Transcript Slide 1

SBI in the criminal
justice system:
can it be done?
Dr. Dorothy Newbury-Birch
SIPS-North East Site Manager
Aim of the Study
To evaluate the most efficient and
acceptable screening tool to detect
hazardous and harmful drinkers in typical
probation offices and to evaluate the staff
impact and cost effectiveness of different
models of brief intervention aimed at
reducing excessive drinking in this setting
Objectives:
• To determine the prevalence of haz/harmful drinking in
a sample of clients in a variety of CJS settings
• To identify types of offending related with haz/harmful
drinking
• To determine the number and proportion of
haz/harmful drinkers willing to engage with SBI
• To look at staff attitudes
• To determine staff training needs
Where is the CJS is the best place to carry out a trial of SBI?
Arrest
Charge
Conviction
Sentence
Community
Sentence
Prison/YOI
Post Sentence
Prison/YOI
Pilot CJS Study
(2007)
•
•
1 month period in London and the North East
Prisons, Probation offices, Police Stations and
Youth Offending Service
1. Alcohol screening by CJS staff
2. Assessment of staff attitudes and training
• 72% prison, 60% probation and 14%
police clients expressed a willingness to
take part in future research
• 82% prison and 87% of probation clients
feel that they would not feel under
pressure to participate in the study
Main CJS Study
(2007)
What? Who? Where? When?
• Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial
• 97 Offender Managers
• The North East, London and South
East
– Hampshire, London, Durham and
Northumbria Probation Services
• Recruitment took place 2008-2009
Conditions
• Control – Client Information Leaflet (+CIL)
– By OM
• Structured Advice (+CIL) – 5 minutes
– By OM
• Behaviour Change Counselling (+PIL + Structured
Advice) – 20 mins
– The 20 minute BCC by appointment with AHW (rest by OM)
How will we assess effectiveness
• Effectiveness of implementation
– Extent of screening and intervention
activity
– Attitudes to SBI implementation
• Offender outcome measures
–
–
–
–
–
Alcohol consumption
Alcohol related problems
Health related quality of life
Health related and wider societal costs
Re-offending
0
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
Percentage
CJS recruitment
May 2008-July 2009
100
80
60
40
20
The North South Divide
North East
North
South
Probation areas paid by
geographical site
Most OMs received
vouchers for each case
Buy in from top down
High turnover of staff
Ease of communication
Recruitment stable
throughout recruitment
period
London/South East
Recruitment very slow
and increased when the
vouchers were
introduced
SIPS CJS recruitment by screening tool and condition
100
93
91
84
90
96
82
79
80
Number
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fast 1
Fast 2
Fast 3
SASQ1
SASQ2
SASQ3
No. approached = 976
No. eligible = 860
[88% of those approached]
No. Positive = 573
[67% of those eligible]
No. consented to take part = 525
[92% of those positive and eligible]
54% of all offenders approached took part
Differences between conditions?
Condition One:
• 61% of offenders approached consented to take part
Condition Two:
• 57% of offenders approached consented to take part
Condition Three:
• 45% of offenders approached consented to take part
Where are we?
Recruitment finished in July 2009
We are now:
• Collating staff attitudinal data
• Collecting recruitment data for OMs
• Carrying out 6 and 12 month follow-ups
with offenders
Re-offending data
Measuring
• Conviction Data – PNC
• Arrest Data – Northumbria Police Arrests
• Prison Data – Days at Risk
SBI in the criminal justice system:
So, can it be done?
But much
more work
needed to
find it!
Thank You