Correctional outcomes of offenders with mental disorders

While there is now a considerable literature on the extent of mental disorder (MD) within correctional settings, there is much less research on the correctional outcomes of offenders with a mental disorder (OMDs). This study contributes to that knowledge base by comparing the profiles and institutional and community outcomes of federally-sentenced Canadian offenders with, and without, a MD and examines the correctional response to their management. Results showed that OMDs had higher risk and need ratings and were more likely to be serving their current sentence for a violent offense. Outcomes for OMDs were poorer as reflected by higher rates of institutional charges and transfers to segregation, and higher rates of recidivism on release. This difference holds for the recidivism analysis, even when variables related to risk are controlled. The results demonstrate the complex needs of OMDs and points to the requirement for correctional agencies to provide specialized interventions that address both their mental health and criminogenic needs. Future research is required to examine whether type of diagnosis, particularly the degree of antisocial orientation, contribute to these poorer outcomes.     

Working with children as stakeholders in development: the challenges of organisational change

This article considers the challenges of promoting children's participation in development programming. It argues against the tendency to see the main obstacle to achieving this aim as technical. Instead it explores the institutional dimensions of change that may be required. The experience of a four-year process of training and organisational review within Save the Children Denmark provides the substance for reflection about the kinds of cultural and structural change that are implicated in enabling a development organisation to become capable of engaging young people as stakeholders in a meaningful and sustainable manner.     

Clarifying the Status of Policy

This essay examines ‘What is a policy?’ from the viewpoint of a public servant trying to make sense of the maze of official statements, procedures, guidelines and various other expressions of intra‐governmental opinion that might bear upon a discretionary decision. It seeks to clarify the meaning and status of policy, to explain how to determine cases which are not covered by explicit statements of policy, and to decide how much relative weight to accord to various policy documents and circumstances. Although it does not set out to rehash the old debate about the distinction between politics and administration (often misunderstood as a distinction between policy and administration), it finds Woodrow Wilson's 1886 aphorism on this subject a good place to start.