Decision Making in Healthcare Organization Free Essays

A company profile for a company Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

An organization profile for an organization - Essay Example At the end of the day this kind of structure encourages decentralization. The corporate staffs at GE are isolated into 5 sub divisions. The key region of the corporate staff at GE are Commercial advertising, Legal, Global research, Human asset and Finance. The association structure of GE shows that it is going by the corporate official office. They are thusly upheld by shareowners and top managerial staff. The corporate official office thus chooses an executive and CEO. In 2014 the absolute no. of representatives who worked in GE are 307,000. In 2014 the director and CEO of the organization was Jeffrey R. Immelt. In 2014 GE had 2 VPs specifically Keith S. Sherin and John G. Rice. They were also holding the post of president and CEO of GE capital and Global development and activities individually. The president and CEO of different divisions was in particular Charles Bankenship for apparatuses and lighting division, John L Flannery of social insurance division, David L. Joyce of GE Av iation, Russell Stokes of GE transportation, Stephen R. Bolze for GE force and water, Lorenzo Simonelli for Oil and Gas division and Mark W. Begor for GE vitality the board. GE has numerous divisions and fabricates a few things. Actually GE is an aggregate of a few divisions. The different developments of GE are capital, apparatuses and lightning, medicinal services, flying, transportation, force and water, oil and gas, vitality the executives and Global development and tasks. The principle items that GE in this way fabricates are lighting machines. In the force, water, oil and gas divisions too GE is the pioneer as GE gives power, water, oil and gas. GE aeronautics is an auxiliary of the general electric and is one of the significant providers of airplane motors for the business airplanes that work. The significant contenders of GE flying are Rolls-Royce and Pratt and Whitney. GE avionics is among the top airplane motor providers.

Financial Accounting vs Management Accounting

The executives bookkeeping is a field of bookkeeping that dissects and gives cost data to the inside administration for the reasons for arranging, controlling and dynamic. The board bookkeeping alludes to bookkeeping data produced for directors inside an association. CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants) characterizes Management bookkeeping as â€Å"Management Accounting is the procedure of recognizable proof, estimation, amassing, investigation, readiness, translation, and correspondence of data that utilized by the executives to design, assess, and control inside a substance and to guarantee suitable utilization of a responsibility for its resources†. This is the period of bookkeeping worried about giving data to chiefs to use in arranging and controlling tasks and in dynamic. Administrative bookkeeping is worried about giving data to directors I. e. individuals inside an association who direct and control its tasks. Conversely, money related bookkeeping is worried about giving data to investors, leasers, and other people who are outside an association. Administrative bookkeeping furnishes the fundamental information with which associations are really run. Monetary bookkeeping gives the scorecard by which a company’s past execution is judged. Since it is chief arranged, any investigation of administrative bookkeeping must be gone before by some comprehension of what supervisors do, the data administrators need, and the general business condition. The contrasts between the executives bookkeeping and money related bookkeeping incorporate 1. The executives bookkeeping gives data to individuals inside an association while budgetary bookkeeping is predominantly for those outside it, for example, investors 2. Money related bookkeeping is legally necessary while the board bookkeeping isn't. Explicit gauges and arrangements might be required for legal records, for example, in the I. A. S International Accounting Standard inside Europe. 3. Budgetary bookkeeping covers the whole association while the board bookkeeping might be worried about specific items or cost focuses. Presentation Financial bookkeeping and the executives bookkeeping both get ready and break down money related information. Be that as it may, certain parts of these two fields are totally different. This article talks about the different contrasts between money related bookkeeping and the board bookkeeping. The varying attributes to be talked about incorporate the clients of data, the sorts of data, administrative oversight, and recurrence of announcing. Clients of Information Financial bookkeeping and the board bookkeeping give data to two diverse client gatherings. Monetary bookkeeping principally gives data to outside clients of bookkeeping information, for example, speculators and lenders. Then again, the executives bookkeeping gives data to inward clients of bookkeeping information. Inside clients incorporate workers, administrators, and officials of the organization. Kinds of Information The sort of data required by the distinctive client bunches likewise varies. Outer clients basically depend on money related data about the organization. They investigate this data related to general financial data, for example, data about the business in which the organization works. Outer clients center around expansive data that uncovers the general execution of the organization overall. Likewise, monetary bookkeeping just reports data on money related exchanges that have happened before. Interior clients need to audit budgetary data about the organization, for example, fiscal summary data. They likewise use non-monetary data about the organization, for example, consumer loyalty levels and contender information. Interior clients center around point by point data that uncovers the exhibition of specific subunits of the organization, for example, divisions or offices. Also, the executives bookkeeping focuses on over a wide span of time data, just as the estimating of future money related exchanges. Administrative Oversight. So as to ensure open intrigue, money related bookkeeping is managed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Conversely, the executives bookkeeping isn't directed by a particular offices. This is on the grounds that the data gave by the board bookkeeping is expected for inside clients just and isn't accessible to people in general. Thusly, since there is no open enthusiasm, there is no compelling reason to secure open enthusiasm with respect to this data. Recurrence of Reporting The focal point of monetary bookkeeping is covering recorded data. The data is accounted for occasionally. It is frequently separated into month to month, quarterly, and yearly announcing periods. At least, money related bookkeeping data must be accounted for yearly. Despite what might be expected, the executives bookkeeping data is accounted for consistently. Interior clients need to assess past, present, and potential future data so as to decide. Accordingly, these clients persistently need data so as to settle on the proper choices.

The Brides of Christ Essay Sample free essay sample

Strictness and spiritualty played of import work in Latin America in the start of the 19Thursdaycentury. Numerous grown-up females chose to come in cloisters and religious communities to show individual devotion and respect. Moreover. the Torahs were extremely thorough and the councils didn’t pay unnecessarily much taking care of justness and cautious examination of condemnable occasions. In this way. the part portrays provincial Latin America. in exceptional the life of grown-up females who were treated as a second kind. For outline. numerous grown-up females had to come in religious communities. to go forward their children and to get hitched work powers they didn’t need to. Basically expressing. women’s rights were separated and disregarded. Be that as it may. positive minutes were other than present in the life of pioneer grown-up females. For delineation. grown-up females with hard fortunes were given haven to dodge deceptive methods of continuance. Poor widows needed to look for assurance in the recogimiento each piece great as white and grouped blood juvenile fills who held back to take an area. We will compose a custom exposition test on The Brides of Christ Essay Sample or then again any comparative point explicitly for you Don't WasteYour Time Recruit WRITER Just 13.90/page Be that as it may. it was difficult to disassociate and teams needed to hold up hebdomads and months to pull off their private individual businesss. Recogomientos served of import maps in the public arena. in spite of the fact that with mature ages their position has changed. In the 19Thursdaycentury recogimientos and councils concluded whether to punish grown-up females whose conduct was considered irreverent. disrespectful or evil. Pilgrim grown-up females were rebuffed for female fornicatresss and harlotry. With mature ages recogimientos were the spots for contrite harlotry and in this way for monetarily down and out grown-up females. The section other than depicts orphanhoods saying that authoritiess were obliged to set up at any rate one orphanhood in the city. Summing up. the life of pioneer Latin grown-up females was hard as they were tested by disparity and sexual orientation bias. Obviously. work powers were managing in those occasions. By the by. specific gatherings of grown-up females were ensured by specific foundations and it promised them near security and trust in future. First class women’s life was simpler. despite the fact that they needed to go to hoards day by day.

How My Mental Illness Affects My Reading Life, and Vice Versa

How My Mental Illness Affects My Reading Life, and Vice Versa The circulation assistant eyes me warily, and I return the gaze with a crooked smile I cant shake off. She asks, Are you actually going to be able to read all of those? Her tone says she is joking, but the underlying incredulity is there: checking out 20 books at once is a little extreme, especially if you have 30 out already. I shrug, accidentally jostling the books. I read nine books a week now. She gives me a look that straddles disbelief and awe. I thank her politely and turn to leave, struggling to get the slippery-covered books in line as I fight my way out to the car, gently tossing them on the backseat where they spill all over the seat. Ill deal with getting them inside my house later. My head already feels light, airy, and Im literally buzzing with energy. My mind is filled with thoughts that race. I drum my thumbs on the car seat as I crank the upbeat electro-pop higher.  Im going to read 400 books this year. Im going to read 400 books this year. Im going to read 400 books this year Its late June, and Im manic again. How mania  affects my reading, and how reading affects my mania Books and reading can be incredibly powerful sources of healing. Hence the term bibliotherapy and its respective practice. I have long been attracted to the idea of bibliotherapy because I suffer from bipolar disorder, or manic depressive illness to some. Over the past 10 years since my diagnosis, I have seen my reading deeply affected by my illnessâ€"and my illness greatly affected by my reading. One of the classic ways other people can tell that Im heading off the deep end into hypomania or mania is when I start buying or borrowing a ton of books. When I say a book buying shopping spree, I dont mean 2 books, or 5 books, or even 10 books. To my mind, buying 20 at a time is perfectly reasonable. Im doing research for my blog/articles/own novel, I tell myself to justify it.  Its collection development. Its to help me write my thesis. I can read them. I can read them all. The boxes arrive, stacked up on my porch outside. My  cats climb in the cardboard wasteland after I tear the boxes open. Theres no more room on my shelves. I tell myself Ill buy another shelf. No, two more bookcases. Nope, three would keep be going for a few months. My mind is convinced that spending hundreds of dollars on this is justifiable and healthy. My credit card statement a month later suggests otherwise. Likewise, sometimes I go on binge-borrowing at the library as in my example above. I could check out ten 500-page books with two-week loans and totally believe that I can read them all, each in a day. Then I get withdrawn and depressed, my mind disorganized, and I stop going outside my house for days. Im not well enough to make it to the library. And the fines keep going  up. My mind focuses on a big idea, like reading 400 books a year, and I latch onto it even though the most Ive ever read in a year is 60. I obsessively change up my Goodreads Reading Challenge and calculate over and over how many books Id have to read a month/week/day to reach my challenge goal. And then I start finishing books faster, too. My eyes inhale, thats the best word I can describe it, just suck up all the words on a page. I finish one book a day. Its not enough. Two a day for two weeks until the sobering reality kicks in. Im manic. The behaviors Ive described above might not be that unusual for book lovers, and indeed, they might not seem out of the ordinary in isolation. But to me they are symptomatic of a larger, more dangerous mood dip upwards, pieces of a larger puzzle that say my medication needs to be switched up. Because buying 20 books three days in a row can wreck my credit, wipe out my meager freelance income, and leave me staring at double-stacked shelves of books I know I no longer want to readâ€"or could read. Same with reading 10 books in a week. It might seem not that unusual for avid readers, especially speed readers. But for me, it sends my mood sky-high. Each finished book, each Read entry  makes me more confident. Nothing can stop me. A novelist myself, I feel the Flow and spend hours writing, neglecting my actual, paid work, dumping my efforts into writing word after word, page after page, chapter after chapter, until Im 10,000 words in after 24 hours, and my mood crashes. Then I really hate reading. How depression  affects my reading, and how reading affects my  depression Eventually, the cold, crushing reality sets in. I dont remember anything I read. I fiction reads like  gibberish. Worse: I cant read anymore. They soak me in mood stabilizers to treat the delusions and the rapid cycling, the mania. But Im catatonic. I cant focus on anything. It takes me an hour to read two pages. I flash back to undergraduate when I majored in English and chose to focus on 18th and 19th century British literature. I would spend hours in my dorm room trying to make sense of the shapes before me. I tried audiobooks, reading side by side. It didnt do anything. I made no progress. I cling to Sparknotes to get the gist of the plot. I bullshitted my way through essays and coasted on my reputation as a promising student in the department. Professors worked with me, even as disability services was practically useless. Nothing is worse than not being able to read, especially when you are a book blogger and book journalist, librarian and novelist. Not reading just feeds the depressive cycle. Im worthless. A lightweight. A fake. A con artist. A manic depressive. Finding peace in reading Ultimately, it shakes out to a bearable medium between spurts of consumption to quieter lulls. After 10 years with this diagnosis, Ive learned that there is no such thing as constant. You wake up and you dont know what each day will be like, what each hour or minute will bring. But throughout it all, reading has been an anchor, a rock. It has fueled me with stories when I needed escapism, has brought me joy and inspiration. My reading experience is a fucked up roller coaster, sure. But I dont want to get off and live a life without books or a reading practice of any kind. And as a novelist, I try to sneak the mentally divergent into my fiction, celebrating the quirks and joys and challenges of life with a mental illness, same with coverage of mental illness disability on my blog and in my articles for websites and publications. Reading and bipolar disorder have a bizarre symbiotic relationship of healing and hell. We need to bring more awareness to how reading can affect bipolar disorder so physicians and psychologists can understand this complex, intertwined bond. To readers who have this illness, you are not alone. Find comfort in your own form of bibliotherapy. Speak up and let others know about the warning signs when it comes to reading and your illness. The book community is greatly supportive. We are rooting for you.

Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group - Free Essay Example

Introduction There are two types of shareholders, namely the majority shareholders and the minority shareholders. Minority shareholders refer to those who own less than 50% of the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s shares and thus do not possess voting power in the company. Generally, those who have shares in a company must follow the majority rule. However, the law has granted several rights to the minority shareholder to protect their interests. There are three basic rights of minority shareholders, namely, right to seek information, right to voice opinion and right to seek remedy. The minority shareholder will also have the right not to be compelled to take over more shares without his consent in writing. This is provided under section 33(3) of Companies Act 1965.[1] Besides, the minority shareholder will also have the right to make application of winding up the company. This can be found under section 218 of the Companies Act[2]. Next, the minority shareholder is also granted with the right to seek relief in cases of oppression or unfair discrimination.[3] Section 181 of Companies Act 1965 states that, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Any member of a company may apply to the Court for an order on the ground that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to one or more of the members or that some act of the company has been done which unfairly discriminates against one or more of the membersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[4] Besides, the minority shareholder will also have the right to request to the Court to make an order to call an Annual General Meeting. This is stipulated under section 143(4) of the Companies Act 1965[5]. On the other hand, section 148(1) of the Companies Act also clearly indicates that the minority shareholder will also have the right to attend any general meeting of the Company and to speak and vote on any resolution before the meeting.[6] Furthermore, section 149(1) of the Companies Act further states that the minority shareholder appoint another person or persons as his proxy to attend and vote instead of himself at a meeting of the Company.[7] On the other hand, the minority shareholders may also exert pressure on the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s directors to be more accountable and transparent.[8] Generally, all shareholders, including minority shareholders should also have the r ight to seek remedy when their rights have been violated. In Malaysia, the Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group which was formed on 30th August 2000 provides protection to minority shareholders of public companies over their interests. What is Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group The Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG) was established in Malaysia on 30th August 2000. It was formed to promote and protect the interests of minority shareholders in public company through shareholder activism. Through years, the Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group has now become an independent research organization on matters regarding corporate governance. It helps to enables minority shareholders of public companies to become aware of their basic rights as shareholders such as right to seek information, right to voice opinion and right to seek remedy.[9] The right to seek information refers to the right to know about the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s price sensitive information, right to be sent the Notice of General Meetings, right to have a copy of annual report and audited accounts, right to inspect the Minutes of General Meetings and right to know what is happening in the company. On the other hand, the right to voice opinion refers to those rights such as right to attend general meetings, right to request the court to order the company to call a general meeting, right to be heard during shareholdersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ meeting and right to vote and elect directors and auditors. Next, the right of minority shareholders to seek remedy is provided under section 181 of the Companies Act 1965[10]. Besides, the MSWG also assists minority shareholders to raise issue of concerns to the companyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s board of directors. Furthermore, the MSWG also organizes various educational programs for retail shareholders.[11] On the other hand, the objectives of the Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group are laid down in its Memorandum and Articles of Association. There are several objectives being laid down. Firstly, the MSWG was formed to act as the Forum for minority shareholders to share their experiences concerning Malaysian Code in issue such as Corporate Governance, the Securities Commissionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Disclosure-Based Regulations, and the Capital Markets Master plans. Next, the second objective of MSWG is to develop and promote the corporate governance in educational aspects. Furthermore, it was also set up for the purpose of becoming the Think-Tank and Resource Centre in Malaysia which deals with the interest of minority and matters of corporate governance. Besides, it provides platform for the management of public listed companies to carry out collective shareholder activism on questionable practices. Next, another objective of MSWG is to help in monitoring any breaches and non-compliance in practices of corporate governance by public listed companies. Besides, it was set up to initiate reports to regulatory authorities.[12] Next, there are four founding organizations of Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group. The founding organizations are the organizations that provided the start-up fund to the Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group. The first founding organization is the Armed Forces Fund Board. It was established in August 1972 with the aims of giving retirement and other advantages to the Armed Forces members and to ensure that members of volunteer forces are entitled to take part in a savings scheme.[13] Secondly, another founding organization of MSWG is the National Equity Corporation which was incorporated on 17th March 1978. It was formed to act as an important tool of the Governmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s New Economic Policy with the purpose of promoting Bumiputeraà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s share ownership in the corporate sector and developing chances for suitable Bumiputera professionals to involve in the wealth creation and management. Thirdly, the next founding organization is the Social Security Organization (S OCSO) which was formed in year 1971 under the Ministry of Human Resources. Its aims are to ensure and promote occupational health and safety. Lastly, the fourth founding organization is the Pilgrimage Board. It was established in November 1962 with the purpose of enabling Muslims to save their money gradually. The savings can be used for expenditure during pilgrimage or other beneficial purposes. Besides, the Pilgrimage Board also encourages Muslims to participate actively in investment activities which are permissible in Islam through their savings and safeguards the welfare of Muslims during their pilgrimage through different types of facilities and services provided. Today, the Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group is basically funded by the Capital Market Development Fund and also from the sales of its own products and services. [14] Roles and Objectives of Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group The Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG) was setup in August 2000[15] and it is not a profit based body. Its aim was to promote and encourage shareholder activism, especially among the least cared and minority shareholders. In Malaysia, MSWG generally works and services people with the objective of preserving shareholder rights, minimize risks to shareholders and eventually help to boost up the value of the capital market. Recently, the MSWG had actively participate in all kind of activities in which issues relevant to minority shareholders and retail investors had been highlighted and given proper attentions. By doing this, their credibility had been built up. The MSWG has also play important role in leading initiative for the development and enlargement of important institution such as Best Practices for Institutional Shareholders. The MSWG had conducts annually surveys such as the Corporate Governance Survey, Directors Remuneration Survey and others. It is therefore able to render proxy services for the minority and retail investors.[16] The M SWG is moving towards becoming a totally independent and self-sustainable institution that stand strong the rights of minority shareholders.The obvious role of MSWG is to enhance Shareholder Activism and Protecting Minority Interest and at the same time develop and propagate the education perspective of corporate governance. It also acts as a platform to start up and discuss on unethical, immoral behaviors and questionable practices for the benefit of the shareholders as a whole. In addition, decision making process in public-listed companies also heavily influenced by the motive and direction of MSWG. MSWG hence works as a guidance to monitor the breaches of statutory duties and non-compliance in corporate governance practices. As mentioned above, it is the forum for minority shareholders to share their experiences in the context of the Malaysian Code on the Capital MarketsMaster plans and Corporate Governance. Besides, MSWG works well as information gathering center for upho lding minority interest and concerning the management of cooperative matters in Malaysia. In the meanwhile, MSWG acts as check and balance in the sense that to develop and spread the corporate governanceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s educational aspect. It does not only works as spokesman for regulatory authorities but also acts as an effective deterrent to abusive forces and at same time prohibits activities that could have exploit the interest of the minority shareholders. Lastly, The MSWG provides service at minimum fee which enables investorsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ proxy advisory and also proxy voting services.[17] In short, MSWG normally act to protect the interest of minority shareholder and even provides them remedy if they face any defect or disadvantages in the share transactions in Malaysia. Corporate Governance of MSWG The Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group (MSWG) was established to guard the interests of minority investors through shareholder policy. Ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s o ne avenue of market discipline to encourage sensible governance amongst public listed corporations with the target of raising investor price over time. MSWGs objectives are started in an exceedingly Charter beneath its memo and Articles of Association. The first one is to become the Forum on minority shareholdersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ experiences within the context of the Malaysian Code on company Governance, the Securities Commissionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Disclosure-Based regulations, and also the Capital Markets Masterplans. Besides that, to become the Think-Tank and Resource Centre for minority interest and company governance matters in Malaysia. On top of that MSWG aiming to develop and circulate the educational aspects of company governance as well as in becoming the platform to initiate collective investor policy on questionable practices by management of public listed corporations. In order to achieve the objectives MSWG also need to influence the choice creating method public ly listed corporations because the leader for minority shareholdersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ legitimate rights and interests. Moreover monitoring for breaches and non-compliance in company governance practices by public listed corporations is also one of the objectives. Lastly, it is to initiate wherever applicable, reports to restrictive authorities and reworking MSWG into a good deterrent of such events or activities that may be against the interest of the minority shareholders. The MSWG was discovered to make awareness among minority shareholders of their 3 basis rights to hunt data, voice opinion and obtain redress.[18] In recognition of its public mandate to spearhead investor policy that is one in all the key tenets of company governance the CMDF has been supporting the MSWG since 2005. To date, the MSWG has been productive in increase their quality by their active participation in AGMs and EGMs, wherever the MSWG highlight issues and problems relevant to retail and minority share holders. The MSWG has conjointly led an industry initiative for the event of Best Practices for Institutional Shareholders. The MSWG conducts yearly surveys Malaysia public listed corporations, like the Directors Remuneration Survey, company Governance Survey and also the Dividend Survey, and is ready to supply proxy services for minority and retail investors. The MSWG is functioning towards turning into a completely independent and self-sustainable organization representing the rights of minority shareholders.[19] With Malaysiaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s push towards responsible investment, MSWG is presently spearheading the formulation and development of the Malaysian Code for Institutional Investors (Code) in line with one amongst the recommendations of the company Governance Blueprint 2011 (CG Blueprint), that made public strategic initiatives geared toward reinforcing self and market discipline. The Code is meant to administer institutional investor steerage on effective exercise of situation responsibilities to confirm delivery of property worth to their final beneficiaries or purchasers. Institutional investors are inspired to be the signatories of the Code that is expected to be launched by the second quarter of 2014. In yet one more development, MSWG has been appointed by the Securities Commission (SC) to be the domestic ranking body in Malaysia to assess Malaysian PLCs victimisation the ASEAN CG scorecard methodology wherever the highest fifty corporations would be mentioned within the ASEAN CG Country Report and hierarchical below the Malaysia-ASEAN CG Index 2013.[20] This appointment was in recognition of MSWGà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s record in closing the assessment of CG practices among PLCs in Malaysia through the mcg Index since 2009. The findings of the Malaysia-ASEAN CG Index 2013 showed that the common base score for the highest one hundred corporations in Malaysia had raised to seventy five.77 points in 2013 from sixty eight.2 points within t he previous year reflective an overall rising in CG awareness among the listed corporations. In line with the Governmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s agenda of promoting corporations with good environment, Social and Governance (ESG), the card has enclosed parameters that measure such disclosures that I see as pertinent because it is accustomed gauge and verify the ESG levels and gaps which will be addressed. As for all, MSWG is also promoting the publication of AGM minutes to produce data on the Conduct of AGMs so the amount of transparency and answerability in corporations is stepped-up.[21] MARKET RESPONSE TO MSWG ACTIVISM The Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group policy is to induce the manner of the companies in conduct the power of ownership so that companies expand and apply successful strategies and high standards of governance, thereby maximizing returns for owners. (Hendrikse, 2004). The activism comes as shareholders that rewarded companies for asset growth, now are demanding e arnings growth, better stock performance and richer dividends. Shareholder activism is a broad concept with many forms. There are a wide variety of actions and behaviour that could justifiably fall within the ambit of shareholder activism. However, no matter which form is chosen the end-game is to effect change; whether in management, the capital and asset structure or strategic direction. The MSWG-targeted firms earn significantly higher positive returns as compared to non-targeted firms. Thus, the company will analyze the reactions of share prices. The analysis will begin from day-0 . Our event window begins on day à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"30 and ends on day +5 to determine the impact over a short event window, while this window is extended to day +30, +60 and 1 year to gauge impacts over a longer event window. The company will compute raw buy à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"and-hold returns [22]as well as market-adjusted returns[23], the latter of which is the value-weighted KLCI Index[24] returns ov er the respective event windows. In the year 2013 was the second year MSWG corporate with the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard[25] to acess 826 Malaysian public listed companies. Earlier on, MSWG had used Malaysian Corporate Governance (MCG) Index Scorecard in 2009 and 2011 but it was later alter to Asean countries agreed to use a standard methodology that could be applied across the whole region. In the nutshell, MSWG targets those firms with high return and high levels of institutional shareholdings. It is targeted firms with high levels of cash holdings and relatively lower amounts of debts on their balance sheets. In addition, with easy cash flow and agency cost theorie by applying equity returns data, in searching for companies [26]with good return and reliable to earn profit in short term and over the long run as compared to non-targeted firms. [1] Companies Act 1965, s33(3) [2] Companies Act 1965, s218 [3] Tommy Thomas, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Protection of Minority Shareholdersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ [1984] 1 CLJ 10 [4] Companies Act 1965, s181 [5] Companies Act 1965, s143(4) [6] Companies Act 1965, s148(1) [7] Companies Act 1965, s149(1) [8] Abdul Wahab Jaafar Sidek, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Protecting Minority Shareholders during Times of Financial Turmoilà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ https://www.asli.com.my/DOCUMENTS/capital market summit/Mr Abdul Wahab Jaafar Sidek.pdf accessed 4th August 2014 [9] Abdul Wahab Jaafar Sidek, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Equitable Treatment of Minority Shareholdersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/41076424.pdf accessed 4th August 2014 [10] Companies Act 1965, s181 [11] Abdul Wahab Jaafar Sidek, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Protecting Minority Shareholders during Times of Financial Turmoilà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ https://www.asli.com.my/DOCUMENTS/capital market summit/Mr Abdul Wah ab Jaafar Sidek.pdf accessed 4th August 2014 [12] Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Objective, Vision and Missionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ https://www.mswg.org.my/page.php?pid=85menu=sub accessed 10th August 2014 [13] Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Objektifà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ https://www.ltat.org.my/webltat/index.html accessed 4th August 2014 [14] Minority Shareholder Watchdog Group, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Who Are Weà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ https://www.mswg.org.my/page.php?pid=36menu=sub accessed 4th August 2014 [15] Minority Shareholderà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Watchdog Group, Dana Pembangunan Pasaran Modal, Capital Market Development Fund. To date, the MSWG has been successful in building up their credibility by their active participation in AGMs and EGMs, where the MSWG highlight concerns and issues relevant to retail and minority shareholders. [16] OECD Investment Policy Reviews OECD Investment Policy Reviews: Malaysia 2013, pg 173, Paragraph 5.3.The MSWG has been pivotal in providing a platform for providing a platform for collective shareholder activism on questionable practices by management of public. [17] The Impact of minority Shareholder watchdog group activism on the performance of targeted firms in Malaysia, Rashid Ameer and Rashidad Abdul Rahman, pg 76. These subscribers are given advice on how to ask questions and raise issues at AGMs or EGMs. The modus operandi of the MSWG is to write letters known as MSWG letters to corporate secretaries in targeted firms to highlight major issues for clarification or to solicit the details from the board in forthcoming AGMs or EGMs [18] Rashid Ameer and Rashidah Abdul Rahman, THE IMPACT OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER WATCHDOG GROUP ACTIVISM ON THE PERFORMANCE OF TARGETED FIRMS IN MALAYSIA (web.usm.my 2009) https://web.usm.my/journal/aamjaf/Vol 5-1-2009/5-1-3.pdf accessed 6 August 14 [19] Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group (cmdf.org.my ) https://www.cmdf.org.my/364_221_221/Web/WebPag e/Minority-Shareholder-s-Watchdog-Group/Minority-Shareholder-s-Watchdog-Group.html accessed e.g. 6 January 14 [20] Code for institutional investors (cgmalaysia.blogspot.com 2014) https://cgmalaysia.blogspot.com/2014/01/code-for-institutional-investors.html accessed 6 August 14 [21] (mswg.org.my ) https://www.mswg.org.my/page.php?pid=141action=previewmenu=main accessed 6 August 14 [22] is a passive investment technique in which shareholders continue to hold onto their stocks, regardless of market conditions. Its an interesting approach, with some market theory to back it up. [23] A concept that refines an investments return by measuring how much risk is involved in producing that return, which is generally expressed as a number or rating. Risk-adjusted returns are applied to individual securities and investment funds and portfolios. [24] The FBMKLCIwill be part of the FTSE Bursa MalaysiaIndexSeries. It is calculated based on globally acceptedindexmethodology, which is transparent to inspire confidence. Theindexwill be computed based on free float adjusted market capitalization. [25] ACMF and the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard [26] There are 35 firms in which the MSWG have tried to initiate board changes and 15 firms in which MSWG stopped merger and acquisition deals.

Psychological effects of imprisonment on young offenders - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 24 Words: 7133 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Psychology Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? 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. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Psychological effects of imprisonment on young offenders" essay for you Create order 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 menta lillness 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 papers 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 disordersand 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 hasdeveloped [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, November 2006, p2]. Therefore, whil st 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 governments Crime Reduction ToolkitA 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, Psychiatric Morbidity Among Young Offende rs, 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 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: 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: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 times as high as for their peers in the generalpopula tion. 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: Youngoffenders in the community were found to have significantly more needsthan those in secure careNeeds 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 1950s and 1960s 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 1970s 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). These embarrassing findings caused the pendulum to swin g awayfrom rehabilitation towards a firmer commitment to incapacitation andpunishment through positive custody. During the 1980s, 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 (Faulkner, 2007, p7). During the 1990s researchers revisited the studies conducted in the1970s 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 1980s, 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 following way: As far a s 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 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 offending (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, the current approach employed by the YouthJustice System to deal with this problem is very much one which relieson providing treatment programmes for those youths who are eitherdeemed mentally disordered or ill or those who come forward and requestsuch programmes. This approach can be seen underlying new projectswhich are being implemented to deal with this problem: For example, anarticle published on the 5th March 2007 by the Sainsbury Centre forMental Health states: The Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Departmentof Health (DH) are to join forces with the Sainsbury Centre for MentalHealth (SCMH) with a major new project to improve services for childrenand young people who offend and have mental health needs. The YouthJustice Service Development project will test out the most effectiveways health and criminal justice services can meet the mental healthneeds of young people in custody or involved with youth offending teamsin the community. The two-year project, which is joint funded by theDH, SCMH and YJB, will review the evidence of what work is mosteffective to address mental health needs. The results will be used todevelop the most promising approaches locally. This is great exampleof what Harper and Chitty (2005) describe as the what works and forwhom treatment paradigm. 7] To what extent is the current policy approach of the UK YouthJustice System appropriate in achieving its objectives in this regard? The approach discussed above in section [6] of this literaturereview is, in the opinion of this researcher, a valid one. It reliesheavily upon clinical research which indicates what works in treatingyouth offenders with mental ill-health, and therefore the JusticeSystem must ensure that such research is promoted (through finance) asa priority. As Professor Sue Bailey writes: The recent evidence basein the field of child and adolescent forensic mental health andjuvenile justice is starting to make a real difference to clinicalpractice, pointing to practice that can offer multiple interventions atmultiple points across the childhood years, and on into adult forensicpractice. Bailey (2003) p1. 8] How is this policy approach being implemented by the UK Youth Justice System? As mentioned previously, in 1997 multi-professional Youth OffendingTeams [YOTs] were introduced across the Youth Justice System in Englandand Wales. Because of the multi-disciplinary makeup of each YOT,assessments made for each young offender who comes before them will betailored to the specific needs of that individual, not merely themental needs but also any other needs which are relevant to thatoffenders criminal behaviour and risk of re-offending. Also, the introduction of a wider range of community sentences such asthe recently implemented Detention and Training Orders, ParentingOrders and Child Safety Orders have been introduced not merely toprovide the courts with an alternative to custodial sentences but alsoto reduce the length of custodial sentence of those individuals who arecurrently serving time in prison. The other practical reforms which have been implemented to reducethe prevalence of mental ill-health in young offenders and the problemscaused by this phenomenon will be discussed in greater detail in thefollowing section of this literature review. 9] Are these practical reforms appropriate in light of the policyapproach adopted to reduce the incidence of mental illness in youthoffenders in the UK? In this section of the literature review we shall examine theparticulars of the current policies and practices and identify thoseareas which are most in need of reform. One of the most comprehensive evaluations of the current approach totacking mental ill-health in youth prisons is provided by Harringtonand Bailey (2005). Their report identified, as we have argued earlier,that the current approach to the problem of mental ill-health in youngprisoners is very much an ad hoc one; Provision of mental healthservices in many secure estate institutions was provided on a sessionalbasis by mental health professionals who had a personal interest in thearea. Continuous provision was subsequently vulnerable to changes inpersonnel and priorities and, unlike community child and adult mentalhealth services, a multi-disciplinary approach was not common.[Harrington and Bailey, 2005, p5] Clearly this is not in-line with thepolicies underlying the introduction of the YOTs which clearly intendedassessments and prospective treatment programmes to be provided by amulti-disciplinary team. Other findings of this research revealed that it was not routinepractice to assess each offender on admission to young offenderinstitutions, the National Offender Management Service (the newlyintegrated Prison and Probation Services) would rely on previousassessments, where infrequently available. The report also found thatwhere assessments had been, appropriate intervention packages wereoften not available either due to under-resourced treatment programmesor the simple lack of any appropriate programmes. Another research study, commissioned by the Healthcare Commission,found, similarly, that Too many young offenders have insufficientaccess to healthcare, particularly the large proportion needing mentalhealth services [HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 1st November 2006]. Thereport found that often YOTs were inappropriately staffed, many lackinga healthcare worker, although did find that generally the introductionof this reform was having positive effects in increasing theaccessibility of mental health services to young offenders. What isclear is that accessibility is simply not enough; to use the old adage,you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. Regarding the introduction of the new range of community Ordersentences, generally these are perceived as a good thing: A Lack ofAlternatives It is a common complaint of judges that they feel obligedto imprison offenders with mental health problems because they can findno alternative way of getting treatment for their condition.[ All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prison Health, House of Commons,November 2006, p6]. 10] What changes should be made to the current policy and practice ofthe UK Youth Justice System to effect a more successful reduction ofthis problem? In line with the what works paradigm of modern Criminal Justice,one general improvement which should be made is a greater ability todisseminate examples of local best practice to the national level. Thismight be achieved by encouraging individual secure facilities toexperiment with new forms of treatment programme and publish theirfindings on the Youth Justice website. As concluded by Harrington andBailey (2005) p 6: There needs to be further development ofaccredited, evidence-based interventions to reduce offending behaviour,with implementation by trained staff. A routine screening process needs to be effectively implemented toensure that the needs of each young offender entering a youth prisonare identified. Harrington and Bailey (2005) p6 recommend thefollowing: Structured and continuous assessment of the mental healthneeds of young offenders is required, using reliable and validatedtools e.g. the Mental Health Screening Interview for Adolescents(SIFA) and the Mental Health Screening Questionnaire Interview forAdolescents (SQIFA). On this point, this researcher agrees with the content of thecurrent Youth Justice Board Screening Manual which states that: Tohelp identify mental illness and potential risk of such problems thereshould be a Closer link between the Youth Justice System and the Childand Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). This screening policywill only be effective however if the CAMHS are appropriately staffedand resourced which, according to the Report of the Mental HealthFoundation entitled: The Mental Health of Young Offenders. BrightFutures: Working with Vulnerable Young People [Hagell, 2002] p28: arenot sufficiently resourced, organised or varied enough in theirapproach to be able to respond quickly and appropriately. Once the needs of an offender have been appropriately identified byan appropriately staffed multi-disciplinary YOT, this team shouldformulate an appropriate treatment programme which should then beimplemented as continuous support. Such co-ordination will only bepossible if each local authority drafts a careful and consideredstrategy describing routine practice. One might also argue that whilst the government has come a long wayin appreciating the importance of treating both mental and physicalill-health in youth offenders, the public is some way behind. Thisresearcher therefore proposes that the Youth Justice system implement aMental Illness in youth offenders public awareness campaign. As statedby Hagell (2002) p28: A shift in understanding by politicians, policymakers, practitioners and the general public about how importantdiagnosing and meeting young offenders mental health needs is to thelonger-term success of current and new programmes to reduce youthoffending behaviour is also required. Another reform which might be beneficial in the reduction of theprevalence of mental ill-health in young prisoners is an actual reformof the Mental Health Act. As was found by the research studycommissioned by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (March 2006) p5:One of the recurring problems during our prison visits was the factthat there is no statutory provision for the treatment of people withmental health problems. Prisoners cannot be treated for mental healthproblems without consent. The visit to Leeds Prison highlighted theproblems of treating people with severe mental health problems, asprisons do not come under the auspices of the Mental Health Act. Also raised by this Report was the question of whether the Prisonand Probation services were the appropriate bodies to deal with thetreatment of the mentally disordered and ill young prisoners. It hasbeen contended that Many would be much more appropriately cared for inthe National Health Service (NHS) (Coid 1988; Brooke et al, 1996). On this point, this researcher agrees with the content of the currentYouth Justice Board Screening Manual which states that: To helpidentify mental illness and potential risk of such problems thereshould be a Closer link between the Youth Justice System and the Childand Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). This screening policywill only be effective however if the CAMHS are appropriately staffedand resourced which, according to the Report of the Mental HealthFoundation entitled: The Mental Health of Young Offenders. BrightFutures: Working with Vulnerable Young People [Hagell, 2002] p28: arenot sufficiently resourced, organised or varied enough in theirapproach to be able to respond quickly and appropriately. 11] What further academic research is needed to assist in the formulation of these new policies and practices? Further research needs to be conducted utilizing longitudinalmethodologies to evaluate how individual offenders needs change overtime: These young people frequently move within the youth justicesystem between community and secure sites, but there have been fewlongitudinal studies describing how their needs change. Such studies although difficult to conduct are vital when considering what mentalhealth resources are necessary to meet changing needs. [Harrington andBailey, 2005, p4]. Likewise, as recommended previously in section [12] of thisliterature review, further research needs to be conducted to test newtypes of treatment programmes the result of which can form the basis offuture practical reform. Conclusions: In light of the clearly divided structure of the literature reviewof this paper the conclusions of this research dissertation havealready been made quite clear. In this concluding section of the paperlet us summarize the contents of these conclusions: First, the prevalence of mental ill-health among young offenders whoare currently serving custodial sentences is worryingly high. Second, there is clear evidence that the current practical approachwhich is being implemented by the Youth Justice System is not realisingits full potential in reducing this worrying phenomenon; YOTs aregenerally under-resourced, under-supervised and under-staffed and therange of practical treatment packages available to them is currentlyinadequate; there is currently no effective screening system to ensurethat the mental needs of each young offender are assessed oncommencement of their custodial sentence, and; there are not enoughlocal level YOT strategy plans to aid in the effective operation oftheir functions. Third, the Mental Health Act 1983 needs to be amended to maketreatment compulsory for all young offenders diagnosed with a mentaldisorder or illness. Fourth, the current policy approach of the Youth Justice System isan appropriate one, but it relies heavily upon clinical based trials todesign its practical reforms and as such extra government fundingshould be available for any researchers wishing to test a new type oftreatment programme for mentally ill and/or disordered offenders. Joint Commissioning Strategy for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in Kent, Draft Report, 15th January 2007. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prison Health, House of Commons,November 2006. The Mental Health Problem in UK HM Prisons. HMSO:London. Lader et al., 2000, cited by the Report of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, March 2006. Singleton et al. (1998). N Singleton, H Meltzer, R Gatwood, J Coid andD Deasy, Psychiatric Morbidity among Prisoners in England and Wales,ONS, 1998. Harrington and Bailey, (2005). Report Commissioned by the YouthJustice Board entitled Mental Health Needs and Effectiveness ofProvision for Young Offenders in Custody and in the Community. YJB. Prison Reform Trust Troubled Inside: Responding to the Mental Health Needs of Children and Young People in Prison, 2001. Sir David Ramsbotham (2001). The Needs of Offending Children inPrison. The Report from the Conference of the Michael SieffFoundation: The Needs of Offending Children. Hagell (2002). The Mental Health of Young Offenders. Bright Futures:Working with Vulnerable Young People. London: Mental Health Foundation. Nicol et al (2000). Nicol, R., Stretch, D., Whitney, I., Jones, K.,Garfield, P., Turner, K., Stanion, B. Mental health needs andservices for severely troubled and troubling young people, includingyoung offenders, in an NHS region. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 243-261. Barrett, B., Byford, S., Chitsabesan, P. et al (2006). Mental healthprovision for young offenders: service use and cost. British Journal ofPsychiatry, 188, 541-546. Thomas-Peter, (2006). Modern Context of Psychology in Corrections.In Psychological Research in Prisons, Towl, G. (2006) pp24-39.Blackwell Publishing. Faulkner, D. (2007, forthcoming). Prospects for Progress in Penal Reform. To be published in Crime and Criminal Justice. Harper, G and Chitty, C. (2005) The Impact of Corrections onRe-offending: A Review of What Works, Home Office Research Study 291,London, Home Office. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2006) An Independent Review of aSerious Further Offence Case, Damien Hanson and Clifford White andAnthony Rice, an Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence Case,London, HM Inspectorate of Probation. Teplin, L.A. (1984), Criminalizing mental disorder: the comparativearrest rates of the mentally ill, American Psychologist, Vol. 29pp.794-803. Kandel, D.B., Kessler, R.C. Margulies, R.Z. (1978). Antecedentsof adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmentalanalysis. In Longitudinal Research in Drug Use: Empirical Findings andMethodological Issues. Edit. by Kandel, D.B. Washington, D.C:Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Rutter, M. the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study Team(1998) Developmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption aftersevere early privation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39,465-476. Bailey, S. (2003). Young offenders and mental health. Current opinion in Psychiatry, 16, 581-591. Coid(1988). Mentally abnormal prisoners on remand: I Rejected or accepted by the NHS? BMJ, 296, 1779 -1782 Brooke et al, (1996). Point prevalence of mental disorder inunconvicted male prisoners in England and Wales. BMJ, 313, 1524 -1527.