Cross-cultural replication and evaluation of the teaching family model of community-based residential treatment

In an international development assistance context, in which representatives of higher income countries and global institutions meet with people of very different cultures, values can conflict. My experience working on a Community Based Building Program in the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea in the 1980s introduced me to the thinking styles, beliefs and values of another culture with traditions very different from my own. Evaluators experience this conflict when they work alongside members of another culture, while at the same time adhering to established methods and values from their own culture or professional practice. To help with this, evaluators can identify the benefits in local knowledge, and assist all parties to build an awareness of both explicit and tacit values employed – including those of the evaluators themselves – while in the process of undertaking an evaluation.

Download Full-text

Stigma and Exclusion in Cross-Cultural Contexts

PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies ◽

10.5130/portal.v11i1.3749 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Annie Elizabeth Pohlman ◽

Sol Rojas-Lizana ◽

Maryam Hassan Jamarani

Keyword(s):

Social Contexts ◽

Verbal Abuse ◽

Cross Cultural ◽

Social Worlds ◽

Community Based ◽

Exclusionary Practices ◽

Cultural Contexts ◽

Wide Range ◽

Abuse And Neglect ◽

The University

Discriminatory and marginalising discourses affect the cultural and social realities of people in all human societies. Across time and place, these discourses manifest in numerous tangible and intangible ways, creating stigma and forms of exclusion by means particular to their cultural, historical, political and social contexts. These discourses also manifest in varying degrees of harm; from verbal abuse and behavioural forms of exclusion, to physical abuse and neglect, and exclusionary practices at institutional, legal and regulatory levels. Such forms of stigma cause direct physical and mental harm and other forms of persecution. The papers in this special issue arise from a one-day symposium held at the University of Queensland in February 2013. The symposium, ‘Stigma and Exclusion in Cross-Cultural Contexts’, brought together researchers and community-based practitioners from across Australia and overseas to explore marginalization, discriminatory discourses and stigma in a wide range of historical and cross-cultural settings. By critically engaging with experiences of social, political and cultural exclusion and marginalisation in different contexts, we aimed to elucidate how discourses of stigma are created, contested and negotiated in cross-cultural settings. We also aimed to explore stigmatisation in its lived realities: as discourses of exclusion; as the fleshy reality of discrimination in social worlds; as part of the life narratives of individuals and groups; and as discourses of agency and counter-discourses in responding to stigma.

Download Full-text

Comparative analysis of treatment conditions upon psychiatric severity levels at two years among justice involved persons

Advances in Dual Diagnosis ◽

10.1108/add-07-2015-0015 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 38-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

John M Majer ◽

Hannah M Chapman ◽

Leonard A Jason

Keyword(s):

Substance Use ◽

Residential Treatment ◽

Substance Use Disorders ◽

Community Based ◽

Content Type ◽

Oxford House ◽

Treatment Conditions ◽

Psychiatric Severity ◽

Dual Diagnoses ◽

Severity Levels

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the effects of two types of community-based, residential treatment programs among justice involved persons with dual diagnoses. Design/methodology/approach – A randomized clinical trial examined treatment conditions among justice involved persons with substance use disorders who reported high baseline levels of psychiatric severity indicative of diagnosable psychiatric comorbidity. Participants (n=39) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions upon discharge from inpatient treatment for substance use disorders: a professionally staffed, integrated residential treatment setting (therapeutic community), a self-run residential setting (Oxford House), or a treatment-specific aftercare referral (usual care). Levels of psychiatric severity, a global estimate of current psychopathological problem severity, were measured at two years as the outcome. Findings – Participants randomly assigned to residential conditions reported significant reductions in psychiatric severity whereas those assigned to the usual care condition reported significant increases. There were no significant differences in psychiatric severity levels between residential conditions. Research limitations/implications – Findings suggest that cost-effective, self-run residential settings such as Oxford Houses provide benefits comparable to professionally run residential integrated treatments for justice involved persons who have dual diagnoses. Social implications – Results support the utilization of low-cost, community-based treatments for a highly marginalized population. Originality/value – Little is known about residential treatments that reduce psychiatric severity for this population. Results extend the body of knowledge regarding the effects of community-based, residential integrated treatment and the Oxford House model.

Download Full-text