Características del sector y modelos de negocio

6.5.1 Overview

The quality of reports was seriously criticized.

The main issue was the reduction in time between assessments due to offenders claiming they are unaware of having to attend assessments.

The self-report nature of assessments and its lack of reliability. The cost and fee-paying nature of assessments.

There was quite a bit of discussion about the conflicting expectations of assessments held by service providers and magistrates.

6.5.2 Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators

Many service administrators raised problems associated with the alcohol assessments.

“I think that they could be improved dramatically. There are quite a few problems with the way the program on the whole is structured which affects particularly the assessments”.

“The design is ok but the way it’s applied is a problem”. “They are relying on information from the offender. Offenders know the words they need to speak”.

Service administrators raised the issue of quality and consistency of assessments between agencies. One service administrator was concerned that agencies can choose the assessment instrument rather than having a standardised instrument for all agencies to use for consistency.

Service administrators believed that some agencies take assessments very seriously while others are not so thorough.

Many service administrators commented on the self-report nature of assessments, but one service administrator raised the point that assessment technology is now very sophisticated and should be investigated.

Some magistrates shorten the period between assessments, and this lead to continual comments including “it makes a farce of the process” and “it happens all the time”.

It was noted by the majority of service administrators that there is a minimum of time required to see change in behaviour and shortening the interval between assessments makes them useless.

A few service administrators commented that some magistrates just want to see a statement on behaviour change and other magistrates just want to see a Liver Function Test (LFT) with one service administrator commenting that “they think they can read (interpret) it”.

“Magistrates are quite traditional in their approach to alcohol assessment and they want assessors to say that an offender will not do it again, and there is no way they can do that”.

Another service administrator noted that some magistrates expect more specific recommendations and others say “don’t tell me what to do”.

“Magistrates ask ‘why do all your reports say this person is ready for a licence?’ We don’t send anyone who isn’t. It’s our reputation – we’re not going to send anyone back who isn’t ready”.

Another service administrator commented that magistrates are sometimes saying that assessors are not giving enough recommendations.

One service administrator suggested that there is anecdotal evidence of “just paying your money, having a cup of tea, writing the report and then go and see the magistrate”.

“Part of the problem with assessments is getting information to offenders. They are angry at the time of court and don’t take in information. There is really no practical way around that (offenders not being informed of assessments) until it is known throughout the community”.

Magistrates

One magistrate commented that “reports are disgraceful”, another stated that “agencies just tick boxes” and another noted that they are “hand written reports – useless information”.

“Reports are not worth reading – all reports are positive” while another commented that “reports are not detailed enough – we know that the reports can’t be genuine because they are all favourable”. “It’s a farce because agencies make assessments on the basis of lies”.

Magistrates said that they are very lenient on offenders when they apply for a reduction in time between assessments for a number of reasons. The first is that they believe it is unfair to add time to an offender’s disqualification period if they say they weren’t aware that they had to have 12 months between assessments. The second is that the reduction between assessment process “is a farce and we find exceptions all the time to reduce time” and the third is that “what one magistrate believes is exceptional circumstances could be very different to what another believes is exceptional circumstances”. One magistrate suggested that “exceptional circumstances should be demonstrated”.

Service Providers

Most agencies disagreed with the statements ‘treatment agencies do not see drink driving offenders as a priority’; ‘treatment agencies show preference to offenders who are able to pay’; and ‘there are not enough treatment agencies to cater for all the offenders I refer’.

Agencies agreed with the statements ‘assessments are still realistic/meaningful, even when offenders report late for their first assessment’ and ‘the applications for reductions in time between offences are so frequent it’s become a farce’ produced more agreement than disagreement among agencies.

Agencies were divided in their opinions when asked to respond to the statements ‘magistrates are too flexible about the time between assessments’; ‘magistrates are not consistent in their requirements from the agencies’; and ‘offenders often don’t report for treatment when referred’.

6.5.3 Priority Issues

A priority issue for the Victorian program is the reporting process by agencies to the court and the conflicting expectations of magistrates and agencies of their role in, and the nature of, this process. All parties believe there should be a radical improvement in assessment procedures. There has been

little or no research on the effectiveness of assessments in reducing recidivism. A study in the U.S. suggests that assessments can prove useful for offenders and that a majority of offenders complete the amount of treatment recommended by the assessor, with a number of people completing more than the recommended treatment (Baker, Helton, & Boone, 2001). However, a study which evaluated the accuracy of several commonly-used screening instruments found even highly rated screening instruments lack accuracy. “Screening methods developed to date cannot accurately predict who will re-offend and who will not. Even the best assessments accurately detected only approximately 70% of recidivist and identified approximately 50% of offenders as problem drinkers (Chang, Gregory & Lapham, 2002). Research also suggests that if an effective assessment can be found it should be ordered prior to sentencing (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: NHTSA, 1996).