The implementation of good practice in school-based drug education : a stakeholder evaluation
This thesis analyses the delivery of drug education in the school setting through an exploration of the views, experiences and actions of two key stakeholders in the process: teachers with responsibility for programme co-ordination and development and pupils in the 15-16 year old age group. It is based on mixed methodology research carried out in schools in the East Midlands of England (1997-1999) and is inspired by post-positivist evaluation paradigms. Drawing on theories and models from sociology, psychology (communication theory), policy studies and health education, the thesis promotes understanding of factors helping and hindering the implementation of principles of good practice in drug education. The main reasons for a discrepancy between `ideals' and chalk face realities emerge as timetable constraints, a lack of confident and skilled delivery teachers and uncertainty in relation to the acceptability of a harm-reduction focus to programmes. Implicated, on a deeper level, are the dominant values in the education system and the ideology behind current drug control policy. The thesis develops a conceptual schema that captures the personal, interpersonal, organisational and wider, contextual influences behind patterns of variability in young people's take-up of drug education messages and indicates how these interrelate. It also sets out an argument that the key to efficacy in drug education lies in the sensitive tailoring of programmes to the pre-dispositions that young people bring to the process. The thesis concludes with recommendations for the future enhancement of policy and practice in this area.
A Land Fit for Heroin: Drug Policies, Prevention , and Practice
Dedication - Acknowledgements - Introduction N.Dorn and N.South - Heroin Today: Commodity, Consumption, Control and Care ISDD Research and Development Unit - The War on Heroin: British Policy and the International Trade in Illicit Drugs G.Stimson - Social Deprivation, Unemployment and Patterns of Heroin Use G.Pearson - How Families and Communities Respond to Heroin M.Donoghoe, N.Dorn, C.James, S.Jones, J.Ribbens and N.South - British Policy on the Treatment and Care of Drug Takers S.MacGregor and B.Ettorre - Reconciling Policy and Practice N.Dorn and N.South - Bibliography - Index
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194