Talk:Drug Interventions Programme

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Addictions and recovery Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of addiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirected Drug Intervention Program to here, in keeping with official name as per Home Office page http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drug-interventions-programme/ --Cooper-42 11:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted this sentence: "In areas with more intensive DIP activity, early evaluation showed crime falling faster in those areas than areas with less intensive DIPs" because the sole citation was DIP key messages; to quote DIP key messages 2009 (which seems pretty relevant), "in many of the areas that had the highest acquisitive crime, a wider or more ‘intensive’ range of DIP measures has been operated than elsewhere and early evaluation showed crime falling faster in those areas than others." My concern is that this is entirely unsubstantiated. The only evaluations of which I'm aware - particularly Skodbo et al - were grievously problematic wrt methodology, if not entirely bankrupt. I'm not sure offhand if they supported this contention (about intensive sites), but if they do then THAT needs to be the cited data source. It also needs to be made clear that it's comparing the same sites, before and after the introduction of 'intensive' sites / Tough Choices, rather than comparing intensive / non-intensive sites. Key Messages alone - as a basically political press release - cannot support the above / deleted statement wrt 'early evaluation showed...' etc. 188.222.178.34 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)GeoffReply