Asses essin sing g treatmen tment engagement ement he Drug ug - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Asses essin sing g treatmen tment engagement ement he Drug ug Inter terventi ention n Prog

• gramm

amme e (DIP) P) in London don

Arun Sondhi and Brian Eastwood

Drug Intervention Programme

Identify opiate/crack- cocaine users in police custody DIP teams engage, refer and support offenders to treatment Assumes treatment = reductions in offending (Skodbo et al, 2007)

How it Works

Test on arrest Positive Test See DIP worker

Use of Requi uired Assessme ment nt/ Cond nditiona nal Caut utioni ning ng Voluntary assessment (Care Planning) and Forma mal Referral to treatment Eng ngage Treatme ment nt Service Complete treatme ment

Police Custody Engagement Treatme ment

Cell sweep Engage detainee

Background

Diversion schemes within police custody have focused on two models Arrest referral – Referral to treatment Case-managed approaches to ‘hand-hold’ detainees into treatment (defined by having a care plan)

Study Aims

• To examine factors that affect engagement with DIP in

London (study funded by Mayor’s Office for Policing & Crime)

• Test the veracity of two DIP models of engagement (‘arrest

referral’ and case-managed DIP)

• Examine treatment outcomes (‘successful’ discharge from

treatment) for each model

Methods

• Prospective Data linkage for all contacts in 2017

Metropolitan Police ‘drug test recorder’ + CJ-DET ‘DIP contact’ + National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS)

• Logistic regression models assessing engagement at:

(a)Initial take-up of DIP ‘offer’ in police custody (b)Factors associated with a ‘successful’ treatment outcome

Positive Drug Test 9.910 individuals (13,863 events) Prospective contact 32% (n=3,188) Historical record prior to test 13% (n=1,270) One-off CJIT contact 18% (n=1,754) Multiple CJIT contacts 14% (n=1,434) Case-Managed Model 52% (n=1,656) Arrest Referral Model 48% (n=1,532) Community Treatment 47% Prison 13% No further contact 40% Prison 24% Community Treatment 22% Community Treatment 35% (n=1,113) No further contacts 54% Prison-based Treatment 18% (n=585)

+

Diversion Process in London

Results

• Factors associated with initial DIP engagement in police

custody: (a) Housing problem (e.g. NFA)* (b) ‘Taking without Consent’ (TWOC) offence (c) Opiate; cannabis users (but not cocaine)* (d) Binge Drinkers*

*Holds after Bonferroni correction

Results

• Models of successful treatment outcome:

(1) non-acute Housing need (2) Cocaine users* (3) Case-managed rather than arrest referral* (1) Female detainees* (2) Acute housing need (e.g. NFA) (3) Opiates and crack users*

*Holds after Bonferroni correction

Conclusions

• DIP model engages “traditional” opiate users but less

effective for crack users

• Case-management diversion schemes facilitate treatment

engagement

• Treatment still struggles to engage opiate/crack-using
• ffenders
• Specialist approaches required for female offenders

Final Thoughts

• Drug diversion should be seen as the sum of all its parts e.g.

ensuring successful treatment outcomes

• Integrate holistic approaches e.g. housing support
• Is the model out-dated?
• And we really don’t know much about causality (effect on

reoffending)