Anda di halaman 1dari 23

Criminology and Criminal Justice

http://crj.sagepub.com

Sobering up: Arrest referral and brief intervention for alcohol users in the
custody suite
Matt Hopkins and Paul Sparrow
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2006; 6; 389
DOI: 10.1177/1748895806068576

The online version of this article can be found at:


http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/4/389

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Criminology and Criminal Justice can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://crj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 6 articles hosted on the


SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/4/389

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Criminology & Criminal Justice
© 2006 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi)
and the British Society of Criminology.
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1748–8958; Vol: 6(4): 389–410
DOI: 10.1177/1748895806068576

Sobering up:
Arrest referral and brief intervention for
alcohol users in the custody suite

MATT HOPKINS AND PAUL SPARROW


Morgan Harris Burrows, UK and Nottingham
Trent University, UK

Abstract

Since their inception in the mid-1980s, there has been a rapid


increase in the number of arrest referral schemes implemented in
custody suites across the United Kingdom. These schemes have
generally been focused upon detainees with drug-related problems
and their key aims have been to provide education and treatment
for detainees immediately after arrest as this is viewed as the time
when the subject will be most contemplative of and receptive to
change. It is becoming recognized that the custody suite may also
be an appropriate setting for tackling alcohol-related problems
through both ‘arrest referral’ and ‘brief intervention’. The article
outlines the principles that lie behind arrest referral and brief
intervention and it presents a case study of a scheme that provided
such treatment for detainees arrested for alcohol-related/specific
incidents. Here the background to the initiative in question and the
key data collected as part of an independent evaluation are
presented. Consideration also is given throughout the article to
problems encountered in implementing and evaluating the scheme
and it is hoped that some of these will serve as lessons for future
research.

Key Words

arrest referral • brief intervention • alcohol users

389
Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007
© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
390 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

Introduction

Arrest referral schemes have, for the most part, focused upon drug users
and those perceived to be at risk of drug use. The major aim of such
schemes has been to provide education for users while they are still in the
custody suite and if necessary to refer them for treatment and rehabilitation
with an appropriate agency. Evaluations of such schemes report encourag-
ing results, though it has been noted that evaluating these projects can be
difficult due to problems associated with accurate data collection and being
able to attribute any ‘change’ of behaviour in respondents to the pro-
gramme in question (see, for example, Edmunds et al., 1998).
Much of the success of drug-based arrest referral schemes can be
attributed to the timing of contact. Intervention occurs at the stage when
the offender is often most vulnerable—immediately after arrest. At this
point offenders will often entertain any option that appears to offer the
likelihood of either a route out of prosecution or the chance to reduce
the severity of a forthcoming court sentence (see Edmunds et al., 1988;
Turnbull et al., 1995). Though it has long been recognized that there is a
relationship between alcohol and crime (Lombrosso, 1911/1968), and
despite the relative success of drug referral schemes, few arrest referral
projects have been implemented that focus primarily upon offenders with
alcohol-related problems.1 There are obvious reasons for this. First, the
perception widely exists that drugs pose a greater risk to health than
alcohol and that drug users are at greater risk of developing a criminal
career (Portman Group, 2002). Second, because of this perception it is
politically more prudent to tackle drug use than alcohol use and third, it
is more culturally acceptable to use (and abuse) alcohol than drugs of any
form. As a consequence of these views, intervention with problem drinkers,
certainly within the context of the criminal justice setting, has been ad hoc
and uncoordinated. Historically, courts have relied on the probation service
to offer support to the problem drinker, although as Raynor et al. (1994)
note, the driver for such provision has often been the enthusiasm of
individual officers rather than service strategy. As a consequence such
provision has, traditionally, been both variable in format and lacking in any
evaluative methodology (see Singer, 1991).
It is however, increasingly recognized that alcohol can be dangerous if
abused and that alcohol misuse can take many different forms and occur in
many different contexts. For example, there is now a greater recognition
that alcohol misuse or abuse does not only refer to ‘so-called’ alcoholics or
habitual daily drinkers but increasingly attention is becoming focused on
the ‘binge drinker’. This has been documented in the growing body of
literature charting the growth of the ‘night-time’ or ‘nocturnal economy’
and its associated alcohol-related crime risks in cities such as Leeds,
Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham (see, for example, Deehan,
1999; Hall, 2000; Hobbs et al., 2002). Here the problems caused by
weekend ‘binge drinking’ have been repeatedly highlighted and as a

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 391

consequence there have been calls for the drinks/leisure industry, local
authorities and criminal justice system to be proactive in the prevention of
binge drinking and alcohol-related crime problems.
This article charts the development of an alcohol arrest referral scheme
that was part of a Targeted Policing Initiative in an English county. The
scheme used the method of ‘brief intervention’ to advise and refer offenders
who had been arrested while intoxicated or where it was found that they
had alcohol-related problems. The article outlines the main elements of the
initiative, the problems faced with implementation of the project, it pre-
sents key evaluation data and finally it makes a number of comments about
the problems of evaluating such an initiative.

Alcohol, arrest referral and brief intervention

A number of factors may be associated with the development of ‘arrest


referral’ and ‘brief intervention’ schemes for alcohol users. These include:
• A recognition that many detainees within custody suites are arrested for
alcohol-specific or alcohol-related offences.
• The increased interest within central government on alcohol-related issues,
particularly the relationship between alcohol and crime (which has culmi-
nated in the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy of 2004).
• The increased focus on the development of the night-time economy and its
associated problems (Deehan, 1999; Hall, 2000; Hobbs et al., 2002).
• The successful development of arrest referral schemes for drug users.
• The perceived success of ‘brief interventions’ within the medical litera-
ture.
These five points are discussed in more detail below.

Alcohol, crime and the custody suite


There is now an increased recognition that alcohol is often a key
facilitator in crime and that many offenders will have been drinking at the
time of arrest. In a study of 1575 custody records Man et al. (2002) found
that in 16 per cent of cases the detainee had been drinking or was drunk
prior to arrest and 15 per cent of detainees had been arrested for an
alcohol-specific offence (such as drink driving).2 In addition to this, it was
noted that detainees arrested for alcohol-related/specific offences tended to
be more disruptive and violent than other detainees and that on average
alcohol-related detainees spent nearly 2 hours more in custody than other
detainees (8.7 hours compared to 6.9 hours). Further research suggests
that the time of arrival for detainees who have been drinking is late in the
evening, most notably on Friday or Saturday (Deehan et al., 2002) and
that drunken arrestees are also a main risk group for death in custody
(Leigh et al., 1998).

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
392 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

Collectively, these studies point to the fact that a large proportion of


detainees do, potentially, have an alcohol related problem and they
suggest that often an arrest and placement in a cell is done only for the
purpose of allowing the detainee to sober up. Man et al. (2002) noted
that in 68 per cent of cases arrestees were given either a formal warning
or released without any further action. It is apparent therefore, that in a
high number of cases arrestees are detained as much for their own safety
as for the safety of others. While arguments can be made for and against
the police using resources to ‘clear’ the streets of citizens who are
intoxicated, the data suggest that the custody suite is a place where
contact with a high number of detainees who drink heavily can be made.
As Deehan et al. (2002) note, there are a number of points where
offenders who drink come into contact with the police and health
professionals, though what is particularly important about the custody
suite is that contact is made when the detainee is likely to be most
vulnerable and therefore most receptive to intervention.

Government policy and alcohol-related crime


The link between alcohol and crime has also been recognized within policy
circles. As early as 1987 the Home Office Standing Conference on young
people and alcohol reported on the problem of underage drinking and
suggested that binge drinking by young people often led to alcohol-related
disorder and crime. The report outlined a number of potential solutions to
these problems that included increasing taxation on alcohol, involving
probation and social services in alcohol education for young people and
improving alcohol education in custodial establishments. The Standing
Conference recognized therefore, that the custody suite had the potential to
be an arena where meaningful contact with problematic drinkers could
be achieved.
Further recommendations for policy development came from the first all
party group on alcohol misuse that reported in 1995 (Home Office, 1995).
Based on oral evidence given by people working in all parts of the criminal
justice system, those running voluntary alcohol organizations and the
drinks trade, the group acknowledged the link between alcohol and crime
and suggested that health agencies and local authorities should be giving
alcohol at least as much attention as drugs. The report also remarked on
the tension in the criminal justice system between a policy that punishes
offenders for alcohol-related crime and one that prevents re-offending
through treating alcohol misuse. The major recommendations were that:
• There was scope for improvement in provision of services in the criminal
justice system.
• Alcohol services should be more accessible through the criminal justice
system.
• There should be greater collection of data across all agencies in the criminal
justice system on alcohol-related crime.

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 393

• There needs to be greater co-ordination of interdepartmental policy on


alcohol-related crime.
• There needs to be greater public awareness and promotion of safer drink-
ing.
Previous research highlights that alcohol consumption can not only gen-
erate crime but also that the criminal justice system does not provide an
adequate service for offenders with alcohol-related problems. Traditionally,
the emphasis has been on the development of specific statutory and
voluntary organizations to deal with serious problem drinkers and there-
fore alcohol and crime are often treated as two separate issues. A notable
policy development did emerge however with the 1998 Crime and Disorder
Act and the Crime Reduction Programme. The 1998 Crime and Disorder
Act made it a statutory duty for local authorities to conduct crime audits
and develop a crime reduction strategy for their local area. The Crime
Reduction Programme provided funding for a number of initiatives to
reduce crime.3 As a direct result of this legislation a number of local audits
recognized that alcohol was a contributory factor in a high proportion of
crime in their area and the Crime Reduction Programme therefore provided
funding for a number of initiatives to tackle alcohol-related offending.4
The activity generated by the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) was
complemented further by the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy (published
in 2004). This is likely to generate a plethora of criminal justice and health
service activity in relation to alcohol and crime. The document was
prepared as a result of increasing media, public and police concern over the
perceived growth in violence and disorder generated by the night-time
economy. This is primarily concerned with the potential harm alcohol
has on both communities and individuals and developing strategies to
reduce these harms. Arrest referral schemes are identified as a way to
help treat those arrested for incidents where alcohol is a factor, though it is
also recognized that at present there has been very little evaluation of
such schemes.

The development of the night-time economy


A number of academic studies have also highlighted the link between
alcohol consumption and crime (see, for example Mott, 1990; D’Orban,
1991), and it is readily accepted by most that alcohol can act as a crime
facilitator (Homel and Clarke, 1994). A growing body of research has
begun to focus on the ‘night-time’ or ‘nocturnal’ economy and several
recent studies have started to consider the impact that the growing
nocturnal economy is having on the economies of major towns and on
public safety (Deehan, 1999; Hall, 2000). Here it has been noted that the
growth of the nocturnal economy has been welcomed in large towns that
were previously suffering from the decline of traditional industries (Hall,
2000). It has been estimated that this sector now provides an income to
over 500,000 people, and has ensured that in the UK there are now

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
394 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

250,000 private security workers as compared to 125,000 policemen


(Taylor, 1999).
One of the key problems with the expansion of the nocturnal economy
is that it has increased the potential for the city centre to generate a greater
number of incidents of alcohol-related violence and disorder. In addition to
placing ever greater demands on police resources, this expansion in
alcohol-related criminality has also increased the number of intoxicated
detainees in the custody suite. As a consequence of the increased concern
about binge drinking, alcohol-related violence and the high proportion of
intoxicated detainees, some police areas have begun to recognize that the
custody suite could be an effective venue for engaging with a significant
proportion of these arrestees.

Arrest referral schemes for drug users


The concept of using intervention while detainees are in the custody suite is
not new.5 Here intervention tends to be based upon three main models
(Edmunds et al., 1998). These are:
• The Information model—based on the police giving information to arrest-
ees on a take it or leave it basis.
• The Proactive model—drug workers will work with the police to screen for
arrestees in need of treatment and advice.
• The Incentive model—incentives are held out for offenders to tackle drug
misuse.
Despite the apparent popularity of such schemes, certainly in terms of
judging their actual level of success, arrest referral with drug users has not
been without its problems. Turnbull et al. (1995) evaluated an arrest
referral scheme in Brighton and noted that while the scheme appeared
successful there were a number of problems encountered during the
evaluation. In this instance two projects ran concurrently—one in a police
station and the other at a magistrates’ court and although over 250
arrestees were interviewed as part of the scheme, follow-up information
was gathered from only 60 referrals due to problems encountered in
tracking and re-contacting arrestees. This created a problem when trying to
ascertain the effectiveness of the programme, as final evaluation data were
only available on 28 clients (14 of these had stopped taking drugs or
alcohol after contact with the initiative).
Similar problems to those encountered above were also found in a study
of three arrest referral schemes by Edmunds et al. (1998). Here the
study makes two main points that researchers need to be aware of when
evaluating such schemes. First, the authors note that there could be
response bias in the sample of arrestees interviewed for the evaluation. The
sample achieved were those who were contactable and had predominantly
reduced their drug use. Therefore, those who did not have a permanent
address or were abusing drugs so heavily that they were unable to respond
were missing from the sample. Second, the authors speculate as to the

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 395

causal mechanisms that help arrestees reduce drug taking after they come
into contact with the scheme. Engagement with the scheme, they suggest, is
just one of a number of factors that might have been responsible for the
reduction in drug taking, with the arrest itself and the natural cycle in drug-
taking patterns both positing equally plausible explanations.

Brief intervention and alcohol use


To date, ‘brief intervention’s’ most common application has been within the
medical setting. Normally the goal of intervention is a reduction in alcohol
intake rather than abstinence and contact is usually restricted to no more
than five sessions with each of these lasting from a few minutes to an hour
(NIAAA, 1999). The key elements of brief intervention are summarized by
the acronym FRAMES—‘feedback of personal risk’, ‘responsibility of the
patient’, ‘advice to change’, ‘menu of ways to reduce drinking’, ‘empathetic
counselling style’ and ‘self-efficacy or optimism of the patient’ (Miller and
Sanchez, 1993).
It has been argued that the success of brief intervention is dependent
upon the willingness of the patient to change and the context in which the
intervention is made (Heather and Kaner, 2001). Brief intervention is based
upon motivation and recipients of brief intervention are likely to be at
various stages of ‘readiness to change’. These stages primarily include a
pre-contemplation and contemplation stage. The pre-contemplation stage
involves trying to get patients to think about their drinking patterns, the
harm alcohol can cause and to encourage them to think about changing
their behaviour. When patients reach the ‘contemplation’ stage, this is when
drinking levels are likely to be reduced. Though the role of brief inter-
vention is to facilitate motivational change from pre-contemplation to
contemplation, success, ultimately, is dependent upon the patient’s
willingness to recognize their situation as problematic and their subsequent
commitment to a long-term alteration in their behavioural pattern
(Bandura, 1977).
Brief intervention has been used in a range of health care settings with
varying degrees of success. Wallace et al. (1988) conducted a study of trials
in the UK of 909 excessive drinkers where patients were allocated to a brief
intervention or control group. Patients in the control group did not receive
any advice on alcohol consumption whereas the treatment group received
advice on alcohol consumption and the harmful effects of alcohol. After a
year, 44 per cent of men and 48 per cent of women in the treatment group
had reduced consumption as compared to 26 per cent of men and 29 per
cent of women in the control group. A similar study conducted by the
World Health Organization in 1992 considered the impact of brief inter-
vention in a treatment and control group of 1655 non-dependent drinkers
(Monteiro and Gomel, 1998). Of those given brief intervention, 63 per cent
reduced their drinking after 9 months and 23 per cent remained at the same

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
396 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

level. Of the control group, 42 per cent reduced drinking and 33 per cent
remained at the same level.
These studies suggest that brief intervention can help to reduce drinking
levels, though these evaluation studies are not above criticism. Brief
intervention projects have tended to be evaluated through the use of
randomized control trials. These use quasi-experimental methods to assign
a number of subjects to a control group and a number to a treatment
group. After a year or so the drinking patterns of both groups are
compared. From this comparison a number of assumptions are made about
the success of intervention—if there is a reduction in drinking then it is
suggested that this must be attributed to the intervention. In so far as these
methods appear basically sound there are a number of problems that need
to be noted. While studies of brief intervention regularly record a fall in the
alcohol consumption of patients, these evaluations fail to engage with a
number of outstanding issues such as:
• Why there also tend to be reductions in drinking levels (though not as
marked) in control groups.
• If levels of drinking are reduced what is it about brief intervention that
helps patients reduce drinking levels?
• What role do wider contextual factors such as family and peer group
influence have upon likely success of the individual to reduce their drinking
levels?
Despite such methodological misgivings it is nevertheless apparent why
brief intervention projects use such evaluative methods. One of the key
problems with assessing the relative success of such schemes is that it is
often difficult to track patients who have been subject to brief intervention
and thus gaining any in-depth interviews with them about their motivation
to change is often not possible. With some patients it may however be
possible to simply register their drinking levels over certain periods of time
and thus ascertain if drinking levels have fallen. We now consider the
Nottingham alcohol arrest referral scheme as a case study of brief inter-
vention in a custody suite.

Case study: the Nottingham alcohol arrest referral scheme

Background and implementation


The Nottinghamshire alcohol arrest referral scheme was part of a wider
Home Office Funded Targeted Policing Initiative across the county. The
project ran from April 2001 to 2002 and implemented a number of
interventions to reduce alcohol-related town centre violence. These in-
cluded proactive licensing strategies (which included the employment of
licensing officers across the county), high visibility policing, a door staff
training scheme, a marketing campaign aimed at educating young people

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 397

about the dangers of heavy drinking and finally, the arrest referral scheme
(which is the focus of this article).
The arrest referral scheme employed three nurses in a busy custody suite
in Nottingham city centre. It was a proactive model where the police
screened arrestees to be interviewed. The nurses interviewed arrestees and
provided brief intervention or referred them to the appropriate services.
The scheme was novel in that its major aim was to reduce the likelihood of
arrestees being re-arrested (therefore it was not based on reconviction) for
alcohol-specific/related incidents, though it also aimed to reduce the level of
drinking among these arrestees. The key elements of the scheme were:
• To interview arrestees/patients detained for alcohol-related violence of-
fences.
• To assess the general drinking patterns of those arrested by conducting a
‘lifestyle’ audit and to feed back to patients the extent of their drinking
problem.
• To give advice to arrestees over health-related issues, safe drinking patterns
and if necessary refer them to the correct treatment agency.
• To give advice to patients on how to change/reduce drinking patterns.

Using the FRAMES model (feedback of personal risk, responsibility of the


patient, advice to change, menu of ways to reduce drinking, empathetic
counselling style, self-efficacy or optimism) to guide the interview process,
defendants were normally interviewed the morning after arrest when they
were sober, but while they were still detained in the custody suite.
During the interview a simple audit of the drinking patterns of the
defendant was conducted and an assessment made as to what further
action to take. This audit asked a number of questions about alcohol
consumption, including how often the detainee drank alcohol, the quantity
of drink consumed, the time of day of their first drink and any con-
sequences their drinking patterns had such as missing days off work, health
problems and concern from family and friends. The audit was marked up
to a potential score of 40, where those with the most serious problems
scored highest.
After the needs of the offender had been assessed there were three
possible courses of action that could be taken. First, the offender could be
given brief intervention that simply included advice and information as to
the health risks of drinking and how to alter their patterns of drinking.
Second, the offender may be given more extended brief intervention where
they were referred to see the arrest referral worker on four occasions for
counselling and advice. Finally, drinkers with more serious problems could
be referred to another agency such as a hospital, a day unit or other
counselling services.
From its outset the scheme encountered a number of ongoing difficulties.
Interviews with nurses identified four key problems that persisted through-
out the project. These were:

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
398 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

1 Officers not screening arrestees: interviewing detainees arrested for alcohol-


related offences in the custody suite was dependent upon police officers
informing nurses that a suitable detainee had been apprehended and was
ready for interview. It was clear that, on occasions, officers failed to do this
and as a consequence a number of potential patients were lost.
2 Staffing problems: often nurses were not on duty at the custody suite at
busy times as their shift patterns did not cover nights. Therefore some
detainees may have been missed simply because of inadequate staffing
cover.
3 Refused access to patients: nurses were not allowed to see overly aggressive
detainees even in the company of an officer—this again meant some
detainees were not seen.
4 Arrestees denying they have a problem: some arrestees may have lied about
drinking patterns to avoid having further contact with a nurse or being
labelled as having a problem.

The problems noted here are a combination of issues that could have been
easily pre-empted at the implementation stage and those that are not so
easily overcome. For example, getting police officers to refer arrestees
to nurses and overcoming staffing issues are problems that with better
planning could easily be avoided. Other problems however, such as ar-
restees lying about drink patterns, are clearly unavoidable. We now turn
to the evaluation of the scheme, to the key outcome data collected and
also to the problems that the scheme encountered during the period
of evaluation.

Evaluation of the scheme


As previously stated, evaluating such schemes can be fraught with problems
and the Nottingham scheme was no exception. One of the first prob-
lems was establishing key outcomes as the scheme was designed to reduce
both alcohol-related crime and alcohol consumption. However, it was not
possible to measure the number of incidents that arrestees had been
involved in before or after intervention or to track drink patterns. Measur-
ing the number of incidents arrestees have been involved in is difficult
unless they self-report, and ascertaining if drinking patterns were reduced
over a period of time was difficult for two main reasons. First, brief
intervention would only last for 2 to 3 weeks and this was not sufficient
time to measure impact and second, any measure was therefore dependent
upon following detainees through other agencies (if referred) or re-
contacting them directly. Problems were encountered re-contacting arrest-
ees through agencies due to data-protection issues as most agencies were
not allowed to pass on information about specific clients and data-
recording problems meant that nurses were often unaware of the agency
that their clients had been referred to thus making tracking difficult.

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 399

Therefore, in order to gain outcome data that would give an insight into
changes in both drinking behaviour and offending behaviour two data
sources were used:
• Arrest data (indicators of changes in offending behaviour): Here arrest data
were made available for all detainees who received brief intervention. This
enabled us to track numbers of arrests before and after intervention.
Despite this, data were not made available for a subset not subject to brief
intervention. This meant a comparison or control group could not be
established. It is also acknowledged that using arrest data is problematic
since it is based on the broad assumption that committing crime will
inevitably lead to an arrest—an assumption that is clearly questionable.
Despite the limitations associated with arrest data it was not possible within
the study to take any other measures of offending behaviour.
• Questionnaires with arrestees (indicators of changes in drinking behaviour):
A small number of postal questionnaires were conducted with arrestees
three months after intervention.6 The questionnaire asked about changes in
drinking behaviour and if applicable, why the drinking patterns had
changed.
Over the course of the year the arrest referral workers came into contact
with over 2000 arrestees, though outcome records were only kept for 1181
people. Records were not kept for all arrestees interviewed because project
staff were not fully competent in using data spreadsheets such as Excel and
some were not routinely collecting data until two months into the project.
Certainly, the failure of staff to collect routinely simple output data still
represents a major teething problem with projects of this nature.
Immediate outcome data are given for the 1181 people where records
were kept. Of these, a number of characteristics of detainees were recorded
that are worthy of note. In total, 89 per cent of detainees were male with
an average age of 27.7 A total of 507 had been arrested for violent crimes
(43 per cent of cases), a further 14 per cent were arrested for being drunk
and disorderly, 12 per cent for theft, 11 per cent for criminal damage and
5.5 per cent for drink driving.8 On average detainees had consumed 8 units
of alcohol prior to arrest and they had been drinking for 4.5 hours.
During the initial contact with an arrestee, the nurse would conduct a
‘drinking lifestyle survey’ with the patient. This would ask the patient
about their daily drinking patterns and would score the patient according
to both amount of alcohol consumed over the course of a week and the
impact that alcohol appeared to have on their daily activities. The audit
was scored from 1–40, with 40 indicating the highest level of risk (see
Figure 1).
The ‘lifestyle’ drinking pattern audit score was assessed for a total of
805 detainees. Here the scores were surprisingly disparate, with a full range
of scores (1 to 40) being recorded. Overall the average the score was 12.
This shows that nurses interviewed detainees with varied ‘drinking lifestyle’
patterns, although we have to accept that some detainees may have been

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
400 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

50
Drinking lifestyle score
45
40
No. of detainees

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 34 36 38 40
Audit score

Figure 1 Drinking lifestyle audit score for detainees

less than truthful in disclosing the level of their alcohol consumption. In


Figure 2 we see the immediate outcome of the 1181 interviews nurses
conducted with arrestees. Of these, a total of 67 per cent received some
kind of information or had further brief intervention treatment and 12 per
cent were referred to an agency for treatment. For a further 7 per cent, the
interview was terminated, 7 per cent refused to take any information on
reducing drinking and for 6 per cent the nurse was not permitted to see

Nurse not
permitted to see
6% Already being treated
Interview 1%
terminated
7%
Detainee refused
treatment
7%

Referred to
agency
12%

Information/
brief intervention
67%
Figure 2 Outcome of initial interview with nurse

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 401

them. A total of 1 per cent of arrestees were already known and were being
treated.
To measure if the number of arrests were reduced after contact with a
referral worker the custody records of 200 arrestees were ‘tracked’ over
a 3-month period after their interview to see if they had been re-arrested for
an alcohol-related offence. This group were randomly selected from the
records kept by nurses. The rationale here was that if the strategy was not
effective then those arrested for an alcohol-related offence would be likely
to be re-arrested within this period. Unfortunately the custody records only
recorded data for the Nottinghamshire area and could not provide in-
formation on arrests outside of the county. In order to counter this, all of
the sample selected were from the Nottinghamshire area as it was felt that
these people were likely to drink within the local region and if they were to
be re-arrested this would most likely be within the county and thus
recorded on the custody suite system.
The arrest records of the 200 arrestees were taken from the custody
database in April 2002.9 Arrest data were available from April 1995 so
data were gathered on:
1 The total number of arrests for each arrestee from April 1995.
2 The total number of arrests for all offences and all alcohol-related violence
offences 3 months before interview with the arrest referral worker.
3 The total number of arrests for all offences and all alcohol-related offences 3
months after interview with the arrest referral worker.
The number of times offenders had been arrested since April 1995 is
outlined in Figure 3. On average, offenders had been arrested 6 times
between April 1995 and April 2002. Despite this, there was a clear mix of
‘one-off’ arrestees and prolific offenders with 32 per cent (n = 64) of
offenders being arrested only once since April 1995 and 18.5 per cent (n =

80
Number of arrestees
70
60
No. of arrestees

50
40
30
20
10
0
1 only 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 plus

Figure 3 Arrestees interviewed: Total number of times arrested between April


1995–April 2002 (sample = 200)

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
402 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

37) being arrested 10 or more times. In total, the offenders had been arrested
1213 times over this period, with the most prolific being arrested 46 times.
As one may expect, the data indicate that those arrested the most number of
times between April 1995 and April 2002 were also most likely to have the
highest number of arrests within the time period immediately before and
after they were interviewed by the arrest referral worker. For example, if the
number of arrests for the period of 1995–2002 is compared to the 6-month
period where offenders were tracked (3 months before contact with the
referral worker and 3 months after), we see a clear correlation between the
numbers of arrests over both periods (r = .500; p = 0.001).
Tables 1 and 2 track the patterns of arrest for ‘alcohol-related’ violence
offences and ‘any offence’ for 3 months before and after offenders were
interviewed. These data are presented for two reasons. First, the category
of alcohol-related arrests allows us to track the patterns of arrests for
alcohol-related violence (the main focus of the intervention) in the sample
before and after intervention. Second, the data for any offence are pre-
sented to ascertain the overall impact on arrests. Here ‘any offence’
includes arrests for any crime including alcohol-related offences. Alcohol-
related violence includes all assault and disorder. The data in Tables 1 and
2 are presented so that the numbers of arrests for the 3 months before
intervention are given in the left-hand columns (with the figures in brackets
representing the total number of arrests). The figures in the four right-hand
columns are the number of arrests 3 months after interview.
In total, the 200 detainees were arrested 216 times for ‘alcohol-related’
offences and 242 for ‘all offences’ in the 3 months before contact with the
referral worker. In the 3 months after contact with the referral worker, 14.5
per cent (n = 29) were arrested on 29 occasions for alcohol-related
offences and 19 per cent (n = 38) of the sample were arrested 61 times for
any offence. This represents an 86 per cent reduction for alcohol-related
violence and 75 per cent reduction in arrests for all offences.
The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 also indicate that those offenders
who were arrested on more than one occasion in the 3 months before

Table 1. Offenders arrested for alcohol-related offences three months before and after
contact with arrest referral worker

Post-intervention:
no. of offenders arrested 3 months after
interview
Pre-intervention:
no. of offenders arrested No 1 2 or more
3 months before interview arrest arrest arrests Total
1 arrest only 3 months before 186 (186) 165 18 (18) 3 (7) 186 (25)
2 or more arrests 14 (30) 10 4 (4) 0 14 (4)
Total 200 (216) 175 22 (22) 3 (7) 200 (29)
Note: The figures in brackets are the total number of arrests

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 403

Table 2. Offenders arrested for any offence 3 months before and after contact with arrest
referral worker

Post-intervention:
no. of offenders arrested 3 months after
interview

Pre-intervention:
no. of offenders arrested No. 1 2 or more
3 months before interview arrest arrest arrests Total

1 arrest only 3 months before 175 (175) 150 13 (13) 12 (29) 175 (42)
2 or more arrests 25 (67) 12 9 (9) 4 (10) 25 (19)
Total 200 (242) 162 22 (22) 16 (39) 200 (61)
Note: The figures in brackets are the total number of arrests

contact with the referral worker were also more likely to be re-arrested in
the three months after. The odds ratio here indicates that those arrested
more than once (for any crime) in the 3 months before intervention were
6.5 times more likely to be re-arrested in the 3 months after than those
arrested only once. For alcohol-related violence, those arrested more than
once in the 3 months before intervention were 19 times more likely to be
re-arrested in the 3 months after intervention than those arrested once only.
In summary, we see that:

• Overall, 14.5 per cent of offenders arrested for alcohol-related offences


were re-arrested in the 3 months after intervention.
• Of the 186 offenders arrested once for alcohol-related offences in the 3
months before intervention, 11 per cent were re-arrested within 3 months
after intervention.
• Of the 14 offenders arrested 2 or more times for alcohol-related offences in
the 3 months before intervention, 28 per cent were re-arrested within 3
months after.

We see therefore, that offenders with a more established history of arrest


are more likely to be re-arrested after intervention. Further confirmation of
this pattern is found in Table 3. Here the arrest history of the sample
between 1995–2002 (for any offence) is cross-tabulated with their arrest
history 3 months before/after intervention. There is a positive correlation
between the numbers of arrests between 1995–2002 and 3 months before
intervention (r = .373; p = 0.001) and also for the 3 months before/after
intervention (r = .403; p = 0.001). This indicates that those with the
highest number of arrests before intervention also had the highest number
after intervention. Despite this positive correlation, it should be noted that
the average number of arrests does dramatically fall after intervention. The
overall average number of arrests 3 months before intervention is 1.21
compared to 0.31 at 3 months after intervention. This is an overall fall of
75 per cent.

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
404 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

Table 3. Offenders arrest record since 1995 compared with arrests before and after
intervention: any offence
3 months 3 months Ave Ave
All arrests since 1995 before after before after Change
1 arrest 64 (64) 64 0 1 0 –100
2–5 229 (77) 89 18 1.15 0.23 –79
6–9 160 (22) 28 11 1.27 0.5 –61
10 or more 760 (37) 61 32 1.64 0.86 –47
Total 1213 (200) 242 61 1.21 0.31 –75
Note: The figures in brackets are the number of offenders

This pattern is replicated for alcohol-related violence arrests (see Table


4). Here we see that those offenders who had the highest number of
arrests from 1995 also had the highest number of arrests 3 months
before intervention (r = .170; p = 0.001) and 3 months after intervention
(r = .161; p = 0.001), though the pattern for alcohol-related arrests is less
marked than for ‘all offences’ and is explained by the fact that there were
so few arrests for alcohol-related offences after intervention. It is also
observed here that the average number of arrests for alcohol-related
offences dramatically falls for all groups of arrestees from 1.08 to 0.145
after intervention—an overall fall of 86 per cent.
The data in Table 4 suggest that the more prolific arrestees are most
likely to be re-arrested after intervention, though in the short term at least,
the average number of arrests fell for all groups. Though the data here are
limited, they do generate a number of questions about the potential impact
that brief intervention may have upon arrestees. For example it may be
postulated that a number of mechanisms could be at work in producing
these patterns. These include:

1 The ‘one-off arrestee’ mechanism: It may be apparent that those who were
arrested only once in the 3 months before intervention were unlikely to be re-
arrested in the 3 months after regardless of intervention or not, therefore
they did not require intervention.
2 The ‘contact with police’ mechanism: A number of those offenders arrested

Table 4. Offenders arrest record since 1995 compared with arrests before and after
intervention: Alcohol related violence only

3 months 3 months Ave Ave


All arrests since 1995 before after before after Change
1 arrest 64 (64) 64 0 11 0 –100
2–5 229 (77) 82 14 1.06 0.18 –83
6–9 160 (22) 27 5 1.23 0.22 –81
10 or more 760 (37) 43 10 1.16 0.27 –76
Total 1213 (200) 216 29 1.08 0.145 –86
Note: The figures in brackets are the number of offenders

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 405

only once may have been sufficiently worried by the experience that they did
not want to get into trouble again regardless of intervention, therefore it was
being arrested rather than being interviewed by the arrest referral worker
that served to alter their behaviour.
3 The ‘punishment’ mechanism: A number of the more prolific offenders may
have received punishment (such as a fine, community or custodial sentence)
that served to reduce their arrest rate, though there are a number who are
still regularly re-arrested and the link between punishment and crime
reduction is not altogether convincing.
4 The ‘contact with referral worker’ mechanism: Contact with the referral
worker may have made a number of arrestees aware of the problems drink
can cause, helped arrestees move from ‘pre-contemplation’ to ‘contempla-
tion’ about their drinking patterns and therefore helped them to alter their
drinking patterns, thus reducing the risk of future arrests.

Further anecdotal evidence of how the service may have impacted upon
arrestees was sought from interviews conducted with those in receipt of
brief intervention. These interviews were primarily designed to capture
data on the drinking patterns of arrestees 3 months after intervention and
to ascertain if the intervention had any impact upon drinking patterns. In
total, 66 arrestees were contacted of which 27 (41%) completed interviews.
Of these 23 (86%) were male and 4 (14%) female; 23 (86%) were white
and 4 (14%) black. In total, 17 (63%) respondents described themselves as
weekend binge drinkers, 7 (26%) daily heavy drinkers and 3 (11%)
described themselves as light drinkers.
It is acknowledged here that this is a small sample size and as such
results must be treated with caution. With regards to the service provided
by the arrest referral workers, 11 (40%) respondents described the advice
given as very helpful (26 or 96 per cent said it was either very helpful or
helpful). Respondents cited two primary reasons why they found contact
with the nurse to have been particularly helpful. First, they revealed that
prior to interview they had not been fully aware of the health risk
associated with drinking and second, they suggested that they had not
recognized the degree to which their drinking had caused a range of
problems in their lives such as confrontations with the law and a deteriora-
tion in family relationships. These responses suggest that coming into
contact with the service may have helped a number of respondents begin to
contemplate changing their behaviour.
It is also apparent that contact with a nurse helped a number of
respondents reduce their alcohol consumption. In total, 18 (67%) respon-
dents said that their drinking level fell after their arrest. Of these, 13 were
binge drinkers, 4 were heavy drinkers and 1 an occasional drinker.
However, the reasons respondents stated for reducing their level of drinking
were not straightforward. Many had multiple reasons for cutting down on
drinking after contact with the nurse. A total of 8 respondents gave three

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
406 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

reasons (these included health risks, relationship problems and not wanting
to get in to trouble with the police). A further 8 respondents gave one or
two reasons for reducing their drinking levels (with 5 of these citing health
risks) and 2 respondents said they reduced drinking for other reasons that
were not stated.
The data from the surveys with arrestees suggest that in many cases
contact with the worker did impact upon the arrestee in some way with 67
per cent of respondents stating that their drinking levels fell following
contact. Although encouraging, given the limitations of the sample these
data have to be treated with a degree of caution. Indeed, Edmunds et al.
(1998) noted in their evaluation of drug arrest referral schemes that such
samples may be subject to response bias. Within the sample obtained for
the Nottingham alcohol arrest referral scheme, it may be that those who
viewed their contact with the nurse as being positive were most likely to
return questionnaires.10

Conclusion

This article has begun to outline some of the reasons why the custody suite
is now regarded as a potentially beneficial site for treating those arrested
for alcohol-related offences. Uniquely, the Nottingham alcohol arrest re-
ferral scheme brought together elements previously associated with drug
arrest referral schemes and brief intervention, a technique more commonly
linked with the medical profession. Evaluation data from the scheme
suggest that the number of arrests fell within a sample of 200 detainees
after intervention, and a small postal survey with respondents suggested the
scheme had some impact upon reducing their levels of drinking.
Despite claiming a modest degree of success however, the scheme
nevertheless encountered a number of problems with both implementation
and evaluation. First, and in terms of implementation, problems such as
officers not screening arrestees to be interviewed and the failure to have
sufficient nursing staff to cover the custody suite at the busiest times (Friday
and Saturday evenings) certainly posed challenges to the effective running
of the project, particularly during its early stages. It is acknowledged that it
could have been possible to counter all potential implementation problems
before the start of the project and certainly the problems identified here
were remedied as the scheme progressed. Despite this, the difficulties noted
here should serve as a lesson to similar projects in the future.
In terms of evaluation, previous research has noted that obtaining
adequate monitoring and evaluation data can be problematic in schemes
such as this, and the results of other studies have often been based upon
small numbers of respondents (see Edmunds et al., 1998). The Nottingham
project was based upon the premise that brief intervention with arrestees

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 407

would impact upon drinking consumption and arrest rates and thus halt a
drinking-related criminal career. Although the data reveal a noticeable
reduction in the number of arrests and the qualitative interviews indicate
that brief intervention was instrumental in bringing about a reduction in
levels of drinking, the study is based on a relatively small sample and as
such this limits the degree of certainty attributable to these findings.
Despite the temptation therefore, of elevating these results to the level of
success, we are aware that there are obvious difficulties in trying to
ascertain whether the ‘change’ in the behaviour of these arrestees can be
attributed solely to the brief intervention. Measuring change is obviously
dependent upon observing some change in ‘before’ and ‘after’ data. Within
the contexts of dealing with people with a ‘drinking career’ ascertaining if
it was the intervention that led the arrestee to move from ‘pre-
contemplation’ to ‘contemplation’ or ‘heavy drinker’ to ‘non-drinker’ is
fraught with problems. Nurses are in place to help facilitate change, though
the emphasis is on the arrestee wanting to change. Many other variables
and experiences within the life of the arrestee are likely to have an impact
upon whether this change can be made, such as their home life, employ-
ment, family support and peer group influence. It can obviously be difficult
therefore to identify the relative impact of such variables in studies of
this nature.
Some of the difficulties noted here are generic to most crime reduction
projects (see, for example, Tilley, 2000) and certainly there are lessons here
for future projects both in terms of implementation and the evaluation of
such schemes. Despite these difficulties however, there are a number
of positive aspects of the project that are worth reiterating and these might
also prove valuable to similar schemes in the future. The Nottingham
project was novel in that it delivered an alcohol-based, brief intervention
service and though the number of interviews was limited, the respondents’
‘stories’ suggested that the service did help them to reduce drinking levels.
Overall, it appears that the key strength of the project was that the nurses
provided support for arrestees when they most needed it. The project
captured arrestees when they were most vulnerable, at a time when they
were most likely to realize they had a problem and at a point when they
were most receptive to change. In addition to this, there was continued
provision after the arrest either through the nurses themselves or within
another agency. This meant that the brief intervention did not have to be a
simple ‘one-off’ session and that many of the key ideas of brief intervention
such as advising, reassuring and supporting the arrestee could be reiterated
over a period of time. Certainly one of the lessons from the field of drug
addiction is that sustained behavioural change is often a product of
ongoing professional support. Thus, while the arrest may be the catalyst
that propels clients into treatment, there is now an increasing body of
evidence that suggests that success is improved the longer the client stays in
treatment (Anglin and Hser, 1991).

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
408 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

Notes

1 Though it should be noted that arrest referral schemes have tended to


tackle both drug and alcohol problems.
2 A number of previous studies have suggested that offenders have often
consumed alcohol prior to arrest. See, for example, Bennett et al. (1998).
3 In addition to this, the recent Police Reform Act (2002) places duty on the
responsible authorities to produce a strategy for dealing with substance
misuse. In many cases this could feasibly include alcohol.
4 For example the Cardiff TASC project (Maguire and Nettleton, 2002) and
the Nottinghamshire alcohol-related violence project.
5 There have also been initiatives that have been developed to drug test
arrestees. See, for example, Bennett et al. (1998) and Bennett (2000).
6 Those who were approached had signed consent forms during their inter-
view with the nurse.
7 In their evaluation of drug arrest referral schemes Edmunds et al. (1998)
noted that 86 per cent of drug arrestees were male which is similar to the
figure for alcohol arrestees.
8 Of the remaining offences, 11 per cent were a range of miscellaneous crimes
and 4.5 per cent were not recorded.
9 It was difficult to establish a comparison group for the evaluation. The
majority of arrestees detained for alcohol-related violence would have had
some contact with a nurse and thus only a small number of arrestees could
have formed a comparison group from the custody suite where the evalu-
ation concentrated. The possibility was explored of taking a sample from
other custody suites, though problems existed here in accessing data and
adequately matching the comparison group to the sample.
10 There are also issues of sustainability to be addressed here. There is
evidence to show that the impact of intervention on behavioural change
may decrease with the passage of time. (See for example, Edmunds et al.,
1998.)

References

Anglin, M.D. and Y.I. Hser (1991) ‘Criminal Justice and the Drug Abusing
Offenders: Policy Issue of Coerced Treatment’, Behavioural Sciences and the
Law 9: 243–67.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Bennett, T. (2000) Drugs and Crime: The Results of the Second Developmental
Stage of the New-Adam Programme. Home Office Research Study 205.
London: Home Office.
Bennett, T., K. Holloway and T. Williams (1998) Drug Use and Offending:
Summary Results from the First Year of the New-Adam Research Pro-
gramme. Home Office Research Study 205. London: Home Office.

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Hopkins & Sparrow—Sobering up 409

Deehan, A. (1999) Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock. Policing and Reducing
Crime, Unit Crime Reduction Series Paper 3. London: Home Office.
Deehan, A., E. Marshall and E. Saville (2002) Drunks and Disorder: Processing
Intoxicated Arrestees in Town City-Centre Custody Suites. Police Research
Series Paper 150. London: Home Office.
D’Orban P. (1991) ‘The Crimes Connection: Alcohol’, in I. Glass (ed.) The
International Handbook of Addiction Behaviour. London: Routledge.
Edmunds, M., M. Tiggey, I. Hearnden and M. Hough (1998) Arrest Referral:
Emerging Lessons from Research. Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper 23.
London: Home Office.
Hall, S. (2000) ‘Violence and the Nocturnal Economy’, Criminal Justice
Matters No. 42, Winter 2000/01.
Heather, N. and E. Kaner (2001) ‘Brief Intervention against Excessive Alcohol
Consumption’, in D. Warrell, J. Cox and E. Benz (eds) Oxford Textbook of
Medicine, 4th edn. Oxford Medical Publications.
Hobbs, D., P. Hadfield, S. Lister and S. Winlow (2002) ‘“Dore Lore”: The Art
and Economics of Intimidation’, British Journal of Criminology 42(2):
352–70.
Homel, R. and J. Clarke (1994) ‘The Prediction and Prevention of Violence in
Pubs and Clubs’, in R.V. Clarke (ed.) Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 3.
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Home Office (1995) Alcohol and Crime: Breaking the Link—Report of the
Enquiry into Alcohol and Crime. Carried out by the All Party Group on
Alcohol Misuse between January to July 1995 (Chaired by Alan Milburn).
London: Home Office.
Leigh, A., G. Johnston and A. Ingram (1998) Deaths in Police Custody:
Learning the Lessons. Police Research Series, Paper 26. London: Home
Office.
Maguire, M. and H. Nettleton (2002) Reducing Alcohol-Related Violence and
Disorder: An Evaluation of the ‘TASC’ Project. London: Home Office.
Man, L., J. Marshall, C. Godfrey and T. Budd (2002) Dealing with Alcohol-
Related Detainees in the Custody Suite. Research Findings 178. London:
Home Office.
Miller, W. and V. Sanchez (1993) ‘Motivating Young Adults for Treatment and
Lifestyle Change’, in G. Howard (ed.) Issues in Alcohol Use and Misuse in
Young Adults. University of Notre Dame Press.
Monteiro, M. and M. Gomel (1998) ‘World Health Organisation Project on
Brief Interventions for Alcohol-Related Problems in Primary Health Care
Settings’, Journal of Substance Abuse 3: 5–9.
Mott, J. (1990) Young People, Alcohol and Crime. Home Office Research
Bulletin, Research and Statistics Department 28: 24–8.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (1999) Alcohol
Alert no 43. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism.
Portman Group (2002) Counting the Cost: The Measurement and Recording of
Alcohol-Related Violence and Disorder. London: Portman Group.
Raynor, P., D. Smith and M. Vanstone (1994) Effective Probation Practice.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
410 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(4)

Singer, L.R. (1991) ‘A Non-Punitive Paradigm for Probation Practice: Some


Sobering Thoughts’, British Journal of Social Work 21: 611–26.
Taylor, I. (1999) Crime in Context. London: Sage.
Tilley, N. (2000) ‘The Evaluation Jungle’, in S. Ballintyne, K. Pease and
McLaren (eds) Secure Foundations: Key Issues in Crime Reduction and
Community Safety. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Turnbull, P., R. Webster and G. Stillwell (1995) Get It While You Can: An
Evaluation of Early Intervention Project for Arrestees with Alcohol and
Drug Problems. Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper 9. London: Home Of-
fice.
Wallace, P., S. Cutler and A. Haines (1988) ‘Randomised Control Trial of
General Practitioner Intervention in Patients with Excessive Alcohol Con-
sumption’, British Medical Journal 297: 663–8.

MATT HOPKINS is a research consultant with Morgan Harris Burrows. He


has vast experience of research and evaluation on crime reduction projects
in relation to alcohol related violence, crimes against business and crime
investigation.
PAUL SPARROW is currently Head of Criminology, Public Health and Policy
Studies at Nottingham Trent University. Having previously worked in the
field of drug addiction and as a probation officer, he has written on a
number of themes in the area of criminal justice.

Downloaded from http://crj.sagepub.com by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007


© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.