The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT IN ACTION: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND

THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

1.1 Drug Courts aim to reduce drug misuse and associated offending by offering treatment based options outwith the traditional court setting. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) (2001) 'a Drug Court is a special court given the responsibility to handle cases involving drug-addicted offenders through an extensive supervision and treatment program'.

1.2 The impetus for the establishment of Drug Courts came from a growing acknowledgement of the link between drug misuse and crime coupled with increasing evidence of the efficacy of drug treatment, including treatment that is compelled rather than undertaken on a voluntary basis (e.g. Hough, 1994; Gebelein, 2000). At the same time, the USA was witnessing an increase in the number of drug misusing offenders and a spiralling prison population as a result of 'truth in sentencing' and 'three strikes' policies and the introduction of mandatory prison sentences for a range of offences, including the possession and supply of drugs. The first Drug Court was established in Florida in 1989 and by 1999 there were more than 400 Drug Courts in operation in the United States (Gebelein, 2000).

1.3 Drug Courts were established initially in the USA by sentencers who were frustrated at the limited range and effectiveness of existing measures for dealing with those whose offending was related to the misuse of drugs. As Gebelein (2000) indicates, the US Department of Justice and the NADCP have identified the following elements as integral to US Drug Courts:

• Integration of substance abuse treatment with criminal justice case processing
• The use of a non-adversarial approach in which the prosecution and defence promote public safety while protecting the right of the accused to due process;
• Early identification and prompt placement of eligible participants;
• Access to a continuum of treatment, rehabilitation and related services;
• Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs;
• A co-ordinated strategy between judge, prosecution, defence and treatment providers to secure offender compliance;
• Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant;
• Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of program goals and assess effectiveness;
• Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective planning, implementation and operation; and
• Partnerships with public agencies and community-based organisations to generate local support and enhance Drug Court effectiveness.

1.4 Hough (1994) has similarly argued that effective approaches to drug treatment in the criminal justice system require effective inter-agency work. This, he suggests, is characterised by: clear terms of reference and mutual expectations; equal partnerships rather than single-agency domination; adequate resourcing of co-ordinating machinery; getting representation at the right level across all relevant agencies; and evaluation and accountability.

1.5 Local and national evaluations of Drug Courts in the USA are encouraging, suggesting that the various stakeholders in the Drug Court approach are confident that the Drug Courts are achieving many of their aims (Gebelein, 2000). Belenko (1998), in a review of 30 evaluations of Drug Courts, concluded that: completion rates for Drug Court Orders were higher than those for Orders imposed in other courts; Drug Courts provided more comprehensive supervision and drug testing and monitoring than other forms of community supervision; drug use and offending are substantially reduced while offenders participate in the Drug Court program; reductions in recidivism are sustained after offenders leave the program; and Drug Courts generate cost savings as a result of reduced prison/jail use and reduced recidivism. A similar pattern of findings was observed in an updated review of 37 Drug Court evaluations by the same author (Belenko, 2001).

1.6 Goldkamp (2000) supported the broad conclusion that Drug Courts are effective, by suggesting that 'Drug Courts can and do have an important impact on substance abuse and offending and represent an important new direction in criminal justice, drug treatment and health' (p.4). However, he also cautioned that Drug Courts may not be universally effective and identified factors that appear to be associated with their reduced effectiveness. These included the frequent rotation of judges rather than the use of a core Drug Court judge and a shift in the focus of Drug Court activity from pre-prosecution diversion cases to cases in which the defendant had entered a guilty plea. This latter change in focus had the effect of expanding the court's remit to high risk offenders with more extensive criminal and drug-use histories and appeared, in addition, to reduce offenders' incentive to successfully complete their court order.

1.7 Drug Courts are now also operational in Australia, Canada and Ireland (Walker, 2001). Both Canada and the Republic of Ireland have piloted Drug Courts within the past five years. The Canadian experiment in Toronto offered a two-tier system according to the severity of the offence and adopted a harm-reduction approach, which appears relevant to the current situation in Scotland. The Dublin pilot also encompasses a broad range of treatment options - both abstinent and non-abstinent based - although the facility is restricted to low-tariff, non-violent offenders.

1.8 Clearly, therefore, the introduction of Drug Courts in different jurisdictions and with different populations of offenders will require careful evaluation of their operation and effectiveness and an analysis of those factors that contribute to or detract from the effectiveness of the approach. For example, Williams (1999), in a process evaluation of the West Yorkshire Drug Court, questioned whether abstinence - the usual goal of US Drug Court programs - was an appropriate initial goal of treatment in the UK context.

THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT

1.9 In October 2001 Scotland's first Drug Court was established in Glasgow Sheriff Court, operating under summary proceedings. The introduction of the new Drug Court followed the report of a Working Group for Piloting a Drug Court in Glasgow ¹ (thereafter referred to as the Working Group) which concluded in May 2001 that the establishment and operation of a Drug Court in Glasgow was feasible within existing legislation. The main features of the pilot Drug Court are described below.

Objectives

1.10 According to the Report of the Working Group and the Reference Manual that describes the procedures to be adopted by it ², the objectives of the new Drug Court are to:

• reduce the level of drug-related offending behaviour;
• reduce or eliminate offenders' dependence on or propensity to use drugs; and
• examine the viability and usefulness of a Drug Court in Scotland using existing legislation, and to demonstrate where legislative and practical improvements might be important.

Operation

1.11 The Drug Court has the same authority and status as other courts, accordingly, has available to it the same range of sentences available to the sheriff court under summary proceedings. Similarly, the range of sentences available to the Drug Court (including Drug Treatment and Testing Orders) continue to be available to the Sheriff Court. The four forms of community-based supervision and treatment that are be available to the Drug Court are Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs), Probation Orders with a Condition of Drug Treatment, concurrent DTTOs and Conditional Probation Orders and deferred sentences ³. It was anticipated that the Drug Court might deal with around 300 referrals and impose around 200 Drug Court Orders per annum.

1.12 The treatment options that the Drug Court has available to it include abstinence, methadone maintenance and methadone reduction. All orders made by the Drug Court are subject to drug testing and regular (at least monthly) review. The same sheriff who imposes the Order has responsibility for reviewing the Order and responding to non-compliance thereby ensuring the continuity of contact that has been found to be an important feature of Drug Courts in other jurisdictions. The review process enables the Drug Court to employ a range of sanctions in the event of non-compliance or lack of effort and progress on the part of the offender without recourse to formal breach proceedings. These include increasing the frequency of testing, of supervision appointments or of reviews.

1.13 The Drug Court Sheriffs are responsible for initiating or endorsing breach proceedings, with a 'fast track' procedure instituted in order that breaches might be dealt with at the next scheduled review. In the event of a breach being accepted or proved, the Drug Court may allow the order to continue and impose a fine or, in the case of probation, a community service order of up to 240 hours. Alternatively, the court may terminate the order and re-sentence the offender for the original offence, in which case it is likely that a custodial sentence will be imposed.

Staffing

1.14 The Glasgow Drug Court is staffed by two Sheriffs on a part-time basis. Each sits in the Drug Court (Court Two in the Glasgow Sheriff Court complex) for four days per week on alternating weeks. A procurator fiscal has been assigned to the Drug Court to identify potential referrals to the Drug Court and to deal with new charges and breaches of Drug Court Orders. A multi-agency Drug Court Team has been established to review the working, development and operation of the Drug Court. It comprises representatives of the stakeholders involved in the Drug Court pilot, namely the Drug Court Sheriffs, the Sheriff Clerk, the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal, the Project Leader of the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team (see below), a Drug Court Medical Officer, a senior social worker, a representative from the Scottish Drugs Forum, representing the voluntary sector, a representative of the police and a representative of the Glasgow Bar Association. A Drug Court Co-ordinator facilitates the work of the Drug Court Team.

1.15 A Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team was established to support the Drug Court in all aspects of assessment, supervision, treatment, testing and reports to the court. It consists of a team leader, supervising social workers, addiction workers, treatment providers and medical staff ⁴ who are located together in shared premises ⁵. It was intended that each offender made subject to a Drug Court Order would have a Case Group, consisting of a supervising social worker, addiction worker and medical officer. The staffing level of the Supervision and Treatment Team has changed over the period of the pilot, reflecting the resource demands of Drug Court Orders and Drug Treatment and Testing Orders over this period, as follows:

Target Group

1.16 The proposed target group for the Drug Court is offenders aged 21 years or older ⁶ of both sexes, in respect of whom there is an established relationship between a pattern of serious drug misuse and offending and whose drug misuse is susceptible to treatment. Offenders referred to the Drug Court must otherwise have been facing prosecution in the Sheriff Summary Court and should normally first appear before the summary court from custody ⁷. Offenders with co-occurring drug misuse and mental illness will not be considered on account of the absence of resources to deal with offenders with dual diagnosis.

EVALUATION OF THE PILOT DRUG COURT

1.17 The Working Group highlighted the importance of the Pilot Drug Court in Glasgow being subject to independent evaluation from the outset. Evaluation was deemed important as a means of establishing the extent to which the objectives of the Drug Court during the pilot period are met. A research team at the University of Stirling - who had previously evaluated the introduction of pilot Drug Treatment and Testing Orders in Glasgow and Fife - was commissioned by the Scottish Executive in January 2002 to evaluate the pilot.

Aims and objectives

1.18 In accordance with the specification issued by the Scottish Executive, the aims of the research were to:

• assess how effective the Drug Court is in reducing the level of drug related offending and reducing or eliminating offenders' dependence on or propensity to use drugs; and
• determine whether the operation of the Drug Court is viable within the Scottish context.

1.19 The research will consist of two main phases. This report presents the findings from a formative and process evaluation of the Drug Court's operation in the first six months. The aim was to document the operation of the Drug Court during this initial period with a view to identifying any changes that might be required to enhance its operational effectiveness. The specific objectives of this element of the study were to:

• identify the frequency with which different referral routes are employed, assess whether the referral and screening processes are effective in identifying appropriate cases and determine whether the deadlines for the processing of referrals are being met;
• assess whether the number of cases referred to the Drug Court and the resulting caseloads for each service provider are manageable;
• identify the frequency of reviews, the circumstances in which they are conducted, whether they are perceived as being conducted in appropriate circumstances and how this compares with the frequency and circumstances of reviews identified in the evaluation of DTTOs.
• examine the enforcement practices adopted by supervising officers, the extent to which they are consistent with agreed procedures on enforcement and the effectiveness of enforcement practices in securing compliance with Drug Court Orders;
• examine whether violations of Orders are being brought to the attention of the court timeously and whether breaches are being appropriately punished;
• examine the extent and nature of dialogue between sentencers and offenders in the Drug Court at different stages of Orders, document views about the value of this dialogue and identify any factors (such as defence agent intervention) that have an impact on this dialogue;
• determine whether there is a clear consensus among service providers and the Drug Court Co-ordinator with respect to their relative responsibilities during the screening, assessment, treatment and breach stages;
• identify any obstacles to multi-agency working among service providers and to multi-agency collaboration within the Drug Court Team;
• assess whether the procedures for dealing with new or outstanding charges enable the courts to identify and deal appropriately with offenders who are subject to Drug Court Orders; and
• examine the views of relevant stakeholders on the operational effectiveness of the Drug Court approach (including the range of sentences available to the court and the range of sanctions for violation and breach) and identify factors that enhance or detract from its effectiveness.

1.20 The second main phase of the research will take the form of an outcome evaluation. The outcome evaluation will continue to assess the operational effectiveness of the Drug Court over the course of the pilot. Importantly, however, it will also examine the effectiveness of the Drug Court in securing compliance with court orders and bringing about reductions in drug use and associated offending.

Structure of the report

1.21 The remainder of this report is organised into six chapters. Chapter Two describes the research methods employed in this formative and process evaluation. The following chapters correspond to aspects of the Drug Court process. Chapter Three examines the referral process while Chapter Four focuses upon sentencing, drug treatment and testing. Chapter Five examines the review process, with a particular emphasis upon the nature of the dialogue between offenders on Drug Court Orders and the bench. It also discusses the enforcement of Drug Court Orders and the procedures that have been instituted to deal with new and outstanding charges. In Chapter Six the issue of effectiveness is considered. This chapter focuses both on the likely impact of the Drug Court on drug misuse and associated offending, and on aspects of its operation that enhance and detract from its effectiveness. In Chapter Seven (Conclusions) we return to the research objectives outlined earlier in this chapter to offer commentary on the effectiveness of the Glasgow Drug Court's operation in the first six months and to offer suggestions as to how it might be further enhanced.

« Previous | Contents | Next »