{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024193548387096774, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0064516129032258064, 'mean_word_length': 5.932960893854749, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The care manager’s dilemma: balancing human rights with risk management under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003

In New Zealand, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 provides diversion for persons with an intellectual disability who have been charged with, or convicted of, a criminal offence. This unique Act moves the responsibility for such ‘care recipients’ from the criminal justice system to a disability sector that values a social model of disability and philosophies of autonomy, choice and normalisation. This research identified dilemmas faced by care managers legally responsible for care recipients. Care managers experienced: tension between imperatives of risk management, rehabilitation and human rights; role ambiguity between ‘custodian’ or ‘therapist’; philosophical incongruity within their services; and ethical dilemmas over decisions to lengthen care orders. The changing care recipient population has intensified these dilemmas: services must now adapt to the needs of young, street-wise people with alcohol and drug problems and histories of criminal behaviour. The article makes recommendations about how these dilemmas can be addressed.