Search

Noncompletion of group offending behavior programs is a common problem, indicating barriers to engagement. While existing theoretical models have accounted for determinants of motivation, little focus has been directed towards barriers to engagement. The authors developed the program engagement theory (PET) which not only accounts for the determinants of engagement and the engagement process, it also considers the barriers to engagement. Interviews and session observations were used to collect data from 23 program facilitators and 28 offenders, which were analyzed using grounded theory. The barriers to engagement were classified as program and referral factors (uninformative referrals, offense-focused programs, rigid and abstract content, didactic delivery, and homework), facilitator characteristics (lack of control: contentious and nonassertive), and group member characteristics (unmotivated, pre-contemplative, and blaming others and young, chaotic, and disruptive). Suggestions as to the design and facilitation of group offending behavior programs, and facilitator training and supervision to overcome barriers to engagement are proposed.

Offender engagement in group offending behavior programs is poorly understood and under-theorized. In addition, there is no research on facilitators' engagement. This article presents the first ever theory to address this gap. A Program Engagement Theory (PET) was derived from a constructivist grounded theory analysis that accounts for both facilitators' and offenders' engagement in group offending behavior programs (GOBPs). Interviews and session observations were used to collect data from 23 program facilitators and 28 offenders (group members). The analysis revealed that group members' engagement involved shared identities and moving on as a group. In turn, this was dependent on facilitators personalising treatment frameworks and establishing a hook to help group members move on. The PET emphasizes the importance of considering change during treatment as a process rather than simply a program outcome. Solution-focused (SF) programs were more conducive to engagement and the change process than offence-focused programs.

Hostage and crisis negotiation is one tactical option available to incident commanders when responding to critical incidents. Whilst several models of negotiation exist, there is limited research addressing negotiation from a United Kingdom perspective. This paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 15 negotiators from nine police forces in England. Data were analysed using grounded theory and 6 primary, 11 secondary, 19 tertiary, and 23 quaternary categories were identified to depict the procedural, operational and communicational aspects of negotiation. Findings indicate that negotiation takes place sequentially in three stages, with the core aspects being conceptualised using the D.I.A.M.O.N.D. mnemonic: 1) Deployment; 2) Information and intelligence gathering; 3) Assessment of risk and threat; 4) Methods of communication; 5) Open dialogue with subject; 6) Negotiator toolbox and repertoire, and 7) Debriefing procedures. The model represents the first attempt at modelling negotiation from an Anglo-centric perspective and provides insight into the entire critical incident management process, as opposed to focusing solely on the aspect of communication between negotiator and subject that has historically dominated the literature. The model highlights the breadth and complexity of the negotiator role and enables several recommendations to be made in relation to the training and operational support of negotiators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hostage and crisis negotiation is well established as a police tool, and there is a growing body of literature that provides academic insight into the phenomenon. Academics have developed a corpus of literature to explain the way negotiators operate or how they can resolve incidents successfully. Whilst research in this area has originated from various countries and addressed negotiation from a variety of perspectives, there is limited research that has focused specifically on negotiation from an Anglo‐centric perspective. This article presents the findings from a detailed academic examination of negotiator experiences in England, whereby semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 negotiators from nine forces. Analysis using grounded theory revealed 12 deployment categories, situated within a recurring context involving subjects experiencing personal, emotional, or psychological crisis. These categories can be used to enhance our understanding of negotiator deployment in England and are discussed with reference to the implications for negotiator training and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]