OGRS and the Man from Arizona
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059604300307 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
152
OGRS
and
the
Man
from
Arizona
Pentium
resumes
the
Journal’s
Information
Technology
column and
suggests
closer
attention
to
the
latest
in
Service
Outcome
Accountability
Measurements.
Following
a
recent
national
Executive
Committee
resolution
it
is
now
NAPO
policy
to
refuse
to
cooperate
with
the
implementation
of
the
Offender
Group
Reconviction
Scale
(named
by
none
other
than
the
Home
Secretary
himself,
allegedly).
This
decision
not
to
cooperate
followed
a
number
of
articles
and
press
releases
proclaiming
OGRS
an
ineffective,
unworkable
and
pernicious
instrument.
Whilst
OGRS
appears
to
have
engendered
some
heated
rhetoric
from
both
sides
of
the
argument,
its
opponents
seem
to
be
attacking
it
from
a
position
of
misinformation.
The
Scale
is
based
on
lengthy
research
which,
I
believe,
started
by
looking
at
a
very
wide
range
of
variables
which
may,
or
may
not,
affect
the
likelihood
of
reconviction.
The
variables
eventually
used
in
OGRS
were
distilled
from
the
originals
on
the
basis
that
they
actually
did
affect
that
likelihood.
On
the
same
basis,
many
of
the
original
variables
were
discarded
because,
despite
initially
appearing
seductively
appropriate,
they
did
not
affect
that
likelihood.
The
resulting
scale,
despite
being
based
on
a
very
restricted
set
of
variables,
does,
nevertheless,
produce
predictive
results
that
have
an
almost
uncanny
correlation
to
what
actually
happens
in
’real-life’.
It is
my
conviction
that
the
adverse
reaction
to
the
Offender
Group
Reconviction
Scale
is
based
more
on
a
fear
that
it
provides
an
objective
tool
with
which
to
measure
the
effectiveness
of
interventions
rather
than
a
considered
critique
of
research
methods.
This
could
prove
to
be
a
very
serious
error
if
one
looks
beyond
the
relatively
mild
implications
of
OGRS
to
some
of
the
current
theory
emanating
from Arizona.
Detectable
Change
Walt
Hudson
is
a
charming
and
alluring
academic
currently
working
atArizona
State
University.
He
has
some
very
clear
and
far
reaching
ideas
on
the
nature
of
social
work
and
the
shape
of
professional
practice
in
the
21 st
century.
He
proposes
a
concept
of
empirical
social
work
practice
and
commences
his
argument
by
looking
at
the
current
trend
towards
accountability,
effectiveness,
managed
care
and
cost
benefit
analysis.
He
compares
the
profession
of
medicine
in
the
USA
and
finds
some
familiar
themes.
He
looks
at
the
’managed
care’
model
and
concludes
that
it
is
two
ventures
packaged
into
one
system.
Firstly,
and
foremost,
it
is
a
cost
containment
system.
It
is
also
a
quality
assurance
mechanism
in
which
the
objective
is
to
provide
high
quality
and
completely
adequate
medical
services
but
at
the
lowest
cost
possible.
He
draws
an
analogy
with
social
work
and
suggests
that
its
existing
mandate
for
the
21
st
century
is
to
become
more
accountable
by
demonstrating
the
ability
to
deliver
services
that
demonstrably
help
clients
solve
or
alleviate
problems
for
which
they
seek
help.
A
pre-requisite
to
fulfilling
such
a
mandate
is
an
effective
evaluation
technology
and
he
suggests
that
the
development
and
use
of
that
technology
will
lead
to
his
concept
of
empirical
social
work.
In
a
presentation
to
a
recent
conference
he
elaborated
some
of
the
arguments
underpinning
his
work.
Professor
Hudson
suggested
two
definitions
of
effectiveness,
the
first
based
on
the
notion
that
effective
service
delivery
consists
of
providing
services,
treatment
or
interventions
that
are
commonly
regarded
(for
whatever
reason)
as
the
best
that
are
available.
This
view
of
effectiveness
focuses
entirely
on
what
we
do;
it
is
a
view
of
effectiveness
based
entirely
on
practitioner,
agency
and
To continue reading
Request your trial