Search results

Imprisonment is common among drug users. However, historically healthcare for injecting drug users in prison in England and Wales has not been equivalent to that offered in community settings. Fiftyone injecting drug users who had a history of imprisonment were interviewed. Interviews focused on the experiences of drug‐related care and treatment in prison. The interviews were analysed using the Framework method. Accounts of prison drug treatment experiences provided valuable insights into drug treatment in the English prison. The participants’ accounts provided a historical perspective, many of which reflected the different practices of different prisons and prison staff and the changes in policy and practice that have occurred in prison healthcare over recent decades. Positive and negative experiences of healthcare and drug treatment in prison were discussed. Issues that affected levels of drug use inside prisons and their receipt of care, support and treatment in prison included prescribing policies, illicit drug availability and prison staff and doctor attitudes. Whilst negative experiences of prison and drug treatment prevailed, users identified that recent policy and practice changes had positively influenced healthcare provision for drug users in prison, particularly the provision of opiate maintenance therapy. Drug users often saw prison as an opportunity to detoxify and contemplate their drug use. Further work needs to build on the positive experiences identified to ensure that prison drug treatment in England and Wales is consistent, effective and efficient in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to explore prison drug injecting prevalence, identify any changes in injecting prevalence and practice during imprisonment and explore views on prison needle exchange.

An empirical prospective cohort survey conducted between 2006 and 2008. The study involved a random sample of 267 remand and sentenced prisoners from a large male category B prison in England where no prison needle exchange operates. Questionnaires were administered with prisoners on reception and, where possible, at one, three and six months during their sentence.

In total, 64 per cent were injecting until admission into prison. The majority intended to stop injecting in prison (93 per cent), almost a quarter due to the lack of needle exchange (23 per cent). Yet when hypothetically asked if they would continue injecting in prison if needle exchange was freely available, a third of participants (33 per cent) believed that they would. Injecting cessation happened on prison entry and appeared to be maintained during the sentence.

Not providing sterile needles may increase risks associated with injecting for prisoners who continue to inject. However, providing such equipment may prolong injecting for other prisoners who currently cease injecting on account of needle exchange programmes (NEPs) not being provided in the UK prison setting.

Not providing sterile needles may increase risks associated with injecting for prisoners who continue to inject. However, providing such equipment may prolong injecting for other prisoners who currently cease injecting on account of NEPs not being provided in the UK prison setting.

This survey is the first to question specifically regarding the timing of injecting cessation amongst male prisoners and explore alongside intention to inject should needle exchange facilities be provided in prison.

Recovery is the predominant discourse within current UK drug policy, promoted as freedom from dependence. In support of such a policy driver, prison drug recovery wings have been piloted in ten prisons in England and Wales to address high drug prevalence rates in prisoner populations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of these specialist wings within the context of wider developments to tackle reoffending among drug-using prisoners.

The first part of the paper offers an analysis of the emergence of the recovery paradigm in the prison context through analysis of official policy documents. The second draws predominantly upon two process evaluations of the drug recovery wings, alongside literature on prison drug treatment.

There is limited empirical evidence to inform the debate about whether prisons can provide settings to facilitate recovery from the effects of illicit drug use. What is available suggests that effective therapeutic environments for recovering drug users could be established within prisons. Key components for these appear to be sufficient numbers of staff who are competent and confident in providing a dual role of support and discipline, and a common purpose of all prisoners committing to recovery from illicit drugs and supporting each other. Further research regarding the impact of drug recovery wings upon health, crime and wider social outcomes is needed.

This paper provides an updated perspective on the development of drug treatment in prisons, with a particular focus on the implications of the new recovery paradigm.

This synthesis covers academic research on the use of valuation, tax, information technology (IT), and forensic specialists on audit engagements. The importance and role of specialists on audit engagements have recently increased, and specialist use has garnered significant attention from regulators and academics. Given the PCAOB’s (2017b) recent proposal to revise auditing standards regarding specialists’ involvement, it is important to review the specialist literature as a whole. By integrating research across these four domains, I identify commonalities and differences related to: (1) factors associated with the use of specialists on audit engagements (including the nature, timing, and extent of use); (2) factors impacting auditors’ interactions with specialists (including specialists contracted by the auditor or management); and (3) outcomes associated with the use of specialists. This integrated analysis of the specialist literatures shows variation in the use of specialists, and various factors affecting both if and how they are involved and whether auditors use specialists internal or external to the audit firm. Additionally, research has sometimes (but not always) linked specialist involvement to higher audit quality. The commonalities and areas of variation identified are informative to audit research and practice, particularly as regulators and audit firms look to improve the quality of audits using specialists. Throughout the synthesis, I also provide a number of directions for future research.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Globalisation is generally defined as the “denationalisation of clusters of political, economic, and social activities” that destabilize the ability of the sovereign State to control activities on its territory, due to the rising need to find solutions for universal problems, like the pollution of the environment, on an international level. Globalisation is a complex, forceful legal and social process that take place within an integrated whole with out regard to geographical boundaries. Globalisation thus differs from international activities, which arise between and among States, and it differs from multinational activities that occur in more than one nation‐State. This does not mean that countries are not involved in the sociolegal dynamics that those transboundary process trigger. In a sense, the movements triggered by global processes promote greater economic interdependence among countries. Globalisation can be traced back to the depression preceding World War II and globalisation at that time included spreading of the capitalist economic system as a means of getting access to extended markets. The first step was to create sufficient export surplus to maintain full employment in the capitalist world and secondly establishing a globalized economy where the planet would be united in peace and wealth. The idea of interdependence among quite separate and distinct countries is a very important part of talks on globalisation and a significant side of today’s global political economy.

Presents over sixty abstracts summarising the 1999 Employment Research Unit annual conference held at the University of Cardiff. Explores the multiple impacts of globalization on work and employment in contemporary organizations. Covers the human resource management implications of organizational responses to globalization. Examines the theoretical, methodological, empirical and comparative issues pertaining to competitiveness and the management of human resources, the impact of organisational strategies and international production on the workplace, the organization of labour markets, human resource development, cultural change in organisations, trade union responses, and trans‐national corporations. Cites many case studies showing how globalization has brought a lot of opportunities together with much change both to the employee and the employer. Considers the threats to existing cultures, structures and systems.