Objectives perceived by administrators within the 'decision to divert network': conflict and resolution.
The objectives involved in the process of diversion as perceived by the administrators of two independent 'decision to divert networks' were examined. These networks were at different stages of their development. The older City network had passed through the trauma of complete breakdown and reorganisation, in which the interdependent goals of court and clinic (provision of a diagnostic advisory service to aid the court in sentencing and enhancement of the individual offenders' opportunities to select appropriate treatment where necessary) were stressed. Acceptance of these goals by justice and health personnel overlaid the previous polarity of opinion on the major issues of voluntaryism, confidentiality of information etc. Data on the more recently initiated Northern Beach network was similar to the pre-reorganisation City data, indicating that we could be facing a set of common problems during initial attempts to translate the principles of diversion into hard practice. The reorganisation of the clinical/correctional interface to formalise the role of the linkage worker, was seen to be effective in maintaining the 'Decision to divert' network in functioning order. However, at least one major area of potential conflict remains. This concerns the large discrepancy between Justice and Health expectancies in regard to the results of diversion. Justice personnel are inclined to expect that diversion will 'cure' addiction while health workers settle for far more modest goals.
D001315:Australia; D006801:Humans; D007603:Jurisprudence; D019966:Substance-Related Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000534:rehabilitation*