Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:39:26.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drug treatment programmes in prison: longitudinal outcome evaluation, policy development and planning interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Julian Pugh  and
Catherine M Comiskey
Julian Pugh
Affiliation:
Health Service Executive, Mill Lane, Palmerstown, Dublin 20, Ireland
Catherine M Comiskey
Affiliation:
Mathematics Department, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this research is to evaluate a seven week abstinence-based drug treatment programme and to use this to assist policy makers in the planning and provision of future programmes.

Methods: Design: Seventy-nine clients were interviewed at two stages. Stage I, prior to the treatment programme, stage II, immediately after the treatment programme. A selected group of 20 clients were followed-up and interviewed at stage III, up to 24 months after the treatment programme.

Setting: All clients were prisoners at Mountjoy Prison, Dublin Ireland.

Participants: Seventy-nine male prisoners were recruited. A sample of 20 of the original cohort of 79 was selected using a snowball sampling method approximately 24 months following treatment. This latter sample of 20 clients consisted of eight prisoners who had re-offended and returned to prison, three prisoners who were still in prison serving their original sentence and nine prisoners who were out of prison. These 20 also participated in a more detailed quantitative and qualitative survey.

Measurements: In order to measure prisoner's criminogenic attitudes and needs the Crime Pics II instrument was used. This is a semantic differential scale which measures attitudes toward offending behaviour. It includes a problem checklist which can be used to measure change over time.

Results: An 82% follow-up rate was achieved on the original group of 79 clients, similarly a follow-up rate of 100% was also achieved for the selected group of 20 clients who were interviewed three times. Regardless of category of client, findings demonstrate an improvement over time for the outcome variables, general attitude to offending, anticipation of re-offending and perception of current life problems. However, the study failed to demonstrate any significant change for the outcome variables victim hurt denial and evaluation of crime as worthwhile.

Conclusions: These results were short lived for many prisoners, who failed to sustain the gains made. Interviews with the cohort of 20 who underwent stage III interviews possibly suggest that those clients who did not receive continuity of treatment post programme, in terms of case management and structured treatment did not fare as well as those who did.

Keywords

Drug useTreatmentPrisonOutcome evaluationCrimeGroup workOffending behaviourCase management.
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 63 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Crowley, D. The drug detox unit at Mountjoy Prison: a review. J Health Gain. 1999; 3, (2).Google Scholar
2.Foley, A. Prison-Based Drug Treatment Programmes; what works. MSc dissertation. University College Dublin; Ireland, 2001.Google Scholar
3.Marsden, Jet al.The Maudsley Addiction Profile (MAP): A brief instrument for assessing treatment outcome. Addiction 1998; 93(12): 1857–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Gossop, M, Marsden, J, Stewart, D. The UK national treatment outcome research study and its implications. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2000; (19): 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Gossop, Met al.The national treatment outcome research study (NTORS): 4–5 year follow-up results. Addiction 2003; 98(3): 291–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Inciardi, JAet al.An effective model of prison based treatment for drug involved offenders. Journal of Drug Issues 1997; 27(2): 177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Turnbull, PJ, Mc Sweeney, T. Drug Treatment in prison and aftercare: a literature review and results of a survey of European countries. Pompidou Group, Council of Europe; 2000.Google Scholar
8.Kothari, G, Marsden, J, Strang, J. Opportunities and obstacles for effective treatment of drug users in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Br J Criminology. 2002; 42: 412–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Maguire, M, Raynor, P. The revival of throughcare: rhetoric and reality in automatic conditional release. Br J Criminology 1997; 37(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Burrows, Jet al.The nature and effectiveness of drugs throughcare for released prisoners. Research Findings No. 109, Home Office Research. Development and Statistics Directorate; London, 2000.Google Scholar
11.Hough, M. Drugs misuse and the criminal justice system: a review of the literature. Drugs Prevention Initiative Paperl 5. London; Home Office; 1996.Google Scholar
12.Porporino, FJet al.An outcome evaluation of prison-based treatment programming for substance users. Substance Use and Misuse. 2002; 37(8-10): 1047–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Lipton, Set al.The effects of therapeutic communities and milieu therapy on recidivism: meta-analytic findings from the correctional drug abuse treatment effectiveness (CDATE) study. In: McGuire, J, editor. Offender rehabilitation and treatment: effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending. Chichester: John Wiley; 2002.Google Scholar
14.Taxman, FS and Bouffard, JA. Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. The Prison Journal 2002 06; 82: 189–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Ramsay, M. Home Office, Development and Statistics directorate Research Study No. 267. London: Home Office; 2003.Google Scholar
16.Liese, B.S and Franz, RA. Treating substance use disorders with cognitive therapy: lessons learned and implications for the future. In Salkovskis, PM., editor, Frontiers of cognitive therapy, London, Guilford Press; 1996.Google Scholar
17.Michael and Associates. Crime Pics II, Cardiff: Michael and Associates; 1994.Google Scholar
18. DPP v.Finn [2000] IESC75; [2001] 2 IR 25 (11 24, 2000). The Supreme Court 228/99.Google Scholar
19.Inciardi, J. A.Drug treatment and criminal justice. London: Sage; 1993.Google Scholar
20.Dillon, L. Drug use among prisoners; an exploratory study. Dublin; Drug Misuse Research Division; Health Research Board; 2001.Google Scholar
21.Pugh, J. Introduction of a drug treatment case management system into the Irish Prison Service. Unpublished MSc thesis. Dublin, Trinity College; 2004.Google Scholar