PART 2:METHOD2.1. AIMS• To ga<strong>in</strong> an understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment facilities<strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape;• To ga<strong>in</strong> an understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> clients served by substance abuse treatmentfacilities <strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape;• To <strong>in</strong>crease knowledge about the nature <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment service delivery<strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape;• To <strong>in</strong>crease knowledge about the accessibility <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment <strong>in</strong> FreeState, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape;• To compare five prov<strong>in</strong>cial substance abuse treatment systems: Free State, Limpopo,Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape;• To serve as a feasibility study for the development and implementation <strong>of</strong> an annual,national audit <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment services;• To use this <strong>in</strong>formation to <strong>in</strong>form current substance abuse treatment service plann<strong>in</strong>gand delivery at the local, prov<strong>in</strong>cial and national level;• To use this <strong>in</strong>formation to <strong>in</strong>form substance abuse treatment policy at a prov<strong>in</strong>cial andnational level2.2. OBJECTIVES• To describe and compare the characteristics <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment facilities <strong>in</strong>Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape (e.g. <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>of</strong>care <strong>of</strong>fered, type <strong>of</strong> facility ownership, treatment sett<strong>in</strong>g, and facility affiliation);• To describe and compare the demographic pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> clients served at substance abusetreatment facilities <strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and NorthernCape by facility characteristics (<strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>of</strong> care and type <strong>of</strong> facility ownership);• To describe and compare substance abuse treatment service delivery for treatmentfacilities <strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape on anumber <strong>of</strong> variables, namely: facility characteristics; treatment factors (number <strong>of</strong>clients served, treatment capacity, utilisation <strong>of</strong> treatment capacity, delay <strong>in</strong> service20
delivery, treatment retention, and treatment attrition), staff<strong>in</strong>g characteristics, andtreatment services <strong>of</strong>fered;• To describe and compare activities conducted by substance abuse treatment facilities<strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape that targetbarriers to access<strong>in</strong>g treatment for clients from underserved groups by facilitycharacteristics;• To describe and compare activities conducted by substance abuse treatment facilities<strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape to improvetreatment retention for clients from underserved groups by facility characteristics;• To describe and compare monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation activities conducted by substanceabuse treatment facilities <strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West andNorthern Cape by facility characteristics;• Based on these f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, to describe the extent to which these facilities meet SouthAfrican m<strong>in</strong>imum norms and standards for treatment services as well as <strong>in</strong>ternationalbest practice guidel<strong>in</strong>es;• To make recommendations that <strong>in</strong>form substance abuse treatment service policy,plann<strong>in</strong>g and delivery <strong>in</strong> Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West andNorthern Cape;• To dissem<strong>in</strong>ate the <strong>in</strong>formation collected, through a variety <strong>of</strong> mechanisms to local,prov<strong>in</strong>cial and national stakeholders.2.3. DESIGNA cross-sectional survey <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment facilities was conducted <strong>in</strong> the FreeState, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape prov<strong>in</strong>ces, South Africafrom October 2007 to February 2008.2.4. <strong>SA</strong>MPLEThe sample consisted <strong>of</strong> the total population <strong>of</strong> substance abuse treatment facilities <strong>in</strong>Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West and Northern Cape. This study def<strong>in</strong>edsubstance abuse treatment facilities as those facilities that deliver one or more specialisedsubstance abuse treatment services to people with substance use disorders (Torres et al.,1995). These services <strong>in</strong>clude detoxification, rehabilitation programmes and21
- Page 1 and 2: Alcohol & Drug Abuse Research UnitM
- Page 3 and 4: 3.1.2 Treatment facility profile by
- Page 5 and 6: 4.3 Targeting barriers to treatment
- Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA cross-sectional
- Page 9 and 10: services to historically underserve
- Page 11 and 12: use, reductions in criminal activit
- Page 13 and 14: Despite high levels of substance ab
- Page 15 and 16: Despite the apparent availability o
- Page 17 and 18: treatment services provided. At pre
- Page 19: use disorders whose physical and em
- Page 23 and 24: audit substance abuse treatment fac
- Page 25 and 26: 2.8.3. Further data considerations
- Page 27 and 28: Figure 1. Inpatient intensity of ca
- Page 29 and 30: Since there is a large overlap betw
- Page 31 and 32: the total client population (χ = 4
- Page 33 and 34: Figure 7.Comparison of race profile
- Page 35 and 36: services per month ranges from 13 t
- Page 37 and 38: 3.4.1. Characteristics of staff at
- Page 39 and 40: supervision. In contrast, a much sm
- Page 41 and 42: In terms of client record-keeping,
- Page 43 and 44: Core findings:• Compared to the p
- Page 45 and 46: using 12-step approaches, 75.0% rep
- Page 47 and 48: Figure 16. Proportion of treatment
- Page 49 and 50: 3.7. ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO TREATME
- Page 51 and 52: Table 11. Proportion of facilities
- Page 53 and 54: Table 12. Proportion of facilities
- Page 55 and 56: Figure 20.Proportion of substance a
- Page 57 and 58: Table 14. Proportion of facilities
- Page 59 and 60: Table 15. Proportion of facilities
- Page 61 and 62: 3.9.2. Monitoring of clients’ pro
- Page 63 and 64: Table 16. Proportion of facilities
- Page 65 and 66: PART 4: DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGSW
- Page 67 and 68: previous audits of specialist subst
- Page 69 and 70: small proportion of South African d
- Page 71 and 72:
high levels of substance use among
- Page 73 and 74:
these barriers appears to significa
- Page 75 and 76:
appropriate services for Black/Afri
- Page 77 and 78:
clients progress post-treatment, an
- Page 79 and 80:
• The number of state facilities
- Page 81 and 82:
• Another way of ensuring (indire
- Page 83 and 84:
• The age appropriateness of serv
- Page 85 and 86:
REFERENCESAllard, S.W., Tolman, R.M
- Page 87 and 88:
Myers, B., & Fakier, N. (2007). Rep
- Page 89:
Zule, W.A., Lam, W.K., & Wechsberg,