Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Evaluation design and methodology
- 3 The Effective Bail Scheme in Yorkshire and Humberside
- 4 The operation of the Effective Bail Scheme
- 5 The Effective Bail Scheme's work with defendants
- 6 Interviewees' perspectives on the Effective Bail Scheme
- 7 Interim outcomes of the Effective Bail Scheme
- 8 Conclusions
- References
- Appendix One Figure A1 Process maps of the Effective Bail Scheme
- Appendix Two Commencements on the EBS by area
- Appendix Three EBS caseloads
- Appendix Four EBS accommodation
- Appendix Five Accommodation caseloads
5 - The Effective Bail Scheme's work with defendants
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Evaluation design and methodology
- 3 The Effective Bail Scheme in Yorkshire and Humberside
- 4 The operation of the Effective Bail Scheme
- 5 The Effective Bail Scheme's work with defendants
- 6 Interviewees' perspectives on the Effective Bail Scheme
- 7 Interim outcomes of the Effective Bail Scheme
- 8 Conclusions
- References
- Appendix One Figure A1 Process maps of the Effective Bail Scheme
- Appendix Two Commencements on the EBS by area
- Appendix Three EBS caseloads
- Appendix Four EBS accommodation
- Appendix Five Accommodation caseloads
Summary
This chapter explores the work of the EBS. It first discusses the assessment process before going on to examine the work undertaken by the EBS while defendants were on the scheme including the provision of support through mentoring. It primarily draws on data collated from bail support files with mentoring information being collected from records compiled by SOVA.
Identifying needs
All defendants should have had their needs assessed while on the EBS. Two assessment tools were used: a needs assessment which should have been completed for all defendants and a housing assessmentcompleted for those with identified housing needs. The majority of defendants (n=585, 89%) had their needs assessed by one or both of these tools. Over two-fifths (n=290, 44%) of defendants had both needs and housing assessments completed which involved some duplication of resources. There was also evidence that defendants’ needs were sometimes missed and discrepancies existed between the two types of assessments, suggesting that they could be rationalised into one assessment tool.3 This would ensure also that all the needs of defendants are assessed. This is important because in nearly a fifth (n=103, 16%) of cases in which an accommodation need was identified during a needs assessment no housing assessment was undertaken.
Most defendants on the EBS were identified as having a wide range of needs. Their identified needs were typical of offender populations (SEU, 2002). In terms of drug use, in just over two-fifths (278, 42%) of cases defendants were identified as having drug issues. This raises questions about the efficiency of the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) generally but particularly RoB which should have resulted in very few drug using defendants being on the EBS (see Hucklesby et al, 2007). Most (n=245) of the defendants who disclosed using drugs were picked up during the needs assessment process but a small number were not (n=33).
In 215 cases defendants identified themselves as current drug users with a further 41 defendants disclosing prescribed methadone use only. Table 5.1 shows the most harmful drug used at the time assessments took place. Over three-fifths of this group (n=132, 64%) disclosed using a single drug.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Bail Support Schemes for Adults , pp. 53 - 68Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2011