The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare programmes for offenders using class a drugs: A systematic review and economic evaluation

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1-198

  Hayhurst, Karen P ^a   Leitner, Maria ^b   Davies, Linda ^a   Flentje, Rachel ^c   Millar, Tim ^a   Jones, Andrew ^a   King, Carlene ^a   Donmall, Michael ^a   Farrell, Michael ^d   Faze, Seena ^e   Harris, Rochelle ^f   Hickman, Matthew ^g   Lennox, Charlotte ^a   Mayet, Soraya ^h   Senior, Jane ^a   Shaw, Jennifer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c Health Insights Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f National Probation Service   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^h Woodside Resource Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL; AMPHETAMINE; BARBITURIC ACID DERIVATIVE; BENZODIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE; CANNABIS; COCAINE; DIAMORPHINE; METHADONE; METHAMPHETAMINE; OPIATE; SEDATIVE AGENT; TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL;

AFTERCARE; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; AMERICAN; ARTICLE; CANNABIS USE; COCAINE DEPENDENCE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COURT; CRIME; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DETOXIFICATION; DIVERSION PROGRAM; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG MISUSE; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEROIN DEPENDENCE; HUMAN; METHADONE TREATMENT; METHAMPHETAMINE DEPENDENCE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OFFENDER; OPIATE ADDICTION; PRISON; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SOCIAL CARE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY; UNITED KINGDOM; VOLUNTARY PROGRAM; ADULT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; ENGLAND; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALES;

ADULT; AFTERCARE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; HUMANS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WALES;

EID: 85003049357     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta19060     Document Type: Article

References (132)

1. Great Britain. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: Elizabeth II. Chapter 38. London: The Stationery Office; 1971.
2. Home Office. Drug Misuse. Findings from the 2012 to 2013 Crime Survey for England and Wales. London: Home Office; 2013. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/drug-misuse-findingsfrom-the-2012-to-2013-csew (accessed 6 August 2014).
3. National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA). Statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) 1 April 2011–31 March 2012. London: NTA; 2012.
4. Hay G, Rael dos Santos A, Millar T. Estimates of the Prevalence of Opiate Use and/or Crack Cocaine Use, 2010/11: Sweep 7 Report. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse; 2013.
5. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. European Drug Report. Trends and Development. Lisbon: EMCDDA; 2013.
6. Department of Health (DH). Drug Misuse Statistics for Six Months Ending September 1996. London: DH; 1998.
7. National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA). Statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) 1 April 2010–31 March 2011. London: NTA; 2012.
8. Bennett T, Holloway K, Williams T. Drug Use and Offending: Summary Results from the First Year of the New-Adam Research Programme. London: Home Office Research, Development & Statistics Directorate; 2001.
9. Holloway K, Bennett T. The Results of the First Two Years of the NEW-ADAM Programme. London: Home Office; 2004.
10. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Prisons and Drugs in Europe: the Problem and Responses. Selected Issue 2012. Lisbon: EMCDDA; 2012.
11. Gordon L, Tinsley L, Godfrey C, Parrott S. The economic and social costs of class A drug use in England and Wales, 2003/04. In Singleton N, Murray R, Tinsley L, editors. Measuring Different Aspects of Problem Drug Use: Methodological Developments. London: Home Office; 2006.
12. Oerton J, Hunter G, Hickman M, Morgan D, Turnbull P, Kothari G, et al. Arrest Referral in London police stations: characteristics of the first year. A key point of intervention for drug users? Drugs: Educ Prev Policy 2003;10:73–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0968763021000040914
13. Millar T, Beatty S, Jones A, Donmall M. Outcome of Arrest Referral: Treatment Uptake, Treatment Retention and Behaviour Change Amongst Drug Misusing Offenders Referred for Drug Treatment. London: Research report for the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate; 2002.
14. Sondhi A, O’Shea J, Williams T. Arrest Referral: Emerging Findings from The National Monitoring & Evaluation Programme. London: Home Office Drugs Prevention Advisory Service; 2002.
15. Stewart D, Gossop M, Marsden J, Rolfe A. Drug misuse and acquisitive crime among clients recruited to the National Treatment Outcomes Research Study (NTORS). Crim Behav Ment Health 2000;10:10–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.339
16. Boreham R, Cronberg A, Dollin L, Pudney S. The Arrestee Survey 2003–2006. London: Home Office; 2007.
17. UK Drug Policy Commission. A Fresh Approach to Drugs. London: UKDPC; 2012.
18. Boyum DA, Kleiman MAR. Substance abuse policy from a crime-control perspective. In Wilson JQ, Petersilia J, editors. Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control. Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press; 2002.
19. White HR, Gorman DM. Dynamics of the drug-crime relationship. In Criminal Justice 2000 Volume 1. The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2000. pp. 151–218.
20. Best D, Sidwell C, Gossop M, Harris J, Strang J. Crime and expenditure amongst polydrug misusers seeking treatment. Br J Criminol 2001;41:119–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/41.1.119
21. Buchanan J. Drug policy under New Labour 1997–2010: prolonging the war on drugs. Probation J 2010;57:250–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0264550510373809
22. Hammersley R. Drugs and Crime. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2008.
23. Seddon T. Explaining the drug-crime link: theoretical, policy and research issues. J Soc Policy 2000;29:95–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400005833
24. Pudney S. The Road to Ruin? Sequences of Initiation into Drug Use and Offending by Young People in Britain. London: Home Office; 2002.
25. Edmunds M, May T, Hearnden I, Hough M. Arrest Referral. Emerging Lessons from Research. London: Home Office; 1998.
26. Donmall M, Jones A, Weston S, Davies L, Hayhurst KP, Millar T. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): research design and baseline data. Open Addiction J 2012;5:1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874941001205010001
27. Hayhurst KP, Jones A, Millar T, Pierce M, Davies L, Weston S, et al. Drug spend and acquisitive offending by substance misusers. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013;130:24–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.10.007
28. Comiskey CM, Kelly P, Leckey Y, McCulloch L, O’Duill B, Stapleton RD, et al. The ROSIE Study. Drug Treatment Outcomes in Ireland. Dublin: National Advisory Committee on Drugs; 2009.
29. Cox GM, Comiskey CM. Does concurrent cocaine use compromise 1-year treatment outcomes for opiate users? Subst Use Misuse 2011;46:1206–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2010.501649
30. Home Office. Drug-Misusing Offenders: Results from the 2009 Cohort for England and Wales. London: Home Office; 2010.
31. Bennett T, Holloway K. The association between multiple drug misuse and crime. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2005;49:63–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04269003
32. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Drug Misusers and the Criminal Justice System Part 1: Community Resources and the Probation Service. London: HMSO; 1991.
33. Newton T, Howard M, Bottomley V, Shephard G, Heathcoat-Armory D. Green Paper. Tackling Drugs Together: A Consultation Document On A Strategy For England 1995–8. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1994.
34. Godfrey C, Eaton G, McDougall C, Culyer A. The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drug Use in England and Wales, 2000. Home Office Research Study 249. London: Home Office; 2002.
35. Newton T, Howard M, Bottomley V, Shephard G, Heathcote-Armory D. White Paper. Tackling Drugs Together: A Strategy for England 1995–8. London: HMSO; 1995.
36. Task Force to Review Services for Drug Misusers. Report of an Independent Review of DrugTreatment Services in England. London: Department of Health; 1996.
37. United Kingdom Anti Drugs Coordination Unit. Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain. London: HMSO; 1998.
38. Home Office. Drug Strategy 2010 Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life. London: Home Office; 2010.
39. Home Office. Drug Interventions Programme Operational Handbook. London: Home Office; 2010. www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/dip_operational_handbook.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).
40. NIHR HTA. HTA - 09/109/04: The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Diversion and Aftercare Programmes for Offenders using Class A drugs – a Systematic Review and Economic Model. 2009. URL: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/0910904(last accessed 6 August 2014).
41. Serious Organised Crime Agency. Drugs. SOCA. URL: www.soca.gov.uk/threats/drugs(accessed 6 August 2014).
42. Davies L, Jones A, Vamvakas G, Dubourg R, Donmall M. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): Cost-effectiveness analysis. London: Home Office; 2009. URL: http://tna.europarchive.org/20100413151426/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/horr25c.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).
43. Reuter P, Stevens A. Assessing UK drug policy from a crime control perspective. Criminol Criminal Justice 2008;8:461–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895808096473
44. Skodbo S, Brown G, Deacon S, Cooper A, Hall A, Millar T, et al. The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP): Addressing Drug Use and Offending Through ‘Tough Choices’. London: Home Office; 2007.
45. Flynn PM, Craddock SG, Hubbard RL, Anderson J, Etheridge RM. Methodological overview and research design for the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychol Addict Behav 1997;11:230–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.11.4.230
46. Flynn PM, Kristiansen PL, Porto JV, Hubbard RL. Costs and benefits of treatment for cocaine addiction in DATOS. Drug Alcohol Depend 1999;57:167–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00083-6
47. Gossop M, Marsden J, Stewart D, Rolfe A. Reductions in acquisitive crime and drug use after treatment of addiction problems: 1-year follow-up outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;58:165–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00077-0
48. Millar T, Jones A, Donmall M, Roxburgh M. Changes in Offending Following Prescribing Treatment for Drug Misuse. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse; 2008.
49. Barnard M, Webster S, O’Connor W, Jones A, Donmall M. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): Qualitative Study. London: Home Office; 2009.
50. Jones A, Weston S, Moody A, Millar T, Dollin L, Anderson T, et al. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): Baseline Report. London: Home Office; 2007.
51. Aos S, Phipps P, Barnoski R, Lieb R. The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2001.
52. Passey M, Patete S, Bird G, Bolt S, Brooks L, Lavender K, et al. Evaluation of the Lismore MERIT Pilot Program. Final report. Lismore, NSW, Australia: Northern Rivers University Department of Rural Health; 2003. URL: www.ncahs.nsw.gov.au/tmp/final_report_MERIT_evaluation.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).
53. Zarkin, GA, Dunlap LJ, Belenko S, Dynia PA. A benefit-cost analysis of the King’s County district attorney’s office Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program. Justice Res Pol 2005;7:1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3818/JRP.7.1.2005.1
54. Perry A, Coulton S, Glanville J, Godfrey C, Lunn J, McDougall C, et al. Interventions for drug-using offenders in the courts, secure establishments and the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;3:CD005193.
55. Perry AE, Darwin Z, Godfrey C, McDougall C, Lunn J, Glanville J, et al. The effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders in the courts, secure establishments and the community: a systematic review. Subst Use Misuse 2009;44:373–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10826080802347560
56. Berkowitz G, Brindis C, Clayson Z, Peterson S. Options for recovery: promoting success among women mandated to treatment. J Psychoactive Drugs 1996;28:31–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1996.10471712
57. Collins JJ, Allison M. Legal coercion and retention in drug-abuse treatment. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1983;34:1145–9.
58. Pompi KF, Resnick J. Retention of court-referred adolescents and young-adults in the therapeuticcommunity. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1987;13:309–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00952998709001516
59. Watson CG, Brown K, Tilleskjor C, Jacobs L, Pucel J. The comparative recidivism rates of voluntary-admission and coerced-admission male-alcoholics. J Clin Psychol 1988;44:573–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198807)44:4<573::AID-JCLP2270440414>3.0.CO;2-M
60. Harford RJ. Effects of legal pressure on prognosis for treatment of drug-dependence. Am J Psychiatry 1976;133:1399–404.
61. Howard DL, McCaughrin WC. The treatment effectiveness of outpatient substance misuse treatment organizations between court-mandated and voluntary clients. Subst Use Misuse 1996;31:895–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826089609063962
62. Simpson DD, Joe GW, Rowan-Szal GA. Drug abuse treatment retention and process effects on follow-up outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend 1997;47:227–35.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(97)00099-9
63. Wild TC. Social control and coercion in addiction treatment: towards evidence-based policy and practice. Addiction 2006;101:40–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01268.x
64. Wild TC, Newton-Taylor B, Ogborne AC, Mann R, Erickson P, MacDonald S. Attitudes toward compulsory substance abuse treatment: a comparison of the public, counselors, probationers and judges’ views. Drugs: Educ Prev Pol 2001;8:33–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687630124249
65. Wild TC, Roberts AB, Cooper EL. Compulsory substance abuse treatment: An overview of recent findings and issues. Eur Addict Res 2002;8:84–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000052059
66. Anglin MD, Brecht ML, Maddahian E. Pretreatment characteristics and treatment performance of legally coerced versus voluntary methadone-maintenance admissions. Criminology 1989;27:537–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01045.x
67. Brecht ML, Anglin MD, Wang JC. Treatment effectiveness for legally coerced versus voluntary methadone-maintenance clients. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1993;19:89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00952999309002668
68. DeLeon G. Legal pressure in therapeutic communities. J Drug Issues 1988;18:625–40.
69. Farabee D, Prendergast M, Anglin MD. The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation 1998;62:3–10.
70. Gostin LO. Compulsory treatment for drug-dependent persons - justifications for a public-health approach to drug dependency. Milbank Q 1991;69:561–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3350228
71. Hall W. The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems. Aust N Z J Criminol 1997;30:103–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000486589703000201
72. Hser YI, Anglin MD, Liu Y. A survival analysis of gender and ethnic-differences in responsiveness to methadone-maintenance treatment. Int J Addict 1991;25:1295–1315.
73. Kelly JF, Finney JW, Moos R. Substance use disorder patients who are mandated to treatment: Characteristics, treatment process, and 1-and 5-year outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat 2005;28:213–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2004.10.014
74. Lurigio AJ. Drug treatment availability and effectiveness - studies of the general and criminal justice populations. Crim Justice Behav 2000;27:495–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027004005
75. Siddall JW, Conway GL. Interactional variables associated with retention and success in residential drug-treatment. Int J Addict 1988;23:1241–54.
76. Stevens A, Berto D, Heckmann W, Kerschl V, Oeuvray K, Van Ooyen M, et al. Quasi-compulsory treatment of drug dependent offenders: an international literature review. Subst Use Misuse 2005;40:269–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/JA-200049159
77. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:332–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
78. Hartley RJ, Keen EM, Large JA, Tedd LA. On-line Searching: Principles and Practice. London: Butterworths; 1990.
79. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W
80. Marinelli-Casey P, Gonzales R, Hillhouse M, Ang A, Zweben J, Cohen J, et al. Drug court treatment for metamphetamine dependence: treatment response and posttreatment outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat 2008;34–8.
81. Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A report to the United States Congress, Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice; 1998.
82. Chun JS, Guydish JR, Sorensen JL, Haug NA, Andrews S, Nelson L. Outcomes in a sample of opioid-dependent clients treated under California’s Proposition 36. J Drug Issues 2007;37:699–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002204260703700310
83. Van Stelle KR, Mauser E, Moberg DP. Recidivism to the criminal justice system of substance-abusing offenders diverted into treatment. Crime Delinq 1994;40:175–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128794040002003
84. Newton-Taylor B, Patra J, Gliksman L. Toronto drug treatment court: participant intake characteristics as predictors of “successful” program completion. J Drug Issues 2009;39:965–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002204260903900410
85. Anglin DM, Urada D, Brecht M-L, Hawken A, Rawson R, Longshore D. Criminal justice treatment admissions for methamphetamine use in California: a focus on Proposition 36. J Psychoactive Drugs 2007;39:367–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2007.10399898
86. Brecht M-L, Urada D. Treatment outcomes for methamphetamine users: California Proposition 36 and comparison clients. J Psychoactive Drugs 2011;43:68–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2011.602279
87. Brewster MP. An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. J Drug Issues 2001;31:177–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002204260103100110
88. Eley S, Gallop K, McIvor G, Morgan K, Yates R. Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Evaluation of the Scottish Pilots. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2002. URL: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46997/0030591.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).
89. Hartley RE, Phillips RC. Who graduates from drug courts? Correlates of client success. Am J Crim Justice 2001;26:107–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02886860
90. Hevesi AG. Quitting Drugs, Quitting Crime: Reducing Probationers’ Recidivism Through Drug Treatment Programs. New York, NY: Office of Policy Management, Office of the Comptroller; 1999.
91. Longshore D, Urada D, Conner BT, Hawken A, Hiromoto S, Du D, et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act Final Report. CA: California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs; 2007. URL: www.uclaisap.org/prop36/documents/SACPAEvaluationReport.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).
92. Saum CA, Hiller ML. Should violent offenders be excluded from drug court participation? An examination of the recidivism of violent and nonviolent drug court participants. Criminal Justice Rev 2008;33:291–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734016808322267
93. Turnbull PJ, Webster R. Supervising Crack-Using Offenders on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse; 2007. URL: www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/nta_rb22_crack_users_dttos.pdf (accessed 5 August 2014).
94. Elvik R. Evaluating the statistical conclusion validity of weighted mean results in meta-analysis by analysing funnel graph diagrams. Accid Anal Prev 1998;30:255–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00076-6
95. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
96. Anglin MD, Longshore D, Turner S, McBride D, Inciardi J, Prendergast M. Studies of the Functioning and Effectiveness of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) Programs. Final report. UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center; 1996.
97. Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs California Health and Human Services Agency. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Final report. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles; 2007.
98. Matrix Research and Consultancy and NACRO. Evaluation of Drug Testing in the Criminal Justice System. Home Office Research Study 286. London: Home Office; 2004.
99. Orr KS, McCoard S, McCartney P. Evaluation of the Mandatory Drug Testing of Arrestees Pilot. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research; 2009.
100. Roman J, Harrell A. Assessing the costs and benefits accruing to the public from a graduated sanctions program for drug-using defendants. Law Pol 2001;23:237–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9930.00112
101. Rossman S, Sridharan S, Gouvis C, Buck J, Morley E. Impact of the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) Aftercare Program For Substance-Abusing Felons: Comprehensive Final Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 1999.
102. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
103. Millar T, Ahmad M, Richardson A, Skodbo S, Donmall M, Jones A. The Drug Data Warehouse: Linking Data on Drug Misusers and Drug-Misusing Offenders. London: Home Office; 2012. URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116521/horr63-report.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).
104. Jones A, Donmall M, Millar T, Moody A, Weston S, Anderson T, et al. The Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS): Final Outcomes Report. London: Home Office; 2009.
105. Brand S, Price R. The Economic and Social Costs of Crime. London: Home Office; 2000.
106. Home Office. Evaluation of Drug Testing in the Criminal Justice System. London: Home Office Research, development and statistics directorate; 2004.
107. Dubourg R, Hamed J, Thorns J. The Economic and Social Costs of Crime Against Individuals and Households 2003/04. London: Home Office; 2005.
108. HM Treasury. The Green Book. Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: Treasury Stationery Office; 2003.
109. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Retail Price Indices 1987 to 2013. London: ONS. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=CHAW&dataset= mm23&table-id=2.1 (accessed 6 August 2014).
110. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
111. Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Offender Management Caseload Statistics; 2012 Tables. London: MoJ. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/offender-management-statistics-quarterly–2 (accessed 5 August 2014).
112. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
113. Brazier J, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004;42:851–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d
114. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004;329:224–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224
115. Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:377–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534
116. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2002;11:415–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.678
117. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.635
118. Sendi PP, Briggs AH. Affordability and cost-effectiveness: decision-making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 2001;10:675–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.639
119. Hockenhull JC, Whittington R, Leitner M, Barr W, McGuire J, Cherry MG, et al. A systematic review of prevention and intervention strategies for populations at high risk of engaging in violent behaviour Health Technol Assess 2012;16(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16030
120. Bird SM, Goldacre B, Strang J. We should push for evidence-based sentencing in criminal justice. BMJ 2011;342:335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d612
121. Wilcox A, Hoyle C. Are randomised controlled trials really the ‘Gold Standard’ in restorative justice research. Br J Crim Justice 2005;3:39–49.
122. Drug Court Clearing House and Technical Assistance Project. Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts. Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice: Drug Courts Program Office; 1998.
123. Huddleston W, Marlowe DB. Painting the Current Picture: a National Report on Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute; 2011.
124. Peters RH, Haas A, Murrin MR. Predictors of retention and arrest in drug courts. Nat Drug Court Inst Rev 1999;2:33–60.
125. Peay J. Mentally disordered offenders, mental health and crime. In Maguire M, Morgan R, Reiner R, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
126. Gordon AJ. Physical Illness and Drugs of Abuse: a Review of the Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750366
127. Gossop M, Marsden J, Stewart D, Edwards C, Lehmann P, Wilson W, et al. The National Treatment Outcome Research Study in the United Kingdom: Six-Month Follow-Up Outcomes. Psychol Addict Behav 1997;11:324–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.11.4.324
128. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3:CD002209.
129. Hedrich D, Alves P, Farrell M, Stöver H, Møller L, Mayet S. The effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment in prison settings: a systematic review. Addiction 2012;107:501–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03676.x
130. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. URL: www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/ (accessed 20 October 2014).
131. Payne K, McAllister M, Davies L. Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ 2013;22:258–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.2795
132. Home Office. Operational Process Guidance for Implementation of Testing on Arrest, Required Assessment and Restriction on Bail. London: Home Office; 2010. URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97792/DTOA-Guidance.pdf (accessed 6 August 2014).