NCJ Number
81539
Date Published
1982
Length
263 pages
Annotation
The study describes and assesses the performance of the police as the principal agency responsible for the delivery of inebriates to public health facilities, comparing criminal and therapeutic approaches in the District of Columbia, St. Louis, and Minneapolis.
Abstract
The study develops three research models: the impact model, which analyzes the effect of changing legal policy on the treatment of public inebriates; the police discretion model, which attempts to find out how and why police practices have been altered by decriminalization of public drunkenness; and the prescriptive model, which examines changes designed to improve the intake and handling of inebriates. Study findings suggest that decriminalization brings about significant reductions in the number of persons picked up for public drunkenness. Furthermore, under decriminalization, more and more emergency case-homeless men are processed by the police and other types of inebriates are increasingly ignored by the police or disposed of informally. The changes derive from police officers' attitudes. The willingness of police to pick up, process, and deliver inebriates to public health facilities is affected by departmental practices, public pressures, relationships with other police officers, and personal experiences and backgrounds. Improvements can be made in treatment of inebriates by shifting the emphasis of public policy. Goals of public policy are to remove public inebriates from the streets, to conserve criminal justice resources, to humanize the handling of public inebriates, to increase long-term rehabilitation, and to prevent crime by or against public inebriates. Efficient pickup of drunks can be better achieved by exclusive reliance on police as pickup agents, use of specialized transport vehicles, increased use of foot patrol officers, and use of jails as a drop-off point for subsequent delivery of inebriates to a therapeutic facility or for protective custody release of inebriates when they are sober. Clear public policy goals on treatment of inebriates, use of an incentive/disincentive system (economic, information, communication, authority, and power incentives), and improved cooperation between police and detoxification centers are needed. Nonpolice pickup procedures may be justified if the emphasis of the particular program is on therapeutic objectives. Notes, tables, graphs, and appendixes containing a sample questionnaire, lists of indicators, and interview schedules are supplied.