Please answer the two questions separately. Use clinical language, including terminology that would be expected of a graduate counseling student. Each answer should thoroughly address the question and it’s parts, that are being asked. I have included reference material that should be used in answering these questions.1.What are some red flags that would indicate
client resistance? How can you most effectively deal with resistance? Will
a client with substance use disorder be more resistant than a client with a
general mental health disorder? What would be the impact in involving
significant others in treatment? Explain your response.This discussion question meets the following NASAC Standards:40) Examine treatment implications in collaboration with the client and significant others.41) Confirm the readiness of the client and significant others to participate in treatment.71) Apply generally accepted measures of treatment outcome.72) Utilize referral skills, as described in Section 3. 112) Prepare and record treatment and continuing care plans that are consistent with agency standards and comply with applicable administrative rules.2.What tools can you use to help motivate the
client and keep them on track with their stated goals? What types of
interventions might be appropriate to help the client become more focused or
motivated? What are the indicators the client is stuck?This discussion question meets the following NASAC Standards:71) Apply generally accepted measures of treatment outcome.72) Utilize referral skills, as described in Section 3.77) Facilitate the client’s engagement in the treatment/recovery process.78) Work with the client to establish realistic, achievable goals consistent with achieving and maintaining recovery.113) Record progress of the client in relation to treatment goals and objectives. 115) Document the treatment outcome, using accepted methods and instruments.
PCN 610 Grand Canyon University NASAC Standards Discussion Questions
Chamberlain University Wk 5 Orthodox & Reform Judaism Comparative Discussion
Chamberlain University Wk 5 Orthodox & Reform Judaism Comparative Discussion.
For the initial post, respond to only one of the following options:Option 1For this option, address the following:Choose two (2) of the following terms: Orthodox Judaism, Hassidic Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Conservative Judaism.Briefly explain these two terms.Describe where and how they originally developed and identify their similarities and differences.Explain one contemporary issue that challenges each of your chosen religious traditions.Option 2The destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem marks a major shift in the history and character of Judaism. For this option, address the following:Describe the Jewish concept of Messiah and what Jews expected of their Messiah. How is Messiah understood before and after the second temple destruction?What characterized Jewish practice before the destruction of the 2nd Temple?What characterizes Jewish practice after the Temple’s destruction?Explain one contemporary issue that challenges Judaism today.
Chamberlain University Wk 5 Orthodox & Reform Judaism Comparative Discussion
UCB Forms of Social Injustices Black Students Undergo Daily Discussion
essay help online UCB Forms of Social Injustices Black Students Undergo Daily Discussion.
I’m working on a writing question and need support to help me study.
Discussion Post #3undefinedDr. Bettina Love (2019) asserts, “Theory is my North Star,” in its relation to abolitionist history and the search for freedom in America. Though Love acknowledges theory as giving language to fight and knowledge to stand on, she emphasizes that “theory does not solve issues — only action and solidarity can do that” (p. 132). Do you agree with her statement? Why or why not? How might theory be used to spark action and/or solidarity? Can theory be a source for critical conversations in education? Provide at least one textual example based on your stance.
UCB Forms of Social Injustices Black Students Undergo Daily Discussion
Descriptive Epidemiology of Teen Suicide
Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Teen Suicide Having a loved one, friend, or even an acquaintance, that choose to take his or her life, is devastating and life altering for those left behind. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suicide is when death occurs due to self-inflicted harm (2018). Teen suicide is defined the same way only the person’s age is from 12-18 years old. In this paper adolescent suicide will be discussed while describing its surveillance case definition, the sources of data that is available regarding teen suicide, the significance of suicide at the national and global level, the known determinants of the injury, the descriptive epidemiology of teen suicide and, finally, known preventions against teen suicide. Introduction As stated earlier, the case definition of suicide is “self-inflicted or injures behavior with an intent to die as a result of the behavior” (CDC, 2018). In 2016 nearly 45,000 people committed suicide in the United States (CDC, 2018). Suicide has been an issue for many years, in 2007 it was found that suicide was the third greatest cause of youth (ages 15-24) deaths. (Shaffer, Gould,
Crime And The Built Environment Criminology Essay
This research proposal of the theoretical comprehensive based study will explore the relationship between the built environment and crime. Due to increasing urbanization of the world and better data collation techniques coupled with most of the worlds populous being policed by varying degrees of law and order organizations such as the police or religious volunteers, the collation of crime statistics has reached a level of recording and sophistication not afforded to many other human actions. Invariably due to urbanization most crimes take place in the built environment and this has given rise to theories by social researchers, urban planners and politicians which explicitly imply that the built environment has got a part to play in criminal activity. The two statements below underline this thinking by those who have carried out research in this area. “The physical environment can exert a direct influence on crime settings by delineating territories, reducing or increasing accessibility by the creation or elimination of boundaries and circulation networks, and by facilitating surveillance by the citizenry and the police.” Angel (1968) Historically, social scientists have argued that human behaviour is, to a large degree, a response to environmental conditions. Recently, a group of criminologists posited a direct relationship between certain environmental structures and reported crime rates. Studies exploring this area have pointed to the association between crime rates and high rise residences as support for their position….Using victimization techniques, the experiences of residents of several high and low rise structures in a traditionally low crime area such as the college campus were investigated…..Although causality cannot be inferred from the findings, a positive association was observed between high rise areas and property crime rates. (Bynum pages 179-180) This proposal seeks to look at the connection between the built environment and crime by taking three subheadings to act as the aims of the research and act as a pole so that the proposal does not veer off the aims and objectives. The concept map (appendix 1) has focused the research and given the objectives and aims the necessary fields from which the aims and objectives can be realised. These three aims are: Cause: Is the design of the modern built environment the high rise blocks, densities of up to 9,639.0/sq mi, (District of Colombia), the pace of life, no feeling of citizenship between inhabitants, the gap between the rich and poor which is wider in cities than in the countryside a cause of crime. In short the premise to be answered is that does living in a built environment make you more likely to commit a crime. Facilitator: Does the design of the modern built environment afford criminals the opportunity to carry out criminal enterprises. Does the design, dark alleys, maze of streets, blind spots, decreased surveillance by natural sight make it an aide to the opportunist criminal who can take advantage of local knowledge e.g. escape routes and shortcuts. And if the built environment is designed better will it lead to a reduction in crime. This theory has its proponents as is evidenced by the statement below. “Jeffery’s CPTED concept arose out of his experiences with a rehabilitative project in Washington, D.C. that attempted to control the school environment of juveniles in the area. Rooted deeply in the psychological learning theory of B.F. Skinner, Jeffery’s CPTED approach emphasized the role of the physical environment in the development of pleasurable and painful experiences for the offender that would have the capacity to alter behavioural outcomes. His original CPTED model was a stimulus-response (S-R) model positing that the organism learned from punishments and reinforcements in the environment. Jeffery “emphasized material rewards . . . and the use of the physical environment to control behaviour” (Jeffery and Zahm, 1993:330). The major idea here was that by removing the reinforcements for crime, it would not occur. (Robinson, 1996) The Human Condition: This premise asks the question that is it just the human condition that is the cause of crime and that crimes will be committed whatever the design of the built environment and that it is the thinking that needs to change as is expounded by: “The environment never influences behaviour directly, but only through the brain. Any model of crime prevention must include both the brain and the physical environment. … Because the approach contained in Jeffery’s CPTED model is today based on many fields, including scientific knowledge of modern brain sciences, a focus on only external environmental crime prevention is inadequate as it ignores another entire dimension of CPTED — i.e., the internal environment.” (Robinson, 1996) The aims above will help to describe the development of the understanding between crime and the built environment, however more importantly they will help to illustrate the difference of opinion in the subject of different practitioners and give the research paper material to further develop, analyse, compare and justify the research. The above aims when researched will lead to answers which are subjective to the reader. The main objectives of this research proposal are: 1) To expand the understanding and broaden the thinking of practitioners of the built environment to views that they would not normally consider such as that human behaviour is affected by more complex internal structures rather than a simplistic approach of blaming external built structures on modes of behaviour. 2) The research proposes to add another dimension to the connection of crime and the built environment and the wider debate, the dimension of ethics, belief and morality. 3) The research aims to test this notion that stronger religious beliefs will lead to less crime by comparing two distinct communities both racially and in religious belief residing in the same city of Birmingham in almost similar built environments. These two communities are the overall majority in each area of the city the first being the ward of Aston and the second being Stechford. The census information and latest crime figures are attached (Appendix 2). Literature Review. The research will revolve around analysing, criticising and defining literature written by a plethora of commentators, researchers and practitioners in the field of the built environment, illustrating how it developed why it still needs to go further and how this research can add to this. The main focus of the literature review will be theories expounded by papers written and books published by the CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) formulated by criminologist C RAY Jeffrey. As far back as 1968 this theory was studied by Schlomo Angel. The physical environment can exert a direct influence on crime settings by delineating territories, reducing or increasing accessibility by the creation or elimination of boundaries and circulation networks, and by facilitating surveillance by the citizenry and the police. (Schlomo Angel, 1968) Other commentators added to this by saying: Historically, social scientists have argued that human behaviour is, to a large degree, a response to environmental conditions. Recently, a group of criminologists posited a direct relationship between certain environmental structures and reported crime rates. Studies exploring this area have pointed to the association between crime rates and high rise residences as support for their position….Using victimization techniques, the experiences of residents of several high and low rise structures in a traditionally low crime area such as the college campus were investigated…..Although causality cannot be inferred from the findings, a positive association was observed between high rise areas and property crime rates. (Bynum 1984) However the research moved on and new literature published opened up new ideas and thinking into the subject. The CPTED model evolved and the new thinking was that: The environment never influences behaviour directly, but only through the brain. Any model of crime prevention must include both the brain and the physical environment. … Because the approach contained in Jeffery’s CPTED model is today based on many fields, including scientific knowledge of modern brain sciences, a focus on only external environmental crime prevention is inadequate as it ignores another entire dimension of CPTED — i.e., the internal environment. (Robinson, 1996) In a space of less than thirty years the whole thinking has changed and the recognition that not only the external environment needs to change but internal changes need to take place. However the internal environment under examination needs to be further developed in the sense that how the internal environment i.e. beliefs resulting in better morals and ethics can help to prevent crime in the built environment. This research will be making a start in this new field. METHODOLOGY The main core of the research will consist of reference to secondary sources thus the research will take on a quantitative nature. Qualitative research has not been ruled out as this is an area with limited knowledge. This will take place in the form of a primary approach to the research by interviewing one of the 13 Crime Prevention Design Officers employed by the West Midlands Police and conducting the interview on the basis of gauging personal experience of crime in architecturally similar neighbourhoods populated by distinct communities who believe in and operate within the confines of separate moral and ethical value systems which may be very similar but adherence is stricter in one community than the other. This research can be viewed as exploratory in nature. (Naoum 1998) Interrogation and comparative analysis West Midlands Police crime statistics and also census statistics of the two wards selected will establish where there is a difference and ask why, is there is a certain religious prohibition is one community that doesn’t t exist in the other. Problems in this type of research are that the reliability of the data can be questioned or the recording method of crime statistics can be questioned or for that argument the recording method of any set of statistics (Kumar 2005) however due to the strict guidelines under which this date is collated there is little danger of that. Conclusion The research will develop via an extensive reading list and research on not just planning and built environment but also crime how it’s increased and how religious belief is on the decrease. The research will initially be a desk based exercise and the primary research aspect will come into the study when the 3rd notion is written on and the input of the Crime Prevention Design Officer is included in reference to an interview which will ask for expansion of explanation on crime figures of the two neighbourhoods. The research findings may prove to be controversial if the notion tested is correct however the main problem is to present the information in a concise manner which will give rise to further enquiry. Findings should give impetus to researchers to conduct research on a wider basis i.e. comparing crime in urban environments in New York and New Delhi for example. The main tasks to be completed can be viewed on the Gantt chart attached (appendix 3). The main crux of this study and the overall aim is to add another dimension to the debate in the guise of a moral and ethical dimension to the built environment and crime. The findings once established will either reinforce the current view that crime in the built environment can only reduce by better and intelligent design, or it will give credence to the new ideas that you cannot simply design your way out of crime in the built environment but something more fundamental, the human condition needs to change and that crime prevention by environmental design (CPTED) although useful is not the final answer.