Robert K. Ax

What is Correctional About Clinical Practice in Corrections

It is clear that adequate academic and continuing education/training for correctional mental health professionals is imperative if their practice is to be effective. To help shape such training, the clinical and correctional knowledge ranked most meaningful and relevant by psychologists practicing in federal prisons is determined. Overall, results suggest nine core bodies of knowledge representing a mix of clinical (e.g., psychopathology, suicide prevention, psychopharmacology) and prison-based domains (e.g., interdepartmental communications, safety, confrontation avoidance) form the heart of their work. In terms of where such knowledge was obtained, graduate school is frequently endorsed for the more clinical domains, but the correctional domains are transmitted namely through on-the-job training. Recommendations for training psychologists to practice in corrections include the development of a two-tiered training strategy that offers a curriculum in basic psychological knowledge unique to corrections and an advanced curriculum that builds on foundational clinical knowledge obtained in graduate school.

Systemic Issues and Correctional Outcomes Expanding the Scope of Correctional Psychology

Professional work in corrections is beset with issues ranging from conflicting justice-system goals, lack of resources, role confusion, ethical dilemmas, and an atmosphere often hostile to empirical research and program evaluation. The authors describe several systemic issues that impact the work of correctional psychologists and their effectiveness. Recognizing the critical need for evidence-based clinical practice, the authors argue, in addition, that the correctional psychologists mission should be expanded to include macro-level systems issues. These include questions of social responses to crime, unintended consequences of correctional practice, the need for research on institutional policy, and methods for system-wide evaluation of correctional programs and settings. The authors describe the nature and scope of each issue and offer a suggested research agenda.

Internship Training Opportunities in Correctional Psychology A Comparison of Settings

Seventy-nine training directors of internship programs based in prisons, jails, and selected forensic settings received surveys concerning several aspects of their programs. Fifty-three responded for a return rate of 67%. Whereas these programs are seen to exist on a continuum with few sharp lines of distinction between them, there are enough differences to warrant applying the term correctional psychology internship specifically to those programs offering training experiences primarily in general population prison/jail settings. Different training emphases and staffing patterns were among factors distinguishing corrections-based internships from their more traditionally forensic counterparts. Both forensic and prison programs offer a wide variety of training experiences and continue to enjoy administrative support.

Attitudes among interns and directors of training: Who wants to prescribe, who doesn't, and why

This study, which replicated a 1995 survey of intern and training director attitudes toward prescription privileges (R. K. Ax, M. R. Forbes, & D. D. Thompson, 1997), found a slight decline in support for prescription privileges. It also noted that factors such as age, position, degree, type of internship program attended, and nature of internship setting were all predictive of willingness to pursue prescription privileges. Attitudinal factors most predictive of willingness to seek prescriptive authority were also reported. The study suggested that previous survey findings have been influenced by several of these variables, which may account for some of the variability of past surveys. Findings were discussed in terms of career status and options, workplace experiences and demands, and the costs versus benefits of pursuing prescription privileges.

Predoctoral prescriptive authority curricula: A training option

The purpose of the current article is to encourage discussion among stakeholders about the viability and benefits of predoctoral prescriptive authority (RxP) training. The existing APA model curriculum for RxP training requires that such training is postdoctoral. However, predoctoral models are potentially viable and offer several distinct advantages: reducing the time and financial costs of training, attracting more applicants with a biopsychosocial orientation, and, as more individuals complete this training, enlarging the constituency for state prescriptive authority initiatives. Several possible predoctoral model curricula including the incorporation of a postdoctoral masters degree in clinical psychopharmacology are described within existing APA PhD program requirements, with suggested accommodations for PsyD programs. These are offered as alternatives to, rather than as replacements for, postdoctoral training for RxP.