicly perceivedlink between mental illness and criminality. This misconception hasalso been given weight by a small number of brutal homicide cases inwhich the perpetrator was schizophrenic; whilst social workers andpsychiatrists of today realise that schizophrenia does not necessarilycause its owners to be criminally violent, public opinion is still notas understanding: ‘Our understanding of mental ill health has†¦developed [since] that time, though public debate on the topic has notalways been in step†¦ the popular assumption that mental ill health andcriminality are inextricably linked needs to be broken and policyinformed by a deeper understanding of the complex links between mentalill health and offending’ [All-Party Parliamentary Group on PrisonHealth, House of Commons, Novemb er 2006, p2]. Therefore, whilst theremay be certain links between mental ill-health and criminality, thereis no intuitive similarity between these two respective phenomena. 2] How prevalent is mental ill-health in young offenders who arecurrently serving custodial sentences in young offenders’ institutes inthe UK? N.B. At the outset of this section of the literature review it isimportant to remind ourselves that secondary reviews of primary datacan often be misleading or, worse, erroneous. For example, to quote asection from the website of the government’s ‘Crime Reduction Toolkit‘A recent report by the Office for National Statistics, PsychiatricMorbidity Among Young Offenders, found that 9 in 10 young offendersaged between 16-20 years old showed evidence of mental illness’. Thisstatement would, using the taxonomy of mental ill-health discussed insection [1] above, appear to suggest that 90% of young offenders in UKPrisons are suffering from severe psychiatric illnesses such aschizophrenia: such a contention is clearly erroneous as if this werethe case then 90% of young offenders in Prison should in fact not be inprison at all but rather in secure mental hospitals. What the statementshould have said is: ‘A recent report by the Office for NationalStatistics, Psyc hiatric Morbidity Among Young Offenders, found that 9in 10 young offenders aged between 16-20 years old showed evidence ofmental ill-health’. Hopefully this example has shown how careful onemust be when attempting to describe or analyse the data findings fromprimary research. All of the literature and research supports the contention thatmental ill-health among young offenders in UK Prisons is prevalent. Arecent Report suggests that â€Å"Young people in prison have an evengreater prevalence of poor mental health than adults, with 95% havingat least one mental health problem and 80% having more than one. [Laderet al., 2000, cited by Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, March 2006,p3]†. This same conclusion is reported by Singleton et al. (1998): ‘95per cent of young prisoners aged 15 to 21 suffer from a mentaldisorder. 80 per cent suffer from at least two. Nearly 10 per cent offemale sentenced young offenders reported already having been admittedto a mental hospital at some point.’ A more recent research study conducted by Professor RichardHarrington and Professor Sue Bailey on behalf of the Youth JusticeBoard, entitled ‘Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness of Provision forYoung Offenders in Custody and in the Community’, found thatapproximately 33% of the young offenders sampled had at least onemental health need, approximately 20% suffered from clinicaldepression, approximately 10% of these young offenders had a history ofself-harm   and approximately 10% suffered from post traumatic stressdisorder and severe anxiety . This study also found that approximately5% of the young offenders sampled had symptoms indicative of clinicalpsychosis and that 7% of the sample population seemed to suffer fromhyperactivity. [Harrington and Bailey, 2005]. In conclusion, it seems indisputable that mental ill-health isprevalent among young offenders in the UK, in particular among thoseyouths serving custodial sentences. 3] To what extent is this a recent phenomenon? And to what extent isthis a phenomenon which is particular to young offenders serving asentence in a secure institution rather than to those young offenderswho are serving non-custodial sentences or those young persons who havenot been involved in the Youth Justice system at all? Whilst there is evidence that even as far back as 200 years ago UKPrisons were occupied to some extent by persons who suffered frommental problems, disorders and illness [Thomas Holmes, 1900], it isdifficult to ascertain whether this was due to the same reasons whichcause the phenomenon today, or whether these offenders were simply putin prison because of their mental ill-health, a practice which, asdiscussed above, was common in the nineteenth century. Unfortunately,in regards to the historical po sition, this is not a problem which canever be easily resolved, and it is a question which is still relevantto a discussion of the phenomenon of today: Is the prevalence of mentalill-health among young prisoners due to their treatment within theyouth justice system or did these individuals suffer mental ill-healthprior to their involvement with the justice system? Hagell (2002) p37 suggests that mental ill-health is more prevalent inyoung offenders than in their law-abiding peers, but this still doesnot answer the question of whether the reason that these individualsbroke the law in the first place was because of their mental problems,disorders or illness: â€Å"there is little doubt that young people caughtup in the criminal justice system do have elevated rates of mentalhealth problems when compared to other adolescents. A conservativeestimate would suggest that the rates of mental illness in these youngpeople is three times as high as that for their peers.† Likewise, an article by Sir David Ramsbotham entitled ‘The Needs ofOffending Children in Prison’, which was published in the Report fromthe Conference of the Michael Sieff Foundation entitled ‘The Needs ofOffending Children’, at p19, that whilst 95% of young offenders incustody are suffering from mental ill-health, only 10% of the generalpopulation are suffering from such problems, disorders or illnesses. This finding is supported in result, if not precise figures, by aresearch study which was conducted by the Mental Health Foundationentitled: The Mental Health of Young Offenders. Bright Futures: Workingwith Vulnerable Young People [Hagell, 2002]. This study stated:â€Å"Despite methodological hindrances, it is clear from this review of theliterature that there is a consensus that young people who offend arelikely to have much higher than usual levels of mental health problems.Estimates from research studies suggest that the rates of problems wereapproximately three ti mes as high as for their peers in the generalpopulation. In general, the mental health needs of young offenders arethe same as those of the general adolescent population but more acute.†[Hagell, 2002, p28]. Regarding whether the prison regime itself is responsible for thisprevalence, or merely the fact of incarceration, a study by Nicol et al(2000) found that there was very little difference between the levelsof mental needs in those young persons held in prison and those held inother forms of welfare establishment. This implies that the same mentalproblems, disorders and illnesses which lead a young person to beincarcerated in a welfare institution are also present in those youngoffenders who break the law and are subsequently sentences toimprisonment. A study commissioned by the Youth Justice Board [Harrington andBailey, 2005, p8] seemed to suggest that the mental needs of youngpersons were reduced as a result of being sent to Prison: â€Å"Youngoffenders in the community were found to have significantly more needsthan those in secure care†¦Needs increased for young offendersdischarged from secure facilities back into the community, suggestingthat needs are only temporarily reduced while in custody. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the prevalence of mentalill-health amongst young incarcerated offenders is not a newphenomenon, although it is impossible to state with any certaintywhether this phenomenon is worse now than it ever has been in historypreviously. Regarding whether this phenomenon is particular to youthoffenders over their law-abiding peers, it would seem that it iscertainly more pronounced with this former group, but also with thoseoffenders serving community sentences and those young persons who arebeing held in welfare establishments. 4] Historically, how has the UK Youth Justice System responded to theproblem of mental illness in young offenders who are currently servingcustodial sentences in young offenders’ institutes? As noted earlier, ‘In the UK, mental health care was for decadesprovided only in large ‘asylums’ keeping ‘mentally ill’ people out ofsociety believing this to be for their own good and that of theircommunities. Beginning in the 1950s and accelerating at the end of the1980s, government policy switched to providing more services in thecommunity and in most cases limiting hospital treatment to when it isneeded most acutely’ [All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prison Health,House of Commons, November 2006, p2]. During the 1950’s and 1960’s the link between mental ill-health andcriminality had arguably never been stronger; all prisoners wereregarded as patients who could be effectively ‘treated’ to prevent themfrom re-offending in the future and whilst little specific attentionwas paid to the individual mental needs of offenders, the types oftreatment reforms which were offered by the Criminal Justice System atthis time were very similar to the kinds of group treatment therapiesbeing offered to those mentally disordered and mentally ill patients inthe mental asylums and hospitals of the day. During the 1970’s thisparadigm of offender treatment was abandoned primarily as a result ofresearch studies conducted into the success of some of these treatmentreforms: conclusions from several research studies into theeffectiveness of these criminal treatments on reducing criminalbehaviour strongly suggested that ‘nothing works’ (Thomas-Peter, 2006,p29). T hese embarrassing findings caused the pendulum to swing awayfrom rehabilitation towards a firmer commitment to incapacitation andpunishment through positive custody. During the 1980’s, the wave of ‘new public management’ was born(Thomas-Peter, 2006, p30). This movement focussed heavily upon theprocedural roles of the Prison and Probation Services in reducingre-offending. The Prison service started to contract out some of theirprimary responsibilities in a quest to encourage more efficient servicefrom both their private sub-contractors and also their remaining statePrisons who would have to meet their performance targets to avoid beingprivatised in the same way as so many other Institutions had been.Likewise, the Probation service was reorganised and reintegrated toencourage greater efficiency of performance: ‘[The Probation Service,rather than] a loosely co-ordinated collection of individual socialworkers [became a unified and managed service] with a clearer sense ofdirection and purpose, which was more able to engage on equal termswith other services and to contribute and give effect to nationalpolicies’ (Faulkne r, 2007, p7). During the 1990’s researchers revisited the studies conducted in the1970’s and found that rather than demonstrating that ‘nothing works’,rather they supported the contention that certain types of treatmentinitiatives were working with certain types of individuals: Whilst only10% of a group may have responded well to that treatment, if thesimilarities between those responding offenders could be identifiedthen for this new group, the reform could be said to be verysuccessful. This has lead researchers such as Harper and Chitty (2005)to argue that the new question should not be ‘what works?’ but ‘whatworks for whom, and why’? This paradigm shall be discussed in greaterdetail in section [6] of this literature review. It is important to note that, except for the changes made to theProbation Services in the 1980’s, the above discussion summarizes thedevelopments in the paradigm of Criminal Justice generally and does notspecifically answer the question of how the Criminal Justice system hashistorically dealt with the problem of mental ill-health in youngimprisoned offenders. The fact is that even as late as 2002, there was no real unifiedsystem implemented to deal specifically with this particular problem.Research on this topic was sparse and focused rather than on nationalstrategies, on local remedies such as the pioneering work done by theAdolescent Forensic Services in the Midlands. Generally, where YoungOffenders Institutions were involving forensic psychiatrists or mentalhealth social workers this was not being done with the aim of treatmentor rehabilitation but rather for the purposes of assessment. Also,rather than assessing each young offender, these processes tended to beused for those offenders who were clearly suffering from mentalill-health and those offenders who specifically asked for suchassistance. A report published by the Mental Health Foundation in 2002,entitled ‘The Mental Health of Young Offenders. Bright Futures: Workingwith Vulnerable Young People’ [Hagell, 2002, p23] summarized theposition at that time in the followin g way: â€Å"As far as the MentalHealth Foundation is aware, there is no recent research data availableon the provision of psychological and psychiatric services to youngoffenders across the criminal justice system. However, at the time ofwriting it is clear that, from existing fragmented information, thereis no routine, standardised screening employed across the criminaljustice system and that responses to problems are inadequate andfragmented.† Whilst it is true that certain practical initiatives were introducedfrom the mid-nineties, such as Youth Offending Teams, Detention andTraining Orders, Parenting Orders and Child Safety Orders, thediscussion of the effects of these reforms shall be reserved forsections [6] and [9] of this literature review, in which we shallanalyse the current policy and practical approach employed by the YouthJustice System in dealing with the problem of prevalent mentalill-health among young prisoners. 5] Is there convincing evidence which suggests that there is linkbetween mental illness and the likelihood of being sentenced toimmediate custody? Is there convincing evidence which suggests thatthere is link between mental illness and the prevalence of mentalillness and the high rates of recidivism in young offenders servingcustodial sentences? One would be right to question the relevance of this enquiry to themain purposes of this research paper; after all the objective of thispaper is to examine the current strategy in dealing with the problem ofmental ill-health in young offenders institutes and to proposerecommendations for future clinical research and immediate reform.However, the researcher of this paper has chosen to dedicate a sectionof its literature review to the issues raised in the title of thissection because he feels that, if a convincing link between mentalill-health and criminality/criminal recidivism can be demonstrated thenit would provide additional support for the importance of reform inthis area. After all, the youth of today are the adults of the future,and if it can be shown that reducing the prevalence of mentalill-health in young offender institutions has a positive (reducing)effect on the rates of recidivism then the Criminal Justice System maybe compelled to dedicate extra time, money and resource s on furtherresearch in this area and also on the implementation of reformsdesigned to reduce the prevalence of this problem. The first point to note is that there is a body of research whichsuggests that young persons with mental disorders are more likely to bearrested, charged and convicted for their criminal behaviour than thoseyoung people in similar circumstances who do not have such severemental problems [Teplin, 1984]. This is supported by the research studyconducted by Singleton et al (1998) which found that the majority ofprisoners who had been diagnosed as having mental illness had, prior tohaving contact with the Justice System, already had contact with theNHS and other welfare services. These findings cannot be squared easily with the findings of otherresearch studies which suggest that â€Å"further offending [is] notpredicted by mental health needs or alcohol and drug abuse problems.[Harrington and Bailey, 2005, p8]† After all, if mental ill-health canpredict first instance-offending in young persons, then it must alsosurely be a predictor of recidivism in these persons also. Thisresearcher is therefore more inclined to rely upon other researchstudies which suggest that this is not the case: For example, the studyconducted by the Mental Health Foundation [Hagell, 2002, p24] foundthat: The outcomes for young offenders in need of mental healthservices include: further offending and worsening mental healthproblems if the needs are not met. The two are interlinked. While theoffending may have been a risk factor for mental health problems in thefirst place, it has long been understood that mental health problems inturn go on to be a risk factor for continued off ending (Kandel, 1978;Rutter et al 1998). Early detection may reduce the likelihood thatyoung offenders will persist into adulthood.† 6] What is the approach which is currently employed by the UK Youth Justice System to tackle this problem? As discussed earlier

organisational diagnosis Essay -- essays research papers

Perform a diagnosis of an organization that you are familiar with, using the diagnostic organizational level analysis. Your diagnosis should include an assessment of the organization’s performance and an indication of the underlying cause of problems. 1. What is diagnosis?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Diagnosis is a systematic approach to understanding and describing the present state of the   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  organization. 2. The open system: The general diagnosis model based on systems theory that underlines most of OD.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The elements in open system model are: - Input: Information, energy, people - Transformations: Social component, technological component - Output: Finished goods, services and ideas 3. Organizational level diagnosis The elements in organizational level diagnosis are: -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Inputs: General Environment, Industry Structure -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Strategic Orientation: Strategy, Organizational Design -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Output: Organization Performance, Productivity, Stakeholder Satisfaction MICROSOFT CARPOINT ANALYSIS INPUT †¢Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  General Environment: -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Technology—depends on the advancement the technology, e.g. easy to imitate products/services. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Social and Ethical --- less privacy, accuracy and safety. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Economic --- different income and spending, e.g. crisis in Asia causes less purchasing power. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Political and legal --- government regulation, e.g. taxation, domain name registration, copyright. †¢Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Company Industry Structure: -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Threat of Entry High barriers: brand identification, economies of scale, international market -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Intensity of Rivalry among Competitors More online car industries, e.g. AutoByTel, AutoWeb, and Auto Vantage Difficult to maintain unique offerings. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Pressure from Substitute Products The availability of substitute products: traditional dealers, other online car industry. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Bargaining Power of Buyers More purchase options, more valuable and timely information, and the degree of transaction simplicity. -  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Bargaining Pow... ...ned, there are divisional structure which are related to online auto products/services. †¢Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  HR system support the Strategic Orientation, to achieve its mission must be supported with well-developed human resources. †¢Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Organizational Design and Strategy is aligned, the differentiated strategic intent requires an organization design that focuses on the creation of new ideas, marketing and manufacturing REFERENCE Microsoft CarPoint Case Study, http://webct.buseco.monash.edu.au/MKW1601_S1_01_04/assignments/04145060_carpoint.pdf, Accessed: 4 May 2004. Rayport, J.F., Jaworski, B.J., 2001, Introduction to E-Commerce, 1st edition, McGraw Hill, USA Microsoft corperation, 2004, http://autos.msn.com/finance_insurance/finance.aspx?src=LeftNav, Accessed: 2004, May 15). Redmon, Wash. (1998, November 24). â€Å"MSN CarPoint's Personal Auto Page Wins Big With Customers†, < http://www.showroomatfiat.co.uk/press/pap.asp >, (Accessed: 2004, May 15). Marketing Teacher, The Marketing Environment, , Access Date: 17/05/2004 Waddell, D.M., Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2000), Organisation Development and Change, Thomson Learning, USA.

The Introduction To The Public Interest Accounting Essay

Harmonizing to an online lexicon, Cambridge Business English Dictionary Public Interest can be defined asA A noun used when speaking about peoples rights to cognize the facts about a peculiar state of affairs in general concern ( beginning 1 ) . Furthermore in an accounting position, International Federation of Accountants stated it as †the net benefits derived for, and procedural asperity employed on behalf of, all society in relation to any action, determination or policy † ( beginning 2 ) . It can be concluded that it may be referred to be the chief factor when a determination is being made on behalf of the people in a society ; Sing that it can do a great impact. Furthermore, IFAC has defined the footings â€Å" Public † and â€Å" Interest † individually to clear up the extent of their duty towards the users. As IFAC is a world-wide organisation that can impact a broad scope of people, it described the public financially with â€Å" persons and groups sharing a market place for goods and services † , and non-financially with those that portion a common purpose such as fulfilling life care. This consists of investors, stakeholders, clients and Sellerss, and fundamentally all of the occupants. As for the populace ‘s involvement has been defined as â€Å" all things valued by persons and by society † ( source3 ) . It can be briefed as things that people deserve to acquire and wish to achieve. It is known that there are a batch of benefits that a society demand such as a good life status includes having a wellness attention and instruction, holding political freedom, and practically efficient fiscal markets. Mea nwhile, IFAC is considered to profit the populace in accomplishing their involvements that are related to fiscal affairs and available scarce resources, which comprises minimising economic hazards in fiscal markets and establishments, bring forthing sufficient, helpful and comprehendible fiscal and non-financial studies and really about similar that aid all interested parties in comparing in order to apportion their resources, quality scrutinizing on every degree in an organisation, sing that authorities ‘s and public sectors ‘ information and actions are crystalline to citizens, a well-structured corporate administrations and ethical directors, and excellence and wisely direction of natural resources that can spread out for farther coevalss ‘ consume ( beginning 4 ) .Current regulative environmentThe Financial Reporting Council is an independent regulator which has been established to guarantee and develop the quality of corporate administration and coverage in th e UK. It comprises of six runing organic structures, the Auditing Practices Board, the Board for Actuarial Standards, the Professional Oversight Board, the Accounting Standards Board and the Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board, the Financial Reporting Review Panel ( beginning 6 ) . IFAC aims for a sustainable successful fiscal environment to promote shareholders to put efficaciously. They take into consideration the actions of professional accounting organic structures and actuarial profession and act independently by training them in raised instances that concerns public involvement. They assist in bettering the efficiency of audit quality and engage in the treatment for future audit market competency. Likewise, they impose criterions and codifications for comptrollers, companies and hearers. ( Source 5 ) Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 introduced in response to the major fiscal crisis such as Enron to protect the investors ‘ assurance in the fiscal market, which had been corrupted and caused a batch of losingss. ( Source 9 ) It concentrates on bettering the stability and truth revelation of fiscal statements. Basically, SOX emphasised the duty of the truthfulness of published fiscal statement on managers, and established new punishments for illegal behaviors. Sing scrutinizing subdivision, they have been concerned intensely on effectual internal control on an organisation, which can be used as a verification about the accurateness fiscal statements and figures generated. And an internal control study should be written by the managers, as a back uping papers for their assurance of the truthiness and equity of the company ‘s fiscal place. And an auditing house should take part on guaranting the adequateness of the internal controls by inspecting the company ‘s overall tech niques and policies. ( Source 8 ) . The International Federation of Accountants is a world-wide establishment which has been functioning the public involvement by beef uping the communicating of fiscal information about an entity to the users. In order to carry through strengthen, IFAC assure that international criterions are have been followed and implemented decently by accountant professions, and they can pull off to accomplish the confidence by steering them. The international criterions which IFAC support are really valuable criterions that have a great impact of practically keeping the full economic system. And IFAC is back uping four independent standard-setting boards which are International audit and confidence criterions Board ( IAASB ) , International accounting instruction criterions Board ( IaesB ) , The IAESB sets International Education Standards ( IESs ) , International moralss criterions Board for comptrollers ( IESBA ) and International Public sector accounting criterions Board ( IPSASB ) . Pointedly, IFAC stands up for the populace and talk out for them in instances, related to accounting and scrutinizing professionals, which are in public ‘s involvement. ( source10 ) The Public Interest Oversight Board is a planetary organisation created to detect and guarantee that the standard-setting boards, under the IFAC that are in the portion of A audit and moralss, instruction, and confidence, are concentrating on public involvement. PIOB had improved the quality of fiscal coverage through promoting audit profession to pattern with more transparence and dependability. Particularly after the tremendous fiscal prostrations of cardinal great companies, such as WorldCom, that weakened the public trust on the truthiness, efficiency and independence of hearers ‘ sentiment. Thus, an independent organic structure that observes the audits sentiment and sets criterions is needed for investors to do accurate determinations, increase their trust and ingurgitate them to put, and therefore the market will boom. Another advantage of holding an international organic structure guard international criterions it will assist in comparing public presentations of world-w ide houses easy. ( Source 11 )Audit qualityHarmonizing to Titman and Trueman, audit quality is a term describes the rightness and dependability of information provided by hearers to users, In other words, the capableness of hearers in observing misleading or inaccurate information in fiscal statements ( beginning 12 ) . However, IAASB states that audit quality can non be defined exactly, it changes from which position you are looking at it. In investor position, audit quality is measured by hearer ‘s repute, coverage and outlooks from their work. The better repute the higher quality is assumed in audit. In audit commission member position, the quality of audit is influenced by the quality grade of the hearer, accomplishments and experiences, the audit procedure, which method and groundss were used, and hearer ‘s interactions with others, if in a manner whether it affects his independence or does non. ( Source 13 ) The International Standards on Auditing ( ISAs ) takes a cardinal function in take parting in audit quality by puting a globally accepted benchmark. In add-on, their criterions have been improved with the aid of IAASB, which is independently carefully supervised by PIOB. ( Source 13 ) The demand of audit quality is raised from asymmetric information and struggle of involvements ( beginning 12 ) . It can be conducted that audit quality is demanded because a batch of shareholders had worthless investings for the ground that false information were recommended to them or unjust audit studies were issued. Furthermore, some hearers loss the independence, which is a primary rule for an hearer, by working for a house by supplying dishonorable sentiment merely to maintain their occupation or they have been bribed. In add-on, it can be determined from a survey that the higher audit quality consequences a higher grade of investor ‘s capableness to anticipate future net incomes ( beginning 12 ) .Audit studyAudit study should be attached with a house ‘s one-year fiscal statements to province their sentiment of the truthiness and equity, or non, of the fiscal figures ( beginning 14 ) . It could be issued by internal hearer or external hearer. The study can impact a house ‘s stakeholders, loaners and stockholders. If it was unqualified study, so more investors will be attracted to the house, stockholders ‘ assurance in directors will increase, and it will fulfill their loaners, due to enhanced public presentation, by vouching the house ‘s refund their money. Qualified sentiment could be a ground of except for, disclaimer of sentiment or inauspicious sentiment. Except for sentiment is used when there is a restriction of range, an hearer does non hold adequate grounds that can assist him in guaranting a affair. Disclaimer of sentiment is when a director refuses to give the hearer the authorization to garner information or he does non take part with him, and when an hearer misses an chance that is material to the topic being audited. And in conclusion, inauspicious sentiment is the worst because it indicates that a company is non following with the criterions, fiscal statements contain deceptive information, or affect important u ncertainnesss ( source14 ) . In order to bring forth quality audit reports the ICAEW Audit and Assurance abled to form the Audit Quality Forum in 2004. Since the addition in complexness of concern environment and the important impacts of several fiscal failures that forced the universe into recessions, they are seeking to strength the relationship and communicating between directors and managers and all participates with more transparence. Therefore, assurance will increase due to the clear uping every procedure and determination devising, which eventually will ensue with extremely dependable studies. ( Source 15 ) Till today the hearer ‘s study are under alterations in order to run into the user ‘s demand. There are two chief defects that should be extinguish or minimise in coverage, which are the outlook spread and the information spread. The outlook spread occurs when user ‘s outlook from hearer ‘s information provided in a study differs from the existent audit itself. For illustration, hearers ‘ materiality term is considered otherwise than the construct understood by the user. Besides, the audit study is conducted with general nonspecific linguistic communication that does n't demo the existent process of scrutinizing, nonsubjective investigated or to which extent the audit covers. As for the information spread â€Å" the being of a spread between the information they [ users ] believe is needed to do informed investing and fiducial determinations, and what is available to them through the entity ‘s audited fiscal statements or other publically availabl e information † ( Source 16 ) . In other words, investors think that they can establish their determination on audited fiscal statement, which reflect the organisation ‘s overall public presentation and fiscal place. However, in existent pattern there are information in an entity that are non related to scrutinize, somehow it is much utile for efficient fiscal analysing and determination devising. Therefore, in an entity fiscal study, directors should advert clearly important fiscal coverage hazard and how they are being stated, on the other side, hearers should be more crystalline about the audit carried and particularly countries concern audit hazards.Decision

Should prostitution be legalized - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 1960 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/06/23 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Prostitution Essay Did you like this example? One article reads, In Munich, for instance, streetwalking is restricted to nine designated areas of the city. In two of these areas, streetwalkers may ply their trade at any time of day. In the other seven, prostitutes are allowed on the streets only between 8 pm and 6 am. Prostitutes who solicit and negotiate off the street may practice at any time of day in any part of Munich, except in the city center (Yondorf, 1979). Prostitution has been legalized in many European countries including, Austria, Denmark, England, Holland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and West Germany (Yondorf, 1979). Brothels were also legalized in Nevada in 1971 and theres an estimated 21 in existence today. Prostitution is legal in certain countries and now the US is starting to ponder the question of legalized prostitution. The question it, should it be? Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Should prostitution be legalized" essay for you Create order For prostitution strengths/weaknesses Weitzer notes that there are around 90,000 arrests made every year in the US for the violation of prostitution laws. Studies have shown that millions of dollars are spent on enforcing prostitution laws every year and the San Francisco Crime Committee determined that spending on trying to control the issue buys essentially nothing of a positive nature. While the Atlantas Task Force on Prostitution believed it was a waste of money. They also believed that law enforcement didnt help much and little protection could be offered anyways. The problem could only be contained (Weitzer, 2000). Alternatives to the criminalization of prostitution was evaluated in this article. Decriminalization Decriminalization would eliminate forms of criminal penalties and would leave prostitution unregulated. There is virtually no public support of decriminalization and public policy makers are virtually opposed. Taken to the most serious level, decriminalization would allow prostitutes and their customers to engage sexually without restriction, except for prohibitions on public nudity and sex, (Weitzer, 2000). Legalization Legalization of prostitution would be the licensing or registration, confining prostitutes to red light districts, state-restricted brothels, mandatory medical exams, special business taxes, etc. The goal behind this tactic is that it would eliminate some of the above problems. However, the public seems to be divided on the issue, while policy makers seem to be silent on the issue as it would be condoning prostitution. Legalization confines prostitution to specific areas. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal in some areas, brothels are limited to small-scale operations in rural parts of Nevada. But this model still doesnt solve the problem of street prostitution in urban areas. To determine whether or not this tactic would be successful depends on a prostitutes willingness to move along with the regulations at hand. Prostitutes who have johns are sometimes not allowed to work in the zoned areas. Even with the stipulations, putting regulations who can work in the sex industry, some would still be excluded, forcing them to work illegally. Even with zoning, theres not a hundred percent that street prostitution would actually be confined to those zoned areas. Along with decriminalization, legalization has no foreseeable future (Weitzer, 2000). Two-track model With decriminalization and legislation both having an unforeseeable future, a two-track model was laid out. The first was indoor prostitution. That means, all forms of indoor prostitution including call girls, escort agencies and massage parlors would be legal. Claims made say that law enforcement spends countless hours and time in undercover operations related to indoor prostitution. So, by making it legalized, costs would be cut. In 1990, federal raids culminated a total of $2.5 million on a two-year undercover investigation. The second track proposed was restructuring street prostitution control. This model would enforce a greater awareness of streetwalkers and johns, strengthening the enforcement on the streets. This would also bring reform to the need for a more comprehensive program of meaningful job training and other needed services for those who want to leave prostitution. (Weitzer, 2000) Weitzer notes, Getting prostitutes off the streets requires positive incentives and assistance in the form of housing, job training, counseling, and drug treatment, but the dominant approach is overwhelmingly coercive rather than rehabilitative. Past experience abundantly shows the failure of narrowly punitive intervention. Without meaningful alternatives to prostitution there is little opportunity for a career change. Essentially, the two-track model outlined have advantages over decriminalization and legalization. It is superior for these reasons: public preferences regarding the proper focus of law enforcement, efficient use of criminal justice resources, and the harm-reduction principle. Key goals to this policy would be (1) redirecting control efforts from indoor to street prostitution, (2) gender-neutral law enforcement, and (3) providing support services and assistance for persons who want to leave prostitution, (Weitzer, 2000). Against prostitution strengths/weaknesses The other side is that any form of legalized prostitution increases sex trafficking and does not protect women. The Texas International Law Journal states, that legalized prostitution increases the demand for trafficking victims. When prostitution is legal, customers want unlimited access to these women, most of whom are culturally diverse, creating demand and a reason for international trade of women (Holman, 2009). Legalization also increases the Black Market. But, some scholars have disagreed and claimed that the legalization of prostitution reduces the black market. Katri Sieberg says, if it were legalized then the government†and not the organized criminals†would control it; and the government could gain from taxing it. However, it has not been proven accurate. In fact, black markets continue to flourish in areas where prostitution is legalized. Legalized prostitution is a traffickers best shield, allowing him to legitimize his trade in sex slaves and making it more difficult to identify trafficking victims. Even in countries where women are required to obtain a working permit to prove that they work there, several NGOs have discovered that traffickers involved in the black market illegally use the work permits and will coach women to refer to themselves as independent migrant sex workers. Some say the legalizing prostitution will help the women against abuse. They also claim that its a victimless crime because the woman is choosing to put herself in that position. American journalist John Stossel wrote: Dont prostitutes own their bodies? Shouldnt they be able to freely contract to use their bodies as they wish? Who was hurt here? This is a victimless crime. But prostitution is not a victimless crime. Prostitutes are still experiencing a high rate of abuse even in countries where it is legal and regulated. In an international study, 186 prostitutes were interviewed who were also victims of abuse. They claimed that even though it may have been a legalized brothel that had regulations, abuse was still a present factor. By legalizing prostitution, pimps and johns are given the position to become business man sexual entrepreneurs instead of criminals. A survey concluded that 76% of prostitutes in the US have been beaten by their pimp. Another frequent argument is that legalized prostitution will help to protect the womens health. Its true that health checks are required, However this only applies to the prostitutes, so it is only protecting the customer from risk of STDs. Some argue that legalizing prostitution will protect their health as most brothels will require them to have health exams. Some countries even enforce a strict condom policy, but theres no way to always ensure that happens. A lot of times, men will pay extra for sex without a condom. Because the women are desperate, a lot of times they will forgo their health in order to make more money. In a US survey of prostitutes, 45% stated that men had been abusive when asked to wear a condom. The womens pimps are not usually concerned with their health and will force them to not wear a condom if a customer will pay more. Furthermore, even if the women were protected from the violence of their pimps and customers, physical health with the use of condoms, their mental health would be ruined. A lot of times, the women will be repeatedly raped to be conditioned for a life of prostitution. Prostitutes are forced to service many men every day and often must meet quotas in order to get paid. Studies have shown that prostituted women often show the same psychological injuries as war veterans and tortured victims. Psychologist Melissa Farley also found that a study of 68% of prostitutes in nine different countries were diagnosed with PTSD (Holman, 2009). Raymond also states that the legalization of prostitution encourages men to purchase women and use them for their own sexual purposes. Many men who previously would not have risked buying women for sex now see prostitution as acceptable. When legal barriers disappear, so too do the social and ethical barriers to treating women as sexual merchandise. Legalization of prostitution sends the message to new generations of men and boys that women are sexual commodities and that prostitution is harmless fun. (Raymond, 2003). Legalization of prostitution does not enhance a womans choice. Most women did not choose prostitution from a range of other options. It was their only option. And they were desperate to feed themselves and their children survival strategies. In his studies, Raymond said that these women didnt choose prostitution out of a plethora of other options. Rather than consenting to prostitution, a prostituted woman more accurately complies with the extremely limited options available to her. Her compliance is required by the fact of having to adapt to conditions of inequality that are set by the customer who pays her to do what he wants her to do. Self-sovereignty Another article states that criminalization of prostitution violates the right of self-sovereignty in depriving individuals of important forms of control over their own minds and bodies, but non-legalization does not violate this right. Therefore, it suggested that as a matter of principle, to advocate decriminalization but to oppose legalization. (Marneffe, 2012) Likewise, I will say that prostitution is criminalized when there are criminal penalties for the sale of sexual services. Prostitution is decriminalized when there are no criminal penalties for the sale of sexual services. Prostitution is legalized when there are no criminal penalties for operating a sex business, such as a brothel or escort service, and no criminal penalties for acting as a paid agent for sexual services, and no penalties for purchasing these services from anyone above the age of sexual consent and legal employment. Marneffe claims that by criminalizing prostitution, you are taking away a persons ability to have control over their own mind and body, which is taking away their right to self-sovereignty. But by non-legalizing prostitution, you are not prohibiting those rights. Laws that prohibit someone from selling their body for a service and doing what they want with it is taking away a moral right. But laws that obstruct someones ability to own a brothel does not take away a moral right because the person still has control over their mind and body. He believes self-sovereignty means, We have the right to decide what to reflect on, what to daydream about, what to imagine, what experiences to have in our minds using our own bodies, and what moods to try to be in. We have a right to decide what to put into our bodies, how to take care of our bodies, how to use our bodies for our own benefit, work or pleasure. At the same time, it doesnt mean that right has no parameters. Marneffe gave this example: A man does not have the right throw his body off the top of a skyscraper no matter who might be below. So, because of this, there needs of be a theory of self-sovereignty in place to make clear the conditions to which the government can interfere when it comes to limiting an individuals control over their mind and body. One possible theory he proposed was in Mills One Liberty: the government may limit an adults liberty against his will in ways that can be justified as protecting others from harm, (Marneffe, 2012).