Individual Project Assignment : Identifying and Addressing Agency Resource Needs
To develop a program budget request to be implemented in your agency (or, if you do not work in a public safety agency, for an agency of your choice).
Course Objectives Satisfied:
• Relate budgeting concepts to an organization’s mission, goals, and operation.
• Illustrate the roles of a leader vs. manager within a public safety organization and how that may impact the budgeting process.
• Depict the value of ethics in the managing of a budget within an organization.
• Develop skills in written communication.
The process of preparing, obtaining approval for, and implementing a budget can be complex. To best understand this process, it is very helpful to interview those that are experienced with the budget process for a public safety agency. Also, a review and analysis of current strategic plans and budget documents will help students understand the relationships between agency objectives and resources obtained in the annual budget.
For this project you will be required to research a specific public safety program, which you will advocate should be implemented in your agency (if you do not work for a public safety agency, choose one in your local area). You will write the program goals and expected performance measures for this program and develop its budget.
From your research, interviews, course readings, review of programming in other agencies, journal articles and discussions, you will develop a budget request covering specific needs for the program that you believe should be implemented for your agency. For example, in a police department, this might be the addition of a crime prevention unit, a target specific undercover unit in a police department, or a program for juvenile offenders. For a fire department, the program might address starting a new training academy, implementing a battalion safety officer program, or starting a new volunteer program. The type of program to be developed should be decided based on your interviews and other research, along with a review of agency documents, some of which will give you the information you need to calculate the cost of personnel and equipment for this program.
Please note that the program should include the addition of at least three (3) additional personnel and associated equipment, vehicles, supplies and office space. This is necessary to build a more comprehensive budget, for the project, and to demonstrate your understanding in how to do so.
This project will be completed in two parts. Your professor/instructor may add additional considerations for this project in class announcements.
As soon as possible after the course starts, begin developing your plan to study a particular program not in operation at your agency, or, if you are not employed by a public safety agency, an agency in the area you live. Some of this information might be gained from the agency Web site, or by visiting the local library in that jurisdiction and researching budget documents (if you do not work for an agency). Interviews are valuable on a research project of this type and should be used as part of your work on this project. As soon as possible you should locate a member, or members, of that agency that you can interview and use to gather information needed for this project, particularly the financial data necessary. If you have any difficulty locating someone to interview, please contact your instructor immediately.
While interviewing people in the agency, try to discern the actual costs involved in adding personnel, floor space or equipment needed for your budget request. Budget documents may provide some of this information, too.
Part I – Initial Report – Due in Week 5
This paper should:
· Be 4-6 pages in length, conforming to APA writing standards
· Describe the agency to be used in your project
· Identify person(s) to be interviewed as sources and provide contact information for them
· Provide a that discusses the program you will address in your budget proposal
· Briefly discuss why this program would be needed for this agency
Part II – Due in Week 7: Budget Request
This paper should:
· Be 4-6 pages in length, conforming to APA writing standards
· Be addressed to the governing body for the jurisdiction by including a memo for the report, or follow a format suggested by your instructor in any announcement provided regarding this paper
· Include an APA formatted reference section
· Background on the issue that will be satisfied if the program is approved
· Discussion of the program to be implemented, including program goals and objectives, and operational mission and focus. Give as much detail as needed to convince the governing body of this need. However, be concise.
· Fiscal impact of the program: these are the resource requirements, including new personnel needed, equipment, space and other costs that would be rolled into the new budget (this can be covered in an overview in the memo, but a spreadsheet or table of the actual details should be attached to your proposal). Include projected costs for the program over the in this area of the report.
· Summary, to include a brief overview of the request.
I need PART 1 completed by tomorrow Oct 1.
I have a similar paper that I did last semester on a proposal and I want to use the same paper but since it’s two parts in this course I want this paper too be made into two parts.
I have attached all the websites where all the information is going to be gained from.
Budget Website of Cook County – https://www.cookcountyil.gov/Budget
Workshop of Mental Illness that is currently being tested- (In which in my proposal I want it to be mandatory for every new correctional officer. This is also the article that is asked in part one)
This is the main website of the jail just in case is needed for any additional questions
This is also a good article to discuss the back up of my proposal on how inmates are receiving treatment for mental illness, so therefore if inmates are getting the help necessary now we should also provide correctional officers the adequate training to help the inmates.
I have also attached the literature review of why it’s important to be trained on mental illnesses because it can prevent suicide if we are aware of the signs.
The agency this proposal is taking part in is Cook County Jail ( Chicago IL). The whole proposal is to provide every single correctional officer who works for that jail to attend a workshop that will teach them the signs on mental illness, and how to help these inmates and etc. Of course it’s a proposal where budget is included this time.
For Part One the person who is going to be interviewed I will message you directly with her/his information.
I have also attached an article that discusses the proposal but in this article it is not a mandatory workshop yet, from reading the article it is something that is still getting tested and may soon be provided at Cook County Jail. I have also attached the literature review that discusses a similar workshop provided in other places to help the same purpose of this proposal.
Whoever I assign this too I would also like them to complete Part 2: In which I will post this upcoming Monday
The Assessment and Management of Suicide Risk: State of Workshop Education
ANTHONY R. PISANI, PHD, WENDI F. CROSS, PHD, AND MADELYN S. GOULD, PHD, MPH
A systematic search of popular and scholarly databases identified workshops that addressed general clinical competence in the assessment or management of suicide risk, targeted mental health professionals, and had at least one peer- reviewed publication. We surveyed workshop developers and examined empirical articles associated with each workshop. The state of workshop education is char- acterized by presenting the learning objectives, educational formats, instructor factors, and evaluation studies. Workshops are efficacious for transferring knowl- edge and shifting attitudes; however, their role in improving clinical care and outcomes of suicidal patients has yet to be determined.
Mental health professionals have a valuable role to play in preventing suicide. Suicidal symptoms, risk, and behavior are common among patients in mental health settings due to the prevalence of mental disorders and other risk factors (Brown, Beck, Steer, & Grisham, 2000; Harris & Barraclough, 1997; Palmer, Pankratz, & Bostwick, 2005). In recognition of the role clinicians play in pre- venting suicide, the 1999 Surgeon General’s Call to Action (U.S. Public Health Service, 1999) and the 2001 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention (NSSP; U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2001) included objectives for enhancing the pool of mental health professionals competent in the assess- ment and management of suicide risk by improving training at the graduate level (NSSP Objective 6.3) and assuring contin-
uing clinical competence of practicing pro- fessionals (NSSP Objective 6.9). Competent recognition, screening, and care of individu- als at risk for suicide have also been a focus of accreditation and regulatory bodies (e.g., The Joint Commission) and state offices of mental health. The demand for competence in this area of practice is also increasing in research settings. Investigators interested in studying effectiveness in naturalistic settings increasingly recruit individuals with suicidal ideation and history of suicide attempts for studies. The inclusion of these individuals in research studies necessitates suicide risk management protocols and consultation from suicide risk assessment experts (Oquendo, Stanley, Ellis, & Mann, 2004; Pearson, Stanley, King, & Fisher, 2001).
Clinical work with individuals at risk for suicide is anxiety provoking and increas- ingly complicated (Jobes, Rudd, Overholser, & Joiner, 2008). Clinicians have a practical and ethical responsibility to develop and maintain clinical competence in this area of practice. Epstein and Hundert (2002) defined competence in medicine as ‘‘the habitual and judicious use of communica- tion, knowledge, technical skills, clinical rea- soning, emotions, values, and reflection in
ANTHONY R. PISANI, Psychiatry and Pediat- rics, University of Rochester; WENDI F. CROSS, Psychiatry (Psychology) and Pediatrics, University of Rochester; MADELYN S. GOULD, Psychiatry and Epidemiology, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Address correspondence to Anthony R. Pisani, Psychiatry and Pediatrics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA; E-mail: email@example.com
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 41(3) June 2011 255 � 2011 The American Association of Suicidology
daily practice for the benefit of the individu- als and communities being served.’’ This definition is apt for the study of suicide- specific competence because it captures the range of personal, professional, intellectual, and technical capacities required to work effectively with individuals at risk. Experts in clinical suicidology have developed prac- tice guidelines (Jacobs & Brewer, 2004) and core competencies (Suicide Prevention Resource Center, 2006) specific to the assess- ment and management of suicidal risk and behavior. Consistent with Hundert and Epstein’s broad understanding of compe- tence, these guidelines and competencies address multiple domains of practice. For example, the task force convened by the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) and the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC) identified 24 competencies in 7 domains of practice (attitudes and approach, understanding suicide, collecting accurate assessment information, formulation of risk, treatment and services planning, manage- ment of care, and legal–regulatory issues; Suicide Prevention Resource Center, 2006).
Clinicians develop competence in working with individuals at risk for suicide through formal and informal educational venues. These venues vary on investment required, proximity to practice, and assur- ance of quality and expertise. This article focuses on in-person, expert-led, suicide- specific workshops designed for mental health professionals. For the purposes of this study, a workshop is a brief intensive educa- tional program that focuses on techniques and skills in assessing and managing suicide risk. This study is the first to systemati- cally gather, organize, and critique informa- tion about these workshops, so clinicians, researchers, and administrators can evaluate available education options and the evi- dence base for approaches to building com- petence in the mental health workforce. Our aims are to (1) describe the educational objectives and methods of the workshops; (2) characterize the training and qualifications of the trainers who deliver the workshops; and
(3) review published studies about the train- ing programs’ outcomes.
We searched popular and scholarly databases and queried a suicidology listserv to identify all possible English-language edu- cational offerings that met the following criteria:
Criterion 1: The target audience is primarily mental health professionals. We defined mental health professional as a person who offers services for the purpose of improv- ing an individual’s mental health or to treat mental illness. This broad category includes psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, mental health counselors, and other professionals.
Criterion 2: The program’s educa- tional objectives target general clinical com- petence in assessment and management of risk for suicide. We defined general clinical competence as the collection of knowledge, attitudes, and skills that any mental health professional should possess when working with individuals at risk for suicide, regardless of the treatment paradigm, protocol, or tech- nique the professional chooses to apply. Workshops that aim to train mental health professionals in the use of a particular treat- ment manual or protocol, such as dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993) or cognitive-behavioral therapy for suicide pre- vention (CBT-SP; Stanley et al., 2009), are not considered programs that target general clinical competence in the assessment and management of suicide risk.
Criterion 3: At least one peer-reviewed article describes or evaluates the training or explicates the clinical model upon which the training is based. A workshop for mental health professionals that grew out of a com- munity gatekeeper training that had been the subject of a peer-reviewed article would meet this criterion, even if no peer-reviewed article
256 STATE OF WORKSHOP EDUCATION
had been published specifically about the workshop for mental health professionals.
Popular Database Search Procedure. We used the Google and Yahoo search engines to identify workshops advertised for mental health professionals. During the first round of searches we reviewed the first 100 results of a two-term Boolean search: ‘‘suicide’’ AND (‘‘training’’ OR ‘‘education’’ OR ‘‘continuing education’’ OR ‘‘workshop’’). During the sec- ond round of searches we reviewed the first 100 results of a three-term Boolean search that fur- ther specified the results: ‘‘suicide’’ AND (‘‘training’’ OR ‘‘education’’ OR ‘‘continuing education’’ OR ‘‘workshop’’) AND (‘‘clini- cian’’ OR ‘‘mental health professional’’ OR ‘‘counselor’’ OR ‘‘therapist’’ OR ‘‘psychia- trist’’). We reviewed all webpage titles for the first 100 results from each search and reviewed linked pages whenever necessary. The review of popular database results yielded 19 work- shops that met Criterion 1 and 2.
Scholarly Database Search Procedure. We searched PsychInfo and Medline for each of the 19 workshops identified via the popular database search to identify peer- reviewed articles (Criterion 3) that described or evaluated any aspect of the training offered to mental health professionals or the model upon which the training was based. To identify articles we conducted keyword searches using variations of the workshop titles and the names of the workshop devel- opers. Six of the 19 programs identified by the popular database search met this publica- tion criterion for inclusion in the study.
We conducted a second series of PsychInfo and Medline searches to identify any educational offerings that the popular searches had not uncovered. We reviewed the results of the following two-term Boolean searches in PsychInfo: ‘‘suicide’’ AND (‘‘education’’ OR ‘‘continuing education,’’ OR ‘‘clinical methods training’’) and ‘‘sui- cide’’ AND (‘‘competence’’ OR ‘‘professional competence’’). The keyword thesauruses of PsychInfo and Medline databases differ slightly (Tuleya, 2007; U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2008), so the term suicide was combined with a slightly different set of terms
in the Medline database: ‘‘suicide’’ AND (‘‘education’’ OR ‘‘continuing education’’) and ‘‘suicide’’ AND ‘‘professional compe- tence.’’ We excluded articles about ‘‘assisted suicide’’ and articles published before 1980. This set of searches yielded four additional workshops that met Criteria 1, 2, and 3.
Suicidology Listserv Query. We queried members of the American Psychological Association ‘‘Suicidology’’ listserv (American Psychological Association, 2007) with our list of identified workshops and requested infor- mation on any additional educational offer- ings. The message was distributed on March 17, 2009, to 442 listserv recipients. The query yielded responses from three program repre- sentatives. One of these additional workshops met inclusion criteria. The other two pro- grams targeted community gatekeepers.
Program Developer Survey
Respondents. We e-mailed the devel- opers of the 11 workshops that met the inclu- sion criteria with a request and hyperlink to participate in a brief online survey about their programs. We described the inclusion criteria that yielded the invitation to partici- pate and asked the developers to complete the survey or designate another knowledge- able person to do so. One of the developers (Shea) alerted us to a second workshop offered by his institute. We confirmed that this workshop met inclusion Criteria 1, 2, and 3 via a Medline literature search and arti- cles submitted by the developer. We asked the developer to complete a survey about this program. Thus, a total of 12 workshops were included in this study.
Prior to our first contact with develop- ers, this study was exempted from human subjects review by the University of Roches- ter and Columbia University institutional review boards.
Survey. The online survey had 18 closed and 4 open-ended items in 3 areas: workshop objectives, features and methods (8 items); instructor selection and prepara- tion (12 items); and relevant publications and unpublished studies (2 items). The instructor
PISANI ET AL. 257
selection and preparation items were only asked for those workshops delivered by trained instructors in addition to the devel- opers. These items were not relevant for workshops instructed by developers only.
We had a 100% response rate from 11 developers for information about the 12 included workshops. One developer (McN- iel) responded to our inquiry by providing written information about his program but did not complete the survey. Respondents included workshop developers (n = 7), pro- ject managers (n = 2), and administrative support personnel (n = 2).
Narrative Overview of Included Workshops
The following section contains narra- tive descriptions of each workshop based on developer responses to an open-ended ques- tion asking what was unique about their pro- grams and on our synthesis of the published literature about each program.
The Air Force Managing Suicidal Behav- ior Project (U. S. Air Force Suicide Prevention Program: http://afspp.afms.mil). This program was developed in conjunction with a compre- hensive clinical guide commissioned by the U. S. Air Force (USAF; Oordt et al., 2005) to improve clinical responsiveness to suicide. This clinical guide was one part of a large- scale public health suicide prevention effort the USAF undertook to reduce suicide (Knox, Litts, Talcott, Feig, & Caine, 2003). This pro- gram is unique among the included workshops because it was developed to respond to a spe- cific population need as part of a one-time sui- cide prevention effort. Although the program is not publicly available, we include it in this study because of its large-scale rollout and the data gathered to support the effectiveness of a training program in changing provider atti- tudes.
Assessing and Managing Suicide Risk (AMSR; SPRC: http://www.sprc.org/training institute/index.asp). AMSR curriculum is based on recommendations from a task force of clini- cian-researchers convened in 2004 by the SPRC and the AAS (Suicide Prevention Resource Center, 2006). The workshop is organized by a sequential presentation of 24 core competencies, with a special focus on 8 competencies. The program teaches clini- cians to estimate acute and chronic risk by gathering and synthesizing information related to suicidality (past and present), mental dis- orders, mental status, and other factors known to correlate with suicide risk. The program also focuses on cultural competency in work- ing with individuals at risk for suicide.
Certification in the Chronological Assess- ment of Suicide Events (CASE; Training Institute for Suicide Assessment and Clinical Interviewing: http://www.suicideassessment.com/). This certification program offers individua- lized skill-building training based on the CASE approach (Shea, 1998), which empha- sizes comprehensive interviewing using specific techniques, including six validity techniques for uncovering assessment infor- mation about patient suicide ideation, behav- ior, intent, and plans. The certificate program uses ‘‘macrotraining’’ (Shea & Bar- ney, 2007b) and ‘‘facilic supervision’’ (Shea & Barney, 2007a), which are educational techniques designed to teach skills through practice and specific feedback. The training takes place one-on-one until the trainee qualifies for certification by demonstrating competence to the satisfaction of the trainer.
Collaborative Assessment and Manage- ment of Suicidality (CAMS; Catholic University: http://psychology.cua.edu/faculty/jobes.cfm). The CAMS program teaches a transtheoretical framework for assessing and working with suicidal individuals (Jobes, 2006; Jobes & Drozd, 2004). CAMS stresses that strong clinician-patient alliance or collaboration is key to successful treatment and provides specific guidelines for gathering risk assess- ment information. The curriculum includes a presentation about the use and empirical support from clinical research for the Suicide
258 STATE OF WORKSHOP EDUCATION
Status Form (Conrad et al., 2009; Jobes, Kahn-Greene, Greene, & Goeke-Morey, 2009; Jobes et al., 2004). The CAMS risk assessment framework draws on Shneidman’s cubic model (press, pain, and perturbation; Shneidman, 1976), as well as on knowledge of behavioral indicators of risk.
Question, Persuade, Refer, and Treat (QPRT; QPR Institute: http://www.qprinstitute. com). This program is an advanced training for mental health professionals based on QPR (Quinnett, 1995), a one-hour gate- keeper training. QPRT teaches interviewing and assessment, especially at clinical intake, and provides a tool for documenting suicide risk and assessment for patients with mental health and/or substance abuse disorders. It provides instruction for using a guided pro- tocol for interviewing and documentation. Trainees qualify for certification after pass- ing a written 25-item exam and demonstrat- ing competence through a role-play, which is rated by the instructor using a 16-item rating created by the developer for this purpose. QPRT is offered online through Eastern Washington University and in a face-to-face workshop, which is the subject of our survey.
Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk (RRSR; American Association of Suici- dology: http://www.suicidology.org). Like the AMSR program described earlier, this pro- gram grew out of the consensus recommen- dations of a clinician-researcher task force convened by the SPRC and the AAS in 2004 (Suicide Prevention Resource Center, 2006). The program offers 2-day workshop training plus an online pretraining module about cli- nician attitudes and approaches to suicide assessment and management. Participants must pass a multiple choice test following the online module to receive a certificate of completion for the workshop. The curricu- lum addresses the 24 core competencies identified by SPRC and AAS and task force recommendations. AAS also offers popula- tion-specific workshops: Inpatient (for hospi- tal staff), Adolescent (for youth agency staff), Veterans (for the VA), and a Spanish-lan- guage version. The program includes a medical-legal component and emphasizes
meeting legal standards of care. It uses a risk assessment framework that includes formula- tion of acute and chronic risk determination based on risk and protective factors and warning signs.
Risk Assessment Workshop (Department of Psychology, University of California San Francisco (UCSF): http://psych.ucsf.edu/faculty. aspx?id=296). This program covers assess- ment of suicide risk and risk for violence in a 5-hour workshop for psychiatric residents and other trainees at UCSF (McNiel et al., 2008). The training is based on American Psychiatric Association (APA) practice guidelines for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. Developed by a forensic psychologist, this workshop includes a medical-legal component and an emphasis on meeting legal standards of care and documentation. The program teaches a suicide risk framework based on Webster’s approach to assessing risk for violence (Web- ster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997), which organizes risk markers as historical (past), clinical (present), and future (risk manage- ment). The training brings together the APA guidelines with this conceptualization of risk and teaches participants to make clinical judgments about risk severity and to develop a management plan based on anticipated future risk.
Skills-Based Training on Risk Manage- ment (STORM; The Storm Project, University of Manchester, UK: http://www.medicine. manchester.ac.uk/storm/). The STORM pro- gram was developed at the University of Manchester and has been disseminated widely in the United Kingdom. A distin- guishing feature of the program is that it uses a flexible, modular approach to skill building. Sponsoring organizations can elect to have the entire program taught over 2 days or choose from a menu of briefer modules, such as assessment, crisis management, crisis pre- vention, and self-help strategies. The pro- gram’s risk assessment framework consists of ‘‘established assessment and management methods for patients with suicidal ideation and/or feelings of hopelessness’’ (Gask, Lever-Green, & Hays, 2008).
PISANI ET AL. 259
Suicide: Understanding and Treating the Self-Destructive Processes (Glendon Association: http://www.glendon.org/). This workshop is based on the assessment and treatment approaches of Firestone and Firestone (Fire- stone, 1986; Firestone & Firestone, 1998). The curriculum includes an introduction to assessment instruments, including the Fire- stone Assessment of Suicidal Intent (FASI) and the Firestone Assessment of Self- Destructive Thoughts (FAST). The trainer uses filmed interviews with suicide attempt survivors to illustrate the conceptualization of suicidal behavior as deriving from a self- destructive ‘‘inner voice’’ or a ‘‘systematized, integrated pattern of negative thoughts, accompanied by angry affect’’ (Firestone, 1986; Firestone & Firestone, 1998). The risk assessment consists partly of understanding these self-destructive patterns. The work- shop also exposes learners to techniques of voice therapy (Firestone, 1988).
Suicide Assessment Workshop (Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, Birmingham, UK; http://www.uhb.nhs.uk). This workshop was developed to train employees of a psy- chiatric teaching hospital in Birmingham, England (Fenwick, Vassilas, Carter, & Haque, 2004). The workshop was organized into three modules focused on assessing risk: (1) after deliberate self-harm; (2) in a hospital setting; and (3) in an outpatient setting with depression. The primary learning vehicle was a series of small-group mini-lectures fol- lowed by role-plays with professional actors. Workshop instructors provided in-vivo feed- back to participants on their assessments. This workshop was offered twice as part of a specific training initiative in 2002. Although the program is not publicly available at this time, we included it in this study because of the innovative teaching methods and evalua- tion design (see next).
Suicide Care: Aiding Life Alliances (Liv- ingWorks, Inc: http://www.livingworks.net/). Suicide Care is an advanced workshop for clinicians who have already participated in a 2-day program conducted by the program’s developers (ASIST: Applied Suicide Inter- vention Skills Training; Ramsay, Cooke, &
Lang, 1990). The program builds from ASIST’s emphasis on the human connection and empathic understanding of an indivi- dual’s reasons for suicide. The risk assess- ment framework de-emphasizes formulation or summary judgment of risk (such as high, medium, low) and instead teaches clinicians to focus on matching specific risks with specific plans. The program distinguishes among four intervention strategies—first aid, management, treatment, and therapy—and makes recommendations for clinician behav- ior and characteristics based on the concep- tualization of what at-risk persons need.
Unlocking Suicidal Secrets: New Thoughts on Old Problems in Suicide Prevention (Training Institute for Suicide Assessment and Clinical Interviewing: http://www.suicideassessment.com/). This workshop is an expanded edition of a workshop by the same developer titled, ‘‘Delicate Art of Eliciting Suicidal Ideation’’ (Shea, 1999). The program offers an over- view of suicide assessment, response, and treatment planning, and an introduction to the CASE approach to suicide assessment (Shea, 1998). The risk assessment framework emphasizes rapport building and ‘‘validity techniques’’ to elicit patient information, as well as planning and assessing ‘‘suicide events’’ (i.e., ideation, preparation, thoughts of death, and attempts) in different periods of time. The program teaches clinicians to use ‘‘matrix treatment planning’’—an evi- dence-based approach to treatment for at- risk patients designed to reduce risk for sui- cide.
Workshop Features, Format, and General Information
Table 1 provides a summary of work- shop information based on closed-ended questions from the online survey. More than 40,000 mental health professionals partici- pated in the workshops included in this study between January 2004 and August 2009. Par- ticipation in ‘‘Unlocking Suicidal Secrets’’ (provided by TISA) accounted for more than half of this participation. Workshop duration ranged from 5 to 15 hr, with a mean duration
260 STATE OF WORKSHOP EDUCATION
O v er
T y p
A , C
A , F
R , M
S , C
A , F
R , T
P , M
re , la
ts , m
al , o
re , re
n , la
la y s
A , C
A , F
R , T
P , M
C , D
ts , o
A , T
P , M
C , D
ts , m
al , w
A , F
R , T
P , D
re , re
n , la
ts , p
A , F
R , T
P , D
re , w