Search

This article explores the factors contributing to drug‐related deaths in English and Welsh prisons between 2015 and 2020. Based on content analysis of all Prison and Probation Ombudsman ‘other non‐natural’ fatal incident investigation reports, descriptive statistics were generated. Qualitative analysis explored the circumstances surrounding deaths and key risk factors. Most deaths were of men, whose mean age was 39 years. Drug toxicity was the main factor in causing death, exacerbated by underlying physical health conditions and risk‐taking behaviours. A variety of substances were involved. New psychoactive substances became more important over time. A high proportion had recorded histories of substance use and mental illness. During this period, the prison system was under considerable stress creating dangerous environments for drug‐related harm. This study highlights the process of complex interaction between substances used, individual characteristics, situational features and the wider environment in explaining drug‐related deaths in prisons. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prison settings have been neglected in the growing literature on drug-related deaths. This paper explores policy and practice issues regarding the governance of drug-related deaths in prisons in England and Wales from 2015-2021. Thematic documentary analysis was conducted on national level policy documents published between 2015-2021 (e.g. drug strategies, prison policy documents, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) annual reports and guidance for staff). At the local (prison) level, all of the PPO fatal investigation reports and their associated action plans relating to 171 drug-related deaths from 2015-2021 were analysed thematically. Various modes of governance were identified using Head's 'wicked problems' conceptual framework including avoidance and denial, coercive controls, compartmentalised micro-management, incremental and pragmatic adjustment and technocratic problem-solving. There was strong evidence of the dominance of denial of the problem of drug-related deaths, coercive controls, micro-management and reliance on technological solutions in the early years (2015-2018). In some prisons, there developed a move towards the adoption of more pragmatic and incremental policies and push towards comprehensive policies over time. In others, remnants of denial and coercion remained. In our analysis, the focus on new psychoactive substances came to dominate attention, to the relative neglect of other substances and of the contribution of mental and physical illness to these deaths. Staff are not equipped, supported or resourced adequately to deal with the two 'wicked problems' of increasing rates of drug use and mental illness which collide in the prison setting. The PPO investigations repeatedly recommend reducing supply and improving monitoring and surveillance and the emergency response. There is less focus on prevention and reducing demand or improving the wider environmental context and culture in which the deaths occur. Policy needs to pay more attention to the fundamental issues driving the current deterioration in conditions in prisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The engagement of young people has been a neglected area in youth justice and drug policy and practice. This paper explores the concept of 'engagement' in relation to drug interventions in custodial and community settings in different European countries. Interviews were undertaken with young people (aged 14–25 years) in contact with the criminal justice system who use illegal drugs and with practitioners involved in the delivery of interventions for our target group in Denmark, Italy, Poland, and the UK. The key techniques to engage young people were described in similar terms across the countries. These included forming relationships based on trust, honesty, and empathy, setting goals collaboratively, and employing practitioners with lived experience and understanding. The objectives and activities on offer are often constrained by criminal justice contexts. Despite the differences between the countries in terms of criminal justice systems and the structure of drug interventions, there were remarkable similarities in the ways young people and practitioners described effective engagement. Strong emphasis on operational engagement to ensure positive relationships between young people and practitioners was important in the design and delivery of interventions. Practitioners working in criminal justice contexts need to have flexibility and autonomy to work creatively to find ways to engage, connect, and inspire young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the work of Rein and Schon (1993. "Reframing Policy Discourse." In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, edited by F. Fischer, and J. Forester, 145–166. London: UCL Press., 1996. "Frame-Critical Policy Analysis and Frame-Reflective Policy Practice." Knowledge and Policy: the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 9 (1): 85–104), we explore the ways in which 'young people', 'vulnerability', 'risk', 'prevention' and 'prevention practice' were defined and framed by practitioners engaged in the design, delivery and commissioning of drug prevention interventions for young people in contact with the criminal justice system. We argue that practitioners describe their work in terms of both a preventative frame – based on a 'deficit' model – and a transformative praxis frame, more in line with an increasing shift towards 'positive youth justice' where practitioners aspire to actively involve the young person in a process of change. The implications of those, often competing, frames are discussed in relation to the development of prevention approaches and the challenges in designing drugs prevention for this group of young people. The paper is based on interviews and focus groups with thirty-one practitioners in England and is part of the EU funded EPPIC project (Exchanging Prevention Practices on Polydrug Use among Youth in Criminal Justice Systems 2017–2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last 20 years, supervised injectable and inhalable heroin prescribing has been developed, tested and in some cases introduced as a second line treatment for limited groups of entrenched heroin users in a number of European countries and Canada. Based on documentary analyses and eleven key informant interviews, this paper investigates the growth of 'expertise' and the sharing of knowledge between scientific stakeholders from different countries involved in researching and developing this area of treatment. Drawing on Stone's concept of the 'knowledge network' (Stone, 2013) and Gieryn's theory of 'boundary-work' (Gieryn, 1983), the analysis demonstrates the collective power of this group of scientists in producing a particular form of knowledge and expertise which has accrued and been exchanged over time. It also illustrates the ways in which this type of science has gained credibility and authority and become legitimised, reinforced and reproduced by those who employ it in both scientific and political debates. Boundaries were constructed by the knowledge network between different types of professions/disciplines, different forms of science and between the production of science and its consumption by non-scientists. The uniformity of the knowledge network in terms of their professional and disciplinary backgrounds, methodological expertise and ideological perspectives has meant that alternative forms of knowledge and perspectives have been neglected. This limits the nature and scope of the scientific evidence on which to base policy and practice decisions impacting on the work of policy makers and practitioners as well as the experiences of those in treatment who are most affected by this research and policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of ‘recovery’ as an overarching approach to drug policy remains controversial. This cross-national analysis considers how the problem of drugs was constructed and represented in two key reports on the place of ‘recovery’ in drug policy, critically examining how the problem of drugs (and the people who use them) are constituted in recovery discourse, and how these problematisations are shaped and disseminated. Bacchi's poststructuralist approach is applied to two documents (one in Britain and one in Australia) to analyse how the ‘problem of drugs’ and the people who use them are constituted: as problematic users, constraining alternative understandings of the shifting nature of drug use; as responsibilised individuals (in Britain) and as patients (in Australia); as worthy of citizenship in the context of treatment and recovery, silencing the assumption of unworthiness and the loss of rights for those who continue to use drugs in ‘problematic’ ways. The position of the organisations which produced the reports is considered, with the authority of both organisations resting on their status as independent, apolitical bodies providing ‘evidence-based’ advice. There is a need to carefully weigh up the desirable and undesirable political effects of these constructions. The meaning of ‘recovery’ and how it could be realised in policy and practice is still being negotiated. By comparatively analysing how the problem of drugs was produced in ‘recovery’ discourse in two jurisdictions, at two specific points in the policy debate, we are reminded that ways of thinking about ‘problems’ reflect specific contexts, and how we are invoked to think about policy responses will be dependent upon these conditions. As ‘recovery’ continues to evolve, opening up spaces to discuss its contested meanings and effects will be an ongoing endeavour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This paper is based on research examining stakeholder involvement in substitution treatment policy which was undertaken as part of the EU funded FP7 ALICE-RAP (Addictions and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe – Reframing Addictions Project). In England, the research coincided with a policy shift towards a recovery orientated drug treatment framework and a heated debate surrounding the role of substitute prescribing. The study aimed to explore the various influences on the development of the new ‘recovery’ policy from the perspectives of the key stakeholders involved. Methods The paper is based on documentary analyses and key informant interviews with a range of stakeholders, including representatives of user organisations, treatment providers, civil servants, and members of expert committees. Results Drawing on the theoretical insights offered by Backstrand's ‘civic science’ framework, the changing role of evidence and the position of experts in the processes of drugs policy governance are explored. ‘Evidence’ was used to problematise the issue of substitution treatment and employed to legitimise, justify and construct arguments around the possible directions of policy and practice. Conflicting beliefs about drug treatment and about motivation for policy change emerge in the argumentation, illustrating tensions in the governance of drug treatment and the power differentials separating different groups of stakeholders. Their role in the production of evidence also illustrates issues of power regarding the definition and development of ‘usable knowledge’. There were various attempts at greater representation of different forms of evidence and participation by a wider group of stakeholders in the debates surrounding substitution treatment. However, key national and international experts and the appointment of specialist committees continued to play dominant roles in building consensus and translating scientific evidence into policy discourse. Conclusion Substitution treatment policy has witnessed a challenge to the dominance of ‘scientific evidence’ within policy decision making, but in the absence of alternative evidence with an acceptable credibility and legitimacy base, traditional notions of what constitutes evidence based policy persist and there is a continuing lack of recognition of ‘civic science’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The non-medical use of prescription medication and risk of diversion have become policy and practice concerns within prison settings in the UK. These issues have been highlighted by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (2019) prison drugs strategy. In 2019, new prescribing guidance was issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners for clinicians working within prison settings.Methods: Informed by Bacchi's (2009) What's the problem represented to be? framework, the ways in which the 'problem' of prescribed medication in prisons have been represented is interrogated through an analysis of the prescribing guidance framework for clinicians working in prisons.Results: Restrictive prescribing practices are recommended as a solution to the 'problem' of diversion and misuse of prescribed medication. Prescribers are advised to consider de-prescribing, non-pharmacological treatments and alternative prescriptions with less diversionary potential. They are represented as responsible for the 'problems' that prescribed medication bring to prisons. The guidance is underpinned by the assumption that prescribers lack experience, knowledge and skills in prison settings. People serving prison sentences are assumed to be 'untrustworthy' and their symptoms treated with suspicion. This representation of the 'problem' has a number of effects including the possibility of increasing drug-related harm, damaging the patient-doctor relationship and disengagement from healthcare services.Conclusion: The representation of prescribed medication as problems of diversion and prescribing practices inhibits alternative representations of the problem which would inform different policy directions including improvements to regime and healthcare provision and would include a range of practitioners in prison settings to address the 'problem' more holistically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the research papers within this special issue, this overview discusses similarities and differences in stakeholding in drug user opioid substitution treatment policy in Britain, Denmark, Italy, Austria, Poland, and Finland. It explores factors that have influenced stakeholder activity, including the importance of crisis, the impact of evidence, the availability of resources, the wider political context, the influence of moral frameworks and ideologies, and the pressure of external influences. The paper highlights the important differences in the emergence and evolution of stakeholder groups and in the political, cultural, and economic circumstances, which both constrain and enable their activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on documentary analyses and interviews with twenty key informants in 2012, this paper analyses the shift in British drugs policy towards 'recovery' from the perspectives of major stakeholders. The processes involved in reopening the debate surrounding the role of substitution treatment and its re-emergence on to the policy agenda are examined. Drawing on Kingdon's work on agenda-setting, the ways in which methadone maintenance was challenged and defended by key stakeholders in the initial phase of policy development and the negotiation of a 'recovery' focus as the organizing concept for British drugs policy are explored. Study limitations are noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last 5 years, there has been an important shift in the policy discourse around drugs issues. This article reviews the key changes and continuities in British drugs policy since the mid 1990s. It examines the crime reduction focus of the previous Labour government and the processes by which the recovery discourse came to dominate the current policy framework under the coalition government in 2010. The shifts in policy and practice will be explored in relation to how the drugs problem was framed and reframed over time and how shifts within the wider social, political, and economic contexts have impacted these developments. It is argued that although the moves toward a recovery-based policy represent significant changes, there are powerful continuities and remnants of previous policies and structures, which have endured and set the parameters for the current policy framework, particularly in relation to crime reduction priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the increasing interconnections between drugs, crime, punishment and treatment since the publication of the 1995 national drugs strategy, Tackling Drugs Together. It explores the growing merger between drug treatment and the criminal justice system and the ways in which the ‘drugs problem’ is being framed and managed as a ‘crime problem’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under the new Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England published by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit in 2004, there has been an increasing focus on crime and public order issues and alcohol-related harm experienced by ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at risk’ groups. Prisoners have been identified as a vulnerable group who have high rates of dependence on alcohol and problems with alcohol-related offending. In late 2004, the Prison Service launched its first alcohol strategy. Based on an analysis of key policy documents, official enquiries and research, this paper explores how the ‘problem’ of alcohol can be defined within the prison setting and the issues it raises for both the individual prisoner and the institution. It examines the lack of policy and strategic direction prior to the publication of the new prison alcohol strategy and the possible reasons for the complacency around alcohol in prisons in contrast to illicit drugs. The paper critically assesses the new strategy in relation to the testing and treatment initiatives proposed and the lack of research and resources underpinning them. There is a real risk that the strategy will fail unless adequate resources are forthcoming to expand treatment provision. Given the neglect and complacency around alcohol, policy champions or policy entrepreneurs are needed to lobby for funding and keep the prison alcohol issue on the policy agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept and practice of teacher leadership have gained momentum in the past two decades. Teachers are assuming more leadership functions at both instructional and organizational levels of practice. Empirical literature reveals numerous small-scale, qualitative studies that describe dimensions of teacher leadership practice, teacher leader characteristics, and conditions that promote and challenge teacher leadership. Less is known about how teacher leadership develops and about its effects. In addition, the construct of teacher leadership is not well defined, conceptually or operationally. Future research focused on the differentiated paths by which teachers influence organizational capacity, professionalism, instructional improvement, and student learning has the potential to advance the practice of teacher leadership. A conceptual framework is offered to guide such inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the policy network approach has moved to the forefront of the debates around the formulation and development of policy, there is a paucity of methodological and reflexive literature which explores how policy networks and the actors within these arenas are actually studied. Researching powerful individuals within such networks generates a unique set of dilemmas and complexities for the researcher. Drawing on my experiences of researching the policy networks involved in the development of prison drugs policy, this paper provides a methodological and reflexive account of the key processes and issues involved in my research. In particular, it explores the political dimensions of the research problem and the importance of switching the research gaze from the 'objects' of policy to those who are in the powerful positions of 'making' policy. In order to understand the interactions within the policy process, it is argued that the qualitative approach offers distinct advantages in studying policy networks. The paper examines my attempts to uncover and understand the role and influence of policy networks in the development of prison drugs policy and the ways in which I grappled with the dilemmas of access, knowledge and power which emerged during the course of the fieldwork. Although the importance of transparent methodologies and reflexivity are highlighted, the paper concludes by suggesting that the resistance on the part of researchers to providing such accounts is related to the pressures and constraints of the current academic climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'problems' of drugs and drug users in prisons have become key political and policy concerns in many countries. In Britain, interest in these issues has culminated in various policy initiatives. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with key players in the policy process and an analysis of documentary materials, this article explores the historical shifts within prison drugs policy, locates these changes within a wider policy context, and assesses the role and influence of policy networks in this development. Since 1980, prison drugs policy can be divided into four main phases of development which have hinged upon complex patterns of conflict, contradiction and convergence between 'treatment' and 'punishment'. Throughout the phases, particular 'policy networks' have evolved around drug-related issues within prisons, expanding and becoming more complex in their structure and operation over time. The role of these networks in relation to setting the policy agenda and responding to it has shifted over the various phases. Their power lies in their attempts to contain, balance and negotiate the key contradiction between 'treatment' and 'punishment' within prison drugs policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a significant change in the types of substances consumed within English prison settings in the last eight years. There have been particular concerns regarding the acceleration in the use and availability of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), mainly synthetic cannabinoids. Although NPS were identified as a 'problem' in prisons in 2011, government responses emerged only in 2015. As yet, there is no overarching policy document or strategy for dealing with NPS. This paper analyses the various strands of the response to NPS in prisons published from January 2015 to December 2016.Methods: Drawing on Bacchi's 'What's the problem represented to be' framework, the ways in which the NPS 'problem' in prisons has been represented is analysed through a number of related policy texts including press releases, new legislative and regulatory measures, government documents and training package.Results: From the various measures introduced to deal with the 'problem', NPS use is produced primarily as a law, order and control 'problem' requiring regulation, penalties and control, rather than a 'demand problem' calling for prevention, education, treatment and harm reduction or a 'regime problem' demanding greater emphasis and resources for purposeful activities such as education, training and work opportunities. This problematisation of drug use in prisons has a history dating back to the 1995 prison drug strategy and has become entrenched and reproduced within policy development over time.Conclusion: The law, order, and control problematization blames the volatility of the substances and the individual prisoners who use them as key factors contributing to the current prison crisis, rather than as consequences of the wider practices, cultures, contexts, and conditions. Multiple representations of the problem of NPS in prisons are needed in order to address the regime and structural issues which lead those imprisoned to use substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on research undertaken as part of the EU funded EPPIC project, this paper aims to update and elaborate on the relationship between drug use and offending behaviours by exploring variations within a cross-national sample of drug-experienced young people in touch with criminal justice systems. Adopting a trajectory-based approach, interviews were undertaken with 198 young people aged 15–25 in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, and UK). Data were analysed by applying the Bennett and Holloway categorization of the drugs-crime link, with a focus on the concept of social exclusion as developed by Seddon. Three main types of mechanisms (economic, pharmaceutical, and lifestyles) are used to interpret the data, showing how the relationship between drugs and offending can vary according to type of substances and over time. Furthermore, it can be associated with very different degrees of social exclusion and needs. The results suggest that while economic inequalities still play key roles in explaining drug use and offending, both behaviours can originate from a state of relative deprivation, resulting from the contradictions inherent in 'bulimic societies' that raise aspirations and desires while providing young people scarce opportunities for self-realisation and social recognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Special education teachers are finding themselves in increasingly complex and demanding contexts of practice. Many are considering leaving the field or have already done so. These conditions suggest a decline in the appeal of professional practice as a special education teacher, with potentially deleterious short- and long-term effects on the lives of students with disabilities. Special education teachers identified as highly effective in serving students with low incidence disabilities in inclusive education settings were convened to understand better their realities of practice in inclusive education settings and to identify supports for such practice. Findings support and expand those presented in Bright Futures for Exceptional Learners (2001) a report published by the US Council for Exceptional Children. In addition to corroborating the complexity of practice, the special educators articulated a sophisticated understanding of how their schools and districts function organizationally and politically. This understanding resulted in access to and utilization of a wide array of resources for students. It is posited that the work of special educators in inclusive education settings is appropriately viewed as teacher leadership. Recommendations are offered for engaging local conversations that result in support for special educators in their central role as leaders of inclusive education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]