The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Evaluation of the Scottish Pilots

CHAPTER THREE: SELECTING OFFENDERS FOR DTTOS

INTRODUCTION

3.1 This chapter examines the processes involved in assessing offenders for DTTOs and the criteria adopted by different professionals to decide which offenders are suitable for orders. Views about how a DTTO compares with a probation order with a drug treatment requirement are presented and the characteristics of offenders given DTTOs and other disposals are examined. This chapter also discusses offenders' reasons for agreeing to a DTTO and concludes by considering factors that have a bearing upon the use made of DTTOs by the courts.

SENTENCERS' KNOWLEDGE OF DTTOS

3.2 In both pilot areas the social work department had adopted a number of methods to ensure that sentencers were familiar with DTTOs and with the operation of the schemes and to keep them updated with respect to relevant developments. These methods included information packs, reports, briefing meetings and the involvement of sheriffs in the local DTTO steering groups. However managers recognised that keeping sentencers informed and updated was an ongoing process during the pilot period.

3.3 Sentencers in both Glasgow and Fife confirmed that they had received a range of information about DTTOs from the respective social work departments. Ongoing information and updates were provided through meetings between sentencers and social work managers, through presentations to sheriffs and through the participation of a sheriff in the local DTTO Steering Group. Information leaflets had also been provided for offenders and for the courts. Sheriffs in Fife also had the benefit of hearing about the operation of DTTOs in the Glasgow pilot and in the pilot schemes in England. Sentencers were content with the information they had received and felt sufficiently well-informed about the operation of their local scheme. One sheriff in Fife would have welcomed consultation about the introduction of DTTOs at an earlier stage (that is, more than one month prior to the introduction of the pilot scheme) but was, nevertheless, satisfied with the information subsequently received. Another sheriff - who sat in Glasgow Sheriff Court - suggested that the level of knowledge of DTTOs was such that if some sheriffs were not making use of them it was for reasons other than not knowing about them.

PERCEIVED PURPOSE OF A DTTO

3.4 Managers regarded the primary aim of the DTTO as the reduction of drug use and related offending through the provision of a high tariff alternative to custody. As one manager explained, the underlying premise of the DTTO is that there exists a group of individuals whose offending is a direct result of their drug use and who are likely to stop offending if their misuse of drugs can be successfully addressed:

"…there is a significant group of offenders who if they did not have a drug problem would be either minor offenders or wouldn't offend at all and therefore by treating that drug problem an impact will be made on offending."

3.5 DTTO social workers and addiction workers had similar views about the purpose of the DTTO. As one DTTO staff member explained, the purpose was:

"…to achieve...some form of stabilisation…or minimisation of their drug misuse, reduction in offending, stable lifestyle, working towards achieving a stable lifestyle…to move on in their lifestyle, away from drugs."

3.6 DTTO staff perceived DTTOs as high tariff orders that could provide offenders with the types of treatment that would not be available to them if they received a custodial sentence. As one addiction worker explained:

"The purpose of a DTTO is a diversion from a custodial sentence for people that have been offending because of their drug habit…going to jail's not the answer because there's not the resources in the jail."

3.7 The DTTO was thought by addiction workers and social workers to be "unique" in the support that it offered drug-using offenders. Some suggested that there should be greater awareness among both sentencers and offenders of the benefits of a DTTO.

3.8 Sentencers were in agreement that in imposing a DTTO they were hoping to bring about a reduction in the individual's drug use and related offending. One sheriff, however, was sanguine about the possibility of a complete cessation of drug use or offending, in view of the relapsing nature of heroin use:

"If they stop altogether then that's ideal, that's the ideal target - complete abstinence from drugs and complete absence of recidivism. But realistically it is not going to happen."

3.9 One sheriff pointed to the benefits to society (through reduced victimisation) if DTTOs were successful in enabling offenders to address their drug use, while another suggested that DTTOs could help offenders to do more positive things with their lives.

3.10 Sentencers were also generally agreed that probation orders with drug treatment requirements had similar purposes to DTTOs, though one expressed the view that the former also attempted to address wider issues and help offenders to sort out their 'general lifestyle'. Another sheriff proposed that DTTOs had an advantage over probation orders because testing enabled a more accurate assessment to be made of how well offenders were progressing with respect to their use of drugs.

ASSESSING OFFENDERS FOR DTTOS

3.11 DTTO assessments were generally initiated through sentencers identifying potentially suitable cases and responding to recommendations for DTTO assessments contained in social enquiry reports (SER). Sheriffs in Glasgow observed that defence agents had rarely, if ever, requested that the court obtain a DTTO assessment. When the DTTO teams received a DTTO assessment request it would either be carried out by the team leader or allocated to one of the social workers. Social workers in both pilot sites preferred to assess in the community and by the end of the main fieldwork period all assessments in Fife had been carried out whilst the offender was on bail. In Glasgow, by the end of the main fieldwork period, 76 per cent of assessments had been carried out in the community while 24 per cent were undertaken in prison while the offender was remanded in custody. The proportion of offenders remanded for a DTTO assessment had, however, decreased over time, suggesting that the scheme had been successful in convincing sentencers of the benefits of community-based assessments.

3.12 One sentencer explained the reason for the court's reluctance to grant bail for the purposes of assessing some offenders for DTTOs:

"They [Glasgow social workers] consider that too many of the people they have to assess were having to be assessed in custody. They wanted them assessed at liberty. That's a very difficult thing for us because we place the public at risk if we send somebody out without knowing - and we don't know then if he is suitable [for a DTTO]."

3.13 Assessments for offenders on bail included appointments for the offender with the social worker, addiction worker and drugs worker, in Fife, or treatment provider in Glasgow. Only when all the professionals involved were satisfied that the offender was suitable would they be positively recommended for an order. In Glasgow, where a proportion of assessments had been conducted in respect of offenders who were remanded in custody, the offenders were interviewed by the DTTO social worker in the prison. When offenders were assessed in custody they could not be assessed for a treatment other than abstinence and, since Phoenix House provided non-resident abstinence-based treatment, they were automatically named as the main treatment provider (see Chapter Four). Ten offenders who were assessed in custody agreed to the researchers having access to their DTTO records. These revealed that one was given a detox script on release but started a methadone prescription at the fifth review, seven were reassessed by the Glasgow Drug Problem Service (GDPS) by the first review, one was reassessed by the second review and the other by the fourth review. All subsequently proceeded with a methadone prescription.

3.14 In the Scottish pilots, but not in the English pilots, urinalysis was an integral component of the assessment of suitability for a DTTO. Drugs workers in Fife and treatment providers in Glasgow undertook the drug testing at the assessment stage. Drug testing was believed by managers to be a useful component of the assessment process because it helped to "validate or contradict statements that are given to us in the assessment process", though it was unable to provide an insight into the pattern of drug use. One manager suggested that testing at the assessment stage offered two additional benefits. Firstly it served to bring home to the offender how seriously their offence was being take by the courts. Secondly it gave a clear signal to the offender of the degree of intrusiveness that would be associated with the DTTO if an order was imposed. As we shall see, the revocation rate in the Scottish pilots was low, in comparison with the high revocation rates for DTTOs in the English pilot schemes (Turnbull et al., 2000). This may indicate that drug testing at the assessment stage improved the overall quality of the assessments and better enabled the schemes to screen out offenders who were unlikely to comply.

3.15 Urine testing for drug use at the assessment stage was seen by the addiction workers and social workers as crucial in establishing the legitimacy of offenders' claims to being drug users and in verifying which drugs they used. As one social worker explained, the purpose of testing was:

"…to prove the person's claims that they have…either a dependency or they have drug misuse difficulties…the drug testing at the assessment stage proves that there is either a substance in their…body or whatever.. that whatever a person says they are taking, that's exactly what it is."

3.16 Test results would be combined with information from other sources to obtain a more accurate and rounded picture of the offender's drug use. As one addiction worker observed, "you're looking for patterns...other evidence from other sources, whether it be family, social work, GPs". However social workers and addiction workers expressed some concern about the limits of the urine test results: that is, the fact that the urine testing was sensitive to the type of drug used but could not determine the quantity of drug use.

3.17 Drug testing at the assessment stage was perceived by sheriffs as a useful mechanism for establishing that the offender was using drugs (and was, therefore, potentially suitable for a DTTO) or, conversely, confirming or refuting the offender's claim to be drug-free. The introduction of drug testing at the assessment stage was also thought by some sentencers to be a useful mechanism for establishing a routine that would continue in the event of a DTTO being made.

3.18 Addiction workers reported that they sought at the assessment stage to determine the nature of the link between drugs and crime on an individual basis, to make a professional distinction between drug users who offended and offenders who used drugs. This they did in order to establish whether offending was likely to continue despite drug treatment. For most addiction workers, the DTTO was perceived as a last chance or "the last resort" for habitual chaotic drug users. Social workers reported that offenders' lifestyles and their motivation to change their lifestyles were the main factors in their assessment of suitability for a DTTO.

"You really need to be absolutely sure the client is fully prepared to take on the responsibility...to comply with the DTTO requirements because if we don't do that, then there is a greater chance of them failing and I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting somebody to fail knowing that at the assessment stage, that they might not survive."

3.19 The addiction workers reported that DTTO social workers made a significant input at the assessment stage but that timescales at the assessment stage were very tight if the most appropriate and reliable information available was to be collected. As one addiction worker commented, "there's nowhere near enough time". Key information in the assessment stage, from the addiction workers' perspective, was previous treatment episodes, the client's demonstration of commitment (or motivation) and their experience of previous community disposals. Addiction workers felt the DTTO was a highly intrusive and intensive programme. They considered it valuable for offenders to have support from family members. Equally, however, they recognised that family and friends could exert a less positive influence that could add extra pressure to the intensity of living on a DTTO.

3.20 Motivation was a key factor in the assessment of offenders' suitability for a particular treatment for all treatment providers and some also stressed maturity as being important in this regard. A motivational interview would be conducted face-to-face with the offender and would constitute an assessment of suitability for that particular treatment rather than an overall assessment of suitability for a DTTO. However, one treatment provider expressed some reservations about relying too much on the assessment of motivation as an indicator of suitability for treatment:

"That's quite a hot potato for me I have to say, 'cause I don't always think that motivation's a good factor to assess people on, on the basis that motivation fluctuates."

Another treatment provider commented that motivation might be difficult to assess because the offender might be motivated to avoid a custodial sentence rather than to address their drug addiction and related problems. A similar sentiment was expressed by staff involved in the pilot DTTO schemes in England and Wales (Turnbull et al., 2000).

3.21 The amount of time available to do an assessment was an issue for treatment providers just as it was for addiction workers and DTTO social workers, with one treatment provider expressing concern that "we only see people two or three times and that's not really long enough to get a real handle on a treatment plan". However treatment providers accepted that the tight timescales were intrinsic to the assessment for court orders:

"Criminal justice don't really have a lot of control over this…if they get a continuance for a week… I think it's just the way that the system works… time spans that they're allowed to work with are part of the job, just got to get on with it."

3.22 Social work managers suggested that when the assessment procedure was allowed to operate as intended, then it worked very well. The two-week continuation was said to be appropriate for conducting the type of assessment required and to test the offender's commitment to an order, though the timescale was acknowledged to be tight, particularly in Glasgow where offenders were usually assessed separately and in different locations by the DTTO worker, a social worker and a treatment provider.

3.23 Sentencers were unanimously positive about the quality of DTTO assessments, which they regarded as detailed and of a high standard. As we shall see, sentencer satisfaction with the quality of assessments appears to be have been reflected in a high conversion rate of recommendations to disposals in both pilot sites and in a willingness to impose DTTOs in respect of high tariff offenders. A few sheriffs indicated that assessments they had initiated often did not result in a DTTO being recommended and pointed to this as constituting evidence of the thoroughness of the assessment process. The practice of proposing alternative disposals in the assessment report when a DTTO was not considered appropriate was highlighted by one sheriff as being particularly helpful:

"…one of the other satisfactory features is that on occasions where a DTTO is not considered to be the appropriate way of dealing with the offender as far the report is concerned, an alternative programme has been suggested for incorporation in a probation order. I am very much in favour of that approach."

3.24 The issue of DTTO assessments for offenders who had been remanded in custody was raised by sentencers in both Glasgow and Fife. One sheriff in Fife expressed concern that the use of DTTOs was limited by the fact that social workers were reluctant to assess offenders in custody, though in practice when bail was requested for a DTTO assessment it was granted by the court. Some sentencers in Glasgow observed that offenders referred for a DTTO assessment in the community often did not attend the assessment interview and could not, therefore, be considered suitable for an order.

3.25 Sentencers compared DTTO assessments favourably with assessments for other types of social work disposals. Although the latter were considered, on the whole, to be good, DTTO assessments were described by some sentencers as both fuller and more concentrated on the relevant issues. As one sheriff indicated, sentencers, when considering a DTTO assessment report, also had the benefit of having available the original SER.

3.26 Almost without exception sentencers indicated that they would look to the person responsible for undertaking the DTTO assessment to provide advice regarding the appropriate length of the order. That said, there was, on balance, a preference for short-medium length orders (12-18 months) on the basis either that longer orders were more likely to be breached or that any positive changes in offenders' drug use and offending could be effected in this time period.

OFFENDERS FOR WHOM A DTTO IS APPROPRIATE/INAPPROPRIATE

3.27 In general, sentencers found it difficult to identify categories of offender for whom a DTTO was particularly appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, they indicated that they would tend to consider each case on its individual merits. The nature or gravity of the offence was more likely to be a determining factor, since certain types of offences - such as those involving physical violence and/or the use of weapons - would, sentencers suggested, almost inevitably result in the imposition of a custodial sentence. At the other end of the sentencing scale, DTTOs were not considered appropriate for first offenders. Sentencers were united in the view that the DTTO was a high tariff disposal, to be used, in the main, when other options had been exhausted. As such, it represented a "last chance" or the "last stop…before custody". Some sheriffs also thought that DTTOs might be used with offenders who had already been imprisoned on one or more occasions for drug-related offending in an attempt to break the "vicious circle" of offending.

3.28 Social work managers identified a range of offenders for whom a DTTO might be appropriate. This included individuals convicted of a serious offence linked to drug misuse (such as assault and robbery) even if they did not have an extensive criminal history and those with a history of less serious but persistent offending. Other factors that might make offenders suitable for a DTTO included evidence that they were contemplating change with respect to their drug use or had accessed drug treatment services in the past. This draws heavily on the Prochaska and DiClemente (1986) behavioural modification stages of change model. Managers suggested that DTTOs could be particularly appropriate for female offenders involved in the misuse of drugs, though in practice, as we shall see, relatively few women had been made subject to an order since the introduction of the pilot schemes.

3.29 Conversely, managers considered DTTOs to be inappropriate for low tariff offenders for whom such a relatively costly and intrusive intervention was not deemed necessary or for people whose offending was not related to the misuse of drugs. Managers also suggested that offenders with a lack of stability in their lifestyles (such as homelessness) would have difficulty completing a DTTO as would those who were living in circumstances where drug misuse was rife. Two managers believed that younger offenders (for example, those aged 16 or 17) might find it more difficult to comply with a DTTO, especially if they were immature and had a lengthy history of involvement in the care system. None of the managers indicated that sex offenders would automatically be considered unsuitable for a DTTO. However, in cases of sexual offending it was unlikely that drug misuse would be the main issue related to the offending. In circumstances such as these or where other needs had been identified, it was likely that an alternative disposal (such as probation) would be considered more appropriate.

3.30 Similar criteria were drawn upon by DTTO workers and addiction staff, with factors such as age, drug using history and 'lifestyle' cited as key factors in determining which offenders were suitable for a DTTO. Those whom staff considered particularly suited to a DTTO were offenders at least in their mid twenties, with a well-established pattern of chaotic drug use and a willingness to change their current lifestyle:

"People who have been using drugs and offending for a long period of time, many, many years… I would say that, people that are still quite young, you know, early twenties up to maybe twenty-two, twenty-three, are still quite enjoying it ... the using and the offending bit. Some people, they are at that age, they've not got to the bit where they're totally scunnered by it. Whereas when you, if you go above that, maybe somebody that's twenty-five, twenty-six, the chance is they have been using for ten years already, so you know, they've had enough physically and mentally."

"It has to be somebody who has reached the stage in their life and it doesnae really matter why they got there, but they've got there. 'I want something else and I don't want to be doing this in two to three years time, I want to do something about it now'."

3.31 Young offenders, who were perceived as using drugs experimentally and to be in a 'honeymoon period' of drug use, were considered by social workers and addiction workers to be inappropriate for a DTTO:

"Certainly the people.. that wouldn't be appropriate would be 16-18 year olds...who don't seem focused enough and they enjoy taking drugs too much…It's highly unlikely they would ever be motivated to leave it."

3.32 Discussion of DTTO clients was largely gender blind as the social workers and addiction workers who were interviewed tended to talk about male clients. Gender of client and related suitability for a DTTO was only explicitly mentioned in terms of the higher 'risk' of custodial sentences for women in the two pilot areas, the nature of women's offending and their low representation in assessments for a DTTO. As one addiction worker commented:

"I have to relax my rules a wee bit for females because we don't have enough…I would take 95% female if it prevented the majority of them going to prison for…non-payment of fines and stuff like that…it's absolutely ludicrous…I'm a bit disappointed that we've…no' been pickin' them up."

3.33 Addiction workers perceived women offenders, particularly those charged with prostitution, as needing specialised services that address health needs in addition to groupwork aimed at addressing drug use and offending behaviour. Schedule 1 offenders (that is, offenders convicted of offences against children) and sex offenders were also perceived as requiring specialised services that were not currently offered by the DTTO pilots. For this reason some staff questioned whether it was appropriate that they be considered for a DTTO, even though their offending might have been connected with the misuse of drugs. Treatment providers voiced concerned about working with sexual or violent offenders because of the risk that they might pose to staff and to other service users. Treatment providers were particularly concerned about involving offenders with these characteristics in groupwork on account of the way in which other service users might react to their inclusion.

3.34 Others who were also considered by social workers and addiction workers to be inappropriate for a DTTO included those who were likely to continue offending, regardless of whether on not they were using drugs:

"People that are offending who would continue to offend, whether they're taking drugs or not. It could be people that are breaking into cars, car thefts…a lot of young guys really quite enjoy that, and do that whether they have a drug problem or not."

"I think obviously it doesn't take into account those people who commit crime because it's a way of life and something they do, whether they wish to take drugs or not, and that's something would have to be measured separately. I'm not sure how that will be done."

3.35 Similarly, staff expressed reservations about the use of DTTOs with offenders who also had mental health problems or problems related to alcohol misuse:

"People who have alcohol problems that, you know, that might cause problems so that...we would be reluctant to kind of consider them for a DTTO…People who's got alcohol problems…in addition to their drug misuse…it will cause a great difficulty for them to manage their treatment programmes and also from a safety point of view."

3.36 Addiction workers and social workers also indicated that it was difficult to accommodate homeless offenders on DTTOs because their life on the streets would make it difficult for them to keep appointments and comply with an order, though a treatment provider observed that this would mean excluding many people because of the nature of drug addiction problems.

3.37 Treatment providers concurred with DTTO staff in suggesting that orders were most appropriate for older offenders who were motivated to stop using drugs and offenders who were committing minor, acquisitive, non-violent crimes to fund their habit. On the other hand, DTTOs were considered not to be appropriate for very chaotic drug users with very poor family support, even though, ironically, they potentially could have most to gain from being on an order.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A DTTO AND A PROBATION ORDER WITH A DRUG TREATMENT REQUIREMENT

3.38 Social work managers perceived the primary purpose of a DTTO as being to reduce or eliminate offending and, in so doing, to enhance public safety and promote social inclusion. In this respect DTTOs were seen by them not to differ significantly from a probation order with a drug treatment requirement, though some managers stressed that the DTTO would be regarded as a more intrusive option to be used only when all other options had been exhausted:

"I think it should be equivalent to community service or a direct alternative to custody. If they don't have a substantial drug problem, then they should be doing community service. If they have, then they do a DTTO. I think it is a very expensive resource to target people who perhaps could be given other resources."

3.39 Social work managers identified a number of differences between DTTOs and probation orders with drug treatment requirements. First, with DTTOs the emphasis was upon reducing offending directly via the provision of treatment services to deal with drug misuse, while probation orders contained a direct focus upon addressing offending behaviour through exploring and challenging the attitudes and beliefs that support it. Second, the supervision on DTTOs was perceived as involving more invasive demands than the supervision normally associated with a probation order. Third, offenders on DTTOs in Glasgow had more rapid access to treatment services because higher levels of funding were available to purchase them, while offenders on DTTOs in Fife were able to access services that would not otherwise be available to offenders subject to court orders. Fourth, a DTTO involved the ongoing involvement of the court in monitoring progress of the order. Finally, one manager suggested that the possibility of a more timely response to instances of non-compliance with a DTTO could in some instances forestall the need for revocation and the imposition of an alternative penalty. Managers considered a probation order with a drug treatment requirement to be more appropriate for offenders who were identified as having a range of other needs and evidence of instability in their lives.

3.40 In two of the DTTO pilot schemes in England and Wales orders were imposed alongside probation orders. However, in Scotland, where the use of probation orders with additional requirements is well-established, managers expressed a preference for DTTOs to be made as a stand-alone option. Although in some cases it might be appropriate for a DTTO to be recommended alongside a probation order (for example where the offender fully met the criteria for a DTTO but other problems or issues were identified that might benefit from probation), managers pointed to a number of problems that could arise when a DTTO was not a stand alone option. For example, the complex combination of reporting requirements and reviews could make it more difficult for offenders to understand what was required of them and more likely that they would fail to comply with one or more requirements as a result. The frequency of contact could, in addition, result in offenders becoming demotivated and failing, as a consequence, to complete their orders. The demanding reporting demands placed upon offenders who were subject to both a probation order and a DTTO might have contributed to the high breach rates observed in the DTTO pilots in England and Wales.

3.41 The pilot DTTO schemes in both Glasgow and Fife were also reluctant to encourage the imposition of DTTOs alongside probation orders on the basis that the two orders were attempting to do different things and offenders were, therefore, unlikely to be suitable for or to require both. Sentencers were divided as to whether and under what circumstances they might impose a concurrent probation order. Two sheriffs in Glasgow expressed a preference for having a concurrent probation order because it provided the court with more options in the event of further offending and non-compliance. Another two sheriffs (one in Glasgow and one in Fife) indicated that they would use the DTTO as a stand-alone option unless there were recognisable issues (such as family relationship problems) that a DTTO - with its more restricted focus - could not adequately address. Four other sentencers (two in Glasgow and two in Fife) indicated a preference for stand-alone orders, suggesting that concurrent orders could result in a duplication of services, a lack of co-ordination in the supervision of the two orders and the placing of unrealistically intensive and rigorous demands upon the offender.

3.42 Sentencers were able to identify several features of the DTTO that distinguished it from a probation order with a drug treatment requirement. Reference was most commonly made to the drug testing element of the DTTO and the role of the court in reviewing the progress of offenders on orders. Sentencers also perceived the DTTO to be more directly focused upon the issues of drug use and related offending, to be more intensive in terms of the demands it placed upon offenders (vis a vis attendance for treatment and testing) and to be more rigorously enforced. One sheriff also suggested that offenders were more likely to comply with a DTTO and to refrain from offending while subject to an order. Sentencers in Glasgow identified the DTTO workers as having a more limited role - involving monitoring the order and reporting back to the court - than social workers responsible for the supervision of probation orders. Probation supervision was regarded as involving a more holistic approach to offenders and their problems and to be more concerned than a DTTO in providing offenders with additional support.

REFERRALS, ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERS

3.43 Information about offenders referred for a DTTO assessment and made subject to orders was derived by the researchers from four sources: summary data provided by the DTTO schemes; previous convictions libelled when a DTTO was imposed; social enquiry reports (SERs) and DTTO assessments relating to offenders given orders; and the ASI-X, which was administered to 21 offenders in Glasgow.

3.44 Between July 2000 and mid-April 2001, 182 referrals for a DTTO assessment by the Fife DTTO team were made by the local courts. By mid-April 2001, 114 assessments had been completed, 29 were ongoing and 39 referrals had resulted in no further action by the DTTO team ⁴. Since the commencement of the pilot project in Fife, there has been a consistently high conversion rate (94%) from suitable assessments to orders made, with 49 orders being imposed from 52 positive assessments. The number of DTTOs made in Fife in a nine-month period slightly exceeded the mean number of orders (47) imposed in 12 months in the English pilots (Turnbull et al., 2000). One of the offenders assessed as suitable but not placed on a DTTO died before returning to court and two received custodial sentences (one of whom was subsequently re-assessed for a DTTO and had an order imposed). The highest number of referrals and orders emanated from Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Sentencing court

3.45 The Glasgow scheme also had a very high conversion rate, with 92 per cent of recommendations for a DTTO resulting in the imposition of an order. By the end of February 2001, 155 referrals had been received, with 112 (72%) emanating from the court, 42 (27%) from social work teams and one (1%) from another source. In fifty-one cases the offender was assessed as suitable for a DTTO at the first or second continuation and in 47 cases a DTTO was imposed. This is identical to the mean number of DTTOs made in 12 months across the English pilot DTTO schemes (Turnbull et al., 2000). Twenty-eight orders (60%) were made in respect of offenders referred by the courts, 18 in respect of those referred by social workers (38%) and one in respect of the offender who had been referred by another source.

3.46 The conversion rate of referrals to orders was higher for social work referrals than for court-initiated referrals with 43 per cent of the former but only 25 per cent of the latter resulting in the making of a DTTO. This might suggest that social workers were, on the whole, more familiar than sentencers with the DTTO criteria and therefore made more appropriate referrals. However, we suggest that it is more likely to reflect the fact that social work referrals would follow an initial assessment for an SER, which would have given the social worker an opportunity to gather a range of information about the offender.

3.47 The majority of referrals and orders in Glasgow related to offenders sentenced under summary proceedings in the sheriff court. A quarter of orders were, however, made by the high court or by the sheriff court under solemn proceedings, suggesting that the courts were willing to use DTTOs as a high tariff option. However the absence of a comparable breakdown of referrals and orders in Fife by the type of sheriff court proceeding (summary or solemn) makes if difficult to draw broader conclusions from these data about the tariff location of DTTOs in the two pilot sites.

3.48 The outcomes of cases in which a DTTO was not imposed are summarised in Table 3.2. Offenders in Fife were more likely than were those in Glasgow to receive a custodial sentence if not given a DTTO. Offenders in Glasgow, on the other hand, were more likely than those in Fife to receive a probation order with or without additional requirements, possibly reflecting the existence of alternative treatment services in Glasgow and their absence in Fife. In Glasgow, the use of probation orders with drug treatment requirements was already well-established and DTTOs were extending the range of available options. In Fife, on the other hand, the lack of treatment services for drug-misusing offenders meant that DTTOs were the primary vehicle for enabling offenders to access treatment services relating to their drug use. This difference between the two pilot sites in the availability of exiting treatment services is also likely to explain why take-up of DTTOs was particularly brisk in Fife.

Table 3.2: Outcome of cases in which no DTTO was imposed ⁵

3.49 The lengths of DTTOs imposed by the courts in the two study sites are summarised in Table 3.3. The majority of orders in both study sites were for 12-18 months. A higher proportion of orders in Fife was for 24 months. The reason for this is not immediately apparent, but it may reflect differences between the study sites in sentencers' views about the most appropriate length of a DTTO. In Glasgow, women tended to be made subject to longer DTTOs than men: two women were given a 12 month order, four were given an 18 month order and three were given a 24 month order ⁶. This compares with 19 men given a 12 month order, 16 given an 18 month order and two given a 24 month order. The longer orders imposed in respect of women in Glasgow appear to have been related to the fact that women were more likely to have received their DTTO in the High Court or in the sheriff Court under solemn proceedings (5/9). Three of the women had been sentenced in the High Court and two under solemn proceedings in the sheriff court. This compares with two men sentenced in the High Court and six under solemn proceedings (8/37).

3.50 In Fife, details of the length of DTTOs were only available in 33 individual cases to allow a breakdown by gender ⁷. The three women for whom this information was available were given a 12-month order. Fifteen of the men received a 12-month DTTO, five received an 18-month DTTO and ten received a 24-month order.

Table 3.3: Length of DTTO

3.51 Five offenders in Glasgow were also made subject to probation orders and two offenders in Fife had been given two DTTOs. In Glasgow, women appeared more likely than men to be given a probation order alongside a DTTO (3/9 ⁹ women compared with 2/37 men).

3.52 The proportion of women referred for DTTO assessments in England and Wales differed across the pilot sites (Turnbull et al., 2000). Forty-four (16%)of the 269 offenders assessed for a DTTO in the Scottish pilots were women. Women constituted 14 per cent of offenders referred for an assessment in Glasgow (22/155) and 19 per cent of those assessed in Fife (22/114). Overall, sixteen (17%) of the 96 offenders made subject to DTTOs were women, with women comprising 21 per cent of offenders on DTTOs in Glasgow (10/47) and 12 per cent of those on orders in Fife (6/49).

3.53 The ages of offenders given DTTOs are summarised in Table 3.4 ¹⁰. The majority of offenders in both study sites were in their twenties or early thirties. However, offenders made subject to DTTOs in Glasgow tended to be older than those in Fife (mean age of 30 years compared with 25 years). The age range of offenders in Fife was 19-34 years and in Glasgow was 19-58 years. Women in Glasgow were slightly younger, on average, than men (31 years compared with 30 years) but men and women in Fife were similar in age (25 years, though this average was based on data for only three women). Overall, the mean age of offenders given DTTOs in Scotland was identical to the mean age of those given DTTOs in the pilot schemes in England and Wales (28 years).

Table 3.4: Ages of offenders given DTTOs

Criminal history

3.54 Details of the criminal histories of offenders given DTTOs are shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. These data relate to convictions libelled by the procurator fiscal (and hence available to the sentencing court) rather than the full SCRO record. In both study areas more than two-thirds of offenders given DTTOs had ten or more previous court appearances (with an overall mean of 24 convictions) and a similar proportion in both Glasgow and Fife had previously served at least one custodial sentence. Women on DTTOs had significantly fewer convictions than men (a mean of 10 compared with 26, p<.05). Men on DTTOs in Glasgow and Fife had an identical mean number of previous convictions (26).

Table 3.5: Previous convictions of offenders given DTTOs

Table 3.6: Previous custodial sentences served by offenders given DTTOs

3.55 Additional data available for Fife but not for Glasgow revealed that 76 per cent of offenders given DTTOs had previously been subject to probation orders (37/49) and 65 per cent had prior experience of undertaking a community service order (32/49). Analysis of convictions libelled in 50 cases across the two sites revealed that 70 per cent of offenders had previously been on probation orders (13/30 in Glasgow and 18/20 in Fife).

3.56 Detailed information about the types of offences in respect of which offenders were given DTTOs was not available in every case because a computerised monitoring system had not yet been established in either study site by the end of the research fieldwork. However details of the offences for which offenders received their DTTOs were available for 25 offenders in Glasgow up to July 2000. The majority of convictions involved acquisitive property offences such as housebreakings, thefts from cars and shoplifting (19 cases). Two offenders had received a DTTO following a breach of a previous court order, two for drug offences, one for attempting to pervert the course of justice and one for road traffic offences. Analysis of data from SERs revealed that offenders in Glasgow were most commonly sentenced for shoplifting while those in Fife most commonly received their DTTO for housebreaking.

3.57 Information about the types of offences in respect of which women received a DTTO was available in 12 cases (ten in Glasgow and two in Fife). The most common offences among the women were drug offences (six women) and shoplifting (four women). One woman each had been sentenced for assault and robbery, theft by opening a lockfast place, housebreaking, fraud, breach of probation and wilful neglect of a child ¹².

3.58 Analysis of data relating to previous convictions of 55 offenders given DTTOs revealed that 62 per cent had a previous conviction for a drug offence, 54 per cent had a previous conviction for housebreaking, 78 per cent had previously been convicted of theft, 54 per cent had one or more previous convictions for theft by opening a lockfast place, and 62 per cent had previous convictions for shoplifting. Sixty-seven per cent of offenders on DTTOs (for whom the relevant information was available) had previously been convicted of one or more breaches of the peace, 49 per cent had a previous conviction for assault and 67 per cent had convictions for bail offences. The nature of previous convictions differed somewhat between Glasgow and Fife. Offenders in Fife were more likely than those in Glasgow to have previous convictions for housebreaking (90% compared with 34%).

Drug use

3.59 Summary data provided by the Glasgow DTTO scheme also provided details of the 'index drugs' used by each offender given a DTTO. Thirty-three offenders (26 male and seven female) were recorded as using heroin, 13 (10 male and three female) as using heroin and benzodiazepines and one (male) as using heroin and cocaine.

3.60 Additional information about drug use among offenders given DTTOs was extracted from social enquiry reports and DTTO assessments. Heroin was the most commonly identified drug, with other drugs mentioned including street methadone, cocaine and diazepam. Pre-sentence expenditure on heroin was reported as being between 10 and 200 per day, while 'stabilised' expenditure on heroin was reported as being between 10 and 20 per day. In some cases SERs reported progress towards reduced drug use, such as the offender having succeeded in becoming drug free.

3.61 Typically, offenders were described as have progressed in their drug use from initial experimentation in the teenage years to the use of heroin (including injecting) in later years. Initiation into drug use was attributed to factors such as bereavement, rebellion against parents and the influence of older peers. The age at which offenders first used heroin was said to range from 14 to 20 years in Glasgow and 16 to 26 years in Fife.

3.62 Drug treatment services that were said in SERs/DTTO assessment reports as having been accessed by offenders previously included methadone, self detox, counselling (via addiction services) and hospital in-patient services. Periods on remand or custodial sentences were sometimes flagged up in reports as being episodes in their lives when the offenders were drug free.

3.63 Data obtained from the ASI-X - which was administered to 21 offenders in Glasgow - provides further information on drug use prior to being made subject to a DTTO. The age at which offenders first used a substance was reported as ranging from 8 to 20 years, with cannabis the most frequently reported first substance of choice (Table 3.7).

3.64 As Table 3.7 also indicates, most offenders had used heroin in the 30-day period prior to being given a DTTO. Nineteen of these 21 offenders had injected drugs at some point in their lives and 18 were injecting drugs intravenously when given a DTTO. The youngest age of first injecting was 15 years. Nine offenders reported that they had survived an overdose, four of whom indicated that they had overdosed on three or more occasions.

Table 3.7: Age of initiation into drug use and drug use prior to DTTO

3.65 The services that had previously been used by this group of offenders included outpatient substitution (13 cases), residential detox (8 cases), outpatient detox (5 cases), residential drug free (4 cases), out-patient drug-free (3 cases), other hospital treatment (6 cases), day care (2 cases) and other treatment (3 cases). Self-reported periods of abstinence ranged from never (in 10 cases), a fortnight to three years. Expenditure on drugs ranged from 10 to 2180 in the previous 30 days, with a mean of 310 or approximately 10 per day amongst those who reported having spent money on drugs ¹³. Seventeen offenders indicated that when they received their DTTO it was extremely important to them to obtain treatment for their drug problems.

Other characteristics of offenders given DTTOs

3.66 Most offenders were reported in SERs/DTTO assessments as living in tenancies shared with other family members, though some offenders were living in hostel accommodation when assessed for a DTTO and some were described as having a history of housing instability, including periods of sleeping rough. While reference was made in some reports to other family members being supportive, some reports documented family backgrounds characterised by violence, alcohol or drug abuse and bereavement. In around one third of the SERs, family relationships were said to have broken down and in a similar proportion of cases offenders were said to have no contact with their families as a consequence of their drug use.

3.67 The SERs indicated that none of the offenders were employed when given a DTTO, with most of their income (which ranged from 40 to 150 per week) deriving from benefits, including sickness or incapacity benefit as a result of long term drug use). The ASI-X data for 21 offenders on DTTOs in Glasgow showed that 18 had left school early. Work histories were characterised by long periods of unemployment, ranging from six months to 24 years and previous occupations were largely based in the manual labour trades and service sector. Seventeen of these 21 offenders indicated that they were not at all troubled by employment problems. Seven were claiming unemployment benefit, 14 were claiming income support, eight received money from pensions and other benefits, five received money from illegal activities and one received money from family and friends. Ten offenders reported that they had debts ranging from under 100 to more than 10,000.

3.68 Finally, physical health was mentioned in 48 of the 55 SERs and reported as good in only 11 cases. Health problems were frequently related to drug use and included Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, abscesses, deep vein thrombosis and seizures. In 15 cases reference was made to concerns about the offender's mental health, including reference to past physical and emotional abuse, bereavement, memory impairment and blackouts.

SELF-REPORTED OFFENDING AND DRUG USE PRIOR TO RECEIVING A DTTO

3.69 Initial interviews revealed that offenders had been given a DTTO for drug offences (possession and/or supply) or, more commonly, for other offences committed in order to obtain money for drugs (shoplifting, housebreaking, theft from cars, fraud and assault and robbery). All of those given a DTTO had been using heroin (often in combination with other substances) in the recent past. Most were usually or always under the influence of drugs when they offended and all indicated that they offended to obtain money for drugs. Respondents reported that they were spending between 70 and 1400 per week on drugs prior to being sentenced to a DTTO (with an average of 490 per person per week), with all or most of the money needed to finance their drug use coming from offending ¹⁴.

3.70 Differences emerged in offenders' self-reported patterns of drug use prior to receiving a DTTO. Eight offenders indicated that their drug use had been getting progressively worse over the previous year. As one explained, "It was spiralling upwards and it was getting out of hand again." Eight others suggested that their drug use had remained relatively stable over the previous 12 months, one of whom had been on methadone for the previous two years. Twelve offenders indicated that their drug use had, for various reasons, improved before they received their DTTO. In some cases this reduction in use had been enforced by the fact that offenders were in prison, either on remand for the charges for which they received their DTTO or under sentence. However several respondents indicated that they had been deliberately attempting to reduce their drug use prior to being made subject to an order.

3.71 Offenders' offending in the previous year followed a similar pattern. Those who were using heroin indicated that they were offending, often on a daily basis, to finance their drug use while those who had reduced or ceased their drug use reported that their offending had decreased before they received a DTTO or that they were not offending at all.

AGREEING TO A DTTO

3.72 Most offenders who were interviewed recognised that the primary purpose of a DTTO was to help people get off drugs and to prevent further drug-related offending. Eight also identified a broader objective of helping people who had been using to have a 'better' life ("To help us stop offending and get wur lives back on track"), while three made specific reference to the DTTO being a mechanism through which they might, once their drug use had been stabilised, access education or work.

3.73 A few offenders indicated that they had agreed to a DTTO because they had been keen to avoid a prison sentence. Most, however, said that they had seen the DTTO as an opportunity to get help to come off drugs. Some suggested that they had reached a point where they realised the harm they were doing to themselves through drug use, while others indicated that they had had enough of the lifestyle that was associated with their use of drugs and wanted to turn their lives around:

"I wanted to change my life around. I was sick and fed up with what I was doing. I'm not getting any younger, so it was time for a change."

"I don't like that I get up in the morning and feel like an alien."

3.74 Others said that they had tried coming off drugs unsuccessfully in the past or had tried unsuccessfully to access treatment. For them, therefore, a DTTO was a mechanism for accessing the services and supports they already perceived themselves to need:

"I was looking for help to modify my behaviour because I'd tried to do it without help and couldn't do it and when this came along I thought I'd give it a try."

"I knew that I needed the help. I've never had any help at all in the last 8 years. I had a methadone programme but the doctor just gives you it an' 'cheerio' - nae talkin', nothin'."

3.75 Some offenders who preferred the option of a DTTO over prison did so not because they were fearful of a custodial sentence, but because they believed that imprisonment made no impact on drug problems. They pointed out that former users would simply start using again when they were released (and in some cases continued to do so while they were in prison). A DTTO, on the other hand, was seen as presenting a more realistic prospect that offenders might successfully tackle their use of drugs:

"Because I knew I could better my life out of it. It doesn't bother me going to prison because I know I can handle it. But any time I have come back out it's just to the same old thing - using, offending, getting into bother."

3.76 Only three of those who were interviewed within the first three months of their order believed that they would not have received a custodial sentence if they had not been given a DTTO. The rest estimated that they would have been imprisoned for periods of between six months and 12 years (most commonly between 18 months and three years). These estimates were based upon the seriousness of the offences for which they were sentenced, their previous convictions, advice from their defence agent or comments made by the sentencer in court.

3.77 Offenders heard about DTTOs from a variety of formal and informal sources. The former included defence agents, sentencers, social workers and DTTO staff. The latter included fellow prisoners in the case of some of those who were remanded in custody before receiving their order. Offenders generally believed that they had received sufficient information about what a DTTO would entail before consenting to undertake an order.

3.78 Reinforcing the finding that most offenders had agreed to undertake a DTTO to obtain help with their drug problem rather than to avoid a custodial sentence, almost all of those interviewed indicated that they would still have agreed to a DTTO even if they had not considered it to be an alternative to imprisonment. As one offender explained:

"It's time I was off it…I just can't get through my life living like this all the time, you know what I mean?"

3.79 Only one offender indicated that he would definitely not have agreed to a DTTO if imprisonment was not the alternative because he would have preferred an easier sentence to a DTTO. The only other respondent who would not have agreed to a DTTO in these circumstances indicated that this was because he had agreed to a DTTO for the very reason that the order was stringent and he could be imprisoned if he did not comply.

3.80 Offenders believed that they had been deemed suitable for a DTTO for a number of reasons, mostly centring around the fact that they met the relevant criteria (i.e. were committing drug-related offences) and showed some willingness to change. Several offenders suggested that sentencers had agreed to impose a DTTO because they were aware that the offender needed help to get off drugs and/or because they were aware that imprisonment was unlikely to be effective in this respect:

"I think even the judges see that if this does work it is more beneficial [than imprisonment], not just for myself but other people in the community."

OFFENDERS' VIEWS ON THE LENGTH OF THE DTTO

3.81 Sixteen of the offenders who had initial interviews had received a 12-month order, eight had received an 18-month order and three had been given a DTTO of 24 months. Most offenders considered the length of order they received to have been appropriate in view of their offences. Other offenders were divided as to whether their sentence was disproportionately lenient or unduly harsh. Three offenders believed that the orders they had received were too long in view of the length of custodial sentence they could have received for their offences. Another offender believed that a shorter order would have been more appropriate because he had received his DTTO for an 'old' offence and had been drug-free and offence-free for almost two years. Three others, on the other hand, thought that their orders were too short, either because they felt that a longer order would be necessary if they were to successfully deal with their drug use or because they had expected to receive a lengthy custodial sentence: as one offender commented "I think I've been well let aff".

3.82 Offenders were also asked to comment on the length of their orders with respect to the purposes of the DTTO. Consistent with the views expressed by sentencers about the most appropriate duration for a DTTO (see para. 3.27), most offenders believed that the order they had received was about right for them to address their drug use. As one offender observed, a 12-month order was "about enough time to figure out if the person is really serious about making another life". Some of this group speculated that if their order was longer there was a greater possibility that they might fail to complete it. A few offenders believed that the order they had received was perhaps longer than necessary, but some of this group pointed to the possibility of the order being revoked early if they made satisfactory progress. Another small group of offenders thought that their order was too short and that they would require support over a longer period of time, though some of this group indicated that they expected that they would receive such ongoing support if it were required. Overall, therefore, offenders' expressed preference for orders that were shorter rather than longer but nonetheless sufficiently long to enable treatment needs to be addressed.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE USE OF DTTOS BY THE COURTS

3.83 Prior to the introduction of the DTTO pilots, the social work departments in Glasgow and Fife had made estimates, for planning purposes, of the number of DTTOs that would be made by the courts. In practice, the use of DTTOs had initially been lower than expected in Glasgow and higher than expected in Fife, though usage in Glasgow appeared to have increased as sentencers and area team social workers became more familiar with the new orders and how they complemented the existing range of sentencing options.

3.84 Managers in Glasgow were satisfied with the usage now being made of DTTOs and pointed out that the conversion rate of recommendations to actual orders was high. This they attributed to the thoroughness of the assessments and the high thresholds that had been instituted with respect to offenders' motivation and readiness to embark upon a process of change.

3.85 Managers in Fife believed that the take up of orders had been high partly because sentencers had been well prepared for the introduction of the pilot and partly because they perceived DTTOs as providing another option for dealing with offenders who had already exhausted the full range of sentences available to the courts. The absence hitherto of treatment services in the context of probation for drug misusing offenders was also likely to have encouraged sentencers to make use of this new disposal.

3.86 Managers believed that the quality of assessment reports and the fact that DTTOs were dealing with a widely recognised and significant social problem encouraged sentencers to make use of orders. On the other hand, it was recognised that some sentencers were unlikely, for their own varying reasons, to make much if any use of the disposal. Other factors which it was thought might discourage the courts from imposing DTTOs included the high unit costs of orders, the time required to review orders and, in Fife, the low conversion rate of assessment requests to positive DTTO recommendations. Some sentencers were also believed by managers to be wary of imposing DTTOs because of doubts they held about the order's validity in the context of human rights legislation. Managers in Glasgow believed, however, that the use of DTTOs might further increase as sentencers obtained more evidence of successful outcomes, gained greater understanding of what could realistically be achieved in the context of a DTTO and became, as a consequence, more confident in imposing orders.

3.87 Whilst one might have expected a direct relationship to exist between sentencers' usage of DTTOs and their attitude towards this new sentencing option, such a straightforward relationship was not evident. For example, some sentencers who had made several orders indicated that they had yet to be convinced of their effectiveness. On the other hand, others who had made little use of orders attributed this not to an antipathy towards DTTOs but to having not had the occasion to impose many orders. One sheriff in Fife and two sentencers in Glasgow who had made little use of DTTOs had sought a DTTO assessment in several cases but had been informed that the offender was unsuitable for an order (either because s/he had failed to attend for an assessment, was on methadone or was remanded in custody and could not be properly assessed). However, another sheriff from Fife indicated that the majority of assessments had contained a positive recommendation for a DTTO.

3.88 Sentencers highlighted the importance of the assessment report in informing their decisions about whether or not to make an order and identified a range of factors that had a bearing upon their propensity to impose a DTTO. These included: the existence of a drug problem that was amenable to treatment; a clear association between drug use and offending; a willingness on the part of the offender to address his/her drug use; and a degree of stability in the offender's social circumstances (as indicated, for example, by the existence of family support). Several sentencers suggested that a DTTO was appropriate for offenders with a history of relatively minor drug-related property offences, while others stressed that a DTTO should only be imposed if the offender is otherwise at risk of attracting a custodial sentence. As one sheriff explained:

"I generally look at it as almost a last resort for people, people we might otherwise be sending to prison. It's a fairly high tariff disposal as far as I am concerned."

3.89 The fact that the DTTO was a limited resource was said by some sheriffs to have a bearing on their use of the order. They were reluctant to impose a DTTO unless they believed that there was a realistic prospect that the order might help bring about and sustain change. For this reason, one sheriff indicated that he would be reluctant to make a DTTO in respect of an offender who had outstanding charges for serious offences and who would in all likelihood receive a lengthy custodial sentence if convicted. Although the likelihood of the order succeeding was a prominent concern for sentencers when deciding whether or not to make a DTTO, one sheriff also emphasised that he would be prepared, in some cases, to impose a DTTO where the likelihood of success appeared somewhat more remote:

"I think one has to allow for the possibility that some people might succeed even though the omens are not particularly good. So if I see there is a decent prospect - not necessarily an excellent prospect but a decent prospect - of success then I will impose the order, provided of course the experts come down in favour of it."

3.90 Almost without exception, sentencers were unable to identify features of DTTOs or the pilot schemes that discouraged them from making greater use of orders. However, one sheriff explained that the use of DTTOs was influenced to some extent by the fact that there were limited places available and another indicated that her/his attitude towards DTTOs might change if the enforcement of orders appeared not to be inspiring public confidence.

3.91 Some sheriffs suggested that they might in future make more use of orders if they became more confident in their effectiveness and if more were made available (through, for example, a widening of the criteria for suitability). Others, however, considered their existing use of DTTOs to be appropriate given the characteristics of offenders appearing before the courts, the demands made upon offenders by DTTOs and the importance of avoiding 'net-widening' by imposing such demanding orders upon offenders who might otherwise be suitable for probation or community service.

SUMMARY

3.92 There was general agreement among professionals involved in the pilot that the primary purpose of the DTTO was to help bring about reductions in drug use and related offending among offenders given orders. DTTO staff preferred to conduct assessments for DTTOs in the community though some sentencers were reluctant to grant bail for this purpose. Drug testing was undertaken at the assessment stage to obtain information about the types of substances used. It was thought by managers to help bring home to offenders how seriously their behaviour was being taken by the courts and to provide a clear indication of the degree of intrusiveness that would be associated with a DTTO. Drug testing (which was not a feature of the English pilots) appeared to improve the accuracy of assessments and, as we shall see, may have enhanced the ability of the schemes to retain offenders in treatment and supervision.

3.93 The assessment process was believed by staff to operate smoothly in most respects, though they acknowledged the two-week timescale to be tight, especially in Glasgow where offenders were separately assessed by a DTTO social worker, addiction worker and treatment provider. Sentencers were unanimously positive about the quality of DTTO assessment reports, which they compared favourably with assessments for other types of social work disposals.

3.94 There was a shared view among sentencers that the DTTO was a high tariff disposal to be used, in the main, when other options had been exhausted. DTTO staff emphasised that orders were appropriate for drug users who offended but less so for offenders who used drugs, since the latter were likely to continue offending even if they received treatment for their drug use. Motivation was a key factor in the assessment of offenders' suitability, albeit one that was difficult to assess. DTTO staff believed that DTTOs were most appropriate for offenders who were at least in their twenties, with a well-established pattern of drug use and a willingness to change their lifestyle. Young offenders (that is, those aged 16 and 17 years) and those with an absence of stability in their lives were considered less likely to complete a DTTO.

3.95 DTTOs were perceived by professionals as differing in a number of respects from probation orders with drug treatment requirements. The preference in the Scottish pilots was for DTTOs to be made as a stand-alone option, in contrast with the English pilots where in two schemes DTTOs were usually made alongside a probation order. DTTOs were believed by managers to be particularly appropriate for female offenders. In practice, 17 per cent of orders were made in respect of women, which is similar to the use of probation where, in 2000-01, 18 per cent of offenders given orders were women (Scottish Executive, 2001a).

3.96 During the research fieldwork period (July 2000 to mid-April 2001 in Fife and between February 2000 and February 2001 in Glasgow) 96 DTTOs were made (47 in Glasgow and 49 in Fife). The conversion rate of DTTO recommendations to orders was very high in both pilot sites (92% in Glasgow and 94% in Fife). In Glasgow, the majority of referrals and orders emanated from the Sheriff Court. Offenders who were assessed for a DTTO but who received an alternative disposal were most often imprisoned or given probation orders (with or without additional requirements). The majority of DTTOs imposed were for 12 or 18 months. In Glasgow, there was a tendency for women more often than men to be given a DTTO in addition to a probation order.

3.97 Most offenders given DTTOs were in their twenties or early thirties, with those in Glasgow older, on average, than those in Fife. More than two-thirds had ten or more previous convictions and a similar proportion had served at least one previous custodial sentence. Offenders received their DTTOs mostly for acquisitive property offences (such as shoplifting, theft from cars and housebreaking) and drug offences. Offenders in Fife were more likely than those in Glasgow to have a history of convictions for housebreaking and to have received their DTTO for this type of offence.

3.98 All of the offenders given DTTOs were using heroin, either alone or in combination with other substances. Most had used heroin within the previous 30 days (usually through intravenous injection) and pre-sentence expenditure was reported as being between 10 and 200 per day, with an average of 490 per person per week. None of the offenders was employed when given a DTTO and most were identified in their social enquiry reports as experiencing drug-related health problems.

3.99 Most offenders given a DTTO had tried to come off heroin in the past by accessing a range of services. Most offenders believed that they would have received a custodial sentence if they had not been given a DTTO and a small number acknowledged that they had agreed to a DTTO primarily to avoid a prison sentence. However, most offenders had viewed the DTTO principally as an opportunity to get help to come off drugs and indicated that they would still have agreed to an order even if it had not been an alternative to imprisonment. Most offenders also believed that the length of order they had received was both proportionate to their offence and appropriate for the realisation of treatment goals.

3.100 The use of DTTOs by the courts was initially lower than anticipated in Glasgow and higher than expected in Fife. The high usage in Fife from the outset was attributed partly to the fact that sentencers had been well prepared for the introduction of the new orders - which had already been in operation in Glasgow for some time -and partly to the fact that there was an existing dearth of treatment services for offenders who misused drugs. Social work managers believed that the use of DTTOs might be adversely affected by the high unit cost of orders, the resource implications of reviewing orders, the low conversion rate of assessment requests to positive DTTO recommendations and concern about the validity of the order from a human rights perspective. However, it appeared that the use of DTTOs was steadily increasing in Glasgow as sentencers gained more confidence in them and sentencers were unable to identify features of DTTOs that would discourage them from continuing to make orders.

« Previous | Contents | Next »