Monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation• <strong>Substance</strong> abuse treatment facilities should, as a condition <strong>of</strong> registration and fund<strong>in</strong>g,conduct comprehensive evaluations <strong>of</strong> their treatment programmes once every fiveyears.• To cover the costs <strong>of</strong> these evaluations, 10% <strong>of</strong> all grant monies and public fund<strong>in</strong>gallocated to substance abuse treatment facilities should be r<strong>in</strong>g-fenced for programmeevaluation purposes. This should be a condition <strong>of</strong> public fund<strong>in</strong>g.• Capacity to conduct client monitor<strong>in</strong>g and programme evaluations with<strong>in</strong> substanceabuse treatment facilities needs to be developed. The state should consider provid<strong>in</strong>gpublicly funded treatment facilities with <strong>in</strong>troductory courses to client monitor<strong>in</strong>g andprogramme evaluation that <strong>in</strong>clude the provision <strong>of</strong> basic tools to facilitate theseactivities. The World Health Organisation has developed a framework forprogramme evaluation with<strong>in</strong> substance abuse treatment services that may serve as auseful start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t.• Research which evaluates the relative efficacy <strong>of</strong> treatment programmes that providecomprehensive services (that is, core addiction treatment services and ancillarymental health and medical treatment services) and programmes that provide coreaddiction services only is required. F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs from this research may providejustification for the provision <strong>of</strong> a more comprehensive range <strong>of</strong> services at substanceabuse treatment facilities.84
REFERENCE<strong>SA</strong>llard, S.W., Tolman, R.M., & Rosen, D. (2003). The geography <strong>of</strong> need: Spatial distribution <strong>of</strong>barriers to employment <strong>in</strong> Metropolitan Detroit. The Policy Studies Journal, 31: 293-306.Appel, P.W., Ellison, A.A., Jansky, H.K., & Oldak, R. (2004). Barriers to enrollment <strong>in</strong> drugabuse treatment and suggestions for reduc<strong>in</strong>g them: Op<strong>in</strong>ions <strong>of</strong> drug <strong>in</strong>ject<strong>in</strong>g street outreachclients and other system stakeholders. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Drug & Alcohol <strong>Abuse</strong>, 30: 129–153.Arif, A., & Westermeyer, A. (1998). A manual for drug and alcohol abuse: Guidel<strong>in</strong>es forteach<strong>in</strong>g. Plenum Press: New York.Beardsley, K., Wish, E.D., Fitzelle, D.B., O’Grady, K., & Arria, A.M. (2003). Distance travelledto outpatient drug treatment and client retention. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Substance</strong> <strong>Abuse</strong> <strong>Treatment</strong>, 25: 279-285.Booth, B.M., & McLaughl<strong>in</strong>, Y.S. (2000). Barriers to and need for alcohol services for women<strong>in</strong> rural populations. Alcoholism: Cl<strong>in</strong>ical & Experimental Research, 24: 1267-1275.Carise, D., McLellan, A.T., & Gifford, LS. (2002). Develop<strong>in</strong>g a national addiction treatment<strong>in</strong>formation system. Unpublished manuscript.Central Drug Authority (CDA) (2003). Annual report: 2003. National Department <strong>of</strong> SocialDevelopment: Pretoria.Coetzee, P. (2001). Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Cape Town Drug Counsell<strong>in</strong>g Centre. Unpublished master’sthesis, University <strong>of</strong> Cape Town, Cape Town.Coetzee, P. (2004). Stepp<strong>in</strong>g Stones evaluation. In A. Plüddemann, S. Hon, A. Bhana, N.Harker., & H. Potgieter (Eds.), South African Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use(<strong>SA</strong>CENDU). Monitor<strong>in</strong>g alcohol and drug abuse trends <strong>in</strong> South Africa, 2004 (pp. 124-128).South African Medical Research Council: Cape Town.Cole, G.E. (1999). Advanc<strong>in</strong>g the development and application <strong>of</strong> theory-based evaluation <strong>in</strong> thepractice <strong>of</strong> public health. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Evaluation, 20: 453-471.De Silva, H.J., Peris, M., Samaras<strong>in</strong>ghe, D.S., & Ellawala, N.S. (1992). A 2-year follow upstudy <strong>of</strong> alcohol dependent men rehabilitated at a special unit <strong>in</strong> a develop<strong>in</strong>g country. BritishJournal <strong>of</strong> Addiction, 87: 1409-1414.Dew<strong>in</strong>g, S., Plüddemann, A., Myers, B.J., & Parry, C.D.H. (2006). Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>jection drug use<strong>in</strong> six African countries: Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania. Drugs:Education, Prevention & Policy, 13: 121-137.Durk<strong>in</strong>, E.M. (2002). An organisational analysis <strong>of</strong> psychosocial and medical services <strong>in</strong>outpatient drug abuse treatment programs. Social Service Review, 406-429.Flisher, A.J., & Chalton, D.O. (2001). Adolescent contraceptive non-use and covariation amongrisk behaviors. Journal <strong>of</strong> Adolescent Health, 28: 235-241.Freeman, M. (2000). Us<strong>in</strong>g all opportunities for improv<strong>in</strong>g mental health. Examples from SouthAfrica. Bullet<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> the World Health Organization, 78: 508-10.85
- 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 and 20:
use disorders whose physical and em
- Page 21 and 22:
delivery, treatment retention, and
- 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: • The age appropriateness of serv
- Page 87 and 88: Myers, B., & Fakier, N. (2007). Rep
- Page 89: Zule, W.A., Lam, W.K., & Wechsberg,