Assignment: Capstone Project Part III: Strategic Issues
alexislowe1103
WK4AssgnLoweA4.docxRunning head: TREATMENT OUTCOME MODELS
Running head: TREATMENT OUTCOME MODELS
Week 4 Assignment: Treatment Outcome Models
Professor Patricia Coccoma
HUMN 6511- Treatment of Forensic Populations
June 18, 2019
Treatment Models
For the various groups of individuals partaking in therapy, there are several forms of treatment plans. In each treatment program, the success or failure can be assessed by the person responsible for vesting interest in the result of a specific treatment. Treating of the forensic population utilizes three primary models; recidivism, relapse, and harm reduction. Instant implication on the understanding of an anticipated therapeutic outcome is linked to the three models. The three models can be very resourceful to clinicians who seek to accomplish technical and medical publications that are proficient and also be assisted in the preparation of a tactic for treatment in legal environments. Recidivism model is grounded firmly on the principle of recidivism (returning of an individual back to prison following a release, irrespective of a newer offense or repetition of the old one that got them confined initially). In almost all circumstances, when recidivism occurs to a person, it is regarded as a failure (Hiller et al., pp.835).
The relapse models, on the other hand, is a bit outlined on its basis, which is, whether or not an individual reverts to an initial undesirable pattern of behavior. Commonly, relapse is often linked to the drug, but it can also apply to the treatment of mental health issues. The relapse model mainly invokes up negative implications and cannot be seen from a positive perspective (Laws, 23). The Harm-Reduction Model is the one that has practically been examined, evaluated, and referred at minimal of the three models. Interesting enough, the model is endorsed theoretically by many clinicians as opposed to the other two models. The foundation of the model is on the theory that success of a treatment is defined by the offender causing minimal harm through their consequent misconduct following treatment than the damage they would have produced if no treatment had been received (Marlatt, pp.780)
The three models would be unsuccessful in their treatment in a real sense within the forensic population. There is a little positive attribute that can be drawn from the models, making them irrelevant as a model for treatment outcome (Wong & Gordon, pp.464). There are high levels of inaccuracy related to recidivism model as it puts much focus on people that are recidivating as opposed to the causes of the outcome. The main issue that causes recidivism is overlooked that would make felons change in their way of life, thus the model is ineffective. Relapse model does not take into account that it settles to individual decision of quitting specific misconduct, and once out of prison, it is easier for an individual to relapse. The same can be extrapolated to mental health issues where mediations stabilize a prisoner but once released and choose not to adhere to the stipulated medications, relapse follows. The harm-reduction model appears to contradict the whole purpose of treatment. Reducing the harm or damage does not guarantee treatment. There are a lot of challenges as a result of utilizing the models compared to the avoidance of using them due to their ineffectiveness. Recidivism model is advantageous to keep account of the population that recidivate once freed from jail, thus contributing significant statistical figures for future reference. The relapse model has the advantage of allowing people to make mistakes as it is in human nature but ensuring that they have few harmful consequences. The harm-reduction model that is rarely used of the other two models makes offenders engage in less atrocious activities that would be much worse unregulated.
Through the evaluation of the three primary outcome models, it is accurate to conclude that more research is required in arrival at a useful treatment outcome model. None of the three outcome models can be fully asserted to be effective in the treatment of offenders. There is more likelihood of the three models causing more harmful effects on the offenders than serve its the purpose of deterrence. The possibility of having more effective alternatives to replace the three outcome models in the field of psychology and forensics is still valid.
References
Hiller, M, Knight, K, Simpson, D. "Prison-based substance abuse treatment, residential aftercare, and recidivism." Addiction. Vol 94, Issue 6. (1999): 833-842.
Laws, R. “The rise and fall of relapse prevention.” Australian Psychologist. Vol 38, Issue 1. (2003): 22-30.
Marlatt, G. "Harm reduction: Come as you are." Addictive Behaviors. Vol 21, Issue 6. (1996): 779-788.
