• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

the Scottish Drug Court Pilots Court Drug Scottish the The Operation and Effectiveness of Effectiveness and Operation The e c i t s u J l a n i m i r C d n a e m i r C The Operation and Effectiveness of the Scottish Drug Court Pilots ISBN 0-7559-2592-0 B41899 6/05 n n n n e £5.00 o o o o N 0950 2254 r r 9 780755 925926 r r t t t t ric s s s s A A A A The text pages of this document are produced from 100% Elemental Chlorine-Free material. The paper carries the Nordic Ecolabel for low emissions during production, and is 100% recyclable. ISS 0 7559 2592 0 ISBN P www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch THE OPERATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SCOTTISH DRUG COURT PILOTS Gill McIvor, Lee Barnsdale, Susan Eley, Margaret Malloch, Rowdy Yates, Alison Brown Department of Applied Social Science University of Stirling Scottish Executive Social Research 2006 Further copies of this report are available priced £5.00. Cheques should be made payable to Blackwell’s Bookshop and addressed to: Blackwell’s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS Telephone orders and enquiries 0131 622 8283 or 0131 622 8258 Fax orders 0131 557 8149 Email orders [email protected] The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or Scottish Ministers. 6 © Crown Copyright 200 Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to the Chief Researcher at Office of Chief Researcher, 4th Floor West Rear, St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 11 INTRODUCTION 11 THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT 12 THE FIFE DRUG COURT 15 EVALUATION OF THE DRUG COURT PILOTS 17 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 17 CHAPTER TWO: METHODS 18 INTRODUCTION 18 INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSIONALS 18 INTERVIEWS WITH DRUG COURT CLIENTS 19 COLLECTION OF INFORMATION FROM DRUG COURT RECORDS 21 OBSERVATION OF THE DRUG COURT IN ACTION 22 COMPLETION OF QUESTIONNAIRES BY SOCIAL WORKERS 23 ANALYSIS OF MINUTES OF DRUG COURT TEAM MEETINGS 25 CHAPTER THREE: REFERRAL TO AND SENTENCING IN THE DRUG 25 COURTS INTRODUCTION 25 THE REFERRAL PROCESS 25 SCREENING GROUP MEETINGS 27 PERSPECTIVES ON THE DRUG COURT REFERRAL CRITERIA 28 PATTERN OF REFERRALS TO THE DRUG COURTS 29 ASSESSMENT 32 ORDERS MADE BY THE DRUG COURTS 34 AGREEING TO A DRUG COURT ORDER 38 SENTENCING 39 SUMMARY 40 CHAPTER FOUR: SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT 42 INTRODUCTION 42 ORGANISATION OF TREATMENT AND SUPERVISION TEAMS 42 TREATMENT 46 PERCEIVED GAPS IN TREATMENT PROVISION 50 DRUG TESTING 51 SUMMARY 53 CHAPTER FIVE: REVIEWS AND ENFORCEMENT 56 INTRODUCTION 56 PRE-COURT REVIEW MEETINGS 56 REVIEWS 57 MECHANISMS OF ENFORCEMENT 64 OUTSTANDING AND NEW CHARGES 65 CLIENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON ENFORCEMENT 66 THE OUTCOMES OF ORDERS 67 SUMMARY 70 CHAPTER SIX: THE OUTCOMES OF DRUG COURT ORDERS 72 INTRODUCTION 72 PERSPECTIVES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DRUG COURT 72 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS IN INDIVIDUAL CASES 77 THE RESULTS OF DRUG TESTS 79 RECONVICTION AMONG THOSE GIVEN DRUG COURT ORDERS 84 SUMMARY 87 CHAPTER SEVEN: THE COSTS OF DRUG COURT ORDERS AND THEIR 88 ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION 88 THE PREVALENCE AND COST OF DRUG-RELATED CRIME 90 ESTIMATING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG TREATMENT 90 INTERVENTIONS ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF THE PILOT DRUG COURTS 91 COMPARING DRUG COURT ORDERS WITH DTTOs AND OTHER 94 DISPOSALS ESTIMATING THE COST IMPACT OF THE DRUG COURT ON DRUG- 97 RELATED OFFENDING SUMMARY 99 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS 100 INTRODUCTION 100 ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES 100 STRENGTHS OF THE DRUG COURT APPROACH 101 THE IMPLICATIONS FOR A WIDER ROLL-OUT OF DRUG COURTS 102 REFERENCES 106 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Drug Courts were initially developed in the USA in the late 1980s. Scotland’s first Drug Court was established in Glasgow Sheriff Court in October 2001 and a second pilot Drug Court was introduced in Fife in August 2002, making its first order on 9th September 2002. The Fife Drug Court sits in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy Sheriff Courts. Both Drug Courts are aimed at offenders aged 21 years or older of both sexes, in respect of whom there is an established relationship between a pattern of serious drug misuse and offending. They aim to reduce the level of drug-related offending behaviour, to reduce or eliminate offenders’ dependence on or propensity to use drugs and to examine the viability and usefulness of a Drug Court in Scotland, especially, in the case of Fife, in a non-urban centre. All Orders made by the Drug Court – Probation Orders or Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) are subject to drug testing (urinalysis) and regular (at least monthly) review. The Glasgow Drug Court has the Shrieval capacity to operate on four days a week, with two sheriffs covering it on alternate weeks. In Fife, the Drug Court sits for two days per week in Kirkcaldy and for one day per week in Dunfermline. One sheriff sits in the Fife Drug Court, with a stand-in sheriff to provide back-up during periods of absence. The Drug Court Sheriffs have responsibility for reviewing Orders and responding to non- compliance. Other designated staff include Sheriff Clerks, court officers and, in Glasgow, a Procurator Fiscal and Co-ordinator. In both Drug Courts a Supervision and Treatment Team has been established to support the Drug Court in all aspects of assessment, supervision, treatment, testing and reports to the court. In many respects there are operational similarities between the two Drug Courts. However there are also important procedural differences, which were instituted to enable the Drug Court model to be adapted to different local contexts. METHODS A variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed. They included: interviews with professionals associated with the Drug Courts; interviews with Drug Court clients; collection of information from Drug Court records; observation of the Drug Courts in action; and the completion of individual client questionnaires by members of the supervision and treatment team. In addition to these more formal methods, the researchers spent time informally familiarising themselves with the Drug Courts and becoming acquainted with the role of the various professionals involved in its operation. REFERRAL AND SENTENCING Potential candidates for the Fife Drug Court were usually identified by sheriffs sitting summarily in Dunfermline or Kirkcaldy Sheriff Courts or were brought to the attention of 4 the bench by defence agents. In Glasgow, referrals, particularly from the police, remained lower than expected. In practice most were referred by marking deputes or, following the expansion of the referral routes, directly by other Sheriffs. Professionals were generally content with the referral criteria, though some suggested that younger offenders should be given the opportunity to participate in Drug Court Orders. In Glasgow relatively few women were referred because their offences were often deal with by the District Court. In September 2002, 73 existing DTTOs were transferred into the Fife Drug Court. A total of 872 additional referrals involving 382 individual offenders were made during the pilot period. Males accounted for 82 per cent of referrals, the majority of which emanated from Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court. In Glasgow, 271 cases had been referred for assessment by the middle of November 2004, 202 (75%) via a screening group/interview and 69 (25%) via a direct referral from another Sheriff. Over 90 per cent of individuals referred to the court were male. Cases considered by the Fiscal to be potentially suitable for the Glasgow Drug Court were referred for screening – initially a group attended by various professionals and later an interview conducted by a social worker. This was viewed as an effective mechanism for filtering out inappropriate referrals and was seen as particularly valuable early in the pilot period. Drug Court assessments involved the client attending multiple appointments with the Supervision and Treatment Team and submitting to a drug test. Sheriffs were content to continue such cases on bail as this provided a more realistic test of the offender’s motivation and willingness to comply. Clients were well informed about the purposes and requirements of Orders prior to consenting to their imposition. While some offenders apparently agreed to an Order to avoid a custodial sentence, most were also motivated by the possibility of getting off drugs. Views were divided over whether the possibility of participating in the Drug Court encouraged offenders to enter earlier guilty pleas. There was no evidence, however, that it encouraged them to plead guilty to offences that they were not, in fact, guilty of committing. In Fife, 205 (24%) referrals resulted in Drug Court Orders being made. Most Orders imposed (78%) were DTTOs, and their average length was 18.7 months. Over four-fifths of offenders made subject to an Order were male; their average age, 26 years. Nearly all were unemployed or not seeking work and, from limited data, it appears that most had an extensive list of previous convictions and custodial sentences. In Glasgow, 150 (55%) referrals resulted in Drug Court Orders being made, most of which were DTTOs (73%) of an average length of 18 months. Of offenders made subject to an Order, 91 per cent were male and their average age was 31 years. Nearly all were unemployed or not seeking work and most had an extensive list of previous convictions and custodial sentences. Drug Court Sheriffs considered the range of sentences available to them to be effective and appropriate and believed that their sentencing decisions were better informed than in the Sheriff Court due to the highly comprehensive and focused reports made available to them.

Load more

  115

Copy Link