Forensic Psychology

Editors: Timothy A. Leis, Laurence L. Motiuk, James R.P. Ogloff
September 1995

Practicing psychology within a correctional setting offers singular challenges. The technical demands of the work are formidable. Psychologists must master a broad range of scientifically-validated assessment methods and strategies, systematically gathering information from many sources and weighing it according to the best available clinical and actuarial methods to generate accurate, useful predictions. The consequences of the psychologist's assessment work may have profound consequences, not only for the offender, but also for the institutional community and the larger society whose agent the correctional service psychologist is.

In therapeutic work with offenders, psychologists face a complex, often treatment-resistant population quite different from the voluntary, motivated clientele that psychologists' more traditional health or mental health practice may comprise. Treatment goals must be tempered by the realities of that client population, by the continually emerging body of scientific knowledge around psychological treatment methods, and by the multiple and occasionally conflicting demands psychologists encounter in their therapeutic work because of their simultaneous obligations to the offender, the institution, and the larger community.

Psychological practice in correctional settings also furnishes a rich trove of ethical dilemmas and opportunities for creative application of ethical decision making strategies. Psychologists used to struggling with the fundamental question: "Who is the client?" find several answers to that question in the correctional setting.

On the one hand, correctional psychologists maintain their traditional responsibility to the individual receiving their direct services. On the other, their collateral duty to the security of the institution, their colleagues, and the other inmates must balance that responsibility. The community outside the walls also has a critical stake in the outcome of services provided to the offender. Treatment goals that serve the offender well may conflict with the potential order and well-being of the community to which the offender will return. Balancing these multiple competing pressures is a continuing task to which the correctional psychologist must attend.

Promoting the client's autonomy and doing one's best to balance the inequalities of power between client and provider are principal features of all ethical decision-making around psychological service provision. Conditions that erode client autonomy, including limits to their voluntary or uncoerced participation in psychological assessment, treatment, or research make clients "vulnerable" in an ethical sense. Psychologists dealing with vulnerable client populations must be especially alert to the dilemmas that working with these populations present and careful to apply meticulous ethical decision-making strategies to resolve those dilemmas in an acceptable way.

Finally, in the social and political paradox of all service provision within the correctional setting, correctional psychologists and other professionals will often find their successes ignored but their failures, inevitable as some may be, loudly condemned.

To effectively manage the challenges described above, most psychologists acknowledge the importance of incorporating the best available scientific data about professional practice and information about the evolving professional and ethical standards into their work. However, the complexity and rapid growth of research data on practice make it difficult for them to do so.

The Practice Guidelines developed by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) are an important step toward helping psychologists meet their obligations to promote quality outcomes, reduced risk, and heightened service efficiency within the correctional system. They are the first guide to bring together in a clear, accessible, and comprehensive form what we know about psychological practice within correctional systems and how we may expand our knowledge about such practice. The Guidelines firmly endorse the principle that psychological practice must be grounded in scientifically-validated knowledge and methods. At the same time, they recognize that the clinical application of psychological knowledge will always require some decision-making where knowledge is lacking or uncertain. The Guidelines reflect a practical compromise with this reality. They embody the principle that well-trained psychologists using the best available knowledge, systematic data gathering methods, sensitive and conscientious application of their skills, and thoughtful ethical decision-making strategies are in the best position to meet their responsibilities to the many clients served by the CSC.

In any discussion of practice guidelines, the issue inevitably arises whether such guidelines unfairly intrude on the clinical judgment of the psychologist on the front lines. The CSC Guidelines show how, far from being an intrusion on the autonomy of practitioners, such guidelines may serve as a lever to raise the standards of practice of the individual practitioner and the profession as a whole. They lead us to decision-making principles that complement rather than replace the individual clinician's judgment.

Useful guidelines must also show us where the gaps in our knowledge and practice lie since it is always harder to detect errors of omission than of commission. The CSC Guidelines and their supporting documents draw careful attention to those areas of practice that must be filled in by better data.

Finally, practice guidelines function as living documents, undergoing continual review to ensure that they incorporate the most up-to-date information about the emerging body of knowledge in the science and practice of psychology.

This manual features the applicable policy documents first, followed by expert commentary providing background and data that will inform policy implementation. The Commissioner's Directive sets out in concise form the psychologist's responsibilities in his or her various areas of practice within CSC, clearly highlighting the competing pressures and obligations that bear on the psychologist's work with correctional population.

The Practice Guidelines distill existing knowledge about assessment issues with this population and call needed attention to the importance of developing sensitivity to special concerns such as cultural and gender issues as they arise within the correctional population. The background documents are an invaluable source for psychologists wishing to understand the existing body of knowledge about correctional psychology practice. They are thorough practical resources incorporating knowledge standards and methods that capture what is known and what remains to be discovered about this domain.

All those involved in the development of this document have done an invaluable service for psychologists who practice in correctional or forensic settings. The Guidelines and the way they were developed might also serve as an admirable model for the development of guidelines in other areas of psychological practice.