Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:14 am
Time: 2:14 am
Results for alcohol related crimes (u.k.)
1 results foundAuthor: McSweeney, Tim Title: Evidence-Based Practice? The National Probation Service's Work with Alcohol-Misusing Offenders Summary: Research summary This process study by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR), King's College London, examined the National Probation Service's work with alcohol-misusing offenders by describing and critically appraising: - the procedures in place for identifying and intervening with offenders who have alcohol problems; - the extent to which this work complied with the principles set out in Models of care for alcohol misusers (MoCAM); and - arrangements for the commissioning and delivery of alcohol treatment requirements. Approach The study had a number of components and made use of a range of primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative data sources. These included data derived from: - a telephone survey completed with the policy lead responsible for substance misuse, or the specialist responsible for co-ordination and delivery of services in 41 (of 42) probation areas in England and Wales; - analysis of all ATR activity data for England and Wales during 2007/08; - analysis of Offender Assessment System (OASys) data for six purposively1 sampled case study sites; - 185 random offender case file reviews in these six sites; and - 64 in-depth interviews with various stakeholders and professionals from across these areas. Results and implications Probation work nationally with alcohol-misusing offenders English and Welsh probation areas were, at the time of fieldwork, offering a broad range of alcohol-related interventions. At a national level, however, it seemed that efforts to ensure more effective commissioning and delivery had been hampered by a lack of: - resources and dedicated funding for the provision of alcohol interventions and treatment; - guidance and protocols to inform the targeting of available interventions; - appropriate and accessible alcohol treatment provision; - probation staff confidence, skills and knowledge around alcohol-related issues; and - success engaging and influencing local commissioners to afford greater priority and resources to work with alcohol-misusing offenders. Being able to effectively deliver, manage and direct alcohol-related interventions should be considered a core offender management skill. However, while there are high levels of alcoholrelated need within NPS caseloads, analysis of OASys data in six case study areas revealed that over 40% of all alcohol-related interventions had yet to start four to six months after a period of supervision had commenced2 - A similar picture emerged at a national level with a sample of OASys-identified 'dependent'3 drinkers under probation supervision. A key priority for policy should be to increase the use of evidence-based alcohol interventions and treatment with offenders whose criminal behaviour is related to their use of alcohol. That priority should be addressed, in the short term, by sharing and disseminating emerging best practice and identifying effective strategies for ensuring more offenders commence and complete those programmes that are available. The longer term emphasis should be on developing the evidence base and then disseminating empirically informed advice and guidance about the appropriate targeting of interventions. Finally, it will be necessary and important to increase further the range, capacity and funding of the NPS's alcohol-related work. Levels of compliance with Models of care for alcohol misusers (MoCAM) Data from both the national survey and in-depth interviews in six case study areas point towards a number of issues which policy makers and senior probation managers will need to address with regards to ensuring greater compliance with MoCAM. These include developing ways to facilitate improvements to: - the quality, accuracy, consistency and timing of alcohol screening and specialist assessment processes; the accessibility of specialist alcohol treatment services to which offenders can be referred (both located within probation settings and externally); the scale and quality of training offered to offender managers to better equip them to more effectively deliver brief interventions to alcohol-misusing offenders; and monitoring of the extent to which probation staff involved in delivering, managing or directing alcohol interventions are trained and competent to the minimum relevant Drugs and Alcohol National Occupational Standards (DANOS). The commissioning and delivery of alcohol treatment requirements (ATRs) Demand for ATRs outstripped supply by some considerable margin. Only 8% of drinkers defined as 'dependent' using an OASys sample of offenders commencing community sentences during 2007/08 were estimated to have received an ATR (Moore, 2008)4 - Despite some important caveats associated with using OASys to identify 'dependent' drinkers, this was consistent with stakeholder perspectives which indicated that there was significant scope for expanding ATR provision in order to meet existing levels of need. For example, ensuring treatment coverage for at least one in seven (15%) dependent drinkers is regarded as optimal by Alcohol Concern. Resolving the impasse around ATR funding should be a priority for policy makers and senior managers. However, given that the finances of most English Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are in deficit and probation budgets are expected to face some substantial cuts in the short term, all reasonable options should be explored as a matter of urgency (e.g. expanding the remit of local Pooled Treatment Budgets to include alcohol treatment). There was considerable variability in how the treatment component of an ATR was being delivered. Only one in four of the areas reporting to the national survey that they were delivering ATRs were doing so in a manner consistent with existing guidance. The new NOMS Alcohol Interventions Guidance due for publication in September 2009 will need to add further clarity on this important issue. This will be a difficult task, however, given the limited availability of alcohol treatment services in some areas. ATRs appeared to facilitate engagement with alcohol treatment services and contributed towards reducing alcohol-related needs (based on findings from the random review of case files). However, there also appeared to be scope for further refinement to the process of targeting ATRs and offering more timely interventions through increased treatment capacity. The evidence base and emerging best practice The dearth of British research evidence means there is currently limited scope for developing empirically informed guidance to instruct senior probation managers and practitioners about the effective targeting of interventions within a criminal justice context, or to identify which ones are likely to be most effective for whom (e.g. different offender management tiers and offenders presenting with hazardous, harmful or dependent drinking patterns). These and many other themes and issues (including assessing the impact of ATRs) should be given greater priority in any future research programme. Given the lack of empirical research available to inform work with alcohol-misusing offenders, initiatives of the sort currently being developed by NOMS to provide support and funding (in the region of $250,000 to date to 15 projects) in an effort to help identify, develop and disseminate the numerous examples of emerging best practice should be commended, endorsed and encouraged. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2009. 86p. Source: Ministry of Justice Research Series; no. 13/09: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://lx.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Evidence-based%20practice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://lx.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Evidence-based%20practice.pdf Shelf Number: 117148 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crimes (U.K.)Alcohol Treatment ProgramsAlcohol-Related Crime, DisorderOffender Treatment Programs |