Use of Related Literature
Use of Related Literature
Reflecting the aims presented for the survey by the writer it is possible to reexamine the literature used across different classs. The first of these is literature covering with surveies look intoing differences in drug usage and rehabilitation experiences between captives and non-prisoners. The 2nd of these are surveies specifically measuring differences in experiences between male and female captives with a concluding class being literature covering with differences in fortunes of male and female prisoners’ by and large. With the literature reviewed by writers there are nevertheless some spreads which can be identified in peculiar related to other research on intervention demands for drug users both within prisons and by and large in society. Similarly the article lacks clear justification of the peculiar research methodological analysis employed within the DORIS survey every bit good an rating of possible alternate methods both theoretically every bit good as how different undertakings have been conducted.
It is clear from the principle for the article that much of the research referenced is based on beginnings outside the UK. This is true particularly in footings of the different intervention demands every bit good as experiences of female drug users in institutional scenes as opposed to males. Given the authors’ statement that small research outside of one Canadian survey has been carried out look intoing the differences in drug usage between male and female wrongdoers it is clear the research is meant as a fresh part to research in the UK on the issue, ( 244 ) . The article gives a moderately comprehensive reappraisal of evidentiary stuff refering drug abuse which can be said to be up to day of the month sing the publication of the article in 2005. In footings of its presentation of disagreements between community intervention and behavioral forms and within prisons for drug misuse the writers drawn upon a reappraisal of literature and surveies conducted internationally peculiarly in the US, ( 244 ) . Literature is besides reviewed within the piece giving justification as to the variables which inform the ulterior research design, methodological analysis and analysis, ( 245 ) .
Given the policy dimensions in footings of decisions and recommendations it is ill-defined as to why the article does non give at least a casual intervention of assorted policy enterprises. Indeed it is worthwhile comparing Home Office literature every bit good as other policy beginnings as within the aims and decisions to the article the writers province their belief in the necessity of policy alterations on the issue of drug abuse and rehabilitation in UK prisons. The RDS work on drugs is conducted on the footing of the Government’s drug scheme which has as its purposes forestalling drug usage amongst immature people, increased engagement on rehabilitation plans, cut downing supply and cut downing offense linked to drug abuse, ( Undertaking Drugs Changing Lives, 2006 ) . Three cardinal policy enterprises of relevancy to the research in this article are related to the last scheme of cut downing offense which is a doubling of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, expanded rehabilitation plans in prisons and ‘providing comprehensive of through-care and after-care’ , ( Updated Drug Strategy, 2002:7 ) .
It is clear from appraising Home Office literature that cardinal to arguments on prison inmates utilizing drugs are jobs of recidivism, re-incarceration and continued condemnable activity. In what might be said to be a hard-boiled stance against drug users reinforced by the national Drugs Strategy the accent is on injury decrease to society, communities and persons. The usage of compulsory rehabilitation orders in peculiar is of relevancy to the survey in this article in that while it is stated that the sample were recruited no information is provided as to whether respondents were voluntarily seeking intervention or making so as a consequence of legal orders. This has of import deductions in footings of participant prejudice which is non dealt with by the writers in a meaningful manner.
An interesting comparative survey to the research conducted in this article is the findings of the National Treatment Outcome Research Study ( NTORS ) . Like the DORIS survey NTORS is a prospective cohort based longitudinal survey. However NTORS’ sample size is smaller at 418 with shorter intervals of six months for follow up research interviews. Again like the DORIS survey structured interviews were used combined with quantitative based analysis of intervention results. The temperament of the sample nevertheless even though smaller in size is arguably by and large more representative of broad drug usage given that cleft, pep pill every bit good as diacetylmorphine users ( who were the bulk ) were good represented in the survey, ( Gossop et al, 2003:297 ) . Again nevertheless like the unfavorable judgments of the research within the article the sample was a self-selecting 1 for those seeking intervention within NTORS programmes.
A peculiar facet of the NTORS survey is mensurating the success of intervention plans across different standards, including abstention rates, reduced physical and psychological jobs every bit good as reduced injuries to wider society and communities. NTORS in cardinal ways so seeks to capture policy effectivity at both through-care or how attention is implemented for users from clip of apprehension through clip in the legal system and after-care or attention within the community as wrongdoers re-integrate, ( Out of Crime, Into Treatment, 2006 ) . In findings of the NTORS survey important decreases in offense and offense related jobs were seen after intervention commenced and in the resulting five old ages of the survey, ( Gossop et al, 2003:301 ) . NTORS’ decisions point to the cost effectivity of intervention plans when set against the economic and societal costs associated with drug related offense.
As such the current article’s research can be said to take at set uping grounds for more trim through-care systems particularly in regard of work forces and adult females wrongdoers against the more universalistic decisions of the NTORS survey. Indeed the strength of the statement made in the article can be justified in some ways by decisions from the NTORS survey which suggested “…considerable variableness in the NTORS results: non all patients did well” , ( Gossop et al, 2003:301 ) . Clearly so the DORIS survey and the analysis of the writers here seeks to set up grounds why non all patients do good by seeking explanatory variables in gender differences among prison inmates which are psychologically and socially related every bit good as differences between prison based scenes and community 1s.
Failings in the author’s research and the NTORS survey in footings of look intoing force per unit areas on persons to conform to intervention regimens are suggested by Wild ( 2006 ) in his lineation of research/policy jobs related to coercive intervention plans. Wild proposes methods which are much more steadfastly rooted in researching the dimensions of evidence-based policy and practise. Although the NTORS survey has clear links to evidence-based policy through its association with clinical services like the author’s research methodological analysiss are ill clarified into how the grounds translates into policy. Two of Wild’s statements are of peculiar relevancy to the methodological analysiss of both NTORS and the DORIS survey. The first of these is Wild’s claim ( 2006:43 ) that behaviorist premises underpin much research. In regard of this Wild argues that measuring/predicting independent or control variables fail to “conceptualise the client as an active decision-maker” , ( Wild, 2006:43 ) .
Criticisms can be made of the DORIS survey along these evidences every bit good in that every bit good as the stiff usage of a structured questionnaire cut downing the grounds to predictive variables fails to capture participants experiences and demands in a deeper manner, ( Dukes, 2000 ) . An even stronger neglecting in the head of Wild and discussed here besides is the deficiency of probe into the motivational aspirations associated with seeking intervention, ( Wild, 2006:44 ) . In the author’s research small information is given other than observing that participants thought rehabilitation was a good thing, ( Table 2, 249 ) . This coupled with deficiency of informations on those undergoing referred or coerced intervention means a significant research country related to participants in the research is non investigated. While the writers research is strong in footings of recognising and foregrounding different demands for users in prisons the item on understanding the beginnings and relationship of these demands with other aspiration factors is low. Similarly linked to this the deficiency of important cultural representation in the sample farther contributes to statements that the research does non run into its aims of analyzing different demands even across gender as gender experiences among different cultural groups can be argued to be merely every bit big as between male and female, ( Black and Minority Communities, 2003:23-30 ) .
Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in England: A Review of the Literature on Drug Use and Related Service Provision, NTA, London UK, [ available at ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.nta.nhs.uk/publications/bme_lit.pdf
Duke, K. ( 2000 ) ‘Prison Drugs Policy since 1980’Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol. 7 No. 4
Gossop, M. , Marsden, J. , Stewart, D. and Kidd, T. ( 2003 ) ‘The National Treatment Outcome Research Study’Addiction, No. 98 pp291-303
Gossop, M. ( 2005 )Drug Misuse Treatment and Reductions in Crime, NTA, London UK [ available at ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.nta.nhs.uk/publications/docs/rb8_final.pdf
Out of Crime, Into Treatment( 2006 ) DATT, Essex UK, [ available at ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.essexdrugaction.org/word_docs/CJIP.doc
Undertaking Drugs, Changing Lifes ( 2006 ), Home Office, London UK, [ available at ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www.drugs.gov.uk/drug-strategy/
Updated Drug Strategy( 2002 ) , Home Office, London UK [ available at ]
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.drugs.gov.uk/drug-strategy/Updated_Drug_Strategy_2002.pdf? version=1
Wild, T. ( 2006 ) ‘Social Control and Coercion in Addiction Treatment’Addiction, No. 101 pp40-49